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


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 6/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

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

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

 

Daily Briefing – Obama & Clapper

 

By Willis L. Krumholz

JUNE 6, 2018

The Federalist

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  1. CIA And FBI ‘Human Intelligence’

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  1. The Trump Tower Meeting

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  1. Mike Flynn And The Logan Act

 

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

 

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

 

  1. Andrew McCabe Sets Up Reince Priebus

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  1. Brennan Shops Dossier To Harry Reid

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  1. The Jeff Sessions Recusal

 

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

 

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

 

  1. Rosenstein Recommends Comey Firing, Appoints Special Counsel

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

____________________

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

 

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

 

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


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

 

JRH 5/28/18

Please Support NCCR

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

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

 

By Mark Steyn

May 28,2018

Jerusalem World Review

 

Facts – Myths

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yeah? So what? Whatcha gonna do about it?

 

Good question.

________________________

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

 

© 2018 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc.

 

© 1997- 2018 Jewish World Review 

 

About JWR

 

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

 

Our inaugural editorial is also our mission statement.

 

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

 

READ THE REST

 

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.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html?referer=https://
🔼🔼🔼

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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.a2fb8f467c8a


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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/business/jared-kushner-trump-russia-election-investigation.html

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.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/business/davos-world-economic-forum-trump.html

There have been news media reports revealed that several of Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors had donated to Democrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel.html

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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-excerpts.html

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.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/28/tom_brokaw_non-issue_that_trump_considered_firing_mueller_he_didnt_fire_him.html

💡LET’S LOOK AT SOME HISTORY AND FACTS TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT

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.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/17/former-fbi-head-robert-mueller-named-to-oversee-russia-election-probe.html

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.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/24/how-paul-manafort-is-connected-to-trump-russia-investigation.html

💡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
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/02/rick-gates-charged-in-muellers-russia-probe-who-is.html

⭐ALL OF WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP OR HIS CAMPAIGN!

💡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.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/01/michael-flynn-charged-in-russia-investigation-guilty-plea-expected.html

💡Additionally, George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in 2017 to one count of making false statements to investigating FBI agents, according to court documents.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.justice.gov_file_1007346_download&d=DwMFaQ&c=cnx1hdOQtepEQkpermZGwQ&r=lEhLS_GPhWUCcVMYQxBvj1BGHOaVYRSWTZAJW1jDYO0&m=nCDsYlToY0aV-1hbqo1X0D02k19au0_ncNvLaKlOwjU&s=478BwDpzJyTcHlWxQZIppNkyHBwNR_qRxMFquiO_-IA&e=

(read more here)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/24/mueller-probe-meet-lawyers-who-gave-to-hillary-now-investigating-team-trump.html

💡In August 2017, Mueller’s investigation reportedly expanded to include several lobbying firms, including the Podesta Group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)

👉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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

 

…and the Obama administration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama

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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_Group

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?

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/452941/russian-clinton-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

💡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!!!

MLMcCarren

______________

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

 

Dems Celebrate NOT Realizing the Mud on Their Faces


John R. Houk

© December 3, 2017

 

If you pay attention to Mainstream Media (MSM) on television or print (Internet or otherwise), you are probably a foolish fellow for believing the anti-Trump jubilation that Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

 

REMEMBER, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller mandate is to investigate if Donald Trump and campaign colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election to Trump’s favor.

 

Has ANY of Mueller’s prosecutorial indictments thus far had anything to do with the Trump campaign directly colluding with Russia on the election? NOPE!

 

Indicted so far:

 

  1. Paul Manafort

 

Manafort is accused of concealing from the United States his work as an agent of the Ukraine, and hiding tens of millions of dollars he received. He allegedly hid the payments and laundered more than $18 million through different U.S. and foreign corporations, partnerships and banks, and failed to report these accounts to his tax preparers. He also allegedly used the money from these off-shore accounts to pay for his personal expenses, including real estate, luxury goods and services for himself and his family. (A Full List of All the Charges Filed in Mueller’s Russia Probe; By EILEEN RESLEN; Esquire; 12/1/17)

 

Time frame of accused Manafort crimes:

 

According to the indictment, reviewed by Fox News, between at least 2006 and 2015, Manafort and Gates acted as unregistered agents of the Government of Ukraine, the Party of Regions, a Ukrainian political party whose leader Victor Yanukovych was president from 2010 to 2014, and the Opposition Bloc. (Paul Manafort, Rick Gates indicted by federal grand jury in Russia probe; By Brooke Singman; Fox News; 10/30/17)

 

  1. Richard “Rick” Gates

 

Since Gates was charged with many of the same counts as Manafort, several of the allegations are the same. The indictment states that Gates conspired with Manafort in a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign in the U.S. in favor of the Ukraine government. He also allegedly created a false cover story and did not report foreign bank accounts. Gates was also accused of using this money to fund personal expenses, including real estate properties. (A Full List of All the Charges Filed in Mueller’s Russia Probe; By EILEEN RESLEN; Esquire; 12/1/17)

 

Time frame of accused Gates crimes:

 

Similar to Manafort: 2006 – 2015 & 2010 – 2014

 

  1. George Papadopoulos

 

… the special counsel announced the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos — which apparently happened on or about October 5 — to a single count of making false statements to government investigators. … Papadopoulos was a low-level Trump-campaign adviser. He had contacts with Russians who claimed to have close connections to the Putin regime.

As outlined in a 14-page “Statement of the Offense,” Papadopoulos’s principal offense was to lie to the FBI about when these contacts occurred. He told the FBI they happened before he joined the campaign; in fact, they happened not only after he was aboard but only because he was aboard. Upon close examination, the story unfolded in the offense statement is actually exculpatory of Trump and his campaign.

 

Papadopoulos is a climber who was clearly trying to push his way into Trump World. …

 

 

While living in London in early March 2016, he spoke with an unidentified Trump-campaign official and learned he would be designated a foreign-policy adviser to the campaign. These arrangements are very loose. Papadopoulos was a fringe figure, not plugged into Trump’s inner circle.

In London, Papadopoulos met an unidentified Russian academic (referred to as “the Professor”), who claimed to have significant ties to Putin-regime officials and who took an interest in Papadopoulos only because he boasted of having Trump-campaign connections. There appears to be no small amount of puffery on all sides: Papadopoulos suggesting to the Russians that he could make a Trump meeting with Putin happen, and suggesting to the campaign that he could make a Putin meeting with Trump happen; the Professor putting Papadopoulos in touch with a woman who Papadopoulos was led to believe was Putin’s niece (she apparently is not) …

 

In the most important meeting, in London on April 26, 2016, the Professor told Papadopoulos that he (the Prof) had just learned that top Russian-government officials had obtained “dirt” on then-putative Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The dirt is said to include “thousands of emails” — “emails of Clinton.” The suggestion, of course, was that the Russians were keen to give this information to the Trump campaign.

 

Notice that Mueller did not make Papadopoulos plead guilty to collusion with Russia. For a prosecutor, there is nothing better than getting a cooperating accomplice to admit guilt to the scheme the prosecutor is investigating. It goes a long way toward proving that the scheme existed. Once you’ve got that, it’s much easier to prove that the cooperator’s confederates are guilty, too. But even though there’s a great deal of evidence that Papadopoulos colluded with Russia, there’s no charge along those lines. There’s just a single false-statement charge on which, according to the plea agreement, he’s probably looking at no jail time, and certainly no more than six months. Why no collusion charge? Because collusion is not a crime.

 

First, it underscores that, whatever “collusion” might have happened, at this point there is no criminal-conspiracy case. …

 

Second, the offense statement supporting the plea also helps Trump politically. There is an interesting footnote on page 8. Here’s the context: On May 21, 2016, Papadopoulos emailed an unidentified top Trump-campaign official, explaining with urgency that Russian officials (presumably including Putin, at least in Papadopoulos’s mind) wanted to meet Trump and “have been reaching out to me to discuss.” Mueller then drops this footnote:

 

The government notes that the official forwarded defendant PAPADOPOULOS’s email to another Campaign official (without including defendant PAPADOPOULOS) and stated: “Let[’]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.

 

… Trump has no intention of meeting with Russians, and if there are going to be meetings at all, it must be at a low level so the Russians do not construe Trump to be making any commitments or accommodations. (The Papadopoulos Case; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 10/30/17 8:03 PM)

 

I spent more time laying out Papadopoulos’ guilty plea because the time frame indicates his idiocy was actually during the 2016 campaign. Yet as Andrew McCarthy indicates, Papadopoulos was such a low hanging fruit that the Trump campaign staff REBUFFED his self-initiated Russian contact. Hence, no Trump crime here. As we hear the Dems say about real crimes, Trump can truly say, “Move along – nothing to see here”.

 

And now the Mike Flynn guilty plea that has the Dems and MSM all a twitter with glee that President Trump is about to be deposed. But first, let’s begin with this ABC News moron getting caught spreading Fake News against President Trump – Brian Ross:

 

Brian Ross

 

ABC’s Brian Ross suspended over erroneous Flynn report

 

By Axios News Desk

12/2/17

Axios

 

ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross was suspended for four weeks without pay tonight over his incorrect report that Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that Donald Trump told him to contact the Russians during his presidential campaign.

 

Why it matters: It was a huge error that moved markets and damaged the network’s credibility. The report was also passed along by Axios and other news outlets. In a statement, ABC News apologized and said the report “had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.”

 

The network later corrected the report to say that Trump gave him that instruction as president-elect — which is a big difference, since there’s nothing unusual about newly elected presidents contacting foreign governments.

 

The full text of ABC’s statement:

 

“We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process. As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online.

“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience –- these are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday. Effective immediately, Brian Ross will be suspended for four weeks without pay.”

 

So, take that idiot Left! Still no proven Trump collusion with Russia in the election!

 

  1. Mike Flynn:

 

As previously reported General Michael Flynn will plead guilty to lying to the FBI deep state operatives in the ongoing Trump witch hunt today.

 

Once again — this verdict has NOTHING TO DO with Trump-Russia collusion.


It’s just a way for the Democrat media and Deep State to erase an election and eliminate Donald Trump.

 

Flynn’s conversations to the Russian ambassador were not a crime.

Not disclosing this information to the corrupt FBI was his crime.

 

On Friday ABC News reported that General Michael Flynn will testify against President Donald Trump in the Russian collusion scandal.

 

President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton blasted Mueller and the Deep State operatives targeting Trump’s camp simply for the crime of Donald Trump winning the Presidential election.

 

“Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, and James Comey improperly targeted General Flynn. And Mueller got him. Deep State victory. @RealDonaldTrump should consider a pardon. The Mueller special counsel continues to be unconstitutional and out of control. Shut it down,” Fitton tweeted. (Tom Fitton Unleashes on Mueller and Deep State For Targeting General Flynn “SHUT IT DOWN”; By Cristina Laila; The Gateway Pundit; 12/2/17)

 

It is apparent that retired 3-Star General and fire National Security Advisor Mike Flynn has the character flaw of lying to protect himself even when no self-preservation is needed. President Trump the flaw latter than sooner and fired him. Lying to the FBI is what Flynn pled guilty to not for some conspiracy with the Russians to meddle in the elections.

 

In saying all that, it is Mueller, Comey, Lynch, Crooked Hillary, probably Obama and a host of other Dem/Leftist playing a Deep State role that should be investigated for real crimes that the Dem Alliance tries to pooh-pooh away when actual links to illegalities can be seen by any honest person not corrupted by Fake News propaganda.

 

There are a few Conservative Commentators that point the ZERO Trump/Russian link that the Left pushes as actual. One is Andrew McCarthy at the National Review writing, “There’s less to the news than meets the eye”. There is also Rowan Scarborough writing for the Washington Times, “Source close to president’s legal advisers say Flynn has nothing to incriminate Trump”. McCarthy and Scarborough are quite erudite journalists with good opinions. But a post at The Last Refuge (aka TheConservativeTreeHouse.com) spells out Mueller going after Flynn in layman terms that all Americans can understand.

 

JRH 12/3/17

Please Support NCCR

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

President Trump: “It’s a shame” Michael Flynn Lied “There Was Nothing To Hide”

 

By sundance

December 2, 2017

The Last Refuge

 

President Trump sends antagonistic media into spastic fits, and pearl-clutching circle-running, with a single tweet about Michael Flynn.  Epic:

 

Trump Tweet Screen Capture

 

Praetorian professional punditry immediately jump into their “he can’t” routine, filled with protestations about poor judgement and the risk of commenting on an on-going investigation, and such… blah, blah, blah…  However, what seemingly never crosses their mind is that: A) Everything asserted is 100% factual; and B) When there’s nothing to hide, there’s no risk.  D’oh, dummies.

 

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the President-Elect’s Transition Team talking to any foreign government, or any official within any foreign government. Ever. Period.  Actually, that’s exactly what transition teams are supposed to do; they reach out and receive information from foreign government officials as the starting point to communication with a new administration.

 

Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn have lied about talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the first place?

 

It’s a great question.

 

The Occam’s Razor answer is the toxic political environment that existed in January 2017, where the administration was being hammered by a tsunami of media narratives and political opposition claiming that any scintilla of contact with anything Russian meant that Putin and Trump were “colluding” BFFs,…. and Flynn didn’t want to fuel that nonsense.

 

That’s really the only reason to mislead about Russian contacts.

And/or once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised; so Flynn had to stick to it without clarification.

 

Reminder:

 

  • Sunday January 15th– VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]

 

JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing. Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

 

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

 

[*NOTE* Notice the narrative questioning at the time (early Jan) was framed that ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians.]

 

  • Friday January 20th– Inauguration

 

  • Tuesday January 24th– Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI.  [Either Flynn contradicts Pence, or he tells a lie, those were his options.]

 

  • Wednesday January 25th–  The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

 

  • Thursday January 26th– (morning) Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

 

  • Thursday January 26th– (afternoon) Sally Yatestraveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter.  This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

 

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.

 

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.  When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

 

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.”  According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

 

  • Friday January 27th– (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

 

  • Friday January 27th– (late afternoonAccording to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon.  One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

 

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

 

McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.

 

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

 

  • Friday January 27th– (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.

 

Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports identical to those discussed;  wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative?  And/Or be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something it is not?

 

Think about it.

 

Trump Thinking About It

 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has charged Flynn (full pdf below) with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions.

 

According to the plea, while being questioned by FBI agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

 

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

 

There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. However, lying to the FBI is the process crime that has led to Flynn’s admissions herein:

 

 

 

As we have shared from the beginning – this is all about DC politics, not judicial crimes in the same vein as everyone else would be charged.

 

You cannot view the current action through the transactional prism of modern judicial proceedings as they relate to you and me. These are political struggles taking place inside the venue of the legal system. The players use the legal system to game out the optics and narrative of political battles for ideological wins and losses.

 

In essence, this is about leverage for political use.

 

Nothing about the current dynamic is factually encompassing President Trump; it is all about optics, narratives and political leverage. However, everything about this dynamic is factually encompassing the existential threat that outsider Trump represents to the established way of life in the DC Swamp.

 

Again, if you drop the legal prism and review everything from the perspective of gaining or losing political leverage it all makes sense.

____________________

Dems Celebrate NOT Realizing the Mud on Their Faces

John R. Houk

© December 3, 2017

_______________

President Trump: “It’s a shame” Michael Flynn Lied “There Was Nothing To Hide”

 

About The Last Refuge

 

The Conservative Tree House may be called a Last Refuge for each of us for different reasons. Whatever trail through the woods brought us here, we have shared the turmoil of storms as we have been finding our voices as individuals in this growing community

Perhaps you’ve had some truly shockingly cruel things said to you purely because you believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism. Perhaps you not only believe that we should be self-reliant and personally responsible, but also believe that when we are allowed to depend on ourselves, we are stronger, more successful, take greater pride in ourselves and our work, and are more likely to make positive contributions to society. And then we are happier people, or at least more likely to be happier.

 

Which lends to the following theory: Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment.

 

Control is a reaction to fear. Think in terms or politics and society – the fear behind liberalism is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it’s means there’s less money out there for me. So people who believe in liberal ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear. Liberals try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.

 

The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with READ THE REST

 

Mueller Indictments- Manafort, Gates & Papadopoulos


John R. Houk

October 31, 2017

 

This is a cross post of Western Journalism and WND about the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates as well as an apparent plea deal for George Papadopoulos squeezed for lying about his interaction with Russians that perhaps Papadopoulos should have registered as a foreign agent. The Papadopoulos plea deal is a bit sketchy because he was a volunteer with a bit of uncertainty if acting on his own volition or was coached by someone to contact Russians.

 

Before posting this morning, I was watching Fox and Friends inattentively. A gal was interviewed in which I didn’t catch her profession. However, I saw her again on my DVR recorded premiered show called Fox News at Night with Shannon Bream. On Bream’s news show I discovered her name is Sidney Powell a former Prosecutor and author of Licensed to Lie. She criticized the wording of the indictment as being weak citing laws and statutes that she believes have a sketchy application. Powell also criticized Mueller’s lead prosecutor Andrew Weissmann for sketch prosecutorial practices. Here is a quote about Weissman similar to what Powell said on Fox and Friends:

 

“Andrew Weissmann, the prosecutor tapped by Mueller to help lead the investigation, has also received criticism. Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor recently wrote about Weissman in a piece titled, ‘Judging by Mueller’s staffing choices, he may not be very interested in justice.’” (Gowdy slams Mueller team over leaks about charges in Trump-Russia probe; By Joseph Weber; Fox News; 10/30/17)

 

But I did find another person – J. Christian Adams –  who had a similar criticism of the weak indictment put together by Mueller and Dem-oriented Special Prosecutor team:

 

VIDEO: J. Christian Adams: Mueller’s charges are a ‘weak debut’

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Oct 30, 2017

 

New questions surrounding the future of the Russia probe; reaction on ‘The Story.’

 

I need to note that when I Googled the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick (Richard) Gates, the Google search results went primarily to Leftist news sites and the Left oriented Mainstream Media (MSM). The headlines of those searches indicate disgusting glee that the indictments against Manafort and Gates will soon bring down President Donald Trump. This Fake News glee was related even though the loosely worded indictments are focused on Manafort/Gates business dealing with Russia before Barack Obama was even President.

 

How in the world is that Trump/Russia collusion in the November 2016 election?

 

Fire Mueller! Get a different Special Prosecutor. Begin looking at Crooked Hillary and husband, Dem leadership – particularly involved in Crooked Hillary’s campaign, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch and I have no doubt – into former President Barack Hussein Obama. For what? The real Russian Collusion for starters.

 

JRH 10/31/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Paul Manafort Surrenders to Feds as Subject of First Indictment In Mueller’s Russia Probe

 

By Jack Davis 

October 30, 2017 6:32am

Western Journalism

 

Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for President Donald Trump who left the Trump campaign under a cloud amid allegations of improper dealings involving the consulting business he had previously operated, turned himself in to the FBI on Monday, according to multiple reports.

 

Manafort and longtime associate Rick Gates, who joined and left the Trump campaign at the same time as Manafort, were indicted as part of the investigation headed by special counsel Robert Mueller.

 

Mueller was appointed to head up a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that there had been collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

Manafort and Gates were indicted on 12 charges, including “conspiracy against the United States,” “conspiracy to launder money” and “false statements.”

 

Manafort/Gates Indictment Document

 

 

The New York Times reported Manafort “had been under investigation for violations of federal tax law, money laundering and whether he appropriately disclosed his foreign lobbying.”

 

NBC News Tweet

 

Washington Examiner Tweet

 

Chris Hayes Tweet

 

Manafort arrived at the FBI’s field office in Washington on Monday morning. Gates turned himself in shortly afterward.

 

Manafort’s home was raided by the FBI in July, and a number of documents were seized at that time.

 

Manafort, who piloted Trump’s campaign between June and August 2016, has been under investigation by the FBI and Justice Department for his relationship with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

 

At the time of Manafort’s departure from the Trump campaign, The Associated Press reported that from 2012 to 2014, Manafort and Gates had been involved in a lobbying effort to increase American support for a pro-Russian Ukrainian government and did not disclose that they were working for a foreign government as required under federal law.

 

Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, Manafort retroactively registered in June with the Justice Department for the work he did during that time, for which he was paid more than $17 million.

 

“Paul’s work ended well before he joined Candidate Trump’s campaign,” spokesman Jason Maloni said in a statement at the time, according to Politico. “Paul was not simultaneously working as a foreign agent while he was working for Trump.”

 

White House attorney Ty Cobb has said Trump has no fears that Manafort might trade damaging testimony against Trump for a lighter sentence in some sort of deal.

 

“The president has no concerns in terms of any impact, as to what happens to them, on his campaign or on the White House,” Cobb said.

 

Trump has said that his campaign never colluded with Russia.

 

++++++

MANAFORT INDICTED, CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER PLEADS GUILTY IN RUSSIA PROBE

Former Trump chairman charged with conspiring to defraud U.S. in dealings with Ukraine

 

10/30/17 7:13 AM – Updated: 10/30/2017 4:13 PM

WND

 

Fox Video on WND

 

WASHINGTON – Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an associate surrendered to federal authorities Monday on felony charges of conspiracy against the United States and other charges in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian influence on the 2016 election.

 

Meanwhile, a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump, George Papadopoulos, entered a guilty plea in the investigation, admitting he lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russians.

 

The indictment swept up Manafort’s onetime business partner and protégé Rick Gates, but it makes no allegations about the 2016 election. Both pleaded not guilty.

 

It alleges 12 counts, including conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money, being an unregistered foreign agent, misleading statements and failing to file reports of foreign bank accounts. The charges relate to overseas business operations.

 

Read the full indictment here.

 

Watch Manafort walking into FBI headquarters with his attorney: [Blog Editor: You’ll have to go WND to watch. I can’t find the embed or the Fox News link.]

 

Papadopoulos, whose Oct. 5 guilty plea was unsealed Monday, admitted lying to FBI agents about the nature of his interactions with “foreign nationals” offering “dirt” on Clinton who allegedly were attempting to line up a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

According to Mueller’s filing, Papadopoulos met with a female Russian national on March 24, 2016, shortly after learning he had become a campaign adviser. Papadopoulos believed the Russian had connections with the Russian government and could arrange a meeting with the Trump campaign. The next month, he met with a professor in London who said operatives in Moscow had “thousands” of Hillary Clinton’s emails. The filing, however, does not specify whether the reference was to the emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee’s computers.

 

Responding to reporters at the White House press briefing Monday, press secretary Sarah Sanders said Papadopoulos didn’t have an influential role in the campaign, describing him as a volunteer on an advisory council that met one time during the year.

 

“Any actions he took would have been on his own,” Sanders said.

 

In a tweet Monday morning, Trump emphasized the Manafort indictment had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

 

“Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign,” Trump tweeted. ‘But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????”

 

“Also, there is NO COLLUSION!” he said.

 

Mueller was appointed to investigate claims of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign after the Democrats’ 2016 election loss, but now there are allegations against Democrats.

 

Last week, the Washington Post reported Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the research for the largely fabricated anti-Trump dossier. Late Wednesday, a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission charging Clinton’s campaign and the DNC violated campaign finance law by failing to disclose payments for the dossier. Also last week, a source claimed that the Podesta Group, run by John Podesta’s brother Tony, is a target of Mueller’s investigation. And The Hill reported that before a government panel in which Hillary Clinton was a member approved the sale of a company controlling 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves, the FBI was sitting on evidence Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to expand Moscow’s nuclear business in the U.S.

 

In addition, a congressional inquiry led by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is focusing on how aides to President Obama “unmasked” individuals caught up in government surveillance.

 

Manafort has denied wrongdoing. Many of the charges date back as far as 2006.

 

Understand what makes a liberal tick. “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Dr. Lyle Rossiter explains it all.

 

Among the allegations is that Manafort moved $75 million to offshore accounts without declaring the income for taxation purposes. He then allegedly used $18 million to “fund a lavish lifestyle,” as the London Daily Mail described it.

 

FBI agents staged an early morning raid on Manafort’s home last summer, confiscating records.

 

According to the New York Times, Gates’ name appears on documents linked to companies that Manafort’s firm established in Cyprus to receive payments from his clients in Eastern Europe.

 

President Trump’s lawyer, Ty Cobb, assured reporters last week Manafort does not have damaging information about the president to offer prosecutors.

 

“The president has no concerns in terms of any impact, as to what happens to them, on his campaign or on the White House,” Cobb said.

 

Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 and developed a strategy that convinced delegates not to break with Trump in favor of establishment candidates. Trump then appointed the veteran Republican strategist as chairman and chief strategist of his campaign.

 

Months later, Trump fired Manafort after learning his chairman received more than $12 million in undisclosed payments from former Ukrainian president Victor F. Yanukovych, who he spent years working for as a political consultant.

 

The case advanced amid claims Russian President Vladimir Putin colluded with Trump campaign officials to rig the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton.

 

Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department in May to lead the investigation into Trump campaign officials’ relationships with Russian operatives. But the focus now actually may be turning to the Democrats.

 

President Trump contends the “real Russia story” is the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets to a Russian company under Clinton’s watch.

 

Critics also have pointed to Mueller’s relationship with fired FBI chief James Comey and the fact that he stacked his team of investigators with lawyers who had openly supported Hillary Clinton in the election. The Mail reported it was unclear if Mueller still has a strategy to “squeeze” Manafort” for information about the 2016 election “and Russian’s possible interference with it.”

 

The allegations concern actions that all predate the Trump campaign, and Trump’s name doesn’t appear in the 31-page indictment by Mueller, who in the document makes no allegations of collusion with Russia.

 

The case has been assigned to Judge Amy Jackson, an Obama appointee.

 

Understand what makes a liberal tick. “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Dr. Lyle Rossiter explains it all.

 

++++++

READ ALSO:

 

NO CHARGES OF TRUMP COLLUSION: Here’s What You Need To Know About The Manafort Indictment; By BEN SHAPIRO; Daily Wire; 10/30/17

__________________

Mueller Indictments- Manafort, Gates & Papadopoulos

John R. Houk

© October 31, 2017

_______________

Paul Manafort Surrenders to Feds as Subject of First Indictment In Mueller’s Russia Probe

 

Copyright ©2017 Liftable Media Inc. All rights reserved.

 

About Western Journalism

 

Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping readers with truth. Every day, WesternJournalism.com publishes conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters.

 

As Americans — and indeed, readers around the world — continue to lose trust in traditional newspapers and broadcast networks and their claims of objectivity and impartiality, Western Journalism is rapidly filling the gap as a trusted source of news and information. Western Journalism is staffed by an experienced team of editors, journalists and media experts who both recognize the stories that matter to everyday readers and provide a truthful and unfiltered view of current events.

 

Nearly 10 million unique visitors read WesternJournalism.com monthly, putting the site securely among the Top 200 most-visited websites in the United States, according to global traffic analysis by Alexa. Western Journalism continues to break new records in engagement and trust in a rapidly shifting media landscape.

 

Western Journalism is committed to its founding principles: truth, honesty, integrity and accountability. These values are demonstrated through accurate, insightful reporting of information and events happening around the world.

 

WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S., according to Quantcast.

___________________

MANAFORT INDICTED, CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER PLEADS GUILTY IN RUSSIA PROBE

 

© Copyright 1997-2017. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

 

About WND

 

WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.

 

“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”

 

Indeed, WND is a fiercely independent news site committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.

 

Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence.

 

WND has  READ THE REST