McMaster Out – Bolton In and the Muslim Brotherhood

John R. Houk

© March 23, 2018


The swamp is draining slowly but to date, it is draining with the Dems and Deep State Obamanites/Clintonistas screaming all the way. With that in mind, President Trump’s business globalist-minded business-oriented Secretary of State is out. And Three-Star General H.R. McMaster is out seemingly more for abrasiveness with President and his own National Security staff than ideological differences.


I think a March 4 Wall Street Journal article provides the most cogent explanation of how Lt. Gen. McMaster lost favor in the Trump Administration:



… Gen. McMaster through the year positioned himself as one of Mr. Trump’s most hawkish allies in fractured debates on the president’s top national-security challenges, including North Korea.


But that, in turn, has put Gen. McMaster at odds with other members of the national-security team, especially Secretary of State Rex Tillerson [Gone] and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who have pushed for more measured approaches in policy debates, according to current and former Trump administration officials.



Hobbled in his ability to translate Mr. Trump’s sometimes-unorthodox ideas into concepts acceptable to more cautious members of the national-security team …



“In general, I think H.R. has been slightly more hawkish on most questions than most cabinet members and, in that regard, he’s aligned with the president’s instincts,” said Sen. Tom Cotton …


The issue that has brought the internal divisions to the forefront is North Korea, where Gen. McMaster has been a firm advocate for beefing up the military options, according to administration officials.


Gen. McMaster has raised the idea of taking a “preventive” strike against North Korea’s nuclear-missile program if diplomacy fails. And he has promoted the administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy against Pyongyang.


That has created alarm at the Pentagon and State Department, where officials worry that Gen. McMaster’s efforts could make it more likely that Mr. Trump would decide to strike North Korea.



Gen. McMaster also has alienated prospective allies in the military by directly calling combatant commanders around the world without first telling Mr. Mattis, U.S. officials said. …



Inside the White House, meanwhile, he has struggled to retain support from a volatile president who has lashed out over Gen. McMaster’s successful push to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and to preserve former President Barack Obama’s nuclear-containment deal with Iran.


He has been known to speak over other members of the national-security team in Situation Room meetings when he doesn’t like what he’s hearing and to frustrate the president with lengthy policy dissertations in the Oval Office.


“He doesn’t have any chemistry with the president,” said one former Trump administration official. “He lectures, and you can’t lecture the president.”


Last month, Mr. Trump READ ENTIRETY (Undermined and Beleaguered, H.R. McMaster Soldiers On; By Dion Nissenbaum and Gordon Lubold; WSJ; Updated 3/4/18 6:36 p.m. ET)


If the WSJ perspective is accurate, it seems to me McMaster didn’t disagree with the substance of President Trump, but rather the method. McMaster is being replaced by former UN Ambassador John Bolton as National Security Advisor. Mr. Bolton definitely follows the same substance of the President and Lt. Gen. McMaster. The trick will be if Mr. Bolton and President Trump can work together without arguing. I suspect Bolton will run into the same issues with the National Security Council staff as McMaster did. Time will of a Bolton/Military camaraderie.


Now that John Bolton will become the National Security Advisor, Counterjihad writer Ryan Mauro believes the stage is not complete to move to place the Muslim Brotherhood on the State Department’s Terrorist Watch List. Certain obstacles within the Trump Administration has been preventing the obvious move to occur. The exit of Tillerson being replaced by Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and the fortuitous anti-terrorist Gina Haspel as the first female CIA Director (pending Senate confirmation) were some of the first moves making it possible the Muslim Brotherhood where it belongs – bloody global Caliphate-minded Islamic terrorists.


Haspel detractors despise that she was involved in Black Site waterboard interrogation. Those that call waterboarding torture do not understand what true torture is. Torture that maims, physically and mentally incapacitates or results in death is true torture. Waterboarding does none of those things. It does provide the illusion of drowning which regardless of what detractors tell you, worked effectively in gaining information against Islamic terrorists (See: WATERBOARDING: A TOOL OF POLITICAL GOTCHASmall Wars Journal; The Architect Of Bush’s ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Program Wrote A Book About What Terrorists Told Him And It Is ELECTRIC Daily Caller 11/30/16; Perspectives on Enhanced Interrogation TechniquesCongressional Research Service 1/8/16, The CRS pdf shows facts without right and wrong conclusions).


Sign The Clarion Project’s petition to place the Muslim Brotherhood on the Terrorist Watch List now that the stage is set to make such a move effective.


JRH 3/23/18

Please Support NCCR


American Day of Reckoning for Muslim Brotherhood?



March 22, 2018 

Clarion Project

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (Photo: Reuters)


The Muslim Brotherhood’s sigh of relief after being rescued by Secretary of State Tillerson and National Security Adviser McMaster has been replaced by a sweaty panic.


With Tillerson out and Pompeo in and McMaster’s days numbered, it is now probable that the Muslim Brotherhood will finally be designated by the State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, paving the way for its infrastructure in America to begin being dismantled.


Groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood network like the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamaat ul-Fuqra are likely to see a similar fate. President Trump’s desire to pressure Pakistan and more closely ally with India adds to the likelihood that these Pakistani-led groups will be blacklisted.


The incoming secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, was one of the earliest cosponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act when he was a member of Congress. Now, as secretary of state, he has the authority to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).


The newest version of the legislation is backed by 75 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate version introduced by Senator Ted Cruz has 4 cosponsors.


Now, most of the Trump Administration’s top officials are staunch foes of the Brotherhood, including:


  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was one of the few early cosponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act when he was a Senator.


  • Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who was forced to withdrawa senior appointment he desired who was a strong ally of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. However, he has articulately made the case for identifying the enemy as “political Islam” and described the negative impact of the Obama Administration’s friendly attitude towards the Brotherhood.


  • Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney, who was a cosponsor of the legislation when he was a congressman.


  • Senior adviser and chief speechwriter Stephen Miller


  • National Security Council’s Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications Michael Anton


  • Senior White House Adviser to the Department of Homeland Security Frank Wuco


  • Senior Department of Homeland Security Adviser Katharine Gorka (who is the wife of former Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka)


It is almost universally reported that National Security Adviser McMaster is about to be replaced, despite Trump’s denials (just like his denials before Tillerson was fired).


The leading candidate for his job is former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, another known supporter of FTO designation for the Brotherhood.


Trump’s pick for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, is presumably on the same page because Pompeo recommended her. However, she is expected to have a fight ahead of her to get confirmed by the Senate.


U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley’s position is not known. She previously struck a neutral tone when asked about designating the Brotherhood, stopping short of defending Tillerson and McMaster’s known positions at the time, saying, “That is not something that has been discussed within the administration.”


Outside of the White House, President Trump is back to consulting with his former Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a passionate voice for designating the Brotherhood as an FTO.


Pompeo’s appointment represents a stunning reversal of fortune for the Muslim Brotherhood, which previously succeeded in getting plans for such a designation shelved. One Brotherhood official said the Islamist group had spent $5 million to lobby officials and influence the media. Brotherhood apologists even succeeded in influencing CIA assessments that conveniently leaked to the media.


The Brotherhood also deployed its defenders to Washington, D.C. and Qatar went on a spending binge hiring lobbyists, particularly those with close ties to the Trump campaign and the ability to influence Jewish Americans.


Qatar even managed to seduce a former senior staffer to Senator Ted Cruz—the very man who introduced the Senate version of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act—with a contract for $50,000 per month. Even President Trump reversed course on Qatar.


And now—the Muslim Brotherhood network is screaming.


The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), identified by the Justice Department as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood, is fighting tooth and nail to stop Pompeo from getting confirmed by the Senate. One of the favorite tactics of the Brotherhood, especially CAIR, is deception.


CAIR has predictably labeled Pompeo as an “Islamophobe,” even though he empowered a convert to Sunni Islam at the CIA to fight Al-Qaeda and Iran. Its factsheet uses out-of-context quotes to paint Pompeo as an extremist, while CAIR paints the Brotherhood as “moderate.”


The evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group is overwhelming, including terrorist activity in the U.S. Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist group, is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing. Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 plot had links to the Brotherhood’s network in America.


The terror-funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation proved, in detail, that the Brotherhood’s international leadership runs a Hamas support network on American soil.


The Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood has long been intertwined with Al-Qaeda, just like the Libyan and Syrian branches. The Jordanian branch is essentially a single unit with Hamas. The biggest resistance is in regards to the Egyptian wing, the birthplace of the Brotherhood.


Investigator Patrick Poole’s three-part interview with a former senior Egyptian counterterrorism official connects the dots between the Brotherhood and the terrorists it claims are “rogues” that it should not be held accountable for.


Failing a blanket designation of the Brotherhood, an alternative approach would be to designate several Brotherhood branches where the group’s connection to terrorism is clearer. This approach would meet less political resistance.


The changes within the Trump Administration indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood’s day of reckoning is finally near.






McMaster Out – Bolton In and the Muslim Brotherhood

John R. Houk

© March 23, 2018


American Day of Reckoning for Muslim Brotherhood?


Ryan Mauro is’s Shillman Fellow and national security analyst and an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.


The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.


About Clarion Project


Clarion Project is a non-profit organization that educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam.


Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than 85-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad — to threaten the West.


The web site delivers news, expert analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against extremism.


Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve its goals.


Clarion Project is READ THE REAT



Is Dislike of POTUS an Impeachable Offense?

Clem DeWitt takes on the Leftists desiring to impeach President Trump for the constitutional violation of not liking POTUS. WAIT! There is NO such clause in the U.S. Constitution!


Constitutional Sections Regarding Impeachment


Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5


The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.


Judgement in Cases of Impreachment [sic] shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.


Article 2, Section 4


The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


… There Is MORE Pertaining to the Judiciary (Impeachment Clauses; University of ChicagoThe Founders Constitution; © 1987)


Impeachment Clause Commentary:





DeWitt includes the Leftist mania of smearing Conservatives’ character to brainwash voters to hate.


Enjoy the read.


JRH 3/16/18

Please Support NCCR


Is Dislike of POTUS an Impeachable Offense?


Discovered at PATRIOTS UNITED TO SAVE AMERICA (Facebook Secret Group)

By  Clem DeWitt

3/16/18 10:34am


Most Democrats and their reliable, compliant, obedient Brown Shirts that make up the bulk of the US press, are engaged in a relentless, bloodless coup against President Donald Trump, Constitutionally elected by We The People.

Before taking his Oath of Office, there were cries to Impeach Trump. Of course the Constitution’s ‘Impeachment clause’ only covers Officers of the Constitution, not those in waiting. On the Floor of the People’s House, Rep. Green, D-TX, has led a circus that offers Impeachment articles against Trump, articles that are not just outside the clause, they are particulars based on a dislike of Trump and nothing less, or more. The Framers, intellectually light years ahead of Trump’s detractors, did not include personal dislikes for removal from Office and this Republic is better for that wisdom. If Democrats should prevail by some bastardization of the clause, the Constitution would forever be subject to on-the-spot amendment, rendering it a catch all for someone’s pique, their angst, their politics.

Before the 2016 Election, daily we were treated to an accuser and another that followed the next day and the day after the next with complaints that Trump had engaged in sexual predation of a most unsavory nature. Led by Gloria Allred, a self-disgracing lawyer who listens for ambulance sirens, great theater was made public with Allred and an accuser complete with tears and tissues. After Trump was elected, the tears and tissues evaporated as quickly as did the accusers. (Lisa Bloom, Allred’s daughter, would highlight the sequel with her client offering a complaint against Judge Roy Moore, Republican Candidate from Alabama for the US Senate. Tears and tissues were followed by evaporation. Allred and Bloom make up the DNC’s Criminal Investigation Division when it comes to Snidely Whiplash Republicans)

Enter Stormy Daniels, latest darling of the Impeach Trump crowd. It should be noted that whatever might have taken place between Trump and Daniels took place before Trump became President. But, as steady as any drum beat, the Daniel’s story on most left leaning news organizations is front and center. In print, it is above the fold, in the visual world, it leads off so-called newscasts. To some minds vacant of understanding-knowing the Impeachment clause, Daniels is the Impeachable offense that can take Trump down.

“Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether Daniels had ever been threatened with physical harm, Michael Avenatti (Daniel’s lawyer) succinctly replied, “Yes.” (THE HILL). Of course Avenatti would not entertain follow up questions, instead saying “people will have to tune in to ’60 Minutes’ on March 25,” when CBS is scheduled to air an interview with Daniels.” (Yep, CBS, the network that gave us Rather and Mapes, co-conspirators to bring down President George W. Bush) Will Avenatti reveal the nature of a physical threat made against Daniels and by whom? Or is this a page from the Allred-Bloom playbook of salaciousness fabricated by shadowy, evaporating accusers?

Stay tuned as this Kabuki Theater of The Absurd continues day after day after day and all because most Democrats and most in the US press dislike Trump to the point of seeking to upend the Constitution if necessary to take down Trump.


Title determined by the Editor from the text.

Edited by John R. Houk


© Clem DeWitt

Until My Last Dying Gasp

President Trump has drawn back a bit on his support for the NRA in reaction to the recent Parkland Massacre in which 17 people (students & adults) were killed by an ex-student of the High School Nikolas Cruz. Second Amendment proponents view this as a betrayal. Justin Smith shares his feelings on the issue.


On a personal level I believe something must be done to protect soft targets (like schools, but there are many more soft targets) from terrorism and nut jobs. HOWEVER, gun confiscation or restriction is NOT the solution. I won’t delve into alternative solutions here, but I will state my largest concern about gun control that will affect in law abiding American.


Especially due to Obama weaponizing government agencies – including law enforcement and intel agencies – I have zero trust in government to not force some unwanted way of life down my throat. Gun control will lead to tyrannical totalitarianism. Justin Smith’s thoughts below should warn of future potential government tyranny that begins with gun control.


JRH 3/3/18

Please Support NCCR


Until My Last Dying Gasp


By Justin O. Smith

Sent March 2, 2018 7:18 PM


Let me be as clear as I can be. I don’t give a good damn how many Americans have died in recent shootings, when their lives are placed next to the liberty of millions of Americans, for generations to come. President Trump and Democrat and Republican senior senators, those who beamed at the prospect of exerting greater gun control during their February 28th meeting, seemed to forget that so many more lives have been saved by the right to self-defense, as they attacked the Second Amendment, due process under the law and individual liberty; and regardless of any new illegitimate and unconstitutional “law” they may implement, through coercion or “might makes right” action, they will still be wrong and spitting in the faces of the Founders and the American people.


Today’s criminals are nearly always armed with semi-automatic weapons, so police are not the only ones who need AR-15s. Criminals victimize the public, and if citizens are to stand a fighting chance against criminals, they too need effective weapons.


However, America now finds itself saddled with a Trump administration, which is not so different from a Clinton administration on the Second Amendment after all. Trump endorsed the “assault weapons” ban, background checks for private sales at gun shows and raising the age for purchasing firearms to twenty-one. He also contended Congress was “petrified of the NRA”, as he tore into fellow Republicans as tools of the NRA and handed Democrats a propaganda victory.


As Katie Pavlich, journalist and Fox News contributor, recently noted [Outnumbered Video], despite the AR-15s popularity, data from Homeland Security shows that handguns are the weapon of choice when it comes to mass shootings. She also stated: “And let’s not forget that during the church massacre in Texas … it was an NRA-certified instructor who used an AR-15 to stop the killing … “.


During the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that the right to self-defense pre-existed government, which had already been confirmed by U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1875 and never overturned. The court went further in Heller, and it articulated the right of the individual to use firearms, that are at the same level of sophistication as firearms one’s potential adversary might have, whether that person is a criminal bad guy, psychopath or a soldier of a tyrannical government. And this must negate any attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles, even those deemed “assault weapons”.


The suggestion to raise the age limit is a non sequitur argument, and once again, a punishment of law abiding Americans. Age is not indicative of good sense or good moral character. Timothy McVeigh was in his late twenties when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building and the Las Vegas shooter was sixty-four. Aside from this, guns aren’t the problem any more than age can denote one’s mental stability, or lack thereof.


Forty-eight years ago at the age of thirteen, I would often walk through the main streets of Dixon, Missouri, with my twelve gauge shotgun slung across one arm and on my way to the fields and backwoods trails to shoot wild hogs, and I would happily wave at the police and sheriff’s deputies, as they drove by. No one thought this to be anything unusual.


Mental illness and its role in gun violence was also part of the discussion, and President Trump revealed his despotic side, when he explicitly denounced due process of the law, saying: “… take the firearms first, and then go to court … because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, I like taking the guns early … take the guns first, go through due process second.”


Who deems these people dangerous? the government? family? friends? It takes more than just one assertion, one allegation, and it must receive due process consideration, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, the mere accusation of mental illness might become a subterfuge to disarm thousands of normal people, perhaps political opponents, by any future administration.


Trump’s far left suggestion to grab guns without legal cause was radical, idiotic, fascistic and unconstitutional. Such a comment from any Democrat president would have resulted in armed stand-offs with the police, calls for impeachment and a fury from the American people hotter than a thousand 100 megaton nukes exploding.


Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the only Republican to openly oppose President Trump, as he stated: “Strong leaders don’t automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. We have a Second Amendment and due process of the law for a reason. We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn’t like them.”


At what point are Trump’s supporters going to hold him accountable for his outlandish statements? At what point will they stop excusing him?


God forbid that America should ever descend into real tyranny, however, Trump’s remarks show precisely the reason America must not allow the Second Amendment to be eroded. Modern history is replete with examples of fascist and communist regimes that exterminated a combined total of 160 million of their own people, between 1940 and 1980 [Closest citation I could in cursory search], and, in light of our own early history under the British, it is ever more important for Americans to retain the right to possess modern semi-automatic weapons, to ensure that our government never feels it is more powerful than its citizens.


Foremost among our unalienable rights, the Framers of the Constitution recognized our right to life and to defend life — one’s self, one’s family and one’s property — by ratifying the Second Amendment. They wrote the amendment understanding that it did not grant this right and the right to self-defense was not dependent on that instrument for its existence. It was written to ensure that all future U.S. governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms, as a natural extension of the right to self-defense, in natural law and God’s law, standing alone and independent of the Constitution.


President Trump is a damned dangerous fool, and anyone who seeks to undermine our right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, through Trump’s proposals, isn’t a friend to the American people. Those who seek added “security”, in any manner other than targeting the criminals, who mock our existing gun laws, rape laws, robbery laws and homicide laws, only ensure security will not exist, our liberty will be eroded, and we will cease to be a free people. And for everyone who thinks Trump and his fellow despots are right, you can relinquish your rights like sheep, and I’ll keep and defend my God-given Rights Until MY LAST DYING GASP.


John R. Houk, Editor

All source links or any text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.


© Justin O. Smith


Intro to JWR Article by Victor Davis Hanson

The paradoxes of the Mueller investigation


John R. Houk, Editor

February 22, 2018


I find it very disturbing the U.S. Press (aka Lame Stream Media, Leftist Mainstream Media & so on) is so hot in Trump-hatred that they would rather distribute fake news or inflammatory opinions too often based on lies and/or twisted facts to incite Impeachment Proceedings against President Trump.


There has not been ONE reported connection between President Trump colluding with the Russians in the 2016 election cycle. NOT ONE!


HOWEVER, there has ample Congressional testimony of Dems (Crooked Hillary & Associates as well as Odious Obama & Associates) colluding the Russians over the 2016 election cycle.


As bad, some RINOs conspired with the Clinton Crime Syndicate (aka Clinton Foundation) to make some nefarious bucks by clearing the way for 20% of American uranium to end up into the hands of Russians. AND Mueller as the then FBI Director did nothing to alert the public of the conspiracy, indicating he might somehow be in on the Uranium One crime conspiracy.


Where is the U.S. Press on informing the public about more tangible crimes against the rule of law by these wicked Dems? It is beginning to feel like collusion with these characters: Obama, Obama’s upper echelon staff, Crooked Hillary & staff (both State Department & Campaign), Slick Willy (aka former President Clinton), the usual suspects of Slick Willy’s staff & associates, FBI upstairs staff, Intel Agencies of numerous alphabet acronyms AND various Dems still in Office.


Larry O’Connor interviewing Dr. Sebastian Gorka on WMAL radio about FBI-7th Floor (2/13/18)



JRH 2/22/18

Please Support NCCR


The paradoxes of the Mueller investigation


By Victor Davis Hanson

Feb. 22, 2018

Jewish World Review


Special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian nationals for allegedly conspiring to sow confusion in the 2016 presidential election. The chance of extraditing any of the accused from Vladimir Putin’s Russia is zero.


Some of the Russians’ Keystone Cops efforts to disrupt the election favored Donald Trump (as well as Bernie Sanders). Yet Mueller’s team made it clear that the Russians neither colluded with any U.S. citizens nor had any material effect on the election’s outcome.


But from here on out, there will be ironies, paradoxes and unintended consequences with just about everything Mueller does.


Is it now time to prosecute foreigners for attempting to interfere with a U.S. election? If so, then surely Christopher Steele, the author of the Fusion GPS dossier, is far more culpable and vulnerable than the 13 bumbling Russians.


Steele is not a U.S. citizen. Steele colluded with Russian interests in compiling his lurid dossier about Donald Trump. Steele did not register as a foreign agent. And Steele was paid by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to find dirt on political rival Trump and his campaign.


In other words, Steele’s position is far worse than that of the Russians for at a variety of reasons. One, he is easily extraditable while the Russians are not. Two, his efforts really did affect the race, given that the dossier was systematically leaked to major media and served as a basis for the U.S. government to spy on American citizens. Three, unlike with the Russians, no one disputes that American citizens — Hillary Clinton, members of the Democratic National Committee, and anti-Trump partisan Glenn Simpson and his Fusion GPS team — colluded by paying for Steele’s work.


Mueller’s team has also leveraged a guilty plea from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for making false statements to FBI investigators. If the Flynn case is now the Mueller standard, then we know that a number of high-ranking officials are vulnerable to such legal exposure.


Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr deliberately omitted on federal disclosure forms the fact that his wife, an expert on Russia, worked on the Fusion GPS dossier.


Steele himself probably lied to the FBI went he claimed he had not leaked the dossier’s contents to the media.


Hillary Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills likely lied to FBI investigator Peter Strzok (who had also interviewed Flynn) when they claimed they had no idea that Clinton was using a private and illegal email server until the story went public. In fact, Abedin and Mills had communicated with Clinton over the same server — as did then-President Barack Obama, who likewise denied that he knew about the improper server.


Former FBI Director James Comey likely lied to Congress when he claimed that his exoneration of Clinton came after he had interviewed her. We now know from documents that he drafted a statement about the conclusion of the investigation even before he met with her.


As far as obstruction charges go, Mueller has other possible targets. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch met secretly with Bill Clinton on a jet parked on a tarmac in Phoenix shortly before the Justice Department closed the probe of Hillary Clinton and chose not to pursue charges against her. Comey said Lynch asked him not to use the word “investigation” when discussing the Clinton email probe. Text messages between Strzok and fellow FBI official Lisa Page suggest that Lynch knew in advance about the conclusions Comey would reach in the investigation.


What is going on?


Mueller is under enormous pressure to find collusion between the Trump team and Russia, or to find that the Trump team obstructed justice by trying to hide such collusion. But neither likely happened. Mueller was appointed at a time of national hysteria, brought on by partisan journalism based on a leaked dossier — itself a product of a discredited British agent working with Russian sources while being paid by the Clinton campaign.


Worse still, the effort to hide the origins and the use of that dossier to obtain court permission to spy on American citizens may be a classic case of obstruction of justice.


Mueller’s existential problem has been with him from the start. Due to the shenanigans of his discredited friend Comey and a rabid media, he was appointed to investigate crimes that did not exist. But if they did exist, collusion and obstruction were committed by those associated with the Clinton campaign and even by members of the Obama administration.


Investigating any possible crimes committed by members of the Clinton campaign or the Obama administration apparently is taboo, given the exalted status of both. But every time Mueller seeks to find incidental wrongdoing by those around Trump, he only makes the case stronger that behavior by those involved in the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration should be investigated.


If such matters are not treated in an unbiased manner, we are not a nation of equality under the law, but a banana republic masquerading as a democracy.


© 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.




Support JWR budget needs


Whining Dems & Mueller Investigation

I found some interesting thoughts from MLMcCarren relating Robert Mueller’s so-called Trump-Russia collusion investigation.


MLM goes through the known facts indicating not one indictment has been handed down pertaining Trump-Collusion. The indictments that have been handed down are about potential crimes by individuals BEFORE the November 2016 election and two indictments for gotcha-lying moments possibly attained by illegal FISA Warrants. The lies had nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion (BECAUSE IT DIDN’T HAPPEN), but rather with a couple of guys covering their butts or mis-recollecting (an excuse Crooked Hillary is fond of) events as they took place.


Who knows? Maybe the FISA Memo will become public revealing tons more corruption by FBI and (Obama) DOJ leadership?


I am unsure how much of MLMcCarren’s G+ post is his (I guess it could be “hers”) or how much is quoted material; nevertheless the sentiment should alert every red-blooded American.


JRH 2/1/18

Please Support NCCR


Whining Dems & Mueller Investigation


Jan 30, 10:36 PM

Originally shared by MLMcCarren BLAZE

G+ Community Defenders of the Constitution 2.0 *Nazi Free*


As per usual, the Progressives, in their desperation to find something relevant to disparage Trump over, are now making “Much Ado About Nothing” which stems from the following article ⤵⤵⤵⤵

Trump has “nothing to hide” regarding the Russia investigation
By Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman
Jan. 25, 2018

WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

Of course the article stated
“They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.”
…which may be a felony!?

What is at the epicenter of the Left attempting to make political hay over the allegations of Trump trying to dismiss Mueller, is the fact that Trump had at one time raised the issue about three conflicts of interest that may have disqualified Mueller from overseeing the investigation:

First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership.

The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.


Maybe Donald Trump wanted to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller for conflict, maybe he didn’t, but does he not have a right to raise those questions?


The president dismissed the revelations on Friday, when asked about them by reporters as he arrived at the Congress Center in Davos, Switzerland, for meetings with world political and business leaders.

“Fake news, folks,” Mr. Trump said. “Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story.”

There have been news media reports revealed that several of Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors had donated to Democrats.

But nonetheless, the quickest way to clear the cloud of suspicion is to cooperate with Mr. Mueller, not to fight him. And there is every indication that is exactly what president Trump has been doing. The White House has denied nearly a dozen times since June that Mr. Trump was considering firing Mr. Mueller.

Last month, as Republicans were increasing their attacks on the special counsel, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Times that he believed Mr. Mueller was going to treat him fairly.

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short
said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I’m not aware of the president ever intimating he wanted to fire” special counsel Robert Mueller.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) noted on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Trump cannot directly fire Mueller. He would have to pressure deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein to do so.


She said that at a Senate hearing last year, she questioned Rosenstein “at length on this issue, and he was adamant that he would never give in to any White House pressure to remove” Mueller.

US taxpayers have spent millions and millions of dollars on investigations that have not proven any collusion thus far between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign. Through it all the White House continues to cooperate in every manner providing any document the special counsel has asked for. They have continued to comply fully, which is a far cry from the Obama administration’s conduct!!!

Admittedly Trump is agitated by the unwillingness of the House Intelligence Committee to release a four-page classified memo that reportedly suggests FBI officials may have used politically motivated sourcing to justify a request for a secret surveillance warrant in the Russia probe’s early stages.

I believe the president is more inclined for transparency in this investigation than being given credit for.

Interestingly enough, Tom Brokaw is a voice of reason in all of this:

🔽Tom Brokaw comments on the alleged reports that President Trump considered firing special counsel Robert Mueller last summer.

TOM BROKAW: “They thought that was the right thing to do. That their base would support them and that the president had a legal grounds for doing what he did. In this case, in the climate in which we now live, people move on in a hurry. He didn’t fire him. He didn’t get close to firing him because the White House was pushing back and he knew what the response would be on the Hill. So I think for the country… it’s kind of a non-issue now that he was thinking about firing him six months ago but he did not. I think that they moved on. I honestly think in the next year there are going to be three big factors. One is the economy. If it continues to go roar along the way that it is a lot of people are going to put aside these other concerns that they have and say, “Enjoy the prosperity.” The other one is what does Mueller find? Do we hear from them this year? And then just down from that, of course, is what happens with immigration. I think those are the three big factors that are in play out there for the country. And that’s what they’re paying attention to.”


The Department of Justice announced the appointment of Mueller to oversee the federal investigation into Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election in May 2017.

The appointment came after a growing cry – mostly from Democrats – mounted for someone outside the Justice Department to handle the probe. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had already recused himself from the investigation.

💡Has anyone been charged?

In leading the probe, Mueller took over an ongoing investigation into Paul Manafort’s financial dealings in Ukraine.

💡Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, and Richard Gates were indicted on Oct. 27, 2017 on 12 counts, including: conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money, false statements and multiple counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts


💡Michael Flynn, the administration’s short-lived national security adviser, was charged in December for lying to the FBI about certain conversations he had with a Russian ambassador. He pleaded guilty.

💡Additionally, George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in 2017 to one count of making false statements to investigating FBI agents, according to court documents.

(read more here)

💡In August 2017, Mueller’s investigation reportedly expanded to include several lobbying firms, including the Podesta Group.

👉The Podesta Group was a lobbying and public affairs firm based in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1988 by brothers John Podesta and Tony Podesta.

Podesta Group represents American corporations as well as nonprofits and governments, and has “close ties to the Democratic Party.


…and the Obama administration.

John David Podesta Jr. (born January 8, 1949) is an American political consultant who served as White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton from October 20, 1998 until January 20, 2001 and as Counselor to President Barack Obama from January 1, 2014 until February 13, 2015. Before that he served as the White House Staff Secretary and White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations for the Clinton Administration between January 20, 1993 until October 20, 1998.

John Podesta was chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.,_2016

So we see implications tying associates of Hillary Clinton into the investigation, just like we did with Uranium One

At long last, the Senate Judiciary Committee is probing this. The GOP Congress finally may hold a hearing on Uranium One. According to Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), “very serious questions remain about the basis for the finding that this transaction did not threaten to impair US national security.”

Bribes, kickbacks, gag orders, blackmail, Russians, uranium. What more do the broadcast networks need before they find this mushrooming story worthy of some air time?

💡What is the controversy with Mueller’s staff?

The Trump administration heavily criticized Mueller’s investigation as several of his attorneys on staff donated to Democratic campaigns, including to Trump’s 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton.

Additionally, two FBI officials – Peter Strzok and Lisa Page – are under fire for the anti-Trump text messages they exchanged during the election. Strzok was part of Mueller’s team but was removed from the probe after the text messages were revealed.


💡What has Trump said about Mueller’s investigation?

Trump has oftentimes dismissed the allegations that he colluded with Russia during his presidential election. He said he is “looking forward” to being questioned eventually under oath by Mueller.

He’s said the allegations are a “fake story that is demeaning to all of us and most of all demeaning to our country and demeaning to our Constitution.”

This has turned into a last ditch effort by the Left to undermine the will of the American people who voted to put Trump in charge of our country!

The fact that the alleged desire of President Trump to dismiss Mueller occurred six months ago.

Surely if there were any evidence pointing to misconduct on the part of president Trump, there is every reason to expect it would have been uncovered by now.

It’s time to end this circus sideshow, & for the Democrats to put on their big boy pants, stop their incessant whining, and accept the fact that Trump is president and likely will be through 2024!!!



Edited by John R. Houk. II used a bit of the old spellcheck tool.


Trump Hot-Miked After SOTU on FISA Memo

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Posted January 31, 2018


After the State of the Union speech last President Trump was caught on mike telling South Carolina GOP Rep. Duncan that he is 100% behind releasing the FISA Memo to the American people. Whether that Presidential answer was the desire of the President’s heart or an actual made decision, only time will tell.


VIDEO: Trump caught on hot Mic guaranteeing GOP rep he’ll release Nunes memo ‘100 percent’


Posted by Real News Network

Published on Jan 30, 2018


President Trump caught on hot Mic on Tuesday after state of the union speech, He guaranteed Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) he’ll release a controversial memo by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA).


Below is a Fox News report on the hot mike and that is a computer-generated voice from Youtube channel Today News including the description.


JRH 1/31/18

Please Support NCCR


Trump overheard saying he is ‘100 percent’ behind releasing surveillance memo


By Lukas Mikelionis

January 31, 2018 [circa midnight]

Fox News


FOX VIDEO: Trump assures Rep. Duncan that the GOP Memo will be release[d]

Rep. Jeff Duncan urges President Trump to ‘release the memo’ as he exits the House chamber following the State of the Union address.
President Donald Trump was overheard telling a GOP lawmaker Tuesday night that he’s “100 percent” behind releasing a classified Republican intelligence memo detailing alleged surveillance abuses.


“Don’t worry,” the president reportedly told U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., on the House floor after delivering his first State of the Union address. “One hundred percent.”


Duncan asked Trump to “release the memo,” a controversial document drafted by U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.


The House panel voted Monday along party lines to release the memo, prompting a political fight between Republicans and Democrats and pitting Congress against the FBI and the Department of Justice, which object to the release of the four-page document.


Republicans said the memo reveals alleged abuses of government surveillance powers in the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Democrats said the document is selectively edited in an attempt to thwart the investigation.


House Speaker Paul Ryan came out Tuesday in support of releasing the memo, but warned against using it to attack special counsel Robert Mueller. “This is a completely separate matter from Bob Mueller’s investigation and his investigation should be allowed to take its course,” he said.


FOX VIDEO: Trump reportedly wants FISA memo out now that SOTU is over
Ryan added that the memo shows “there may have been malfeasance at the FBI by certain individuals” and raise questions “about whether an American’s civil liberties were violated by the FISA process,” referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was extended for an additional six years earlier this month.


The Justice Department called the Republican staff memo’s release “unprecedented” and “reckless.” Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd wrote in a Jan. 24 letter that “Though we are currently unaware of any wrongdoing relating to the FISA process, we agree that any abuse of that system cannot be tolerated.”


Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray reportedly advised White House Chief of Staff John Kelly against releasing the memo, saying such action would set a dangerous precedent and would not accurately characterize the FBI’s investigative practices, the Washington Post reported.


But two senior FBI officials – one from the bureau’s counterintelligence division and the other from the legal division – who reviewed the memo said they “could not point to any factual inaccuracies,” Fox News reported Tuesday.


The White House has five days to review the content of the memo and decide whether to release the memo. It said Tuesday that it would conduct a legal and national security review before making the decision.


The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.



VIDEO: After SOTU, Trump Says 5 Words To Congressman That Has Democrats FREAKED OUT


Posted by TODAY NEWS

Published on Jan 31, 2018


After President Donald Trump gave his brilliant State of the Union address, he was stopped and asked a question about the FISA memo. His five-word answer has Democrats freaked out, and for good reason.


The House Intelligence Committee voted on Monday, January 29, 2018, to release the FISA memo which many have said will shake the political world to the core. The damning memo has already claimed one deep state operative, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Now, all eyes are on President Trump to see what he will do next with the FISA memo, and the video clip of his departure from the State of the Union address reveals exactly what that is.


According to The Gateway Pundit, President Trump was stopped by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on his way out of the House of Representatives building. The first thing on Duncan’s mind was the FISA memo and making sure the President knew that he and others want it released as soon as possible.


In the clip, Duncan can be heard asking Trump if he would release the FISA memo. Trump’s five-word answer is enough for the Democrats to start panicking. “Oh yeah, don’t worry, 100%,” Trump responded. Reportedly, Trump has five days from Monday to decide to release the memo after review. According to comments made by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) during an interview on Fox & Friends, Trump is not likely to take all five days.


CLIP: As President Trump exits the House Chamber, @RepJeffDuncan asks him to #ReleaseTheMemo. #SOTU #SOTU2018


— CSPAN (@cspan) January 31, 2018


In addition to Gowdy’s comments, White House Legislative Director Marc Short spoke with veteran journalist Stuart Varney Tuesday, discussing the most recent developments on the secret FISA memo. “Stuart, I think the president sides on the side of transparency so I think if there were abuses he wants the American people to know it,” he explained.


“But let me be clear that the president can do this in a responsible fashion. We only received the document last night. White House counsel began to review it last night. The National Security Council will be leading the inter-agency process here to make sure no secrets were divulged and no methods were divulged. And, so, it will be done in a very responsible manner,” added Short.


I don’t think President Donald Trump wants to waste any time getting the FISA memo out. Many Republicans have already viewed the memo and urged the President to release it to the public. It’s understandable that, after a year of waiting, American patriots are a little anxious to see heads start to roll within our corrupt government agencies and departments.


For those who thought that President Trump might read the FISA memo during the SOTU, that’s not quite his style. Trump’s first SOTU was unifying and brilliant. The contents of the FISA memo would have had quite the opposite effect and worked against the message that Trump wanted to deliver. In addition, I think President Trump wanted to give officials from the FBI time to review the material before going public with it.


According to Fox News, two high-level officials at the FBI have reviewed the FISA memo and even they could not point out any factual inaccuracies. One of the FBI officials is from the bureau’s counterintelligence division, and the other one is from the legal division. They reportedly looked at the FISA memo after FBI Director Christopher Wray viewed it on Sunday, January 28, 2018.


Now that a total of three officials from the FBI have viewed the FISA abuse memo, the bureau has been strangely quiet about it and has yet to even release a statement on the departure of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. In my opinion, McCabe was just a good start, but many others within the FBI’s top ranks need to be dismissed and then prosecuted for their crimes.


◆ Latest news videos:


◆ Twitter:

◆ Google+:

◆ Email:


Trump overheard saying he is ‘100 percent’ behind releasing surveillance memo


This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed [Blog Editor: Sorry about that Fox, too good a report to pass up.]. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.


After SOTU, Trump Says 5 Words To Congressman That Has Democrats FREAKED OUT


About Today News


TODAY NEWS CHANNEL dedicated to sharing the latest news around the world.


With the above criteria, if there is any breach of the principles of Community, law on copyright then please comment on the video or send my message, and then i will delete that video.


With sharing, we always respect the source should each video, written source of it. Over here, we have contributed to support the electronic page get backlink.




Intro to The Main Story Is Not What They Did To Stop Trump, It’s Why

John R, Houk, Editor

Posted January 26, 2018


Tim Brown at Freedom Outpost discusses the reaction of Sharyl Attkisson to the Dems and the Dem-supporting allies in the FBI and DOJ stonewalling on the Republican members of the House Intel Committee desire to release the FISA Memo put together by the Chairman Rep. Gerald Nunes which exposes criminal conspiracy in those departments.


Brown’s analytical thoughts on Attkisson are spot-on. I should say Attkisson is spot-on. She insightfully claims Conservatives are asking the wrong question pertaining to the release of the FISA Memo. Here’s quote from an Attkisson Tweet:


The main story isn’t about what they allegedly did to try to stop Trump. It’s *why.* It’s about what they feared Trump & Co. would expose.”


Before I get to the Brown post, I think it will help the reader to know a little about Sharyl Attkisson. She worked at CBS for over two decades until ran afoul with the network over her investigative reporting on (treasonous) President Barack Hussein Obama over Benghazigate. No matter what the MSM may paint her to be in her present incarnation as a reporter she has an awesome journalistic pedigree indicating she is no slouch investigator. First a little bio info from Wikipedia:


Sharyl Attkisson (born January 26, 1961[4]) is an American author and host of the weekly Sunday public affairs program Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, which airs on television stations operated by the Sinclair Broadcast Group.[5] She was formerly an investigative correspondent in the Washington bureau for CBS News. She had also substituted as anchor for the CBS Evening News. She resigned from CBS News on March 10, 2014, after 21 years with the network. Her book Stonewalled reached number 3 on The New York Times e-book non-fiction best seller list in November 2014[6] and number 5 on The New York Times combined print and e-book non-fiction best-seller list the same week.[7]



… Her step-father is an orthopedic surgeon, and her brother is an emergency room physician. Attkisson graduated from the University of Florida with a degree in broadcast journalism in 1982.[9]




Attkisson began her broadcast journalism career in 1982, aged 22, as a reporter at WUFT-TV, the PBS station in Gainesville, Florida. She later worked as an anchor and reporter at WTVX-TV Fort Pierce/West Palm Beach, Florida from 1982–1985, WBNS-TV, the CBS affiliate in Columbus, Ohio from 1985–86, and WTVT Tampa, Florida (1986–1990).[10]




From 1990–1993, Attkisson was an anchor for CNN, and also served as a key anchor for CBS space exploration coverage in 1993.[11] Attkisson left CNN in 1993,[12] moving to CBS, where she anchored the television news broadcast CBS News Up to the Minute and became an investigative correspondent based in Washington, D.C.[10]


She served on the University of Florida‘s Journalism College Advisory Board (1993–1997) and was its chair in 1996.[10] The University gave her an Outstanding Achievement Award in 1997. From 1997 to 2003, Attkisson simultaneously hosted CBS News Up to the Minute and the PBS health-news magazine HealthWeek.[13]




Attkisson received an Investigative Reporters and Editors (I.R.E.) Finalist award for Dangerous Drugs in 2000.[14] In 2001, Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award nomination for Firestone Tire Fiasco from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.[15]


In 2002, she co-authored a READ THE REST (Sharyl Attkisson; Wikipedia; page was last edited 12/31/17 12:46)


Well, that’s Attkisson’s pedigree. Now read a bit of the details that has probably made her anathema among the typical Leftist MSM outlets:


Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist who became the story when she quit CBS News after two decades amid allegations that the network refused to run some of her stories that were critical of President Barack Obama. Ahead of the Tuesday release of her book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, she spoke to The Hollywood Reporter about her struggles with CBS executives and her assertion that her computers were hacked, possibly by Obama operatives.



Who did you tell at CBS that your computers were hacked?

The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.

Did he believe you?

He appeared to.


Did CBS care? Did they do anything about it?

God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.


Did they ever find out who hacked your computers and spied on you?

I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.

Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?


Not to my knowledge. Executives discussed with me that they assumed that was the case. And we discussed how to proceed with that information and what we could do about it.

So what did you do about it?

It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.

Did they conclude anything yet?

Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.



Do you believe that people working for the president of the United States hacked your computer and spied on you?

The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.



Did your colleagues give you grief about your negative stories on Obama?

Not my reporter colleagues.

But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?

Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.


Who were the ones discouraging it?

Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.



It sounds like you’ve been telling me that journalists at CBS who don’t toe a certain line have something to fear there. Is that the case at other networks, too?

I’m not sure we have anything to fear. It’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don’t think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don’t fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray. … READ ENTIRETY (Former CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Claims Existence of Obama Enemies’ List; By Paul Bond;; 11/3/2014 11:00 PM PST)


See also Reporter Sharyl Attkisson says feds hacked computer, CBS protected ObamaWashington Times 10/28/14


So, knowing that Sharyl Attkisson is NOT full of baloney, pay attention to what she says about the WHY through the eyes of Tim Brown

JRH 1/26/18

Please Support NCCR


Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson: “The Main Story Is Not What They Did To Stop Trump, It’s Why”



JANUARY 25, 2018

Freedom Outpost


In commenting on the current brouhaha about the FISA memo and the violations of law by the NSA and the Obama administration, as well as the collusion of the FBI and DOJ to take down Donald Trump before he could be elected president, investigative reporter and author of The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote Sharyl Attkisson said that the main story is not about what they did to Trump to stop him, but why they did it.


In a tweet on Wednesday, Attkisson wrote, “My take for what little it’s worth: The main story isn’t about what they allegedly did to try to stop Trump. It’s *why.* It’s about what they feared Trump & Co. would expose. I think that will turn out to be the bigger can of worms.”




She was then asked, “Is the [Robert] Mueller Investigations real purpose is to cover up the FBI/DOJ mistakes, attempting to bring down a sitting President?”


Attkisson replied, “I believe the better question is *why* some bad actors in intel community were so panicked at the thought of Trump being president, bringing in people who would examine what they’ve been doing the past 15+ years.”




She then added, “(Including the time when Mueller was FBI Director). Disclaimer note: Mueller is not accused of any wrongdoing.”




Well, not so fast.  He stands accused of a lot of wrongdoing, whether anyone has actually brought an indictment against him is something else.


Recently acquired court documents indicate he was involved in a coverup of a Florida families ties to the 9-11 hijackers.  Prior to that, we know that he was the one that began the purge of references “offensive” to Islamic supremacists in the FBI’s anti-terrorism training material.


Furthermore, we know from a leaked cable from Wikileaks that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was to have Mueller conduct a Uranium transfer with the Russians in 2009 at a “secret tarmac meeting,” which occurred on September 21, 2009.


Attkisson went on to tweet, “It’s fair to say there’s panic among some bad actors within our intel agencies who are now pulling out all the stops to try to spin Congress & the media & keep from getting inside. That kind of panic can lead to mistakes being made.”


“Interesting to see “open govt.” groups & advocates pressing to keep “the memo” secret. This may be unprecedented.” she added.




She did follow up her tweets with an op-ed at The Hill in which she asked:


What happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing — also control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they’re the ones in charge of who inside their agencies — or connected to them — ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?


She then followed up with two very important issues to keep in mind during the investigation.


Those questions are moving to the forefront as the facts play out in the investigations into our intelligence agencies’ surveillance activities.


There are two overarching issues.


First, there’s the alleged improper use of politically-funded opposition research to justify secret warrants to spy on U.S. citizens for political purposes.


Second, if corruption is ultimately identified at high levels in our intel agencies, it would necessitate a re-examination of every case and issue the officials touched over the past decade — or two — under administrations of both parties.


This is why I think the concerns transcend typical party politics.


It touches everybody. It’s potentially monumental.


Of course, she pointed out that not only are there people in the Justice Department, as well as Congress, trying to stop the FISA memo from being presented to the public, but even media outlets and reporters are attempting to keep it secret.


She wrote, “Meantime, the Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence Committee not to release its memo. It’s like the possible defendant in a criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury.”


“This is the first time I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the argument to keep the information secret,” she added.  “They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against Americans. ‘Don’t be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods,’ they plead.”


She then followed up with what everyone should agree on simply because we don’t have two Constitutions, but one.


“As for me? I don’t care what political stripes the alleged offenders wear or whose side they’re on,” she wrote.  “If their sources and methods are inappropriate, they should be fully exposed and stopped.”


Indeed, and they should be prosecuted.  The why is important, but the simple violations of the law are enough that indictments and arrests should be taking place.


Intro to The Main Story Is Not What They Did To Stop Trump, It’s Why

John R, Houk, Editor

Posted January 26, 2018


Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson: “The Main Story Is Not What They Did To Stop Trump, It’s Why”


Tim Brown is an author and Editor at,, and He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.


Copyright © 2018