Personal Thoughts Leading to B.D. Wright Deep State Interview


Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © January 26, 2020

Frank Camp in a Daily Wire interview with a former CIA employee Bryan Dean Wright about the machination of an America Deep State. Wright self-describes himself as a lifelong Dem which for me has become a dirty word in the English language.

 

In the part one of the interview he describes Dems of his admiration in the past contrasted with present day Dems epitomized by AOC and Bernie Sanders. A point I can relate to because I grew up in a Dem Party family hailing from the Pacific Northwest just as Wright.

 

My Dem family’s devotion to Dems was due to their perception it was the Franklin Roosevelt Dems that saved Americans from starvation resulting from joblessness of the Great Depression. (I have since learned my family’s perception was probably misplaced of actual facts were more public in 1930s, 40s, 50s and right into the 60s. BUT that’s another story.) The Dem Senators of my childhood and early teen years were Henry (Scoop) Jackson and Warren Magnuson. Both Jackson and Magnuson were old fashioned Americans more concerned about benefitting the State of Washington they represented than the USA at large. Jackson in his day was considered a Liberal yet extremely Anti-Communist to the point of committing the U.S. Military to confront Communist expansionism. In essence Jackson was a motivated Anti-Communist Hawk more than he was a Liberal. It is this personal memory of Jackson I have that convinces me the Jackson of yesteryear would have deserted the Democratic Party of today because of that political Party’s lurch toward Marxist Socialism.

 

WELL … Back to Pacific Northwest exposer of the Deep State Dem Bryan Dean Wright. Wright is going out on limb exposing how the Deep State is operating ergo I half-way suspect a tragic accident, mysterious suicide or unexplained homicide might be in his future. I pray not.

 

Below is a cross post of The Daily Wire interview that was posted on 1/25 and 1/26/20.

 

JRH 1/26/20 (Hat Tip NWO Report)

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

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

INTERVIEW (Part I): Former CIA Officer Explains The Shocking Details And Dangers Of The ‘Deep State’

 

By  Frank Camp

January 25, 2020

The Daily Wire

 

Bryan Dean Wright – Photo by Molly Condit

 

Over the last several years, the term “Deep State” has been used frequently by both President Trump, during speeches and on social media, as well as by some Trump-supporting pundits. President Trump and the commentators who support him often use the term to describe a group of bureaucratic insiders who want the president out of office.

 

These individuals represent a loosely-connected web of unelected bureaucrats, often left over from previous administrations, who allegedly utilize their intel and reach in order to disrupt the agenda of the president and his allies.

 

But what exactly is the Deep State? Who exactly are the Deep State players? What damage can they do? And what can be done to stop them?

 

On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with Bryan Dean Wright, a former CIA officer who now serves as a contract instructor for the military. Wright, a self-described “lifelong Democrat,” was not only able to answer my questions about the Deep State, but provide incredible insight into this not-so-well-understood world of leakers and bad actors.

 

In part one of this interview, Wright discusses his own background in the CIA, the origins of what we would call the modern “Deep State,” the bad actors operating from the inside, the damage they have done, and much more.

 

DW: What was your former job at the CIA?

WRIGHT: I first served as an operations officer. These are the folks that, in short, go abroad to recruit spies and steal secrets. I did that for a number of years, then transitioned to the private sector and did some work in New York. I went back into the agency after a hiatus and served as what’s called a targeting officer. That role finds the people and organizations that can fill in the gaps of our understanding of particular adversaries, specifically their leadership and their plans and intentions. I developed targeting packages of how to get in front of those people and recruit them as clandestine sources.

DW: Why did you decide to leave the agency?

WRIGHT: The original reason back in the mid-2000s was because my brother needed to go into rehab for his alcohol addiction, and unfortunately my family didn’t have the money to send him. So, I had to go in the private sector and earn it. Once I was able to do that – after my brother achieved his sobriety – I got back into the agency.

And then in December of 2015, I left for the second and final time. The reason I left then was more out of sorrow and anger for what I saw happening. And it really gets to the issue of the “Deep State.” I met with a bunch of people that were tied-in to some of our covert action operations – I was reviewing and auditing them – and these senior executives weren’t taking it seriously or tried to hinder my efforts. A lot of people didn’t want to have accountability for their failures. Or, secondarily, they didn’t want to have to go back to the National Security Council or even the President or Vice President and say, “Actually, what we’ve been telling you was wrong, or it wasn’t quite true.” And so I became very frustrated and I just didn’t see myself being complicit with that degree of unprofessionalism at a minimum or flat out treachery at worst. So, I transitioned out.

DW: What is your primary job now?

WRIGHT: I serve as a contract instructor for the military – and some of those details I can’t dive into at present – but that’s part of what I do. And I spend a lot of time writing and going on different TV outlets, Fox in particular, to talk in part about national security-related issues.

I also write and talk a lot about politics. As a lifelong Democrat, I share with my readers and audiences what I see as this horrific drift by the party away from what I grew up with in the Pacific Northwest: a moderate, sensible Democratic Party. For instance, I remember men like Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House, who was from rural Eastern Washington. Or a guy like Cecil Andrus, a sensible, no-nonsense Democratic Governor of Idaho. These folks are the Democrats who I grew up with, and my family was a part of. But that is no longer the party that we see. Instead, we see the party of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Tom Perez, and it’s these absolute bonkers elements that I don’t identify with, are horrifying, and I think ultimately will bring the entirety of the Democratic Party down. And if that’s what has to happen, well, I hope the Republicans can keep a light on for me.

DW: So, what is the “Deep State?” We hear it all the time in conservative media, especially on outlets like Fox News. But what is the “Deep State” really?

WRIGHT: To understand the Deep State, you have to understand a man named Aldrich Ames. He was a CIA officer who, in the 1980s, decided to commit treason and work for the Soviet Union, and his treachery cost the lives of many of our Soviet agents. When Ames was asked why he did it, his response was this, “I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security … and I’m going to act on that.” That’s the definition and the ethos of the Deep State. It’s an unelected group of men and women with profound powers of the surveillance state who use those powers to advance their own interests, whether it be personal or partisan.

And that last bit I think is important. Why do they do it? In the distant past, guys like Aldrich Ames, they’d leak to our enemies because of ego and for money. But in the recent past, like what we’ve seen with Former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Director of the CIA John Brennan, they’re leaking to The New York Times or CNN because, yes ego and money, but clearly a sense of partisan warfare. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t discount their ego and monetary motivations. I mean, look, they’ve taken paid media contributorships and I’m sure it makes them feel very important. But what we’re seeing is more than that. It’s partisan, and it’s personal. I think that’s different and that’s frightening. I would say that, in essence, is the “Deep State,” and that is what’s driving Deep State actors today.

DW: This may be a bit of a redundant question, but who are the Deep State? Who would you identify as major Deep State actors?

WRIGHT: In the recent past, Comey, Brennan, Clapper are the most obvious, big names. But based on the IG reports, we’re also seeing more mid-level bureaucrats, like the Lisa Pages and the Peter Strzoks and the Bruce Ohrs. These are Deep Staters: folks who are unelected and frankly unaccountable to anyone, using their power and knowledge to satisfy a personal agenda, irrespective of the law. That’s certainly what we’ve seen in the IG reports regarding Crossfire Hurricane, and it’s clear that these bureaucrats had no problem executing their own partisan or personal agendas believing their relative anonymity would hide them from accountability.

I think that those individuals are just the ones we know about. And I think, God willing, Attorney General Bill Barr and United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham are going to flush out other actors and bring them to account, and lead to further clarity on if indeed the Comeys and Brennans and Clappers of the intelligence community can be brought forward on charges. That’s certainly the hope if the facts allow.

DW: In what malign activities specifically have members of this Deep State participated?

WRIGHT: Let’s start with Comey. We know that he was leaking to The New York Times, and he wasn’t leaking because he had any reasonable belief that President Trump was up to no good. I mean, the IG has shown conclusively that he was leaking to advance his own personal interests. In fact, [it] labeled Comey as a dangerous example to the tens of thousands of current and former FBI employees. So, that opens up this horrific floodgate of the Aldrich Ames ethos that, if you think that you know best for national security or foreign policy, that you, FBI employee, can damage whomever you’d like. You, Mr. FBI or CIA employee, who has access to secret human or signals intelligence – emails, phone calls – you get to decide what material should be leaked to kneecap politicians you don’t like. Oh, and you will face no consequences for it! That, I think, is the horrific legacy that Comey leaves behind.

And again, let’s emphasize something here: Comey knew early on that Trump was not going to be found guilty of having engaged in impropriety with the Russian government. Comey had participated with others in the intelligence community to investigate these allegations. He and the others knew, in early 2017 if not before, that there was nothing there. Think of this: if the intelligence community had any information in 2016 or 2017 that Trump was a Russian spy, they wouldn’t have sat on it. They would have immediately gotten it to Mueller or folks on Capitol Hill, and they would have rightfully brought that forward to the American people and removed the president. But that didn’t happen.

So, certainly Comey has a very clear record, demonstrated record, of doing a number of things that weren’t just atypical, but that were wrong. And again, I think that’s what AG Barr and John Durham are trying to fully flush out.

I think that the other characters – John Brennan especially, but also Comey and Clapper – used the dossier and Christopher Steele as pawns in a political game. Both Steele and his dossier were known to be unreliable in the fall of 2016. Indeed, by mid January 2017, Brennan was specifically on record as saying he gave the dossier no particular credence, according to The Wall Street Journal. Well, that’s amazing. Because they included that dossier in a brief to not only then President-elect Trump, but to then President Obama and Joe Biden and, of course, the principals on Capitol Hill. Why would they have done that? There was no legal or intelligence value. They knew Steele and the dossier were verified garbage. But they briefed it anyway. To lots of people.

As a former intelligence officer, I can tell you that this isn’t normal operating procedure. At all. You don’t brief an unvetted document like the dossier to the president-elect and tell him that he’s a corrupt Russian traitor. And you certainly wouldn’t do it if you had already done a degree of investigation and found that there was no veracity to any of the claims. I mean, hell, you don’t even have to be an intelligence officer to understand that.

But what Steele and his dossier lacked in legal or intelligence value, both more than made up for it in political value. And Brennan, Comey, and Clapper knew it. They knew how damaging it would be to Trump if America were to believe the dossier’s allegations. They just needed to give the news media a hook to run with the claims, which were widely known in Washington but went unreported because they were unverified. So their solution, it turns out, was to make themselves the media’s necessary hook. By their simple act of briefing the dossier to so many, it gave credence to the claims and that in fact the dossier existed. Naturally, the Resistance Media – which went all in against President Trump – was happy to distribute their propaganda.

Let me emphasize: the dossier had been refuted by the intelligence community after considerable investigation. There was no legal or intelligence value to briefing the dossier. In fact, the CIA at the time was calling it “internet rumor.” But Brennan, Comey, and Clapper clearly didn’t care. Why? Because they had an end goal: if they could get the media to report on this dossier, then that would be effectively the end of the Trump presidency, or certainly put the president on his heels for a couple of years. They would utterly kneecap him. At least that was their hope.

So, I think that that is the gravest example of Deep State treachery.

DW: To what extent does the media participate in enabling these Deep State actors to do what they want and feel they need to do, and how should that be approached?

WRIGHT: The most obvious and demonstrable connection between these Deep State actors and the media is that guys like Comey, Brennan, and Clapper now, to varying degrees, have paid contributorships with media outlets. Think of it: we know that they were leaking classified information to these outlets when they were government employees, and now they have jobs with them. I mean, my god, what does that tell other intelligence community professionals? What are the consequence for breaking the law? Because, as of today, my former colleagues can apparently leak based on their own personal or partisan agenda to the media, and then, in turn, can get a great, cushy job from that same media outlet when they quit or retire. That’s a horrifying example with profound consequences to our Republic because you’re incentivizing intelligence professionals to leak or kneecap people they don’t like. If that takes root, what in the hell will prevent us from becoming Pakistan or Egypt? These countries, by the way, are run by the intelligence or military communities, sprinkled with a veneer of democracy.

Is that what we are to become? Because that really is the end result of allowing a politicized intelligence community to go unchecked. And that’s why Barr and Durham’s work is so important. These people have to be held to account.

Now at the same time, it’s not just the media who are gaining from this. They’re also being manipulated by the Brennans, the Comeys, and the Clappers. In March of 2018, for example, The Daily Beast reported that Brennan and Clapper were doing a roadshow around the country to various elite groups and big money people, and they stopped by Hollywood. Brennan told them that Trump would not finish out the year (2018) as President of the United States; he would be removed because of his treacherous relationship with Vladimir Putin and the Russians.

Clapper was also there, and they were doing this to both create and then fan the flames of hysteria. Remember that their audience was made up of the Hollywood elites, the very individuals who control or contribute mightily to the public sphere, create narratives, create truth. So, it is not an accident that Brennan and Clapper would be there in Hollywood in March of 2018 spreading these lies. Again, they knew that the Trump/Russia narrative wasn’t true but, as with the dossier, they needed the media to continue to manipulate the American people to achieve their political end. And who better to have in their back pocket than those Hollywood executives who have our eyeballs and our ears, whether it be on movie screens or television screens. Brennan and Clapper needed them because they needed hysteria. And that’s precisely what they’ve been committed to. Virulently and unapologetically so.

DW: There are criticisms, mostly from the Left, that the “Deep State” is blamed for every bad thing that surrounds the Trump presidency and the administration. It’s almost like a joke to many people on the Left. “Oh, the Deep State! It must be the Deep State!” Is the idea of the Deep State in any way overblown? And if so, to what degree?

WRIGHT: You know, in 2017, when Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, was being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, she was telling him about Trump’s taking on the CIA or the intelligence community, and his response, then and now, was so illustrative and so jaw dropping.

If you recall, he said, “If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.” So, Chuck Schumer recognizes that the Deep State is real, and that they will exact revenge at a time and a place and on people of their choosing.

Let’s pause for a second and really think about the modern Left’s response to the fact that the Deep State is real, and that these intelligence officials will decide our nation’s political winners and losers. Really consider Chuck Schumer’s flippant acceptance of it all. I can’t imagine a more horrifying thing for any person of any party to say ever – because think of the consequence of that. The modern American Left is basically saying, “You know, we love those Deep State guys. They’re real, and we love it because Orange Man Bad. And they’ll take this guy out for us. Because we just don’t like him.”

I mean, they’re incentivizing a bunch of people to continue to break the law because it fits their temporary, short-term partisan goals. Never mind the fact that they’re setting a brush fire to the Republic. I mean, it’s amazing to me knowing how many folks on the Left who have been so virulently opposed to the CIA and FBI, given some of the sins, unquestionable sins – starting in the 40s and ramping up through the Cold War in the 50s, through the 70s and 80s – to now see that our own “progressive” leadership is somehow winking and nudging with our good friends like John Brennan and the rest because they’re taking on Orange Man. So, this suggestion by the people on the Left, my fellow Democrats, who would say, “Well, that’s just silly. It’s a conspiracy…” Well, they need to take it up with Chuck Schumer because he thinks the Deep State is real, too. And he fears them.

DW: Is this type of behavior something that has gone on for a long time?

WRIGHT: The short answer is yes. There is a history of individuals who get this profound power when working for the FBI or the CIA or NSA and abuse it. I can tell you, I worked with individuals who used their abilities to tap phone calls and emails to look after ex-boyfriends or ex-spouses. And those individuals were eventually found out and rightfully fired. In other words, human frailty – or the part of the human condition that is indeed so frail as to be given profound powers and then use them for ill – that has always existed, and that will always exist. That’s why it’s so important to conduct oversight of law enforcement and intelligence, and indeed military communities.

The difference, though, from that unfortunate low level abuse of power is that the treachery of modern Deep State actors – Comey, Brennan, and Clapper – is that they wanted to overrule the American voters. They wanted to upend the free and fair election of Donald Trump. They wanted to choose a different leader to run the nation. Their purpose in leaking to the media was to take out a duly-elected president because they either didn’t like the guy or they wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Many of them, I suspect, liked Clinton because they knew that they were going to have positions of authority or influence in her administration.

That degree of audacity I think is new, and I think that it is incredibly dangerous. And the lack of focus on that treachery is one of the profound lost opportunities of our political class, particularly on the Left, of the past few years. They could have said, “The actions of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan were horrifically wrong and they should face justice. And, meanwhile, we oppose the president on X, Y, and Z policies.” That would have been the right thing to do. As an opposition party, you can do both of those things, but that’s not what the Left has done. That’s certainly not what Pelosi and Schumer and our friends Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Jerry Nadler are doing right now with the impeachment.

All of this has been 100% focused on bringing down the president from day one, instead of having a much more balanced, nuanced approach to his presidency. And I think, and frankly I hope, that that’s why the Democratic Party loses in 2020. I don’t know of any other way to get rid of the rot that is in Washington, and within the leadership of the Democratic Party. Because if a progressive wins – Sen. Elizabeth Warren or, God forbid, Sen. Bernie Sanders – or even if Joe Biden wins, the lesson for the Democratic leadership, the lesson for the media, will not be that their treachery was bad, but that it worked.

In part two of this interview, which will be released on Sunday, Wright talks about what the Deep State would look like if a Democrat wins in 2020, what can be done to root out these malign actors, what the media can do, the dangers of normalizing socialism, and more.

 

I’d like to thank Bryan Dean Wright for taking the time to speak with me about such an important issue. For more, you can follow Wright on Twitter, and check out his official website.

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

INTERVIEW (Part II): Former CIA Officer On What The ‘Deep State’ Looks Like If A Democrat Wins In 2020, And What Can Be Done To Recover

 

By Frank Camp

January 26, 2020

The Daily Wire

 

Bryan Dean Wright – Photo by Molly Condit

 

Over the last several years, the term “Deep State” has been used frequently by both President Trump, during speeches and on social media, as well as by some Trump-supporting pundits. President Trump and the commentators who support him often use the term to describe a group of bureaucratic insiders who want the president out of office.

 

These individuals represent a loosely-connected web of unelected bureaucrats, often left over from previous administrations, allegedly who utilize their intel and reach in order to disrupt the agenda of the president and his allies.

 

But what exactly is the Deep State? Who exactly are the Deep State players? What damage can they do? And what can be done to stop them?

 

On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with Bryan Dean Wright, a former CIA officer who now serves as a contract instructor for the military. Wright, a self-described “lifelong Democrat,” was not only able to answer my questions about the Deep State, but provide incredible insight into this not-so-well-understood world of leakers and bad actors.

 

In part one of this interview, which you can read here, Wright discussed his own background in the CIA, the origins of what we would today call the “Deep State,” the bad actors operating from the inside, the damage they have done, and more.

 

In part two below, Wright talks about what the Deep State might look like if a Democrat wins 2020, what can be done to rein in the Deep State, what the media can do, as well as the way President Trump has brought this bureaucratic monster into the light.

 

DW: Do you believe that if a Democrat is elected in 2020, the Deep State actors will continue to disseminate information, but for the other side? Are there proportionate actors on both sides, or is it disproportionate leaking on one side?

WRIGHT: You are out of your mind if you think there aren’t Trump supporters within the intelligence community, and that if he loses in 2020, won’t be absolutely outraged that Trump was, in their eyes, taken down because of the media and because of the Deep State actors. And you’re equally foolish to think that they won’t use their knowledge and their influence to kneecap the next Democratic president – President Sanders, President Warren, President Biden. Of course there will be people in the conservative world who work in the intelligence community who will find ways to strike back, and that is something that I have been warning about for years. Once you start this process of politicizing the intelligence community, when does it stop? We are marching down a very dangerous road where each side is so hellbent to exact revenge, and we get these political blood feuds that are wildly difficult to stop.

So, I would not be surprised at all if there were attempts by Trump supporters within the intelligence community to strike back at a progressive or otherwise Democratic president in 2020 and beyond because if we are looking at the example of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan as of today, what consequences would they face? What consequences did James Comey face when he unquestionably leaked to The New York Times to force the appointment of special counsel? He leaked classified information. What were the consequences that James Comey has had to face? He got a professorship at William and Mary University teaching ethics, he’s gone on a nationwide book tour, and he has a movie coming out based on his life and times. I mean, are you f***ing kidding me? That’s the consequence that the intelligence community is now looking at if they leak classified information. So you tell me, are we setting up the Republic for a problem? The answer is absolutely yes.

DW: You mentioned AG Bill Barr several times, but what can be done at this point to reign in the Deep State? Not only by the government and people like the attorney general, but by everyone else who has some sort of power?

WRIGHT: Let’s start first with the CIA. Gina Haspel, who’s the CIA director, she can start change. She is in control of the culture of her senior intelligence service, her senior executives, and they are the ones who engage directly with her and the White House, the National Security Council, on a regular basis. She can make sure that these folks understand there are in fact consequences for their behavior, remind them of things like the Hatch Act, what they can and can’t do. She can also, if she has suspicions or wants to make an example of someone, pull those individuals in for re-investigations and have them polygraphed for connections to the press.

She also has that same ability with her mid-level or junior staff, to pull them in on an ongoing basis to remind them of the same things, like the Hatch Act, and that what is happening in the public sphere is wrong; that while they absolutely have an opportunity, a right, to engage in our political process, they certainly should not be emulating the behavior of James Comey. She can use her leadership and her platform to do that.

She can also work with the human resources folks when they’re bringing people on board, to talk about building a new culture within the CIA that reminds people that they are subservient to the President and ultimately subservient to the American people; that it is an honor and a privilege to work at the agency, and if they are found to be abusing the profound powers that they are given, they will be held to account.

Now, that becomes a much more difficult message to sell when James Comey gets away with it. And that’s why the work of Attorney General Barr and John Durham is so important. Gina Haspel has to have concrete examples of consequences for this Deep State treachery. There are other modest things you can do, like stripping security clearances of former professionals who leave and no longer use them on a daily basis, or a project basis – but that stuff is ultimately not as important as changing the culture for why intelligence professionals, law enforcement professionals should not be leaking, A) at all, and B) classified information, and that there will be consequences if they do.

DW: Is there anything the media can do? I mean, responsible media.

WRIGHT: One of the things that I think would be very helpful is if we understood the bias of a particular reporter or media outlet, and then grade that severity of bias with each story that’s aired or published. For instance, I’d love to hover my cursor over a reporter’s name and have a bubble pop up that rates likely bias, with links to examples of said bias. Yes, I recognize the tricky nature of what I’m suggesting – who ranks the bias? But I think there’s a market-based solution to be found.

Another way we consumers ought to flag biased or untrustworthy reporting is when a reporter or outlet uses unnamed sources. Given that Comey has now admitted to being an anonymous media source, it should tell Americans that they should be very suspicious about the motivations of these mysterious people making allegations. And, frankly, it says a lot about the lack of moral character by these sources. They should stand up and say the right thing on the record if they suspect fraud, waste, and abuse, for example. Because that’s how it’s supposed to be done. If you are within the intelligence community and you have problems with your leadership, even the president themself, there are ways that you address that, and it’s not leaking to the press.

So, I think because of our beautiful Constitution, we give our media a lot of leash to report on the facts. But without understanding the bias of the outlet and the reporter, we don’t know if we’re really getting facts, but rather spin. I believe that there’s some good work that could be done on this thorny issue, and on a self-regulating basis. I’m not sure that it’s the government’s role to do that, but nevertheless, a more honest accounting of bias, I think, would be a really critical step to restoring people’s belief and faith in the media. The goal is giving the American people a way to read or watch something and say, “Oh, that reporter is biased, and I’m going to discount this report or give it much less weight than I otherwise would have.”

DW: Which would require self-reflection by individual members of the media to assess their own biases.

WRIGHT: Yeah.

DW: I know that you’re a self-professed “lifelong Democrat,” but what is your political ideology, and has the Trump presidency and the seemingly steroidal Deep State shaped your opinions in a new way that perhaps you hadn’t thought of before?

WRIGHT: Well, I think that like many Americans, I was trepidatious about President Trump, certainly in 2015 and 2016, as the noise was getting louder that he would be a viable candidate and then indeed the President of the United States. But what I have seen over the past three years is that’s he’s playing a very important, a vital role in fact, of blowing up the status quo, of blowing up a system that fundamentally wasn’t working. I’ve come to appreciate that his presidency could be used by the people to create the kind of country, the kind of Republic, that we deserve, which is one that’s accountable to people, that actually gets stuff done, that doesn’t focus on partisanship as much. At least that is, I think, the promise that I have begun to see in President Trump.

And I certainly would say that his positions are reflective of most Democrats, certainly ten years ago. On the border issues, on immigration, he’s saying the exact same things the Democrats were saying not long ago. In 2008, if you looked at the DNC’s platform, Obama was not a hell of a lot different than President Trump on this issue.

So, I think that he represents a lot of common sense on a number of issues that I’ve come to appreciate. Most especially, I think that he’s exposed this Deep State garbage that would have never, ever been exposed under a President Clinton. James Comey would likely still be the FBI director. Think about that. All these others, the McCabes and the Brennans and the Comeys, would all still be in D.C. with their hands on the levers of power.

I think that Trump’s service to this country, of exposing that Deep State, may be one of his greatest legacies.

Depending on how the China issue shakes out, I think that he could be a monumental president regarding how we take on the Chinese. Again, we’ll see.

I’ve really appreciated his approach to the War on Terror. What he has done with Soleimani in Iran, for instance. Under Bush and Obama, Soleimani and the Iranians basically had us buffaloed into a corner, and we wouldn’t take them on because we feared World War III. Well, Trump just gave that a gigantic middle finger and reminded them that they are the junior partner in this relationship, and that we would be setting the agenda. That’s precisely what needed to happen for over 16 years under two different administrations from two different political parties, and Trump finally did the right thing.

And I will tell you, from people that I know who worked the Iran issue inside the intelligence community, they were absolutely elated with Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani.

So overall, I think that the president is doing much better than many of us may have been concerned about, and he deserves a very serious consideration of our vote in 2020.

As it relates to my own personal ideology or philosophy, I would like to say I’m an old school Democrat of the Kennedy/Foley ilk, a Democrat who understands that America was and remains exceptional, and that we have a critical role to play in the world, and that it’s a role that will be respected by our partners even when they don’t like it. It’s leadership through unabashed strength. Trump has restored some of that which was lost under Bush and Obama, contrary to the media hype that would tell you otherwise. I think that’s lost on the modern American Left.

On domestic policies, I think that I believe the same things that I did ten years ago, like the importance of controlled immigration, that we have to have borders. I don’t see that as something that is part of the modern Democratic Left. Trump’s brought that out in stark relief.

But this schism within the Democratic Party isn’t because of Trump. It’s a fight that’s been had over many decades, in fits and starts. We dealt with this desire to unreasonably expand the state, for example, back in the 60s and 70s. Meanwhile, I thought we had put the socialist genie back in the bottle and marginalized those radical leftist elements around that same time. But very clearly, as the DNC declares Ocasio-Cortez the future of the Democratic Party, I think these dark forces are at play again. And we have a huge problem – we being the party, and the nation. It’s a problem that would leave people like Jack Kennedy and Tom Foley rolling over in their graves.

I don’t know where people like me go if a progressive wins the Democratic nomination or the presidency. Polling shows that moderate and conservative Democrats make up anywhere from 35% to 50% of the party. I think our vote will be up for grabs. I think many of us will gravitate to a new Republican Party.

DW: Is there something that you would want our readers to know that you and I haven’t touched on, or perhaps that you think is important that hasn’t been really talked about in the various interviews in which you’ve engaged?

WRIGHT: I don’t think that most Americans understand what the socialist movement in this country is up to. I think many people understand that socialism is bad, although a shocking number of Democrats, particularly younger voters, don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. Still, people don’t appreciate appreciate what Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are doing with the Democratic Party, and I don’t think that most people appreciate why that’s bad, not just for the Democratic Party, but for the country. And ultimately the world.

Let me explain.

Our Republic requires multiple parties to hold each other to account. We have to have multiple voices at the table to challenge each other, to question each other. Our Republic thrives or falls based on that broad contribution and debate, and right now, the Democratic Party is becoming a movement that doesn’t warrant consideration. The reason is its embrace of socialists and their wicked ideology.

The Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders movement – Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA – started many years ago, of course. But their plans really morphed and solidified in 2012, as the DSA put forward a strategy document that basically said to its members, “Look, as socialists, we know that we can’t win in this country running as the Socialist Party. We have to rebrand ourselves. That means we register as Democrats, we run as Democrats, and then push the party so far to the Left as fast as we can that the party fissures into progressives vs. moderates and conservatives. We will then break off, taking with us the bulk of the party, the base. Then and only then can we revive the Socialist Party. Because then we won’t be scary anymore. We will have normalized the socialist agenda.” It’s an agenda, of course, that has been rightfully smeared by its decades of mass death and destruction in every country that has adopted it. So, no wonder they’re trying to rebrand it.

That’s where we’re at. And that’s what Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie are doing. So, when you hear them talk about “free stuff” – education, housing, health care, jobs – know that they’re rebranding themselves with unserious policy proposals that they can’t possibly afford not because they’re being serious, but only trying to make the Socialist Party less scary.

It’s all in the 2012 DSA strategy document, all available on the DSA website for anyone to read. I wish more Americans took the time to review it, understand it, and grasp the treachery of Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. They’re using the Democratic Party as though it’s a host to be invaded and occupied by a socialist virus. The only aim is to strip the Democratic Party down to nothing, destroy it, and then leave with the voters who would serve their revived Socialist Party.

If that were to happen, think of the consequences not just for the Democratic Party or even America. What would happen to the world? What would happen to humanity if, somehow, the United States were to succumb to socialism?

Who would step into that vacuum of global leadership that for so long has defended liberty and freedom? The clear answer is China, a country that persecutes its people, that embraces murderous concentration camps for the Uighur people. That is the government that would be controlling humanity’s future.

That is what’s at stake. That’s what happens to liberty, to freedom, if the United States, imperfect as we are, is no longer on the scene because we embrace socialism.

And for those who argue that Russia might step up, count me skeptical. With an economy the size of Italy and a leadership that enjoys oppression as much as the Chinese, these are not the people we want to lead humanity.

So, if the Democratic Party falls to the socialist wing with all their horrific values, and the United States is handicapped and is no longer able to play the role that it does in the world, imperfect as we may be, we will jeopardize all the progress that we have fought so hard for, certainly since World War II, to create a more just and a more peaceful world.

That’s really what is at stake for me as I watch the Democratic Party fall into the socialist trap, as I watch Chuck and Nancy and the DNC embrace Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders as the future of the Democratic Party. I watch in horror as progressives in the media fawn over Ocasio-Cortez. People like Rachel Maddow and Joy Behar package her as some fun, dance-on-the-roof kind of girl that’s just a lovely representation of womanhood or being black or brown.

If that bologna salesmanship convinces enough Americans that socialism isn’t so bad after all, and we start going down that path, then we will lose everything that we have fought for over the past 100 years. So we have to get this right. We have to self-correct – as a Democratic Party, as a country – because so much is at stake.

 

I’d like to thank Bryan Dean Wright for taking the time to speak with me about such a monumental issue. For more information, you can follow Wright on Twitter, or check out his official website.

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

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

________________________________

Personal Thoughts Leading to B.D. Wright Deep State Interview

Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © January 26, 2020

___________________________

INTERVIEW (Part I & II): Former CIA Officer On What The ‘Deep State’ Looks Like If A Democrat Wins In 2020, And What Can Be Done To Recover

 

© Copyright 2020, The Daily Wire

 

A Tale of Two Deep States


Daniel Greenfield writes “A Tale of Two Deep States”. Interesting scenario – Two Deep States. Greenfield tells us both Deep States are against the Trump Administration. The Greenfield labels are the Obama Deep State and the Russian Deep State. Intrigued? Read the Greenfield essay.

 

JRH 6/29/18

Please Support NCCR

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

A Tale of Two Deep States

 

By Daniel Greenfield

June 28, 2018

Sultan Knish

 

“Why the hell are we standing down?”

That was the question that the White House’s cybersecurity coordinator was asked after Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, issued a stand down order on Russia.

Testimony at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on Russian interference in the election once again raised the central paradox of the Russia conspiracy theory. If Russian interference in the election represented the crisis that we are told it did, why did Obama fail to take any meaningful action?

The White House’s own cybersecurity people wanted an aggressive response before being told to stand down. Obama issued a bloodless warning to Russia while his people deliberately crippled our offense.

Democrats and the media blamed the Russian hacking on Trump. But it was Susan Rice who had told the cybersecurity team to “knock it off” and Obama’s people who hadn’t wanted him to be “boxed in” and forced to respond to Russian actions. Was this just the usual appeasement or was there more to it?

Why didn’t Obama and his team want to stop Russian hacking? Because they needed the Russians.

The 2016 election is really the story of two deep state intelligence operations that dovetailed neatly with each other. One was an ongoing Russian operation that took advantage of a weak president to sow chaos in America and Europe. The other was a domestic political operation utilizing counterintelligence resources in the United States and Europe to spy on, undermine and try to bring down Trump.

Contrary to claims made by Obama operatives, the Russian operation was not new. Russian hackers and spies had done enormous damage to America’s intelligence community. But they had succeeded so well because the mission of the intelligence community had shifted from deterring foreign adversaries to suppressing domestic political opponents. And this new mission made the Russians attacks irrelevant.

The Russian attacks on the formerly formidable NSA were so easy to accomplish because it was no longer countering the Russians. Instead Obama viewed it as a police state tool for spying on pro-Israel activists, members of Congress and Trump campaign officials. The NSA’s opposite numbers in Russia, posing as rogue hackers, were no longer hammering rivals, but a twisted and crippled organization.

Obama didn’t want to fight the Russians, but the Russian attacks were very useful because they justified the NSA’s powers, which he was abusing not to go after the Russians, but after American political rivals. And the Russian election hacks played perfectly into his hands by justifying the counterintelligence investigations supposedly aimed at the Russians, but really aimed at domestic political opponents.

The Mueller investigation is only the latest of these disguised counterintelligence police state gimmicks.

Without the Russians, Obama’s people would have just been nakedly abusing their powers to spy on Americans. But as long as the Russians were active, his deep state had the excuse that it needed.

The two intelligence operations, the Russian one and the Obama one, were interdependent. Their deep state symbiosis was possible only because neither side threatened the core interests of the other.

The Russians were a national security threat, but Obama’s people didn’t care about national security. And Obama’s counterintelligence operation was aimed at domestic political opponents rather than the Russians. It’s still unknown if the Russians and Obama’s people actively colluded in these operations, but it’s likely that seasoned professionals on both sides had a quiet understanding of their respective roles.

The Russians had not set out to alter the outcome of the election. Nor did they have that capability. Their attacks followed the pattern of the Dulles Plan, a fictional piece of Soviet propaganda which attributed any anti-Soviet activity to an American conspiracy to undermine Communism. The KGB veterans running Russia as an actual deep state sought to undermine the American political system by feeding extremism, creating panic and discrediting elections. And that also fit the Obama agenda.

Obama’s people had spent eight years dismantling political norms and undermining America. The KGB deep state conspirators in Russia and their leftist counterparts in Washington D.C. had emerged from the same ideological school. Their aims and allegiances had diverged, but the ex-Communists in Moscow and Adams Morgan Socialists in Washington D.C. shared a common hatred for America and its values.

There was no reason to interfere with the Russian interference. Obama and his people did not believe that the Russians would significantly affect the election. But if his efforts to eavesdrop on Trump officials came to light, the Russians had provided him with an alibi. Susan Rice, as national security adviser, was at the center of the eavesdropping effort and had every reason to protect the Russian operation.

Protecting the Russians also protected the Obamas.

Nor did the Obama deep state have any particular allegiance to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Obamas and the Clintons loathed each other. Though both factions were leftists, their approaches were as much at variance as Bolsheviks and Trotskyists. Obama had been forced to make a deal with the Clintons to secure his hold on the Democrat operation. But his support for Hillary Clinton was only an endorsement of the lesser evil. Her defeat left him and his political allies in total control of the Democrat operation.

And the chaos and violence of his anti-Trump resistance achieved his goal of radicalizing the Democrats.

The Russians didn’t hack the election. That conspiracy theory remains wishful thinking. But the allegation proved very useful in enabling everything from the pre-election eavesdropping on political opponents to the post-election sabotage of the Trump administration to the move away from electronic voting to paper ballots which enable the old-fashioned kind of Democrat ballot stuffing.

But like an iceberg, the most troubling development of the Russian conspiracy is mostly underwater.

After 9/11, the intelligence community was revived with a new purpose. That purpose was fighting Islamic terrorism. During Obama’s two terms, the intelligence community was compromised, crippled and transformed into a domestic deep state aimed at suppressing the political opposition. Tragically, it came to resemble the KGB, with its domestic surveillance and investigation of political opponents.

This transformation of law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not emerge out of thin air.

The Founders were rightly cautious of the power of a strong central government. And a national law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure was always ripe for the worst big government abuses.

The FBI’s record of political tampering under Hoover was no secret. And it didn’t end there. Everything in Washington D.C. is political. Especially the apolitical. Its engine of careerism runs on networking and connections. The apolitical bureaucracy is a buzzing hive of ambition and backstabbing. Every agency has its own Machiavellian subcultures with courtiers, saboteurs, spies and manipulators. And every agency culture has a leftist ideological component, among its other agendas, some more than others.

The Obama years politicized everything from the food you ate to the clothes you wore. Certainly no arm of government survived those terrible two terms without being substantially transformed.

As the cold winter sun set on another year in Washington D.C., the deep state was reborn.

The Democrats have spent two years accusing Republicans of colluding with Russia. But as usual they were accusing their political opponents of their own crime. Republicans had not undermined national security. The Democrats did. A Republican president hadn’t sat across from Putin’s agent and assured him that he would have more flexibility to make deals after the election. A Republican president hadn’t let the Russians hack our national security secrets to provide a casus belli for targeting his opponents.

That was all Obama.

Barack Obama and Susan Rice sabotaged efforts to stop the Russians because their deep state domestic spying program depended on Russian collusion, both the reality and the allegation. Everything from the original allegation, Clinton campaign opposition research which drew on claims by a Russian intelligence operative, to the Mueller counterintelligence investigation, which has done nothing to actually stop the Russians, but has gone after Republican campaign pros, needed the Russians as its stalking horse.

Russian hacking didn’t change the election. But Obama’s exploitation of Russian hacking nearly did. We still don’t know what materials were gathered by the eavesdropping operation. Or who saw them. Information is the ultimate weapon in national security and election campaigns. Obama used the former to tamper with the latter. And all these years later, we still don’t know what damage was done.

While Mueller prowls around pursuing Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theories, those crimes remain unexplored. But we do know that the Russians didn’t do anything that Obama didn’t allow them to do.

Any serious effort to investigate Russian election hacks must begin with the man who let them to do it.

___________________

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center’s Front Page Magazine.

 

More details on Daniel Greenfield.

 

 

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]

 

Career

 

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]

 

1990s

 

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]

 

2000s

 

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; HollywoodReporter.com; 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”

 

By TIM BROWN

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 FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. 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 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections


Intro to ‘Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections’

Blog Editor John R. Houk

By Fred Fleitz

Posted 4/6/17

 

The Dems and the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) have been hell-bent to disqualify President Trump since election day 2016. All disqualification agendas seem to gravitate around President Trump colluded with Russia to win over Crooked Hillary.

 

It is my belief the “collusion” accusation is horse pucky, but Russian attempts to manipulate the American voter is very possible. AND if POSSIBLE turns into reality, Russia needs to suffer any kind consequences the Trump Administration is willing to inflict. By inflict I mean at least with a Cold War-style agitation to see how far the Russians are willing to confront the still most powerful nation in the world which of course is the United States of America.

 

That being said, the continuous disparaging of President Trump should be examined by the Trump Administration Department of Justice for crimes by Dems, the Left MSM, current government civil servant lifers loyal to BHO AND former Obama Administration Officials INCLUDING the treasonous former President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

My thoughts on American collusion with evil leads me to a Fred Fleitz article entitled, “Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections”.

 

JRH 4/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections

 

By Fred Fleitz

April 6, 2017

The Federalist

 

The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close.

 

Although there are strong indications the Obama administration abused intelligence collection by U.S. agencies to gather information on the Trump campaign to leak to the news media, it also appeared to abuse another U.S. intelligence mission: intelligence analysis.

 

Congressional Democrats and the mainstream media consider it gospel truth that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump win. But should we treat this assessment as true in light of major errors in U.S. intelligence analysis in the past and its politicization? Is something gospel truth just because U.S. intelligence agencies say it is?

 

The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close.

 

What Intelligence Has Really Confirmed About Russia

 

U.S. intelligence agencies issued two assessments on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The first was an October 7 statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that said WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails during the election were “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.

 

Moreover, although this statement said the U.S. intelligence community held this position, the memo was issued by only two agencies, and was called a “Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement.” Hillary Clinton seized on this statement in the last presidential debate on October 19 by inaccurately claiming “We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.”

 

The fact that this memo was not an intelligence community document issued by all agencies with equities in this issue was very unusual. It also was suspicious that an unclassified intelligence analysis so advantageous to one presidential candidate was issued just before the election and only two weeks before the last presidential debate. In my view, this looked like looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to issue an intelligence assessment to boost Clinton’s presidential campaign and hurt the Trump campaign.

 

The second intelligence assessment on this question, issued on January 6, 2017, I believe represents a serious instance of a presidential administration manipulating U.S. intelligence analysis to issue a politicized analysis to sabotage an incoming president from a different political party. The January 6 analysis found that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and hurt Hillary’s candidacy to promote Trump. The assessment said this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

What About All the Missing Intelligence Agencies?

 

Like the October memo, congressional Democrats and the news media have said this was the unanimous conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. But also like the October memo, this was not the case. The January 6 assessment was an “Intelligence Community Assessment.” Such analyses are usually issued and cleared by most if not all U.S. intelligence agencies and have a statement on the first page that usually reads “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”

 

The January 6 Intelligence Community Assessment lacked such a statement because it reflected the views of only three U.S. intelligence agencies: Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Security Agency. The CIA and FBI concluded with high confidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win. NSA concluded this with moderate confidence.

 

Why did other U.S. intelligence agencies with major equities in this issue not participate in the January 6 assessment? Why were the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security part of the October assessment but not the January one? Where were the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the military intelligence agencies?

 

The January assessment also was very unusual because it was such a conclusive analysis of a very controversial subject with no dissenting views. Based my CIA experience, this is unprecedented and makes me wonder whether intelligence agencies that may have dissented were deliberately excluded.

 

There also is the question as to whether this assessment was written to conform to a predetermined conclusion by the Obama White House to undermine the Trump administration. The U.S. intelligence community has played political games like this before with interagency assessments to promote political agendas. One of the most notorious examples of this was the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program that was intended to undermine President Bush’s Iran policy.

 

There Are Indications Intelligence Has Been Politicized

 

CIA Director John Brennan’s role in approving this assessment raises serious questions about whether it was manipulated for political reasons. Brennan has been heavily criticized for politicizing intelligence for the Obama administration. This includes the role he played in the 2012 CIA talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. He also has been openly and extremely hostile toward Trump before and after the election.

 

Given FBI Director James Comey’s statements at a recent House Intelligence Committee hearing that the conclusion in the January 6 assessment that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump was based on logic and not evidence, it is hard to believe this was not a pre-cooked conclusion driven by the highly partisan Brennan.

 

I strongly believe that if there were any evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win, or that Russia and the Trump campaign collaborated to affect the outcome of the election, this intelligence would have been leaked by Obama holdovers in government and the so-called “Deep State” to The New York Times long ago. The fact that Comey could not point to such evidence and this information has not been leaked suggests there is no such evidence because this didn’t happen.

 

The current congressional investigations of possible Russian interference in the election and the Obama administration’s misuse of U.S. intelligence collection to surveil the Trump campaign must also include whether intelligence analysis was politicized to damage Trump’s candidacy and presidency. These investigations must look at how the above analyses were drafted, who drafted them, and why some agencies did not participate. The committees also need to uncover any evidence of the White House trying to influence the outcome of these assessments or excluding certain agencies from participating.

 

It is time to call out Democrats and reporters who portray the idea that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win as established truth because it is the unanimous assessment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. I expect the congressional investigations will conclude this claim is false and actually represented a deliberate effort to manipulate intelligence analysis to undermine the Trump presidency.

 

________________

Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy. He worked in national-security positions for 25 years with the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.

 

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Obama’s Saboteurs


Justin Smith nails the Obama criminal spying on political opponents straight on the head.

 

JRH 3/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama’s Saboteurs

Undermining Our Republic

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 3/13/2017 12:30 PM

 

Setting a dangerous precedent for the future of America, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other Leftist propaganda machines and an army of the Obama administration’s holdovers, nothing less than saboteurs, have waged a war of innuendo and speculation and felony leaks for months in an attempt to destroy President Donald Trump’s administration and the government American voters demanded. They have turned their backs on the Constitution and the American people, their oath to protect and defend both, and they have sought to undermine our democratic process and the Republic of the United States of America.

 

Classified information leaked to the media – a felony – set speculation in motion as the New York Times and the left-leaning Mother Jones alleged collusion between Donald Trump and his advisors and Russia for the past six months, even though their own reports show an initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant targeting Trump and several associates was denied and nothing criminal was ever proven. And, according to Heat Street [HERE & HERE], a more narrowly drawn FISA warrant was granted in October to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russia’s Alfa Bank and SVB Bank; the FBI found nothing “nefarious” and attributed the raised alarm to “spam”.

 

Essentially, Donald Trump was not named in the second FISA warrant, but surveillance of him and his inner circle, private citizens such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, continued up to the general election [HERE & HERE]. One can only surmise that Obama and his leftist minions banked on finding information that would defeat Trump; and after Donald Trump won, they continued surveillance in hopes of eventually impeaching and unseating President Trump.

 

If phone calls to Russia merit an investigation, shouldn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been investigated for accepting a $145 million bribe from Russia and ROSATOM [HERE & HERE] in exchange for helping them acquire twenty-five percent of America’s uranium resources? Oh, wait a minute — Hillary is a Democrat, so just overlook any criminal behavior.

 

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested the Obama administration’s extensive surveillance of Trump’s presidential campaign was troubling but not surprising. Hatch “suspected that they were going to do that anyways.”

 

How could the media and the Obama machine — the Obama Foundation, billionaire George Soros and Organizing for America — not expect Trump to counter-punch? But incredulously, they were unprepared for President Trump’s March 4th 2017 allegation on Twitter that former President Obama “had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory”.

 

Who in the Obama administration ordered the FISA wiretaps and why?

 

U.S. citizens normally cannot be searched or subjected to electronic eavesdropping without probable cause of a crime, however FISA makes exceptions if there is probable cause they are agents of a foreign power. No one person can state with a straight face that “Trump is a Russian spy”.

 

Retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer, a defense intelligence officer trained by the CIA (Fox News), said, “I put this right at the feet of John Brennan and Jim Clapper, and I would even go so far as to say the White House was directly involved before [Obama} left”. He also asserted that it was clear sensitive information was divulged to the media by people who had access to beyond Top Secret material.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Shaffer on Fox & Friends Weekend

 

VIDEO: Lt. Col. Shaffer: Potential Obama Wiretapping Is ‘Soviet-Level Wrongdoing’ @OBAMAFORPRISON2017

 

Posted by Wesley Veras

Published on Mar 4, 2017

@OBAMAFORPRISON2017 SHARE IT/MAKE IT VIRAL.]

 

On the same day of President Trump’s bombshell, Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, told Judge Jeanine Pirro (Fox News) that the Obama administration was also “listening to conversations between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and the Ambassador from Russia while he was in his U.S. Senate office’. (And) the fact that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act is being used to listen to a political opponent is “very, very damaging”.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Pirro/Lewandowski interview:

 

VIDEO: Corey Lewandowski: Obama Bugged Sessions Meeting With Russian Ambassador

 

Posted by The PolitiStick

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

Full Pirro/Lewandowski interview HERE.]

 

Please note that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and many other Democrats met with this same Russian Ambassador. Their hypocrisy is on full display.

 

Some sort of surveillance of the Trump campaign occurred, if one can believe James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. Clapper told NBC and ABC News that during his tenure in the Obama administration, up to January 20th 2017, there wasn’t any collusion or collaboration between Donald Trump’s campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

 

The NYT’s story “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” on January 19th 2017 states: “The FBI is leading the investigation, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks … intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.

 

With FBI Director James Comey’s motivation suspect, he asked the Justice Department to confirm that President Trump’s allegation was “absolutely false”. This was followed recently with Congress’s demand for any and all documents concerning any Department of Justice investigation of President Trump and his campaign.

 

Once the Democrats had their “uh oh moment”, as Garth Kant of WND called it, they realized that a scandal bigger than Watergate was beginning to unfold. The Obama Justice Department had apparently used its legal authorities to target a political opponent and a presidential candidate.

 

Any outrage from the Obama White House is extremely exaggerated. Obama does not deny that Trump was being monitored by his Justice Department, and any spying on his arch rival, a man with the ability to diminish his legacy, was done with Obama’s blessing. Only a fool could believe that Obama was ignorant of the spying. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

From the DOJ’s seizure of Associated Press phone records and Fox News reporter James Rosen’s email records, to heavy IRS scrutiny of the Tea Party and on to the NSA’s warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens, the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for surveillance and using government power against its political enemies is a matter of shameful record. Obama’s and the Leftists’ so-called “Resistance” to the Trump administration has developed the feel of a not-so-covert coup against President Trump. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

Americans are entitled to the full truth surrounding former President Obama’s use of nation-state resources for the purposes of political gain. Sycophantic rogue agents of the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and the Justice Department, all Democrat ideologues and communists, have apparently subverted the U.S. Constitution and spied on President Trump’s presidential campaign in a manner that was not approved by any court, in order to derail his election and the Democratic process, leaking sensitive national security secrets along the way. And anyone involved, including Obama, must be prosecuted and placed behind bars. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith