Southwest vs Justin Smith


Two Likeable Guys that Disagree

 

John R. Houk

© April 18, 2019

Below is a relatively even-handed criticism of Justin Smith and my thoughts on Julian Assange being more a scoundrel than a hero. The Commenter goes by the pseudonym “Southwest” and the comments are derived from Groups on the USA Life Social Platform (incidentally to those interested, USA Life is extremely similar to Facebook yet so far – without the Left-Wing censorship used so wickedly on Facebook).

 

So for some full disclosure. I am quite the fan of Justin Smith. Also I was developing into a fan of Southwest. Unfortunately Southwest is a bit harsh (though respectful) of Justin’s perspective. AND knowing Justin, I suspect he’d be critical of many of Southwest’s assertions. The irony is, it is my sense the two are formed from the same metal of conviction and probably have more in common than not. The two just happen to disagree on some particulars.

 

Just for the sake of summary, Justin’s position (and to a large extent – my position) is Julian Assange’s indiscriminate publication of transgendered Manning’s purloined Classified data – mixing together both information that needed exposed along with information that risked exposing individuals to physical harm – makes Assange a scoundrel.

 

Southwest’s stand is a publisher has a right to publish comparable to say the questionable content of the New York Times. At this point I concur with Southwest UNLESS in some fashion Julian Assange was actively involved in the purloining of Classified data as in the now infamous word – collusion to commit a crime. AND either way – simple publisher or colluding criminal – Assange is a scoundrel for grouping people placed in harm’s way with infamous potentially war crime actions.

 

On the issue of DNC/Podesta email hack, if the data was dropped in his lap he should not be prosecuted for those publications exposing at the infamous character of Crooked Hillary and her Dem operatives.

 

It is my suspicion Justin and Southwest disagree on how Assange acquired the DNC/Podesta emails. It seems the majority opinion is the Russians did a hack and provided the data to Assange. I know that Assange vehemently denies a Russian connection.

 

Southwest makes a strong case that the DNC data came from a combination of Gucifer 2 and Seth Rich. Rich was murdered under suspicious circumstances with all the markings of a coverup. Adding to the mystery is Assange offered a reward for info on Rich’s murder adding to the suspicion Rich acted as a whistleblower by providing purloined emails to Assange. BUT to my knowledge, Assange has never confirmed a Seth Rich connection.

 

On a personal level, I lean to Seth Rich purloining DNC data and being murdered for it. I think but cannot say for certainty, that Justin Smith does not accept the Seth Rich connection to the exposed DNC/Podesta emails.

 

Whoever is correct, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. My interests lay with the obvious culprits in the Dem Party – in and out of government authority – be investigated or re-investigated for crimes against Donald Trump prior AND after the 2016 election.

 

IF ASSANGE has anything to do with inspiring or speeding along that investigation, scoundrel though he is in my book, needs either immunity or a pardon or both for potential crimes he committed within the U.S. jurisdiction of law.

 

YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO READ Southwest’s position below. I’ll let you the reader corroborate or disprove his (or could it be her?) assertions – I have decided to not get in the middle of two bloggers whom I tend to both like. And Justin, don’t get to cranky with Southwest harshness. Like I said, it is my sense you guys are stamped from the same metal.

 

JRH 4/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Southwest Comment to ‘Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange’ 

 

USA Life Group Patriots_For_Trump

Posted 4/17/19

 

John Houk I do respect the fact that you are an honest seeker and because of that I’ll comment on the post. I took the time to read it in its entirety.

 

It is not that Water Gate papers and tapes did not compromise security, the fact is that it exposed the party that was not in favor of the deep state.

 

That is point number one which applies to all of the ‘leaks’ and publications the author refers to and

 

2) When the government becomes the enemy of the people , it needs to be exposed. No national security concept should cover up to the fact that NSA has been paid millions if not billions of dollars –and this is indisputably and proven– to Google and had set up an scheme during the Obama administration–just look at the records of their visit to the Obama White House and remember that Obama was a scammer and didn’t even record all the visits–it is staggering- to spy on people and to help to remove the president of the US without due process but through slander and fake news media and democrat operatives working in the shadow.

 

3) All publishers should be protected …no one endangered national security more than the New York times but they were working for the shadow government and it was okay.

 

4) The crimes reported by Seth Rich via Hillary/Podesta emails need to be brought to light. To this day the so called ‘elite’ drink the blood of children they kill (this is another article that I don’t have time to explore here but this is proven fact the substance they get during the torturing of children that sips in their blood is what prolong their lives notice that they live to be over 100 years old?

 

Please save this post John. When people start splitting words for content and this is what Justin Smith does and it is very appealing for people like me and you because it forces your mind to reason and we may be addicted to reasoning the problem with that is that the main point is lost.

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS TO REMAIN FREE! If we split words to justify Assange imprisonment, then we will go down the path Hitler used to stop people from telling the truth.

 

Mueller and NSA cohorts and Google needs to go to prison, not Assange for telling on them. Noticed that no one is talking about the killing of children after molesting them and drinking their blood? Does it sound like legal or normal or decent? No, they talk about Assange who ONLY PUBLISHED what Seth Rich did And no one is talking about the hit job done by Hillary through the FBI to kill Seth Rich who went to the FBI to ask protection from Hillary and got killed by a weapon from the FBI who says that the weapon was stolen from their car when they went to meet Seth Rich.

 

Does it look like a set up to you? Does the FBI need to be investigated or Julian Assange? To be honest, no one can receive wisdom except from God. Intelligence is not enough, power to be argumentative is not enough and Justin Smith is lacking this wisdom that comes from God.

 

His articles are interesting but without wisdom he is a blind man leading the blind. I won’t read any article from this man again because I know where he is coming from, he is trying to sort things out by rational without having a moral compass and that doesn’t work.

 

+++++++++++++++

Southwest on The Watchers Society

4/16/19

 

John Houk – We are supportive because we know who placed the Gucifer 2, NSA and FBI. And we know who leaked the emails: Seth Rich. How do we know? I hope I’m not repeating this too much–this was a fat file and the forensics can determine and has determined that, meaning it was a physical transfer such as a USB or drive, so there was no break into the DNC computer.

 

Afraid of Hillary, Seth Rich contacted the FBI, as you may know Washington pays residents of certain areas to have a camera. Let me say this more accurately, Washington reimburses people who install cameras. Consequently everybody has a camera in that area and often two.

 

The camera that filmed the shooting of Seth Rich was removed, clean[ed] up. [An or The] Attorney sued the police to get a copy, to no avail. The FBI got some weapon stolen from the car … the same weapon that killed Seth Rich. The story doesn’t end there. It is long and I’ll leave it for another time.

 

Just one more thing: the internist that took care of the shot behind Seth Rich’s neck said it was not lethal and he would survive. He posted on Facebook that something strange had happened, a bunch of FBI agents came over and told the internist to leave the room and not to come back until he was told. So, he obeyed, not knowing who Seth Rich was, he posted the story Facebook that when he came back the man was dead.

 

When he found out the man worked for the DNC he removed the post, which other people have photographed. Nowadays the connection with DNC and Democrats may be a death sentence, unless you do as they please … You remember what happened with the Judge against illegal immigration? His body washed on the shore and many other Bill and Hillary assassinations. But not everybody in the FBI is corrupted, just the Elite on the 7th floor.

 

And no one can blame Assange for that. Why they don’t prosecute the New York Times because it is doing their bidding and because it is against our laws to sue publishers.

______________________

Southwest vs Justin Smith

Two Likeable Guys that Disagree

 

John R. Houk

© April 18, 2019

__________________

Southwest Comment to ‘Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange’ 

 

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange


John R. Houk

© April 15, 2019

I am amazed at the number of Conservatives that are wholly supportive of Julian Assange as a hero in an age of corrupt government. In full disclosure, I am extremely grateful the old self-serving cad exposed the wickedness of the Crooked Hillary campaign for President. There were plenty of DNC secrets BUT there were ZERO Classified State secrets/documents that would harm Military or Intelligence personnel in their duties for the U.S. government.

 

When I posted Justin Smith’s “Julian Assange — A Good End to America’s Enemy,” (SlantRight 2.0 & NCCR) the majority of the Social Media Conservative comments were quite hostile for condemning the nefarious side of Julian Assange.

 

From those comments I was persuaded that the “Pentagon Papers” defense could apply to Julian Assange as much as SCOTUS sided with Daniel Ellsberg. At first reading the comments applying the Pentagon Papers/Ellsberg was compelling to me. Then I ran into an article by Harry Melkonian in 2013 in relation to Wikileaks and transgendered Bradley Manning which provides scope that obliterates the Assange/Pentagon Papers argument:

 

“Much has been made of the parallels between Manning’s situation and the plight of Daniel Ellsberg, a US military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War.

 

But there is a major difference: Ellsberg released classified information and he faced criminal charges for that act. However, the documents released by Ellsberg were only historical and could not seriously be thought to compromise the interests of the United States.

 

The Pentagon Papers revealed a lack of candor by Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration concerning the Vietnam War and subjected the US to ridicule, but it did not jeopardise security. The papers were released during the Nixon presidency but none of the documents related to events that occurred during the Nixon administration.

 

Ellsberg may have done something unlawful but no-one could claim that it compromised ongoing military operations. This point is clearly revealed by the Nixon tapes, in which the president and his aides were initially rather pleased by the leaking of documents that embarrassed Johnson. In fact, the Supreme Court refused to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers because they found that nothing in the documents could possibly be considered a military secret. The charges against Ellsberg were ultimately dismissed because of the misbehavior of Nixon’s infamous plumbers unit.

 

But Manning is charged with releasing many thousands of government documents and not just historical records. The US government contends that this distinguishes Manning from Ellsberg’s situation – Ellsberg simply released documents that he was not authorised to release, and there was not a serious claim that his conduct put any American interest at risk.” (WikiLeaks and aiding the enemy: the court martial of Bradley Manning; By Harry Melkonian; The Conversation; 6/5/13 4.42pm EDT)

 

Assange and Manning did expose potential war crimes committed by the USA:

 

“… The publication provided explosive evidence of human rights abuses in Iraq and Pakistani cooperation with the Taliban in Afghanistan — among many other revelations …

 

 

… A brief experiment with automatic redactions was aborted. The journalist-led redactions were abandoned too after Assange’s relationship with the London press corps turned toxic. By 2013 WikiLeaks had written off the redaction efforts as a wrong move.

 

 

Three Saudi cables published by WikiLeaks identified domestic workers who’d been tortured or sexually abused by their employers, giving the women’s full names and passport numbers. One cable named a male teenager who was raped by a man while abroad; a second identified another male teenager who was so violently raped his legs were broken; a third outlined the details of a Saudi man detained for “sexual deviation” — a derogatory term for homosexuality.

 

Scott Long, an LGBT rights activist who has worked in the Middle East, said the names of rape victims were off-limits. And he worried that releasing the names of people persecuted for their sexuality only risked magnifying the harm caused by oppressive officials.” (Private lives are exposed as WikiLeaks spills its secrets; By RAPHAEL SATTER and MAGGIE MICHAEL; AP News; 8/23/16)

 

To date there have been no public revelations of people who died resulting from the Wikileaks/Manning document dump, BUT lives were endangered according to the National Review:

 

“… Among the documents Manning turned over to Assange were war logs that contained the names of hundreds of civilians who cooperated with U.S. forces. Assange simply published those logs en masse, without redacting the names of civilians involved, placing those fighting for freedom in their countries in great peril.” (Chelsea Manning Is Not a Whistleblower; By KYLE SMITH; National Review; 5/19/17 6:26 PM)

 

The DOJ is asserting that Manning did not act on his/her own volition in the once sealed indictment against Julian Assange. Evidently the DOJ believes it can prove criminal conspiracy with Manning rather Manning acting alone and dumping Classified material into Assange’s lap:

 

“In an indictment revealed Thursday morning, U.S. authorities say Assange conspired with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to steal and publish huge troves of classified documents. Prosecutors said Assange at one point tried to help Manning crack a password to access military computers where the information was stored.

 

Over four months in 2010, Manning downloaded hundreds of thousands of secret reports on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as State Department cables and information about detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Manning turned the records over to WikiLeaks, which passed them to journalists and published them on the internet.

 

Prosecutors said it was one of the most extensive leaks of classified secrets in U.S. history.

 

Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The charge, delivered by a federal grand jury in March 2018 but kept secret until Thursday, carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.” (Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, faces US hacking conspiracy charge; By Bart JansenSean RossmanDoug Stanglin and Kevin Johnson; USA Today; Published 5:50 a.m. ET 4/11/19 – Updated 12:29 p.m. ET 4/12/19)

 

Assange Indictment (PDF on Google Documents date-stamped 3/6/18

 

 

In fairness to Assange, he does have his supporters that pooh-pooh everything I just disclosed. For example Sharmini Peries of the Real News Network interviewed Daniel Ellsberg in correlation to Assange’s recent arrest. However Peries is a Leftist and her past association with Hugo Chavez may suggest she has a Marxist orientation. Which brings me to the mantra – Leftists lie.

 

This is what began these thoughts on, “Is Assange a criminal or hero,” is a submission by Justin Smith taking a stand that Julian Assange is an enemy of America and not a hero.

 

I’d like to think Justin’s submission resulted from a Facebook Messenger text I sent him yesterday about the pushback I was receiving from his earlier Julian Assange submission. As of this writing I have not gone back to Facebook to read my messages, but it’s at logical I’m not the only relaying feedback about his earlier submission (which Justin certainly submitted to other blogs and websites for publication as well).

 

In honesty I don’t like to share contributor’s post unless I can validate the info within the submission. As I began that process with Justin I ended up just adding my own response. I sense most of what I sourced in my thoughts corroborates Justin’s submission; ergo this is a rare time that I will not be adding corroborating sources. It may interest the reader that Justin provides a list of titles for me to choose from. I get to choose the title that I sense best fits. Enjoy and if you are in the camp Conservative that Assange is a hero, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If your politics are Left-Wing, I could care less about any hateful vitriol in defense of Assange.

 

JRH 4/15/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Assange — An Enemy to America Our Republic

Assange Is No Hero

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/14/2019 10:54 PM

 

FOREWORD ___ No matter how beneficial one may have found Assange’s information dump to be to Conservative America overall, he still cost American lives in the Middle Eastern theater and the lives of many who were working with our nation.

Of late, my tolerance for people who advocate for actions that subvert “the rule of law” and by those actions the republic has slipped to zero. Some things are just pretty black and white to me. No matter how one wishes to frame the picture, Assange is no friend to America.

Julian Assange was a hero for much of the American Left when he was undermining American national security and putting Americans and allies in jeopardy, but a villain when he helped Vladimir Putin damage Hillary Clinton. But hold on. Assange became a hero for many on the right for the very same reasons. He was a villain for working with then–Bradley Manning for a lot of people. But that was all forgiven when he helped Putin damage Hillary Clinton.

 

If it’s your view that Assange was noble for undermining the U.S. war effort or national security but evil for undermining the DNC or Hillary Clinton, then your standard for such things is entirely team-based. And if it’s your view that Assange was evil for undermining the U.S. war effort or national security but noble for undermining the DNC or Hillary Clinton, your standards are also entirely team-based.

 

What Assange did wasn’t “journalism”. If he had filtered the information that he helped steal and simply focused on the Bad Guys and actual misdeeds and corruption found, I might have been more forgiving, but he Lumped the Good Guys in with the mix and released ALL Their Information for all to see, DESPITE PLEAS FROM HUMAN RIGHTS organizations [Some of which actually funded by George Soros] for him to redact that info.

Assange is an enemy of democracy not just for publishing stolen political gossip, but for aiding and enabling Manning’s espionage against the United States, in what far too many call an act of a “whistleblower”; Manning helped Assange publish far more sensitive, far more important, indeed life-endangering material.

 

Among the documents Manning turned over to Assange were war logs that contained the names of hundreds of civilians who cooperated with U.S. forces. Assange threw all caution to the wind and indiscriminately published those logs en masse, without redacting the names of civilians involved, placing those fighting for freedom in their countries in great peril.

Many CIA operatives and many covert assets working in country in Afghanistan and Iraq were subsequently outed and murdered as a direct result of this info dump. The embeds who weren’t killed, including several U.S. SOF personnel, report that the Taliban and Al Qaeda regularly poured over the information, sorting and sifting, to learn of U.S. tactics, strategic plans underway, and personnel strength and positions as well as armaments on hand.

The “benefit” from this information could have been achieved without the indiscriminate dumping of information.

If Assange thought there was criminal activity underway in the U.S. government, he should have simply released that criminal related information alone. His intention was to harm America, since the manner of his release didn’t focus on the Bad Guys; and he released the UNREDACTED NAMES, addresses, phone numbers and everything else related to ALL the other Good and Decent Young Men and Women in Our Armed Forces WHO HAD DONE NO WRONG — placing their information in the hands of the enemy, endangering them and their families.

Anyway one wants to look at it, if one is intellectually honest and views his actions through the prism of “the rule of law”, Assange is absolutely an enemy to America and a criminal GUILTY of ESPIONAGE, who should be under a U.S. prison, if not executed — the sooner the better.

~ Justin O Smith

__________________________________________

Forgive me if I think You are in error to take Assange’s side in this. That some benefit came from his crime of espionage doesn’t absolve him of the crime and all the real world harm that came from it.

 

Julian Assange’s arrest and indictment should provide us with a moment of reflection. He is an awful man. He dumped American military secrets into the public domain without any regard for human life. He conspired with an American soldier to crack American security systems in the effort to deliver more secrets to the world public.

 

His co-conspirator, Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning, wasn’t a “whistleblower” — and neither was Assange. Manning didn’t carefully extract evidence of alleged wrongdoing from classified files and go to the press (a defensible, though still illegal, act). He just dumped hundreds of thousands of pages of classified files into Assange’s hands, and Assange posted them, en masse, on the Internet.

 

Any jihadist or enemy with Internet access could read the documents and not just learn about the identities of American allies on the ground (placing them at immediate, mortal risk) but also gain extraordinary insight into American military tactics and plans — including learning exactly how effective (or ineffective) their own weapons and tactics were.

 

Manning committed treason. Assange helped him. And there were Americans who celebrated both men.

 

The First Amendment doesn’t protect criminal acts and what Assange did wasn’t journalism. He didn’t write any story that focused on the Bad Guys and any of the wrongdoing in government. All he did was steal info that he later sold to the highest bidder; it’s not remotely in the same ballpark as reporters reporting it in the NYTs and WaPo afterwards. You seem not to care that he dumped Good and Decent Americans UNREDACTED Names, Addresses and Phone Numbers along with the Bad Guys, and HE COST AMERICAN LIVES in the aftermath.

In 2010, everyone on both sides of the aisle saw Assange as an enemy to America. The Obama administration condemned him, conservatives called him a traitor, and Donald Trump said WikiLeaks was “disgraceful,” adding that there should be the “death penalty or something” for its actions. Fast-forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks enjoyed a reputational renaissance on the right. Why? Well, WikiLeaks was the same organization, but its target had changed. Rather than taking on alleged American imperialism, it was the conduit for an alleged Russian hack that was systematically embarrassing Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election. “I love WikiLeaks,” Trump declared to rousing cheers at a rally. Sean Hannity defended him during the election and even referred to Assange to advance his absurd Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Even worse, the special counsel’s office has alleged that a “senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton Campaign.” Trump “loved” Wikileaks, and his campaign allegedly endeavored to get information from WikiLeaks — the same organization that had just a few years before conspired with a traitor to place American soldiers and American allies in mortal danger.

HYPOCRITES ABOUND — Julian Assange intentionally and deliberately works against American interests. Yet there are Americans who will intentionally and deliberately share WikiLeaks information, wield it as a weapon against their political opponents. There is no virtue in Assange. Those who celebrated his “transparency” in the Manning document dumps forget that responsible reporters who gain access to classified material carefully vet that material to make sure that their disclosures do not needlessly endanger innocent Americans, and they carefully weigh the value of the disclosure against the gravity of the harm.

 

Assange and Manning did not seem to care about the men and women they betrayed. Those who celebrated Assange’s role in the DNC and Podesta hacks forget that he was playing a willing and even eager role in a foreign plan to disrupt an election and divide our nation — a plan that worked beautifully in large part because of the very celebration of the hacks themselves.

 

In “Flight 93 elections,” I suppose, advancing Russian interests is a small price to pay for a news cycle or two that humiliates Hillary. And, by the way, if one is going to rightly denigrate the role that Russian hacking had in swaying the American election, how can one also then claim that advancing Russian interests and magnifying Assange was somehow important enough to be worth the costs?

Julian Assange is an enemy of the United States. Just because he is the enemy of our enemies as seen in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, and you now consider the enemy Assange to be your friend, that doesn’t make your “friend” Assange any less the actual entity trying to undermine American security, divide American society, and even threaten American lives.

I have no problem whatsoever with TRUE Whistleblowers who take precise aim at SPECIFIC WRONGS and SPECIFIC Crimes they have found within the U.S. government. But even then, there are proven and viable methods within our government for just such cases, and Manning never made the first attempt to take his concerns to his superiors and the proper chain of military command, as outlined in the Uniform Military Code of Justice, and Assange never cared one way or another who got hurt by his actions; all he saw was dollar signs and fame, but what is anyone to expect from a narcissist and a rapist like Assange.

There is so much that stinks around this entire episode in our nation’s recent events. Assange actually sought temporary relief and cover in Russia and regularly bashed America on his TV program ‘Russia Today’.

One of his first guests was the High Cleric and Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Assange’s motives were far from pure or noble. He’s no “hero”.

 

Julian Assange is an anti-American LEFTIST, and an ENEMY to America.

And, to tell the truth, I’d probably drop a hammer on him if I ever had him in my sights.

 

God Bless You All and God Bless Our Beloved America. May He Keep Her Free For All Eternity and Damn Her Enemies Both Foreign and Domestic to the Hell They Have Earned and So Richly Deserve.

 

Your Friend Always ~ Justin

______________________

Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2019

____________________

Assange — An Enemy to America Our Republic

 

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Justice being served on Obama officials?


BHO Spying Nixonian Lying Crook toon

In a hopefully tip-of-the-iceberg moment, it has been disclosed publicly that Obama former White House counsel Gregory Craig is to be indicted for crooked connection to the Ukraine in 2012. The hope is all the Obama Administration and Crooked Hillary Campaign staffers that actually broke the law will finally have to pay the piper for illegal activities.

 

With that in mind, the blog Ares and Athena posted a story that begins with Gregory Craig info but then leads into speculation of more indictments. Adding to the speculation is the public Congressional testimony by AG William Barr that the DOJ is looking into the Obama Administration spying on the Trump Campaign.

 

JRH 4/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Ares and Athena

Are More Indictments of Obama Officials Coming?

Yesterday we learned that Gregory Craig, the former White House counsel for Barack Obama, expects to be indicted on criminal charges for lobbying he did for the Ukrainian government back in 2012. The case against Craig originated from the Mueller investigation. Craig was not White House Counsel at the time, but between this and Attorney General William Barr’s revelation that he believes the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and that it is being investigated, it’s hard not feel as though the tide is turning, and we might start seeing Obama officials finally get put under the microscope for various acts of corruption.

View original post 733 more words

Julian Assange — A Good End to America’s Enemy


VIDEO: Julian Assange arrested at Ecuadorian embassy in London

I have looked on Julian Assange’s arrest today from Ecuadorian Embassy in London with mixed feelings. In one case Assange via Wikileaks exposed Classified and sensitive information related to U.S. National Security. On the other hand Assange’s release of hacked (or perhaps purloined) Crooked Hillary campaign emails might just contribute to exposing some of worst treasonous acts among American leadership since Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr.

 

Justin Smith examines the Wikileaks Classified material dump with quite correct anger at America’s betrayal.

 

Julian Assange 4/11/19 arrested Ecuadorian Embassy London

 

JRH 4/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Julian Assange — A Good End to America’s Enemy

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/11/2019 3:13 PM

 

If you think you’re having a rough morning . . . at least you’re not Julian Assange.

 

Police entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London Thursday morning, arresting Assange and bringing the Wikileaks founder’s seven-year stint there to a dramatic close,” reports CNN [CNN has since updated original quote. Here is the same quote from wfsb.com – Eyewitness News 3 Hartford CT].

 

Metropolitan Police said in a statement that he was ‘further arrested’ on his arrival at a London police station on behalf of United States authorities, who have issued an extradition warrant.

 

“Officers made the move after Ecuador withdrew Assange’s asylum and invited authorities into the embassy, citing the Australian’s bad behavior.”

 

Some people see Julian Assange as some sort of “hero” for joining Bradley Manning in espionage and the release of Department of Defense documents — thousands of documents — THAT COST THE LIVES OF AMERICANS SERVING OVERSEAS.

 

Even if Manning’s and Assange’s criminal hacking and espionage actions didn’t result in anyone’s death, that does not render them forgivable or harmless. If one sets his car in neutral and lets it glide down a hill toward a playground as he walks away in the other direction, he isn’t blameless by any stretch of logic simply because no one was killed. Moreover, Manning violated several tenets of the basic military oath, such as his vow to adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the handling of classified information. Think of all those military folks you have ever known, who you may have served with yourself, and consider how our good and decent young men and women, all military personnel, could have been — or actually were — exposed by Manning and Assange. Most patriots will find themselves grow angry as they reflect on these actions and those institutions that celebrate Manning’s and Assange’s criminal actions as “whistleblowing”.

 

Consider if you published something controversial on the Internet and started getting death threats. How would you like being “doxed”? In other words, what would your reaction be if someone who didn’t like you tweeted out to the world your home address? And your phone number? And your photo? And photos of your children? And the address of their school? And information about when you left the house each day, the license-plate number of your car, and the location where it was parked?

 

Would you call someone who published this information a “whistleblower”? Let’s say the same person simultaneously published accurate information about wrongdoing by your neighbors or colleagues. Would that make you feel any better?

 

Picture such an information dump on a massive scale. That’s roughly what then-Bradley Manning did when he threw hundreds of thousands of secret military and diplomatic documents into the public square. Manning made no effort to filter out information that didn’t show evidence of wrongdoing. He indiscriminately stole as many classified documents as he dared and sent them off for publication on the Internet.

 

Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Remember him? The one you blame for working with the Russians to subvert democracy? He doesn’t necessarily have America’s best interests at heart, does he? He never did. Assange an enemy of democracy not just for publishing stolen political gossip, but for aiding and enabling Manning’s espionage against the United States, in what far too many call an act of a “whistleblower”; Manning helped Assange publish far more sensitive, far more important, indeed life-endangering material? Among the documents Manning turned over to Assange were war logs that contained the names of hundreds of civilians who cooperated with U.S. forces. Assange threw all caution to the wind and indiscriminately published those logs en masse, without redacting the names of civilians involved, placing those fighting for freedom in their countries in great peril.

 

It is most telling that Assange’s first guest on his talk show on Kremlin-funded Russia Today was Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

 

Whether or not Americans received some other disturbing news that revealed government misconduct is beside the point. What he did was still a crime against America, in more regards than any that were “beneficial” to America.

 

Just as Americans have a wealth of information each individual keeps private, like Social Security numbers or bank account numbers or certain unknown events that occurred in their lives that revive hurtful memories and pain — information they wouldn’t want just anyone to have — there is an abundance of information in government files that the average U.S. citizen doesn’t have any real right to view, except and until they have gone through proper channels and/or a court process or FOIA requests. We have agreed to such channels, as citizens, to certain processes and oversights in matters of government.

 

There are men and women in place to provide oversight over government. And the problems we find too often today have resulted when those providing the oversight we less than trustworthy. If these people were immoral and untrustworthy, one doesn’t simply throw open the vault and release everything, especially when it may reveal CIA operatives in foreign countries, resulting in their murders, or troop positions and capabilities, resulting in unnecessary U.S. casualties.

 

The failure is with Us as a society, in that so many men and women elected today are immoral and untrustworthy and they appoint people to positions of similar character. Nothing will change in the halls of government until things change in America and Her people return to the God and the principles that founded America.

 

Governments need to keep secrets, too. We can argue about just how many secrets it should keep, and there’s a strong argument that the U.S. government over-classifies a lot of information that could be released to the public without harm. But besides all the aspects of national security that need to be kept secret — where our forces are, what they’re vulnerable to, what we know about hostile states and terrorist groups, what we don’t know, the identities of agents, case officers, and covert operators, and so on — our government needs to be able to assess and evaluate these issues in secrecy. The public also needs to be informed of at least the general contours of the national-security issues that concern the government, which is why the House and Senate intelligence committees usually hold both public and private hearings.

 

Countries also need to be able to communicate with each other discreetly. Sometimes a foreign government will privately agree with a U.S. policy and be willing to cooperate but cannot acknowledge their stance publicly because of preexisting public attitudes. For example, in 2010, the United States wanted to launch drone strikes against operatives of al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula. Because allowing U.S. airstrikes on Yemeni soil would irritate the Yemeni people, president Ali Abdullah Saleh told General David Petraeus, “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.” This was one of the secrets revealed in the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. The choice to reveal that conversation indicates that WikiLeaks finds the secrecy about the American bombing efforts more troubling that what those al-Qaeda members were doing.

 

Those of us who paid attention figured out early on that Julian Assange always seemed more interested in releasing information that harmed United States vital interests and national security than he was in helping the American people uncover the Traitors in their midst. Assange always seemed particularly angry with the American and Western European governments, and never all that bothered by the world’s indisputably brutal and despotic regimes, in Russia, Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela and Syria.

 

Some of us never discovered a newfound appreciation for Assange once he started leaking information from the DNC and John Podesta, and saw the same guy we always did — as a SPY and an ENEMY to America.

 

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed in 1953 on slim evidence and for a whole lot less than the crimes committed by Julian Assange. Assange should be extradited to the U.S. and charged, prosecuted and executed.

 

By Justin O Smith

ADDENDUM: The Taliban and Al Qaeda both poured over these documents, sorting and sifting, to discover who was working with the U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even more troubling, it placed U.S. tactics, strategic plans and military strength and positions all in the hands of the enemy.

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

35 Key People Involved In The Russia Hoax Who Need To Be Investigated


The House Dem majority are ramping up investigations against Trump to perpetuate their highly unsubstantiated witch hunt. As Willis L. Krumholz of The Federalist points out, there should be further investigations about conspiracy in the 2016 election. Yet the people that should be investigated are the Obama and Crooked Hillary connections.

 

JRH 3/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama & Crooked Hillary. Photo Nathan Forget  Flickr

 

35 Key People Involved In The Russia Hoax Who Need To Be Investigated

As their desperate search for collusion continues, Democrats want to interview 81 people. Try this list instead.

 

By Willis L. Krumholz

MARCH 8, 2019

The Federalists

 

Funny how things change. The Washington Post couldn’t say a nice thing about congressional Republican efforts to investigate the Obama administration and FBI shenanigans that occurred before and after the 2016 election. That’s if they even covered these efforts at all.

 

But with Democrats controlling the House, and that legislative body’s subpoena power, the establishment media’s line has changed. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have just sent letters to 81 people, all associated with President Trump or the Russia probe, demanding answers on Russian election interference.

 

This is part of Democrats’ effort to continue their hunt for proof of Russia collusion—although they are already sure that Trump is guilty—as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation appears to be winding down. To cover these events, the Post’s Philip Bump wrote an article titled: “The 81 people and organizations just looped into the Trump probe—and why they were included.” Of course, the article is totally unquestioning of the House Democrats’ desired narrative and motivations.

 

Investigated, But Not for the Reasons Dems Give

 

It isn’t worth it to go through Bump’s whole article, but even the commentary about the first name on the list—Rinat Akhmetshin—omits glaring and important facts. Bump says Akhmetshin “joined his colleague Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer linked to the Kremlin, at the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower predicated on providing information that would undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” But, Bump says, “the focus of the meeting instead reportedly focused on the Magnitsky Act—a law that resulted in sanctions on numerous prominent Russians.”

 

Bump somehow forgets to tell us that Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton to create nefarious ties between Trump and Russia, was working with Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya to lobby for the Russian government. Fusion GPS even provided the documents that were handed out at that Trump Tower meeting. Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson also met with the Russians both before and after that Trump Tower meeting. Yet Simpson isn’t on the Democrats’ list.

 

So there’s a few people on the Democrats’ list who should be investigated, but not for the reasons Democrats say. Some should also be charged with crimes.

 

The following all played a part in the stunning and successful effort by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to infect the executive branch of the federal government with Trump-Russia conspiracy theories. Various writings—either authored by a Brit with ties to the Kremlin who was indirectly paid by Clinton’s campaign, or directly written by Hillary Clinton cronies—were funneled into the federal government through multiple avenues.

 

Partisan Democrats in the Obama administration were all too willing to believe the allegations, and use them as an excuse for bad behavior whether they believed them or not.

 

The documents have been called “dossiers,” but that really just attaches a fancy term to a Word document full of unverified mumbo jumbo that alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Those Word documents were then used to spy on the opposing political party’s presidential campaign, and to plant stories in the media right before the election insinuating that Trump had nefarious ties with Russia.

 

Here are 36 people who should be interviewed under oath, if they have not been interviewed already, some of whom should be subjected to criminal prosecution.

 

Obama and Comey’s FBI People

 

Gregory Brower was Jim Comey’s FBI congressional liaison, and left the agency in 2018. Brower was in Comey’s inner circle, and like many in Comey’s inner circle, Brower played the game of claiming things were classified when they were not, in order to label Republican investigators as leakers and hide how the FBI used the “dossiers.” Brower was called out by Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham for that.

 

Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, wrote anti-Trump texts with former top FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. According to the Washington Times, Clinesmith “worked on the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton’s email use [known as Mid-Year-Exam], then worked on the FBI’s original investigation into the Trump campaign [known as Crossfire Hurricane] and, eventually, with the special counsel’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.”

 

But Clinesmith, like Strzok, was let go from Mueller’s investigative team once his anti-Trump texts were uncovered by the FBI inspector general (IG), who is tasked with uncovering wrongdoing at the FBI. “Viva le resistance,” Clinesmith said in one text.

 

Joseph Pientka, an FBI official, was the go-between for Fusion GPS and the FBI. Pientka interviewed Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr on at least 12 occasions, who passed on the information Ohr’s wife Nellie (who worked for Fusion GPS) was receiving from Christopher Steele (who also worked for Fusion GPS), and who was using Edward Baumgartner, a British national with ties to Moscow, to compile the dossier for the Clinton campaign.

 

Steele was originally the direct FBI source, despite his ties to the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS, but when Steele was caught leaking to the media to paint Trump as a Russian stooge just before the election, official FBI rules said that Steele’s use as an FBI source had to be discontinued. The FBI top brass worked around these rules, which are in place to prevent this very kind of abuse, by using Pientka to interview Ohr, who was getting his information from Steele.

 

Pientka also played a role in the interview of former Trump national security advisor Mike Flynn, where Pientka and Strzok interviewed Flynn, and Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI officials (including former deputy attorney general Sally Yates) used that interview to entrap Flynn for a completely non-nefarious conversation with the Russian ambassador. The pretext for the interview was the Logan Act, a 200-year old law that has never led to a conviction and is probably unconstitutional. Plus, it is violated by every incoming administration, as they seek to begin conducting foreign policy during the transition period.

 

All Flynn did was talk to the Russian ambassador and try to get Russia to not retaliate against sanctions Obama placed on Russia right before leaving the White House, and to not allow an anti-Israel vote at the United Nations. The Obama administration was going to allow this vote in the final days of Obama’s presidency, an unprecedented move.

 

Although Flynn was never charged with violating the Logan Act, he was later charged with lying to the FBI investors sent to interview him, under the pretext of a possible Logan Act violation—even though the agents didn’t think he was lying at the time, and even though the FBI had wiretapped access to the record of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador.

 

What happened to Flynn is a disgrace, and a total perversion of our justice system. And it is just one example in the dangerous trend of the left using our justice system to take out political opponents, where Democrat politicians point out a target or a supposed crime, and the federal bureaucracy dutifully moves into action.

 

Obama’s DOJ People

 

Tashina Gauhar is a Department of Justice attorney who was deeply involved in applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court, which were used to spy on the Trump campaign using the dossiers. Gauhar was also one of the few people to see or be notified of the existence of missing Hillary Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer. Weiner was being investigated for pedophilia and was married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

 

Gauhar and Andrew McCabe sat on those emails, and a cursory investigation—led by anti-Trump FBI agent Strzok—was only conducted when FBI field agents in New York threatened to go public. Gauhar later played a role in recommending former attorney general Jeff Sessions’ recusal from overseeing Mueller’s probe.

 

John Carlin is the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and got out of the DOJ in late 2016. He was the former chief of staff to Mueller, when Mueller led the FBI in the 2000s. Carlin was involved in the FBI’s systemic abuse of the FISA surveillance laws, which included spying on the Trump campaign.

 

This included omitting information on FBI wiretap abuse to the FISA court, and omitting information when applying to spy on Trump campaign official Carter Page to the FISA court. Carlin was also regularly briefed on and involved with the FBI’s overall investigation into the Trump campaign, called Crossfire Hurricane.

 

David Laufman is a high-level DOJ official in the national security division. Laufman worked with FBI counterintelligence guy Strzok on both the Clinton email investigation and the investigation into the Trump campaign based on the still-unproven, Clinton-paid, and Russian-sourced “dossier.”

 

Mary McCord was the acting assistant attorney general for a time, replacing Carlin as the head of the DOJ’s national security division. She left the DOJ in 2017. McCord played a role in Yates’s plan to spy on Flynn and entrap him with the Logan Act.

 

George Toscas, a senior official in the Justice Department, was in charge of the “Mid-Year-Exam” investigation into Clinton’s email abuses. Toscas had a front seat to both McCabe and Comey’s efforts to hide the fact that Clinton’s emails were found on Weiner’s computer, and former Obama attorney general Loretta Lynch’s efforts to stymie the Clinton email investigation.

 

The importance of Hillary’s emails wasn’t just her flouting security rules. Many have speculated that Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails, which were stored on her home-brew server, would have shown pay-to-play activities Clinton conducted while Obama’s secretary of state.

 

Obama’s State Department People

 

Victoria Nuland was a top Obama State Department official, and potentially Clinton’s secretary of state. Nuland had a role in pushing Fusion GPS conspiracy theories in the State Department, and in the broader Obama administration.

 

She received the Steele dossier just after it was created, via Jonathan Winer, in July 2016. That was possibly two months before the document was in the hands of the FBI, unless the FBI had it sooner than we currently know. She then ultimately gave permission for the FBI to make the contact with Steele, which was initiated by Michael J. Gaeta, an FBI agent based in Rome who became Steele’s handler.

 

Steele even came to the State Department to directly brief officials on his work, paid for by the Clinton campaign. Nuland had an awkward exchange with Sen. Richard Burr, where she claimed she “actively” avoided this Steele briefing, but also said she didn’t hear about the briefing until after it occurred.

 

Safe to say that if Nuland was tied to the Trump campaign, she would already be indicted for perjury by Mueller’s team of angry Democrats.

 

Jonathan Winer was a top Obama State Department official. Winer received documents alleging Trump-Russia collusion from notorious Clinton guy Cody Shearer, through another even more notorious Clinton guy named Sidney Blumenthal, and received the Steele dossier from Steele in summer 2016.

 

Winer shared the contents of these documents with his boss, Nuland, and prepped a summary of these docs for the State Department. He also gave the Shearer document to Steele, who then gave it to the FBI. That both Shearer and Blumenthal are known Clinton cronies and hatchet-men never seemed to be important to Winer. Winer was also a source for at least two journalists who wrote articles prior to the election based on the Steele dossier.

 

Jonathan Finer was another Obama State Department official, and the chief of staff to former secretary of state John Kerry. Finer got the so-called dossier from Winer, and gave it to John Kerry. This of course, among several other pieces of information, raises questions as to whether President Obama saw the dossiers and knew about what was being done to the Trump campaign.

 

Elizabeth Dibble was the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in London. She was reported to be one of the State Department officials who received information from Australian ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer, who has ties to the Clinton Foundation, about George Papadopoulos saying to Downer that Joseph Misfud—a European professor with potential ties to western intelligence agencies—told Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

 

Misfud allegedly told Papadopoulos this in April 2016, and Papadopoulos allegedly told Downer what Misfud had said in early May. It is entirely possible that Papadopoulos was set up by Misfud, who has now disappeared and is hopefully just in hiding and not at the bottom of some body of water.

 

This chain of events became important when the FBI began using the Papadopoulos tip as an excuse for its “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the Trump campaign, in order to say why they didn’t rely on the Clinton-funded dossier.

 

But the FBI didn’t open Crossfire Hurricane until several months after the Dibble-Downer tip was received, and that tip, if it ever even occurred, didn’t go through the normal and proper chain of intelligence (others have claimed that the tip wasn’t taken seriously until the Democratic National Committee hack was made public).

 

More damning for the FBI’s Papadopoulos excuse was that they didn’t interview Papadopolous until after the 2016 election, and went after Carter Page for FISA surveillance instead. This was no damning piece of firsthand information, or emergency. It was hearsay, and what Papadopoulos said to Downer, and what Misfud said to Papadopoulos, is still disputed.

 

The reality is that the Clinton-funded dossier started the FBI’s investigation into Trump, at least the official Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

 

Finally, Thomas Williams is another State Department guy in the London embassy. Colin KahlKathleen Kavalec, and Lewis Lukens were all State Department officials who had some sort of interaction with the dossier, or Fusion GPS people.

 

People Tied to the DNC or Clinton Campaign

 

Perkins Coie, a law firm, was paid by the Clinton campaign to serve as a go-between to hide the fact that Hillary’s campaign was paying Fusion GPS to push the Trump-Russia smear.

 

Marc Elias is a lawyer at Perkins Coie, who hired Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign.

 

Michael Sussmann is another lawyer at Perkins Coie, who received a story about a Russian bank, Alphabank, communicating with a server in Trump Tower from Fusion GPS. Sussmann went directly to the FBI with that story—to James Baker, who was general counsel of the FBI under Comey—prompting reports midway through the 2016 campaign that hinted Trump had nefarious ties with Russia.

 

Although it was widely debunked, the server angle again showed up in media stories, including in New York Times and Slate articles, right before the election in September of 2016. Hillary Clinton even tweeted that Slate article when it posted.

 

Robbie Mook was a top Hillary Clinton campaign official. As Fusion GPS was working on the dossier, Perkins Coie was getting the information from Steele and briefing Mook. It is important to note that Mook was the first Hillary official to publicly say that Russia wanted to help Trump win. Mook said this right before the Democratic National Convention.

 

This is more evidence that Clinton’s campaign is the entity that started the Russia investigation, by alleging that Trump had nefarious ties with Russia to distract from the DNC and Clinton campaign’s mistreatment of Bernie Sanders, as was revealed by the DNC email theft that was leaked by WikiLeaks right before the Democrats’ 2016 national convention.

 

Jake Sullivan is another top advisor in Clinton’s campaign, who played a role in forming the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

 

Cody Shearer is a longtime Clinton dirty tricks guy, with a record of smearing the Clintons’ political opponents. He authored a “dossier,” largely based on Steele’s work, that was picked up by Winer at Obama’s State Department.

 

Sidney Blumenthal is an even more infamous Clinton stooge. “Sid” is so infamous that Obama told Hillary that he didn’t want Blumenthal associated with the Obama administration. Blumenthal got the Trump-Russia conspiracies written by Shearer into the Obama State Department, when only the Clinton campaign was talking about Trump-Russia collusion.

 

Fusion GPS People

 

Fusion GPS is a D.C. based opposition research and public relations firm with a history of representing less-than-savory actors, including Planned Parenthood, the Venezuelan dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro, and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Fusion has been shown in court documents to have paid still-unknown journalists, likely for the placement of stories or to push a certain narrative.

 

Rinat Akhmetshin is the aforementioned Russian spy guy who was working with Fusion GPS when he showed up in Trump Tower. Get him under oath and ask him how much he knew about Fusion’s work for the Clinton campaign.

 

Edward Baumgartner is the British national, fluent in Russian and with ties to the Kremlin, who actually worked on most of Steele’s dossier. To compile the dossier, Baumgartner used unknown Russian sources that were paid and totally unverified, possibly tied to the Kremlin.

 

Peter Fritsch is a partner at Fusion GPS.

 

Mary Jacoby is the wife of Fusion GPS head Simpson, and has bragged publicly that her husband started the Russia investigation.

 

Shailagh Murray was a senior advisor to the Obama administration. Her husband is Neil King Jr., who works at Fusion GPS.

 

Neil King Jr., a Fusion GPS guy married to Murray, was also Obama’s top communications advisor. On a related story, Politico quoted King without mentioning he worked for Fusion GPS. This is just one of many examples of the endless ties between reporters and Fusion GPS, and between so-called journalists and prominent Democrats.

 

Thomas Catan is a Fusion GPS executive. He pled the Fifth in front of Congress when asked questions about the role of the dossier for the Hillary campaign.

 

Daniel Jones, a former staffer to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, heads the Penn Quarter Group, a D.C. “consulting firm.” He also heads a “nonprofit” called the “Democracy Integrity Project.” Jones’ groups have received millions from the likes of George Soros and Tom Steyer, two leftwing billionaires, to continue investigations into Trump via Fusion GPS. It appears as if Jones began picking up the tab for Fusion to continue its work as soon as the Clinton campaign and the DNC stopped paying Fusion after the election.

 

Glenn Simpson is the head of Fusion GPS. There are lots of indications that he lied to Congress during his testimony about Nellie Ohr, the wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr, before it was publicly known that Nellie worked for Fusion GPS. Specifically, Simpson told Congress that only Baumgartner spoke Russian at Fusion. But Nellie spoke Russian, and she was largely hired because she was a Russia expert (and because her husband worked at DOJ).

 

Simpson also lied about the timing of his contacts with Bruce Ohr. Again, if he were associated with Trump, he would have been indicted by Mueller already.

 

The Big Fish

 

Of course, there’s also former director of national intelligence Jim ClapperComey and Andrew McCabe at FBI, and former CIA director John Brennan.

 

Comey and McCabe are leakers, and should be prosecuted as such. Brennan is a particular bad actor, and did much to spread the dossiers around the federal government and our intelligence community. It is also thought that Brennan pushed the FBI to investigate Trump, or at least increase the intensity of its spying on Trump’s campaign.

 

Will any of these guys ever be prosecuted? Better said, does new Attorney General Bill Barr care about the rule of law or not?

 

So Many Questions Yet to Be Answered

 

Was the Kremlin behind this whole thing, in order to sow distrust in the American political process? If so, that would make far too many Democrats their “useful idiots.” Why isn’t there more uproar about the fact that Fusion GPS was working for Russia while it was working for the Clinton campaign?

 

The other gnawing problem is the timeline to all of this. In early June 2016, the DNC publicly said that it had been hacked, two days after WikiLeaks announced that it had information that showed Clinton and the DNC were mistreating Sanders. Right away, Steele began his work for Fusion GPS in June.

 

The DNC says it first noticed that it was hacked on April 28, 2016. But DNC staffers weren’t forced to turn over their presumably infected equipment until June 10, 2016. And numerous set-up attempts of Trump campaign people occurred during 2016, possibly as early as April 2016.

 

You don’t have to think that the Clintons killed Seth Rich to think something stinks to high heaven here. Justice has been grossly miscarried, on a high and far-reaching level. If this is what America is to be like going forward, it will be only a shell of what it once was in the past. The only hope is for Barr’s DOJ to swing into action.

___________________________

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 © 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

A peek inside Military Intelligence Ops.


Ted Belman of Israpundit posted a series of articles he stipulates was sent to him by “MIL-OPS INTELLIGENCE”. It seemed to me at least one theme of the combined articles was that America’s Intelligence Community shares an affinity with the American Left. The first article I found particularly disturbing was about former CIA Director John Brennan (a one-time CPUSA voter [perhaps at least a closet member] and rumored convert to Islam). That article shows Brennan to be an imbecile or an egregious traitor. Two extremes I do realize – you decide.

 

JRH 3/6/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

A peek inside Military Intelligence Ops.

 

Posted by Ted Belman

March 5, 2019

Israpundit

 

This is a collection of articles which were, today supplied to me by MIL-OPS INTELLIGENCE who follow Israpundit daily. I am not sure how to describe them but they consists of senior military Intelligence specialists who continue to follow events in the Middle East. They are regular readers of israpundit Daily Digest and often circulate my posts.

 

All of the materials, below are unclassified.

 

These articles are:

1) examples of some of the robust exchanges that go on within the US intelligence community;

2) the personal opinions of the authors;

3) are distributed  for discussion.

4) None of the articles represent the official view of  any agency of the United States government.

 

+++++

MIL-OPS INTELLIGENCE Friday, March 1, 2019

 

PENETRATIONS OF US INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES BY HOSTILE SPY SERVICES DURING  JOHN BRENNAN’S CIA DIRECTORSHIP CRIPPLE US OPERATIONS WITHIN CHINA, IRAN, RUSSIA LEBANON During John Brennan’s directorship of the CIA, many brave foreign nationals who risk their lives inside extremely brutal regimes to provide the United States with essential information have been detected, imprisoned,  tortured and executed. Public examples:

 

  1.     The loss of all recruited agents in China  [Between 20 and 30 of  the US   recruited agents in China were killed or imprisoned.] Media sources blamed the loss on a former CIA officer, Jerry Chung Shin Lee, who was arrested in January 2018 and is suspected of passing along their names to China

 

  1.     In  May 2011 , according to Iranian state media,  30 people were arrested as CIA spies and 42 others were suspected of involvement with U.S. intelligence. Insiders attribute this failure to information that  was  provided to Iran by Monica Witt, a former Air Force counterintelligence officer (and later an intelligence contractor) who defected to Iran 1n 2013 [where she is immune from any US criminal prosecution.]

 

Ms. Witt worked at the Air Force Office of Special Investigations from 2003-08 and then as a contractor, running an ultra secret Special Access Program, or SAP, until August 2010. The program gave her access to details about counterintelligence operations, true names of recruited agents, and identities of U.S. intelligence operatives in charge of recruiting foreign agents. Ms. Witt left the contractor in August 2010 for unspecified reasons.

 

Witt  provided Iran  with the details of a secret communications system American handlers use to talk to their recruited agents. Other texts reveal she “told all” to an Iranian ambassador in Central Asia. As she boarded the plane, she texted her handler: “I’m signing off and heading out! Coming home.” The FBI’s assistant director for national security, stated that Witt became an “ideological” defector after converting to Islam. Her actions, he added, inflicted “serious damage to national security.”

 

The FBI fumbled the case in 2012 by warning Ms. Witt she might be targeted for recruitment by Iranian intelligence. A trained counterspy, she knew that the tip-off meant she was under investigation and surveillance. It likely set in motion her flight to Iran a year later.

++++++

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

 

SHOULD WASHINGTON HEED INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ABOUT NORTH KOREA?

by Peter Huessy   February 11, 2019

 

Pictured: U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un shake hands at their first summit in Singapore, on June 12, 2018. (Image source: White House/Wikimedia Commons)

 

United States intelligence chiefs told Congress on January 29 that Pyongyang is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons in any deal with Washington. This assessment was made a month ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s February 27-28 second summit — to be held in Vietnam — with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the purpose of which is to make strides in achieving the very denuclearization that FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats consider improbable.

 

One would have thought that if these intelligence chiefs disagreed with Trump’s efforts to reach a deal with North Korea, they would have presented an alternative. They might have explained what a deal with Pyongyang is liable to do to America’s relations with Japan and South Korea. They might have provided a future scenario for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which North Korea signed in 1968, then violated and withdrew from in 2003.

 

Trump might, however, actually be acting sensibly. During a speech on January 31 at Stanford University, the U.S. special envoy for North Korea, Stephen Biegun, said that when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Kim in Pyongyang in October 2018, Kim committed for the first time to dismantling and destroying his plutonium and uranium enrichment facilities.

 

Although the media has been highlighting the disagreement between Trump and the U.S. intelligence community as though it is a huge scandal, such disputes have occurred in the past.

 

The most notable example was President Gerald Ford’s Team B project, launched in May 1976, to challenge the conventional intelligence community assessments of the Soviet threat. George H.W. Bush, who was director of the CIA at the time, had approved the project, which enlisted a group of foreign policy and security professionals who strongly disagreed with the policy of détente. Team B was convinced that the Soviet Union was spending 40% of its GDP on defense, as opposed to the 5% projected by the U.S. intelligence community.

 

After Team B released its report, the CIA conceded that Soviet defense spending was probably higher than it had thought, but nevertheless pushed for détente, a policy Ford supported, as well as for peaceful coexistence between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

 

Ronald Reagan’s 1976 Republican Party primary campaign against Ford focused on this very issue, with Reagan taking a much harsher view of the Soviet Union and the battle against communism. As Reagan predicted, détente led not to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union, but to Soviet expansion. Still, Reagan lost the Republican primary to Ford, and Ford lost the presidential race to Jimmy Carter.

 

Upon assuming the presidency in 1980, Reagan reversed most of the policies of the previous decades, and went against the consensus of a majority of the U.S. intelligence community.

 

Reagan turned out, of course, to be right, while the conventional wisdom of economists and intellectuals, such as John Kenneth Galbraith — who considered communism to be superior to capitalism because it supposedly made better use of “manpower” — was revealed to be spectacularly wrong.

 

Another key fight between the administration in Washington and its intelligence community took place at the outset of Reagan’s presidency, when Secretary of State Alexander Haig accused the Soviet Union of “training, funding and equipping” international terrorists. Reagan backed up Haig on this assessment — much to the chagrin of the intelligence community, which held a different view.

 

Yet, as former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates — who headed the CIA under President George H.W. Bush — revealed in his 1996 book, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War, Haig and Reagan were not only correct; the extent to which the Soviets supported terrorism was even greater than they had thought.

 

In spite of the fact that Reagan ultimately won the Cold War – and the Soviet Union subsequently fell – his policies and extraordinary global achievements were partially discarded by the failures and laziness of the U.S. intelligence community. Starting in 1993, the US cut back excessively its military defenses. The US also failed to help Russia secure the Duma’s ratification of the 1993 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II), signed by Yeltsin and Bush but not ratified by the Senate. And the US allowed China both militarily and non-militarily to run rampant.

 

Almost worse, the intelligence community failed to recognize the rise of Islamic terrorism in Iran and elsewhere, which would culminate in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

 

These failures are not surprising, given the history of American intelligence assessments. In early 1950, for example, President Harry Truman was told by his intelligence chiefs that there would not be a North Korean invasion of South Korea. They reached this conclusion based on the assumption that North Korea could only invade South Korea with the help of the Soviet Union, and there appeared to be no sign of such assistance.

 

In June 1950, however, North Korea invaded South Korea, and an unprepared United States lost over 35,000 soldiers in the Korean War.

 

Whether Trump is able, through a combination of toughness and street-smarts, to succeed where others have failed with North Korea remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the U.S. intelligence community often has a terrible track record where threat assessments are concerned. Alarmingly, it would not be surprising they were wrong again today.

 

Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981, as well as Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He was also for 20 years, the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.

++++++++++++

Thursday, February 7, 2019

 

VALARIE JARRETT, OBAMA and the IRAN DEAL

 

We have been  tracking Valerie Jarrett from the time that  Jarrett  worked for Mayor Richard Joseph Daley’s Housing Authority where she functioned  as his personal bagman for donations from builders, architects, developers, etc. Subsequent to that Jarrett went into public housing development as a private developer.  Her group received generous  government funding. However, their  work was so shoddy that it had to be torn down.

 

We closely followed Jarrett’s  early involvement with Michelle Obama whom she employed in Chicago city government and then later Jarrett  hired  Michelle as a $300,000 a year VP for University of Chicago Hospital.   Jarrett was  the original discoverer  of Barak [sic] Obama  as a potential  political candidate  and  Jarrett raised significant funding for Obama  from the Muslim community.

 

Other participants in Valerie Jarrett’s Muslim brotherhood in group included Rashid Khalidi and Robert Malley.  A glimpse into the thinking of these key individuals was provided by the tape of the farewell banquet for Rashid Khalidi where the participants, including Barack Obama, participated in the  toast: “death to Israel”.  [Although the wording of the toast was clear on the tapes and  Obama is shown actively participating, it is impossible ,without further analysis of the acoustics and other  local factors, to determine whether the microphones  that clearly picked up the text of the toast were actually  tuned and located in a position where the reception was clear, but the acoustics of the room may have muffled the actual text…. and Obama’s claim that he never heard the wording might be, In fact, correct.]

 

During the Obama  presidential years Valerie Jarrett was a key  presidential assistant and Obama advisor at the  White House.  Although Pres. Obama promised the Jewish community that he would not in any way engage Robert Malley in anything to do with the Middle East, Obama later  not only  hired Robert Malley for the National Security Council staff, he actually placed  O’Malley in charge of the entire National Security Council Middle East effort.

Meanwhile,  Rashid Khalidi was a very frequent visitor to the White House  [presidential visitor logs].

 

For six months to a year prior to  the JCPOA  [Iran  deal] negotiations, Jarrett spent full time in Iran in  close discussions with the Iranian clerical leadership relating to not only the nuclear deal but also establishing Iranian leadership in the Middle East.   It was the content of these discussions that served as the directions for the US delegation. This was noted by Amir Hossein Motaghi when he  defected and publicly complained that Secretary of State Kerry and Wendy Sherman were  more enthusiastic  in supporting the maximum Iranian position than was the Iranian delegation.

 

Valerie Jarrett is now a full- time resident in the Obama post-president home [compound] in Washington DC with the announced function of  continuing Obama’s programs and legacies [which hopefully do not include  “death to Israel”].

++++++++++

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

 

ERDO?AN + Rep.  SCHIFF +NY TIMES + WASH POST JOIN TO DEMOLISH CURRENT SAUDI – ISRAEL COUNTER IRAN WORKING RELATIONSHIP 

 

Top intelligence sources revealed the concerted joint efforts by Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, and US leftists [Washington Post, New York Times, representative Adam Schiff, etc. ] to disrupt the current Saudi Arabian – Israeli working relationship to  forestall Iran’s  aggresive [sic] drive  to dominate the Middle East.

 

Question:
Is the murder of Jamal Khashoggi [K] a brilliant plot by Eerdo?an to in one swoop become a more favored US ally than Saudi Arabia, restore fundamentalist government to Saudi Arabia by eliminating Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman [MBS] and at the same time disrupting/destroying the US-Saudi-Israeli confluence which is the major obstacle to Iranian dominance of the Middle East?

 

Some factors for consideration:

 

Turkish tapes. Saudi Arabia was aware of the surveillance of their embassy in Turkey. Was the on the record on camera murder of K  engineered by fundamentalist enemies of  MBS    within the Saudi royal family/government?

 

If the purpose was to kill K, then a 15 man team was far too obvious for the mission. Further, a sniper operating at a distance from the embassy on a day other than K’s  visit would have easily accomplished the mission

 

If the mission was similar to other Saudi mission, to kidnap K, then his death might have been from natural causes, or  accidental, or part of a plot to embarrass  and entrap MBS.

 

Examination of K.s father’s political affiliation and business dealings show that he was deeply involved the most Islamic elements of Islam and the most” conservative” elements of the Saudi royal family/government.

 

Examination of  K’s  previous affiliationss [sic] show that he was deeply involved with the most Islamic elements of Islam and the most “conservative” elements of the Saudi royal family/government

 

Here  is today’s Washington Post’s assault on Saudi Arabia and on MBS

 

Saudi Arabia’s trial for Khashoggi’s murder is a travesty. Congress must insist on justice.

If the United States is to uphold its values by insisting on justice in the Khashoggi case, Congress must take the lead.

 

By Washington Post Editorial Board

++++++

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

 

RUSSIA’S 2016 DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN

 

Russia’s 2016 disinformation campaign targeted both pro-Trump and pro-Hillary supporters.

 

Russia spent just $6,000 in the last six weeks of the 2016 election on ads.

 

Russia spent only $4,600 on Google ads in the 2016 campaign.

 

The Russian influence in the 2016 election was minimal.

 

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

 

IS ADAM SCHIFF THE RUSSIAN MOLE? [Blog Editor: In an admittedly only a cursory search, this LINK is the only source close to Belman’s submitted articles.]

 

First, the Soviet Union and now the Russian government has sought to disrupt the American political process. Currently, they are succeeding beyond their wildest imagination thanks to representative Adam Schiff, a prominent leader of the let’s lynch Trump movement. Now that” Russian collusion” is fading as a possible pretext, Mr. Schiff must dream up some other ways to justify his committee’s fishing in these waters. His new patter also has to shed a semi-credible back glow on his earlier role as chief flogger of now-defunct Russian conspiracy theories.

 

 

Interpreting the Trump Meteor

 

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. Wall Street Journal   12-18-18

 

His survival fight may at least buy time for a few important lessons to sink in.

 

Recall that we started down today’s investigatory whirlpool as a direct result of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats’ seizing on Russia as an excuse for their loss to a president whom many considered a joke. Now poor Adam Schiff, incoming head of the House Intelligence Committee, is trying to catch up with the new Democratic theme: Mr. Trump’s real sin is not Russian collusion after all. It’s his tawdry but well-known business and personal life.

 

Not only must Mr. Schiff dream up some way to justify his committee’s fishing in these waters. His new patter also has to shed a semi-credible backglow on his earlier role as chief flogger of now-defunct Russian conspiracy theories.

 

Sadly, he would have benefited from an aide whispering in his ear when he was making his pitch to a New Yorker writer. “What should concern us most,” he explained to the magazine, “is anything can have a continuing impact on the foreign policy and national-security policy of the United States, and, if the Russians were laundering money for the Trump Organization, that would be totally compromising.”

 

Huh? For the Russians to be laundering money for him, Mr. Trump would need a large source of under-the-table cash from somewhere (his NBC show?). What the confused Mr. Schiff presumably means is that Mr. Trump was laundering money for Russians—i.e., selling them condos. Never mind that the entire Western financial system also participated in this business opportunity. Now it will be one more legal jeopardy in the swirl of investigations around the White House.

 

Still, the media will have to work hard to flap away the odor of selective prosecution. Mr. Trump was already an unusually heavily scrutinized figure. Now he’s attracting the kind of subatomic legal scrutiny reserved only for presidents of the opposite party when the press is inveterately hostile too. Example: the New York Times re-auditing his family’s heavily audited tax returns to find a welter of abuses that somehow escaped the IRS and New York tax department.

 

You can argue whether this is fair or wise, but that’s our system, and a U.S. political party was poorly advised to nominate somebody with Mr. Trump’s baggage in the first place.

 

This column has long maintained that a high-level Russian criminal conspiracy is the one thing investigators won’t find when loosed on Mr. Trump’s colorful business and personal history. I especially have to laugh over the somber and knowing suggestions that the Russians have “dirt” on Mr. Trump. Every third-tier swimsuit model and ex-Playmate from here to Las Vegas probably has dirt on Mr. Trump.

 

Michael Cohen’s reported admission that the Trump Organization was pursuing Russian opportunities well into 2016 campaign is a smoking gun, all right, but not of Russian collusion. Why did Mr. Trump run for president in the first place? To become more famous, to add gaudy luster to his brand. He had no expectation of winning. Of course he used the campaign spotlight to market himself for deals in which others would pay to use his name.

 

Winning was his big mistake, a colossal if propitious miscalculation. Nobody would care about Stormy Daniels if he weren’t president. His decades-long pursuit of a Trump Tower in Moscow would be a non-story. Nobody would be raking him over the emoluments coals for owning a hotel in Washington.

 

Unfortunately, it will also occur to Mr. Trump now that his best move is to cling to the White House at all costs. That’s because under Justice Department guidelines he can expect not to be indicted as long as he remains in office. I wonder if his Torquemadas have taken this into account.

 

The moment is turning weird. Even President Obama stepped forward to tidy up the scene by claiming that the inconvenient Trump boom is really the Obama boom. By all lights, the media should have treated this as laughable. Had a Republican leg of lamb been victorious on election night 2016, markets would have priced upward on the news that the Obama agenda was finished. Investors aren’t clairvoyant but they respond to unexpected information. And seldom in history have circumstances conspired to give so clear a verdict on an outgoing administration.

 

When it’s all over, this will be one lesson worth holding on to. Mr. Trump’s personal fight for survival is likely to dominate our politics for the foreseeable future. And yet if anything justified his election in the first place, it was the wake-up call from 63 million voters to America’s leadership class. Alas, it’s hard to listen to people like James Comey and Mr. Obama himself and not see our political system trying hard to expel Mr. Trump so it can go back to doing exactly what it was doing before he was elected.

______________________

Some Editing (much left untouched) by Blog Editor John R. Houk.

 

Copyright © 2017 [Mr. Belman should update his copyright] Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Records of Investigations into the Awan Brothers, Congressional Democrat IT Scandal


Unless the FBI rank and file begin contacting Congress (Probably the Senate since blind voters gave the House to the Dems) and blowing the whistle on what is apparent FBI leadership corruption and coverups to protect Dems & Obamanites, I will begin to consider the rank and file to be just as corrupt.

 

AND YES, fired/resigned former AG Jeff Sessions is part of this problem for failing in DOJ transparency of which the FBI is supposed to answer. So when hear Dems, many Republicans and definitely the Mainstream Media (including Fox News) tell you Sessions you a raw deal; those people are liars or idiots for being deceived.

 

Judicial Watch smells yet another FBI coverup to protect Dems. In this case Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz in relation to (Pakistani) Awan family members acting as IT specialists working for the Dems: Abid, Imran, Jamal and Hina R. Alvi.

 

JRH 11/9/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

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

Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Records of Investigations into the Awan Brothers, Congressional Democrat IT Scandal

 

JW Press Room

NOVEMBER 08, 2018

Judicial Watch

 

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for all records of communications relating to the investigation into former Democratic information technology (IT) staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan and Hina R. Alvi (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02563)).

 

Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after the House’s top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran is “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems,” and that a server containing evidence had gone “missing.” The inspector general said server logs showed “unauthorized access” and procurement records were falsified.

 

Imran Awan was Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s top information technology aide. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was arrested in July, trying to board a flight for Pakistan.

 

Imran Awan was allowed a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to federal bank fraud but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.”

 

The Judicial Watch lawsuit was filed after the FBI failed to respond adequately to two FOIA requests.

 

The FBI claimed it could neither confirm nor deny records related to the first request, filed on May 26, 2017, seeking:

 

  • All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, and Hina R. Alvi. As part of this request, searches should of records [sic] should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files.

 

  • All records of communication sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the subjects in bullet item 1.

 

The timeframe for the requested records is May 2015 to the present.

 

Further, the FBI claimed that records related to a July 3, 2018, FOIA request were located in an investigative file and exempt from disclosure. That request sought:

 

  • All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina R. Alvi and Rao Abbas. As part of this request, searches of records should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files.

 

  • All records of communications, including but not limited to emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text messages, instant chats or messages on the Lync system, sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the Awan brothers, Ms. Alvi and Mr. Abbas. Records of communications searched should include but not be limited to those between FBI officials, employees and contractors and officials with the Capitol Police, the Office of the Inspector General of the House, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

 

“It’s time for the full truth to come out about the House Democrat IT scandal, especially with impending change of power in the House,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There is hope that the new leadership at the DOJ will bring transparency to this case, as well as many pending FOIA investigations.”

 

On October 11, 2017, Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton participated in a discussion between House members and experts regarding the Wasserman Schultz/Awan Brothers/IT scandal. During this discussion, Fitton stated:

 

“Frankly when it comes to crimes with a political component, I fear the Justice Department is going to fear to tread. And because of the political nature of what went on (with the Awan family) they’re not going to push the House … and I fear that the Justice Department will be fearful of raising these issues with the House for fear of embarrassing the leadership of both parties … and that’s something we need to push the Justice Department on. That they don’t under-charge or under-investigate this for fear of the consequences that will happen if they push further and find something that no one wants to find, which is a national security threat at our breast here in the House.”

 

On June 7, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Our Justice Department must not let Awan & Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the hook. The Democrat I.T. scandal is a key to much of the corruption we see today. They want to make a “plea deal” to hide what is on their Server. Where is Server? Really bad!”

_______________________

© 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

 

Support Judicial Watch