Is there a Deep State coup underway against Bibi Netanyahu?


American Dems drool over the concept over a Parliamentary political system such as exists in Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing irrelevant criminal presented in such a way with the intent to force a Netanyahu resignation to face an idiotic case. Trump’s Constitutional separation of powers within government Branches enables him to withstand an American Deep State. Israel’s Deep State owns unelected bureaucrats that could force Netanyahu from Office regardless of the voters. THE EXPLANATION:

 

JRH 12/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

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

Is there a Deep State coup underway against Bibi Netanyahu?

By Dovid Mark, ISRAEL UNWIRED

December 22, 2019

Israpundit

 

With Israel heading to a third election and the Prime Minister now indicted, the real story is what is driving the judicial system against the Prime Minister. Mark Levin, in a comprehensive show below explains how the current crisis and political upheaval are really a product of a Deep State coup underway against Bibi Netanyahu.

 

VIDEO: EP 677 | The Coup Against Benjamin Netanyahu

 

 

[Posted by LevinTV

Dec 11, 2019

 

Mark and special guest Arthur Fergenson dissect the insidious indictment against Prime Minister Netanyahu and expose the political machinations behind it. MORE TO READ]

 

Israel’s Deep State as I have pointed out in other places, has an entrenched interest in keeping their power within the Justice system and Law enforcement agencies. This is where the left’s hold on Israel’s system remains the strongest and provides for an ability to thwart the nationalist and rightwing capabilities to actually implement policies that are beneficial to a majority of Israelis.

 

This struggle between the national camp and those hold overs within the bureaucracy of Israel is the real internal war going on now. The cases against Netanyahu are flimsy and yet the judicial system has used its power to create obstacles for Netanyahu to easily defeat them.

 

For example, the Attorney General has filled the case files with over 300 witnesses, many who have little or nothing to do with the cases themselves. One reason to do this is to keep the Prime Minister’s case going for years, forcing him to step down to handle it.

 

Why a Coup?

 

Ultimately, the left has recognized that the younger generation of right wing politicians in Israel are now coming of age. They have grown and matured under Netanyahu’s cover and are willing to do away with the Left’s Deep State once and for all. By taking the Prime Minister down and ensure a center-left coalition, or even someone amicable to the judiciary from the center-right, they can hold on longer to their power.

 

Ironically, it is the Prime Minister, when asked years ago to change the system to ensure more transparency, opted to protect it rather than alter it. This decision may have been a mistake as he underestimated the determination that the Deep State would have at taking him down.

 

What to Expect Next?

 

As Israel is in a period of chaos, predictions seem to be unwarranted as most have been deemed wrong over the last year. One thing is clear, after 70 years we seem to be reaching a point of national reckoning with two great founding movements the Labor Zionists who morphed into the secular Deep State and the Zionist Revisionists represented by the Likud throwing down for a final battle of rulership in the Holy Land.

 

Perhaps Israelis have matured more than their leaders and will opt to go a third way altogether. These days, anything is possible.

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

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

_________________________

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Leftist Shark-fest over Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas


John R. Houk

© August 22, 2018

 

Yesterday guilty verdicts came to light against Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, both have a connection to President Trump. If you were paying attention to the Leftist MSM you would think blood was in the water stirring a shark frenzy was erupting with bloodthirsty glee. They all believe Trump association to guilty parties means Trump’s Administration is about to come tumbling down.

 

The poor delusional Left are forgetting to report the guilty verdicts have ZERO to do with collusion between Trump and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election.

 

Manafort was found accused of 18 counts but the jury could only agree on eight counts of guilt:

 

In a verdict announced at the same hour as President Trump’s longtime fixer pleaded guilty to other financial charges, Manafort was convicted of filing a false tax return in each of the years from 2010 to 2014, failing to report a foreign bank account in 2012, and two counts of bank fraud.

 

 

But the panel of six men and six women deciding Manafort’s fate in Alexandria, Virginia, deadlocked on 10 counts. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III declared a mistrial on those charges.

 

 

The 10 deadlocked charges were three instances of failing to file a foreign bank account in 2011, 2013 and 2014, two counts of bank fraud, and five counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

 

… (Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts in first trial conviction from Mueller probe; By Jeff Mordock; Washington Times; 8/21/18)

 

Michael Cohen chose a guilty plea deal rather than face a jury:

 

Cohen pled guilty to eight felonies. While the five counts of failure to pay taxes on over $4 million in income are the most consequential to him, most significant to the country are two counts of illegal “in kind” campaign contributions. …

 

… The media narrative suggests that these payments violate federal law because they were made to influence the outcome of the election. That is not quite accurate. It was not illegal to pay hush money to the two women — Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels”). It was illegal for Michael Cohen to make in-kind contributions (which is what these pay-offs were) in excess of the legal limit. (Bold text by blog Editor)

 

… (What to Make of the Cohen Plea and Manafort Convictions; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 8/22/18 10:28 AM)

 

So what’s the deal with the press? Why the shark-fest of glee? Could it be because the Left is planting Fake News against Trump to stir-up hatred to enhance future impeachment sentiment and plant more Dems in Congress for such a proceeding?

 

JRH 8/22/18 (Hat Tip Elvis Knot in G+ Community The Resistance)

Please Support NCCR

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

MUST SEE: Former Head of Federal Elections Says Cohen Payment IS NOT an In Kind Campaign Contribution (AUDIO)

 

By Jim Hoft

August 21, 2018

The Gateway Pundit

 

Cohen-Trump

 

Conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin interviewed the former FEC Chairman on his show.

 

Professor Bradley Smith said the payment Cohen pled guilty to DO NOT qualify as campaign violations.

 

Last night Mark Levin interviewed a former FEC Chairman who explained why a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels cannot be considered an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign, thus violating campaign finance law.

 

Via The Right Scoop:

 

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”

 

Here’s the audio:

 

VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no Campaign Violation

 

[Posted by TheNewsCommenter

Published on Aug 21, 2018]

 

Professor Bradley Smith wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal in April.

 

Shortly before the 2016 election, one of President Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 payment to the porn star in return for silence about a 2006 affair she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump. (Both the president and Mr. Cohen have denied the affair; Mr. Trump has said he did not know of the payment to Ms. Daniels until this February.)

 

Not satisfied with an old-fashioned sex scandal—perhaps because the president seems impervious to that—some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law. Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission told “60 Minutes” the payment was “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” The FBI raided Mr. Cohen’s office, home and hotel room Monday. They reportedly seized records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of campaign-finance laws.

 

But let’s remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense.

 

Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on “personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe.

 

FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds.

 

If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds. How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law.

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

Fmr head of the FEC blows up media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law

 

By Frieda Powers 

August 22, 2018 

BizPac Review

 

No sooner had Michael Cohen pleaded guilty than a Democrat lawmaker called for a new investigation to determine if President Donald Trump committed a crime.

 

Rep. Joaquin Castro accused Trump of being an “unindicted co-conspirator” and called on Congress to launch a probe into possible criminal action by the president.

 

VIDEO: Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump – MSNBC

 

“And now the question is what will the US Congress do about that,” Castro, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said. “I believe that the judiciary committee in both the House and the Senate should open an investigation tomorrow morning.”

 

But conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin provided a hard lesson in how the law actually works, noting how what the president is accused of doing is not even illegal.

 

“I want to help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors and of course the professors and I want to help them understand what the law is,” Levin told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday.

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin slams Michael Cohen’s plea deal

 

[Posted by Fox News

Published on Aug 21, 2018

 

‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ host Mark Levin says Lanny Davis had Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of criminality that don’t exist on ‘Hannity’.

 

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.]

 

The general counsel for the Clinton mob family Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist,” he added. “It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent.”

 

“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything,” Levin argued, using an example to drive home his point.

 

“Say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of money. We have had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them. I’m a candidate, I don’t want the negative publicity. So he says to the private lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done,” Levin explained. “Is that illegal? It’s perfectly legal. Yet according to the prosecution of the Southern District of New York, it’s paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, how stupid is your point?”

 

The former head of the Federal Election Commission, appearing on Levin’s show, also clarified how Cohen’s alleged “hush” payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election is not an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign or a violation of campaign finance law.

 

VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no Campaign Violation [SEE ABOVE in The Gateway Pundit post]

 

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason,” Professor Bradley Smith told Levin Tuesday.

 

The expenditures alleged by Cohen, Smith explained, are not violations of campaign finance law even though they “might incidentally benefit your campaign,”

 

“The argument seems to be, and it hasn’t changed,” Levin summed up, “is that, if I spend money to make myself look better, or to take away negative issues in my private life, my business life, my employment life and use my own money, then somehow that is a campaign contribution…which it is not.”

____________________

Leftist Shark-fest over Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2018

___________________

MUST SEE: Former Head of Federal Elections Says Cohen Payment IS NOT an In Kind Campaign Contribution (AUDIO)

 

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

_________________

Fmr head of the FEC blows up media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law

 

Copyright © 2018. All Rights Reserved. BizPac Review

Hannity Outline of Dossiers & Memos


John R. Houk

© February 6, 2018

 

Sean Hannity’s show was awesome last night (2/5/18). Hannity’s opening monologue outlines (he even provides lists as he speaks) how the Memo constructed by the GOP members of the House Intel Committee demonstrates how Crooked Hillary’s campaign used the FBI and Christopher Steele creating lies to harm President Trump before and after his election.

 

The Dems led by liar Adam Schiff have constructed a Minority-Dem Memo claiming the GOP Memo is filled with political duplicity. Although President Trump hasn’t decided to release the Dem Memo, many pundits expect him to do so. Yet rumor has it that the Dem Memo does not contradict the GOP Memo one iota. Rather the Dem agenda is to discredit the GOP Memo by attacking Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and prominent Intel Committee member – Trey Gowdy.

 

Attacking the messenger to discredit facts and truth is the standard method utilized by Alinsky, Obama and Crooked Hillary.

 

To drive Hannity’s opening monologue home, the show has who Hannity calls “The Great One” – Mark Levin. Levin corroborates everything Hannity lined out but emphasizes one key feature – Crooked Hillary paid for it all.

 

Below are the two videos from the same show.

 

JRH 2/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: Hannity: Second memo exposes deep state corruption

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Feb 5, 2018

 

Former British spy Christopher Steele was working on a second anti-Trump dossier that contained allegations that were fed to him by Clinton associates and the Obama State Department.

 

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.

 

READ THE REST

 

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

VIDEO: Mark Levin talks about the memo madness

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Feb 5, 2018

 

Upcoming host of ‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ sounds off on ‘Hannity.’

 

READ THE REST

 

Dem Propaganda & Deep State Coup?


John R. Houk

© March 6, 2017

 

The Dems have tried to frame President Trump with getting the Russians to fix the November elections to Trump’s favor. Indeed, traitor former President Obama has been exposed with his own self trying to sway the election with the Russian Fake News story combined with some Watergate style campaign spying in the name of National Security.

 

FINALLY! President Trump is pushing back! Our President is letting the cat out of the bag and the Dems are trying to obfuscate the push back with typical denials in their defense of treasonous Obama.

 

Here is some more Obama/Dem Deep State documentation of the travesty of pulling a legal coup against President Trump. I have to wonder. WHEN the legal coup fails, will the Obama/Dems begin a violent coup as evidenced in the streets with violence against Pro-Trumpers? Can you say Loretta Lynch?

 

VIDEO: Loretta Lynch Calls for MARCHING, BLOOD and even DEATH in Resistance to Trump in new Facebook Video

 

Posted by The Tolerant Left

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

As to the push back against Obama, Mark Levin outlines the very same thing Trump refers to on Fox & Friends yesterday. The irony! The sources cited by Levin are Left oriented rags (Levin uses the term “another Right Wing” in a tongue-in-cheek fashion to get his point across).

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin PROVES Obama Wiretapping on President Donald Trump | Fox & Friends 3/5/17

 

Posted by KagenOfficial

Published on Mar 5, 2017

 

Mark Levin interview on Fox News Fox & Friends on March 5, 2017 3/5/17 and provides proof of Obama Administration Wiretapping Spying by FBI and NSA. Mark Levin proves wiretap trump tower

 

If you are foolish enough to watch other news outlets castigate President Trump for his tweets against treasonous Obama, YOU have to see the hypocrisy that Levin sources the Left for Obama meddling in the 2016 election cycle!

 

JRH 3/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

SPYGATE: Mark Levin Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]

 

By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

March 5, 2017 

Noisy Room

 

Obama Spying

 

Mark Levin is on a tear and it is a wonder to behold. I just watched him provide solid proof on Fox News on how all these police tactics against President Trump did indeed occur. The media provided most of the proof themselves that the two FISA requests were sought by Obama… the first one in June of last year, which mentioned Trump directly and was denied, and a second that occurred in October last year and was narrowed in scope, then was approved. It looks like it may have been targeting a server in the White House that was emailing Russian banks supposedly. No wrongdoing was found, unless of course you count what Obama did.

 

Levin has laid out exactly how this should be investigated and he has the full attention of the White House. His findings and recommendations have been circulated to several White House staffers, according to Washington Post reporter Robert Costa. The FISA orders and transcripts should now be made public and hearings should begin over all this. The media is still insisting there is no proof, when they provided said proof. This is insane.

 

From Conservative Review:

 

Mark Levin, Conservative Review’s editor-in-chief, recommends the Trump administration open an investigation into Barack Obama. Levin states the former president’s team used police-state tactics against then-candidate Trump during the 2016 election.

 

“The gravity of this is unparalleled. It appears that during the course of a presidential election, the Obama administration used both intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate the Republican nominee’s campaign and certain surrogates,” Levin tells Conservative Review.

 

Levin – who served as chief of staff for President Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese – explained the potential scandal on his Thursday evening radio show:

 

“We have a prior administration – Barack Obama and his surrogates – who are supporting Hillary Clinton and her party, the Democratic Party. Who were using the … intelligence activities to surveil members of the Trump campaign, and to put that information out in the public.

 

“The question is: Was Obama surveilling top Trump campaign officials during the election?” Levin asked on “The Mark Levin Show.”

 

Mark Levin is calling this a silent coup. And he is correct. I’ve looked right at this evidence for months and I never connected the dots. I’m so glad Levin did. It is obvious to me that Barack Obama did know about all this and had Lynch at the DOJ once again do his dirty work. There was and is an orchestrated plan to sabotage the Trump presidency and not only stop him from getting his appointees approved, but stop him from accomplishing anything of merit or that would hurt the Obama legacy.

 

A myriad of things now look very connected. The protests and riots, Valerie Jarrett moving into Obama’s mansion, Jarrett’s daughter being hired by CNN to cover the DOJ and Jeff Sessions when she’s not even a journalist, the attack on Jeff Sessions himself, and on and on and on. When do we wake up and realize we are at war within? And that Obama and his activists must be stopped and held accountable. You’ve got Loretta Lynch literally calling for blood and death in our streets: …They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again– Loretta Lynch, February 28 2017 This is who we are fighting and we must now see this through and show the left that we will not stand for police state tactics against Americans like this and especially against an elected President.

 

[Noisy Room Video posted above]

 

Full Interview [Fox & Friends Weekend]: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/mark-levin-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretapping

+++

WAS OBAMA’S TAP OF TRUMP LEGAL, AMERICAN?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals why scandal is ‘bigger and worse than Watergate’

 

By JOSEPH FARAH

March 5, 2017

WND

 

After Donald Trump blew the whistle on the eavesdropping of his 2016 campaign headquarters by Barack Obama’s administration, few in the media or elsewhere seem to be asking the obvious questions:

Was it legal?

 

Was it ethical – in the American way?

 

One thing is for certain: If the roles were reversed and the Trump administration bugged Democrats, you can imagine the media would take a much different view.

 

Let’s first take a look at how the media reported this travesty of justice, political decorum, the Constitution and American legal tradition:

 

  • Washington Post: President Trump on Saturday angrily accused former President Barack Obama of orchestrating a “Nixon/Watergate” plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters in the run-up to last fall’s election, providing no evidence to support his explosive claim and drawing a flat denial from Obama’s office.

 

  • CNN: Trump’s baseless wiretap claim

 

  • Atlantic: Trump’s Unfounded Claims of a “Nixon/Watergate” Wiretapping Scheme

 

  • Huffington Post: Obama Refutes Allegation that He Wiretapped Trump Tower During Campaign

 

  • New York Daily News: Trump’s poor understanding of national security investigations may prove dangerous

 

  • New York Times: President Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation without offering any evidence.

 

The emphasis of all of these “fake news” reports is disingenuous to say the least. Obama didn’t deny his administration wiretapped Trump. He said no one at the White House did. That is a virtual admission that his administration did, probably Justice Department, meaning the “apolitical Loretta Lynch” who just called for “blood and death” in the streets to stop Trump, much to the approval of Senate Democrats. It’s an obvious parsing of words by the slick Obama.

 

The accusation is indeed bigger than Watergate, which began with an attempt not to eavesdrop directly on Richard Nixon’s opponent in the 1972 presidential election, but on Larry O’Brian, the head of the DNC, whose offices were in the Watergate Hotel. He was the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of his day, but she and Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta didn’t bother securing their email communications, and you could read them all on WikiLeaks.

 

And that brings us to the excuse for Trump’s campaign being undoubtedly bugged – the elusive evidence for Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

If you doubt there is no evidence, just carefully read every New York Times story on the fake scandal. Way down near the bottom of every story, the paper that has trumpeted this story the most admits there’s no evidence.

 

So, here’s the way this thing obviously went down.

 

Obama’s team first tried to get a broad FISA warrant to investigate the Russian fantasy. The judge turned it down.

 

It tried again with a narrower FISA warrant request. The judge turned it down.

 

Then it tried a third time, and the judge approved it in October. Coincidentally, that is the exact time Trump says the wiretapping began.

 

Not one of these big news organizations will tell you that.

 

It’s the attorney general who would request such wiretap authorizations for heavy-duty, politically charged requests such as this – not that any have ever been requested or authorized in the history of the republic.

 

Do news organizations really want to be covering up stuff like this? Don’t they understand the same tactics can be used against them? Obama, or (wink-wink) Lynch, just set the precedent.

 

Nixon never did anything remotely like this – and he was forced from office as a result. Obama or Lynch could well be prosecuted by the Trump administration. And one or both probably should be.

 

Misuse of FISA statutes is a clear violation of the law.

 

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information” as the basis for surveillance to protect the U.S. against a “grave” or “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror.

 

Does anyone suggest such a thing with regard to Russian hacks?

 

That’s what makes this scandal, pardon the expression, “bigger than Watergate.”

 

Out of more than 35,000 FISA court requests, only 12 have ever been rejected. But two out of three requested by the Obama administration to investigate the Russia deal were. What does that tell you?

 

It tells me this was a political fishing expedition to build a case against Trump if or when he beat Hillary.

 

Since the election, the hysteria over Russia’s role in the election has only increased exponentially.

 

And that’s why:

 

1. I believe Trump.

2. I don’t believe Obama.

3. I don’t believe the “fake news cartel,” which is all in for finding the elusive Trump-Russia link.

 

What we’ve got here at first glance is a prima facie case for “bigger and worse than Watergate.”

 

But the Washington Post and New York Times have already signaled they won’t be investigating. They are already publishing front-page editorials that stake out a rather shrill “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil” approach.

 

Was it legal? No.

 

Was it ethical in the American political tradition? No.

 

Is it one of the most dangerous developments in American political history? Yes.

 

+++

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump 

 

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Originally NATIONAL REVIEW

March 5, 2017

Israpundit

Posted by Ted Belman

 

President Trump’s early Saturday morning tweeting has exploded to the forefront an uncovered scandal I’ve been talking about since early January (including in this weekend’s column): The fact that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI investigated associates of Donald Trump, and likely Trump himself, in the heat of the presidential campaign.

 

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.”
FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony. In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates.

 

As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application.

 

In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance (although, as I’ve noted over the years, the claim by many that it is a rubber-stamp is overblown).

 

Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates.

 

It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway, but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (the former Trump campaign chairman who was ousted in August), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page.

 

The Times report (from mid-January) includes a lot of heavy breathing about potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia; but it ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts. Trump’s tweets on Saturday prompted some interesting “denials” from the Obama camp. These can be summarized in the statement put out by Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis:

 

A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

 

This seems disingenuous on several levels. First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates.

 

The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Second, the business about never ordering surveillance against American citizens is nonsense. Obama had American citizens killed in drone operations. Obviously, that was not done in the U.S. or through the FISA process; it was done overseas, under the president’s commander-in-chief and statutory authority during wartime.

 

But the notion that Obama would never have an American subject to surveillance is absurd. Third, that brings us to a related point: FISA national-security investigations are not like criminal investigations. They are more like covert intelligence operations – which presidents personally sign off on. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

The intention is not to build a criminal case; it is to gather information about what foreign powers are up, particularly on U.S. soil. One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Consequently, there is nothing wrong, in principle, with a president’s ordering national-security surveillance of a potential foreign agent who may be helping a foreign power threaten American security and interests.

 

That is one of the president’s main jobs – there would be something wrong if a president, who truly believed the nation was threatened by a foreign power, failed to take action. Prior to FISA’s enactment in 1978, courts had no formal role in the surveillance of foreign agents for national-security purposes – it was a unilateral executive-branch function. Beginning with the Carter administration during FISA’s enactment, it has been the position of presidential administrations of both parties that, despite the enactment of the FISA process, the president maintains inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to order surveillance even in the absence of court authorization. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Of course, doing so is controversial, as President Bush learned after he directed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, we should not allow the statements of Obama spokesmen to confuse us here. The Justice Department and FBI have two missions: (a) criminal law-enforcement and (b) national security. It would be scandalous (though probably not constitutional unconstitutional) for a president to interfere in the law-enforcement mission by ordering the Justice Department to prosecute someone outside its normal procedures.

 

But it would not be inappropriate  e–ven though civil libertarians would raise holy hell — for the president to direct warrantless surveillance against a target, even an American citizen, if the president truly believed that target was functioning as an agent of a foreign power threatening U.S. interests. To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence, at least that I know of, to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process.

 

Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power.  [I have updated the post, as indicated, to reflect that I meant “not unconstitutional” in a passage in which I erroneously said “not constitutional.] -[Blog Editor’s bold text]

__________________

Dem Propaganda & Deep State Coup?

John R. Houk

© March 6, 2017

_______________

SPYGATE: Mark Levin Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]

 

© 2017 NoisyRoom.net

______________

WAS OBAMA’S TAP OF TRUMP LEGAL, AMERICAN?

 

Copyright 2017 WND

_______________

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump 

 

© 2005-2017 by Ted Belman. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.

 

Israpundit

 

About National Review

 

Fascists to the Left and Right


On June 12 I posted an amalgamation of Justin Smith thoughts – that are preceded by an intro by me – he had left on the Facebook group America’s Party. Now Justin has put together an essay about the same thoughts which relate to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

JRH 6/14/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Fascists to the Left and Right

America Betrayed

By Justin O. Smith

6/13/2015 7:17 PM

Show me the ‘free trade’ section of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and I’ll kiss Obama’s ass.” – Justin O Smith

Under the banner of free trade with trade an afterthought, America was betrayed on May 21st by forty-nine GOP Senators and thirteen Democrats, who voted for the Trade Promotion Authority [TPA] and corporatism and transnational fascism in order to fast-track the anti-American Trans-Pacific Partnership “trade deal” and create an international rule of law unaccompanied by democracy. This, in essence, would have removed constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures, and it would transfer Congressional control of numerous issues to international tribunals.

Obama has been negotiating the TPP under a blanket of silence and secrecy for the past five years, and the American people were not allowed to see it before Congress voted on the TPA fast-track on June 12th; only through leaked information do we now understand that the TPP will significantly impact public health, foreign policy, immigration and the environment.

Members of the U.S. Congress have been allowed only limited access to the TPP in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center. They can review one section at a time under “supervision” of a guard, and they are forced to relinquish any notes they made before they leave. Yet more than 500 official corporate “advisors” have unlimited access to the TPP text.

Sen. Rand Paul stated, “It boggles the mind,” and he continued, [Who] … decides to keep a trade treaty secret?”

Michael Wessel has forty years of trade policy experience working for former Democrat Leader Dick Gephardt. He has worked on the North American Free Trade Agreement and he was an advisor to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also a “cleared advisor” who has read the text of TPP and opposes large portions of it. He asserts in a Politico interview that he and other cleared advisors are being censored and prevented from publicly sharing their criticisms of the trade deal concerning specific proposals [See HERE]. Like every other issue, Obama pretends that such criticisms do not exist.

Why isn’t every single member of Congress demanding the full disclosure of the content of the TPP?

More than this, why would any Republican be willing to give Obama extended powers under TPA, when Obama has shown a real disdain for the U.S. Constitution? Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called it “insane to give Obama some power to negotiate an important treaty in secret … [and] not have to account to Congress or the Senate.” [See HERE]

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is one of the few people who have read the TPP, and he noted earlier this month: “Under fast-track Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers. … the power to write legislation … to amend legislation … to fully consider legislation on the floor … to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive two-thirds vote.” __ Session adds, “The latter is especially important since … it [the TPP] more closely resembles a treaty than a trade deal.” [See HERE]

Numerous sources, such as Frank Gaffney – president of the Center for Security Policy, Lou Dobbs – noted scholar and investigative journalist, and political analyst Mark Levin, have all noted that the TPA empowers Obama to unilaterally draft “implementing legislation” that will change U.S. laws and regulations to comply with the agreement he has negotiated. Through the TPA, Congress limits its own ability to debate and amend Obama’s “implementing legislation.”

Curiously, most of the 49 Senators who voted to fast-track the TPP had not read it, before they voted in favor of the TPA, including presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, although Cruz has since read it. So in essence, these men voted on a significant trade policy bill that affects the U.S. beyond anything America has seen to date, without reading the first word in it.

Deceit and subterfuge are being employed, when government officials claim TPP will not supersede U.S. law, because the fast-tracked legislation will. It also should be highlighted that rulings emanating from international tribunals do result in de facto modifications to a nation’s laws through regulations extra-legally, just in the same manner the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules have impacted the U.S.

The transnationalist governance structure of the TPP falls under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission, which has extremely broad powers and is taking the form of a nascent European Union. This new transnational commission has been chartered, by all accounts, with a “Living Agreement” clause, and it will have the authority to amend the agreement after passage, to add members and to issue regulations impacting the environment, commercial policy, healthcare, labor and immigration: An entire section of the TPP is devoted solely to immigration policy for the participating nations.

If one needs more reasons to oppose TPA and TPP, they are found in the Clinton administration’s North American Free Trade Agreement (Jan. 1994) and the WTO (Jan. 1995). These two trade treaties have caused serious detrimental effects on the U.S. economy.

Reuters’ reports: “Since the pacts were implemented, U.S. trade deficits, which drag down economic growth, have soared more than 430 percent with our free trade partners. In the same period, they’ve declined 11 percent with countries that are not free trade partners. Since fast-track authority was used to pass NAFTA and the U.S. entrance into the World Trade Organization, the overall annual U.S. trade deficit in goods has more than quadrupled, from $218 billion to $912 billion.”

Daniel DiMicco, Chairman Emeritus of Nucor Steel, explains that these free trade deals haven’t been free trade at all. We have lowered our barriers to foreign imports, but they have retained their barriers to our imports, resulting in “unilateral trade disarmament” and enabling “foreign mercantilism.”

Along with this, the AFL-CIO labor federation released a report on May 20th that read: “There is no reason to believe that drawing the Pacific Rim countries away from China is a realistic goal, so long as China continues to offer mutually beneficial trade, investments and supply chain opportunities to those countries — It seems reckless to ask Congress to enter into a deal that has a high probability of undermining U.S. wages, jobs and labor rights, as previous trade agreements have done, especially given that the deal has no real chance of diminishing China’s existing economic influence.

In this context, those proponents saying “Our rules, no rules or China’s rules,” over the TPA battle, are presenting fallacies and a false premise.

“Free trade” shouldn’t destroy one-fourth of all manufacturing jobs in the U.S., as NAFTA did. “Free trade” shouldn’t force displaced American workers to take pay cuts of 20% or more, in some cases. And ‘free trade” shouldn’t give transnational corporations more decision-making power than the U.S. government, making them a part of the government and allowing them to impact U.S. society, when their interference is unwanted and outside the normal parameters of any right they might claim.

In effect, TPA fast-track is an agreement to pre-approve and remove constitutional protections against the creation of a global governance structure, whose structures have not been made public yet. Above any desire to understand the legal and constitutional basis for such secrecy involving the TPP, one should ask, “Why is our Congress even considering such a transfer of U.S. sovereign power to a transnational governance structure of any kind, regardless of how beneficial the ‘deal’ seems?”

Can anyone show me the “free trade” in the TPP deal? Is this what freedom, liberty and justice for all has come to mean in America? God help US if it is.

Fortunately for all America, the TPA was not allowed to advance, after Speaker Boehner pushed it to a 219-211 win, because a key element, the Trade Adjustment Assistance segment, was defeated 302-126, in an effort led by labor and Nancy Pelosi. But Boehner has suggested that it will be revisited and another vote taken over the next few days, however, the 188 member Democrat caucus contains 124 hard “NO” votes in the House, with the full backing of Senators like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. So, it is highly likely that the TAA bill won’t pass, and the TPA won’t even get a vote.

Call Your Congressmen and urge them to stand firm against any new attempt to pass TPA; and then, prepare to engage in the most forceful, powerful Civil Disobedience imaginable, if for some unforeseen reason, our representatives pass the TAA and the TPA, which go against everything remotely in America’s best interests. Prepare to even take up arms should it become necessary to do so, in order to make our government and Obama understand just how far ‘We the People’ believe that they have overreached their authority.

As a longtime supporter of the GOP, I stand with those five Republican Senators, including Jeff Sessions, and the 32 Republican Congressmen, with Tennessee’s representatives noticeably missing from their ranks, and all the Democrats who stood and opposed the TPA on June 12th: Let’s pray that the next vote permanently derails the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor. All source-related links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Do NOT Trust a Govt. that Ignores the Constitution


Red Change you will begin to feel - BHO

John R. Houk

© February 18, 2013

 

Distrust of government is one foundational truth that the 13 American Colonies band together to overthrow the then unjust British government for imposing taxation without colonial representation AND a British military enforcing that taxation by stepping on the Liberties on the American colonial citizens that considered themselves equal citizens of the British Empire. Obviously the possession of arms and guns became an important issue for colonials that grew weary of a government imposing law from the rule of law from across the Atlantic Ocean in jolly London England.

 

Now President Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist minions are using a slew of unfortunate massacres by crazy people to disarm Americans. Or if the denizens of gun control decide to compromise by allowing gun owners to continue, the government intends to know where every gun owner is and what kind of gun they own. Knowing the location and kind of gun an American citizen owns is nearly the same as disarming Americans. All the government has to do is send loyal government police to collect those weapons under some made up national emergency leading to martial law.

 

So here is something you are Americans need to be aware of. Did you know that while Obama tries to eliminate gun owner ship that several national agencies involved in law enforcement are buying ammunition in greater quantities? AND it is not just any kind of ammunition but it is hollow point bullets. Hollow points impact a particular kind of destruction penetrating barriers and ripping flesh.

 

Gregg Campbell writing for the Tea Party News Network (TPNN) asks to the effect: If Obama wants to disarm Americans so badly why are law enforcement agencies arming themselves in greater magnitude with hollow point bullets? Is there a conspiracy of government preparation for the chaos that would follow an economic collapse?

 

Read Campbell’s article and become more active in protecting your Second Amendment Rights to own and bear arms.

 

JRH 2/18/13

Please Support NCCR

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

As Government Seeks to Disarm Americans, the Department of Homeland Security Buys 1.6 Billion Rounds

 

Stormtroopers 

 

By Greg Campbell TPNN Contributor

February 17, 2013

TPNN

 

There’s an old saying that goes, “A broken clock is right twice a day.” And while we may be inclined to often dismiss the more conspiracy-minded assertions of political pundits that see a massive conspiracy to explain every rain puddle they step in or red light they encounter, the fact remains that as our government becomes more sinister in nature, Americans are jumping to conclusions that while seemingly outrageous, may very well be correct.

 

For instance, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, prompting much speculation amongst political pundits and casual observers of politics alike.

 

This is in addition to a purchase by the Social Security Administration of 174,000 hollow-point bullets last August. When pushed for an answer as to why the Social Security Administration was purchasing the hollow-points, an expensive round often carried by active-duty police officers for its lethality and resistance to over-penetration of the target, the Social Security Administration claimed that the purchase of ammo was for “training.”

 

At a time when the government is working to disarm the American populace, the Department of Homeland Security is simultaneously arming themselves with an amount of ammunition that could shoot every American around 5 times. Why?

 

Radio host and political pundit Mark Levin claims he knows why. On Friday night’s broadcast, Levin stated,

 

“I’m going to tell you what I think is going on. I don’t think insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies — they play out multiple scenarios. They simulate multiple scenarios. I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.”

 

He continued,

 

“I’m not talking about a recession. I’m talking about a collapse when people are desperate, when they can’t food and clothing, when they have no way of going from place to place, when they can’t protective themselves. There aren’t enough police officers on the face of the Earth to adequately handle a situation like that.”

 

He also discussed his time in the Reagan Administration and noted,

 

“And having been close enough to law enforcement — not in law enforcement, but close enough to it in my days in the Justice Department — I expect that they’re running through these scenarios just in case. … I know why the government is arming up. It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection. It’s because our society is unraveling… You see what’s going on in Greece, in Spain and Portugal and other parts of the world? That’s what they fear, and yet, they’ve caused it.”

 

As American take notice of the encroachments upon our Second Amendment rights, the government is simultaneously arming themselves and claiming that the purchase of 1.6 billion rounds is a cost-saving measure that buying in bulk provides.

 

Americans have historically been wary of a government working to disarm them. However, doubly as ominous is the arms race between government and the civilian population. As conspiracy theorists hail this as a sign of trouble ahead, it brings to mind another old phrase: “Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”

______________________

NCCR Editor: A person left a comment that I really enjoyed and thus I am also cross posting this comment.

 

JRH 2/18/13

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

Mac M Comment

2/17/13

 

If you look closely at the picture above, some things should jump out at you in this view, besides the Red and Blue Lights: Full body armor, a fully “up Armored” vehicle and weapons.

 

The first is that there is no Organization Identification on either the Vehicle or the personnel.

 

The weapons that they are holding are the full Military versions, which are not available to the general public. Not the AR-15 that the Government is trying to take away from the public. The AR-15 is actually just a semi-automatic rifle, which looks SCARY. But if the powers that be have their way, and depending on how it is worded, would be made illegal because of its ability to fire more than one bullet without reloading. That would also include my .22 which is semi-automatic. Its tubular magazine holds over 10 bullets, and it was made in 1928.

 

The shotgun on the left is the “Street Sweeper”, designed to deliver 0-0 Buckshot in a horizontal pattern, semi-automatic. The weapon in the middle, although you can’t really see much of it you can see the bore. .223 would be the most logical choice and that would make it an M-4, full automatic. The one on the right is the shorter version, designed for “Urban Warfare” and made to be used inside a building. And that is not counting the “Weapons Systems” of the vehicle itself.

 

I have read in different articles and seen in news programs that the DHS, FEMA, TSA and even the SSA have order[ed] multiple types of Ammo, now numbering in the Billions. It would follow logically that the weapons to fire them would have also been bought.

 

That type vehicle is the same type I saw in IRAQ while I was there. And DHS etc have several. Ask yourself “WHY?” Are they planning to put the private army that is being built in our country into some far off foreign land?

 

If you don’t think there is a Private Army being formed and supplied, you have not been watching. FEMA and DHS are graduating a class of about 250 every two weeks….EACH. It was on national news and shown on the net many times SUPPOSEDLY to assist in times of “national emergency”. How many bullets does it take to kill a Hurricane or a Flood?

 

Do you honestly think that these type weapons systems are going to be parked outside your home to protect you and your loved ones; should the Nation breakdown to roving Armed bands or gangs who are bent upon taking what you have?

 

You can call me paranoid if you wish. I prefer the labels of INFORMED AND PREPARED. That mantle fits me better than “sheeple, victim or SUBJECT”.

_________________________

Do NOT Trust a Govt. that Ignores the Constitution

John R. Houk

© February 18, 2013

_____________________

As Government Seeks to Disarm Americans, the Department of Homeland Security Buys 1.6 Billion Rounds

 

© 2012 Tea Party News Network

 

Comment edited for purposes of blogging – forgive  me Mac M.