FBI Still Corrupt? What’s Up Wray?


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Posted September 22, 2020

 

If Americans actually elect the perpetuation of Obama/Crooked Hillary/Biden corrupt government on November 3, 2020; those Americans deserve the despotism that will be in their future! Trump should win if sane voters outnumber the insane. Pending a Trump reelection, FBI Director Christopher Wray should be fired. It is becoming more and more apparent that Wray is as crooked a cop as his predecessor James Comey. Comey crimes are still being covered up by Wray. WHY? It smells of swamp stench to me.

 

Here is a Gateway Pundit and a video from Tracy Beanz (H/T uncoverdc.com) on FBI corruption – and NO WRAY CLEANUP!

 

JRH 9/22/20

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, that includes immune boosting products.

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

FBI Agent Who Uncovered Weiner Laptop with Hillary’s Emails says FBI Leadership Told Him to Erase All of His Findings

 

By Joe Hoft

September 21, 2020 at 7:30am

The Gateway Pundit

 

John Robertson

 

John Robertson, was an FBI Agent who investigated crimes against children.  This is how he stumbled upon Hillary Clinton’s emails.

 

We first reported on Robertson in August of 2018 when the mainstream media was focused on the Trump Russia Mueller sham investigation.

 

John was assigned to the Anthony Weiner case, a top Democrat married to Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin. During his investigation of Weiner’s computer John discovered thousands of Hillary Clinton emails and blew the whistle on the Comey-McCabe and Strzok cover-up of evidence.

 

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported:

 

“The crickets I was hearing was really making me uncomfortable because something was going to come down,” Robertson said he later told Justice Department investigators. “Why isn’t anybody here? Like if I’m the supervisor of any [counterintelligence] squad … and I hear about this, I’m getting on with headquarters and saying, ‘Hey, some agent working child porn here may have [Hillary Clinton] emails. Get your ass on the phone, call [the case agent], and get a copy of that drive,’ because that’s how it should be. And that nobody reached out to me within, like, that night, I still to this day don’t understand what the hell went wrong.” Robertson wrote a “Letter to Self” in late October after an Oct. 19, 2016, meeting, during which he implored Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Kramer of the Southern District of New York to push FBI leadership to look at the thousands of emails he had unearthed.

 

“I have very deep misgivings about the institutional response of the FBI to the congressional investigation into the Hillary Clinton email matter … Put simply: I don’t believe the handling of the material I have by the FBI is ethically or morally right. But my lawyer’s advice — that I simply put my SSA on notice should cover me — is that I have completed CYA [Cover Your Ass], and I have done so,” Robertson wrote. “Further, I was told by [Kramer] that should I ‘whistleblow,’ I will be prosecuted.”

 

Robertson continued: “I possess — the FBI possesses — 20 times more emails than Comey testified to. … While Comey did not know at the time about what I have, people in the FBI do now, and as far as I know, we are being silent. … If I say or do nothing more, I am falling short ethically and morally. And later, I may be accused of being a Hillary Clinton hack because of the timing of all this. … But if I say something (i.e., whistleblow), I will lose my reputation, my career, and risk prosecution. I will also be accused of being a Donald Trump hack.”

 

The Daily Mail reports on Robertson saying:

 

The only advice from his bosses was to erase his office computer, which meant leaving no record of his investigations, a new book says.

 

Charles Ortel, who’s an expert on the corruption within the Clinton Foundation believes that there were a number of Clinton Foundation emails on the Weiner laptop:

 

 

Others believe that what was found on the Weiner laptop was shocking, we reported on this in August 2018 as well.  In late 2016 shortly before the 2016 election on November 4th, 2016, Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, was on Breitbart radio and he said shocking things about Weiner’s emails –

 

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

 

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

 

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

 

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

 

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said.

 

Prince shared that the NYPD kept a copy of all the emails on Weiner’s computer, and the following –

 

Prince agreed, but said, “If people are willing to bend or break the law and don’t really care about the Constitution or due process – if you’re willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure” could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?

 

We still don’t know what happened to the Weiner emails.  We now know that Robertson did a CYA to protect himself.  The American people deserve to know what was on the laptop and in those emails.

 

Joe Hoft is the twin brother of TGP’s founder, Jim Hoft. His posts have been retweeted by President Trump and have made the headlines at the Drudge Report. Joe worked as a corporate executive in Hong Kong and traveled the world for his work, which gives him a unique perspective of US and global current events. He has ten degrees or designations and is the author of three books. His new book: ‘In God We Trust: Not in Lying Liberal Lunatics’ is out now – please take a look and buy a copy.

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

VIDEO: The Weiner Laptop Emerges Again: FBI Agent Speaks

Posted by Tracy Beanz

120K subscribers – Sept 20, 2020

 

Original Thread: https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/985526771557814273

New Thread: https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1307675664884158468

Abedin: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1118147754595966977.html

Telegram- The library: https://t.me/The_Library_II

 

MORE TO READ

______________________________

FBI Agent Who Uncovered Weiner Laptop with Hillary’s Emails says FBI Leadership Told Him to Erase All of His Findings

 

© 2020 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Prosecute Hillary Clinton


Here’s another Sunday cross post some piece you may find interesting or fascinating. Again YOU may have read, BUT I’m guessing many have not read.

 

This one is a Breitbart post on released Lisa Page testimony preceded by the Facebook intro where I discovered it.

 

JRH 3/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Facebook Intro by Bob Brown 

Found at Facebook Group Patriot Action Network

Facebook post March 14 at 2:30 AM

 

Nail BO, H Clinton and other guilty democrats! I remember the Comey press conference on Clinton and I was excited as Comey was talking and leaning towards getting Clinton, then all of a sudden he dropped the call. It is now apparent Comey was a puppet for BO and many heads should roll. Clinton and others are corrupt and have a problem with the facts and the truth. Conservative Wisdom United.

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

Lisa Page: Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Prosecute Hillary Clinton

 

Lisa Page-Loretta Lynch-Crooked Hillary: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds, Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty, Rune Hellestad/Getty

 

By Charlie Spiering

March 13, 2019

Breitbart

 

Former FBI legal counsel Lisa Page testified to Congress that the Justice Department ordered the FBI not to charge former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with “gross negligence” by mishandling classified information.

 

Transcripts of Page’s closed-door testimony in July 2018 were released Tuesday by Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) on Tuesday, which included the following exchange with Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX):

 

RATCLIFFE: So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory. But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to …

 

PAGE: That is correct.

 

RATFLIFFE: …bring a case based on that.

 

Ratcliffe highlighted the exchange on Twitter.

 

 

Page confirmed that the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch had “multiple conversations” about charging Clinton with gross negligence but noted that it would be a rare decision.

 

“[T]hey did not feel they could sustain a charge,” she said, referring to the Department of Justice.

 

President Donald Trump reacted to the reports on Wednesday.

 

“The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine,” he wrote. “Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!”

____________________

Copyright © 2019 Breitbart

 

The brazen plot against Trump by the Obama-era FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media


Earlier today I cross posted the Geller Report (which was actually a Catherine Herridge/Fox News source) on FBI corruption with a shortened title, “Corrupt FBI leadership debated…” In the course of sharing the FBI corruption post, I came across an awesome Fox News post on the same situation.

 

Fox News Contributors Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova effectively write a scathing pierce which does a much better job in showing the hypocritical/corrupt nature the FBI used to target President Trump with FALSE Russian spy incriminations.

 

JRH 1/14/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

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

The brazen plot against Trump by the Obama-era FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media

 

By Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova

January 14, 2019

Fox News

 

Fox VIDEO link: Rep. Peter King: ‘Absolutely disgraceful’ of FBI to question if Trump’s motivation for firing Comey was tied to Russia.

House Republican sounds off on revelations that senior FBI leadership debated whether President Trump was directed by the Russian government to fire FBI Director James Comey. (Youtube Version of Rep. King interview)

A stench has been emanating from the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI headquarters) for over two years. It landed Saturday on the front page of the New York Times in an article citing “former law enforcement officials” claiming they had to deal with “explosive implications” that President Donald Trump was “knowingly” or “unwittingly” working for Russia. Thus, the story goes, there was a basis to begin the Russia collusion investigation.

 

In fact, “The Gray Lady” was covering the derrieres of the Obama administration officials involved in the cabal to frame Trump, who now fear an imminent Special Counsel finding that during the 2016 campaign there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians. The article is intended to convey the following message: Even though there was no evidence to support the allegations, those making the decision to investigate Trump did so in good faith.

 

No, they did not. The rotting of the FBI hierarchy began when then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-agent Peter Strzok, enabled by former Director James Comey and the Obama-era Justice Department, utilized an “unsubstantiated” dossier created by former British spy, Christopher Steele, and financed by the Clinton campaign, to request a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Yet, the New York Times described the dossier as a “factor fuel[ing]” the “FBI’s concerns.”

 

GREGG JARRETT: AN FBI THAT IS CORRUPT AND DISHONEST — LATEST REPORTS OFFER ONLY MORE PROOF

 

We have been involved in the criminal justice process for decades. Never have we seen a law enforcement person concerned about anything unsubstantiated.

 

Another “factor” was that Trump “refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail.” Really? Where was the FBI or DOJ angst in 2012 when President Barack Obama requested then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev tell Vladimir Putin that after the election, he would have “more flexibility” to deal with serious stuff like missile defense?

 

Where was the angst when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted a Russian reset? Was anyone in law enforcement tossing his cookies in 2010 when her spouse, Bill Clinton, took $500,000 from a Russian entity comprised of former Russian intelligence operatives? Or when the Obama administration allowed corrupt Russian-controlled companies to purchase Uranium One, thereby acquiring 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply.

 

Another “factor” was that in July 2016, candidate Trump “called on Russia” “to hack into” Clinton’s emails. No. Trump’s remark, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you will be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” was not a request to hack. Hillary had already used BleachBit to delete the emails so “even God cannot read them” according to former Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. Trump was joking to attack his political opponent for destroying evidence or, in legal jargon, obstructing justice.

 

Which raises another New York Times “factor”: that firing Comey in May of 2017 was “obstruction of justice” calling for a criminal investigation in addition to the counterintelligence investigation already in place because of the pretextual factors cited above. Set aside the president’s clear constitutional authority to fire any executive branch person for any reason or for no reason.

 

The fact remains that a person cannot be charged with obstruction of justice if the act at issue cannot obstruct justice, meaning it cannot thwart the investigation. Even if a special counsel had not been (improperly) appointed, the FBI top dog’s departure does not affect in any way the continuing work of the FBI employees below him. Indeed, it has not. Where is the obstruction?

 

Moreover, if firing Comey obstructed justice, why wasn’t Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who recommended the firing, also placed under investigation?

 

The New York Times story was created to obfuscate the real criminal conspiracy: violation of Title 18 of U.S. Code Section 242, which prohibits any person under color of law (i.e. Obama administration personnel) to deprive another of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” Such legal protection includes being free from a criminal investigation based on false charges.

 

Perhaps the bizarre January 20, 2017 email Susan Rice wrote “to herself” purporting to document a January 5, 2017 meeting with President Obama, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director Comey and Vice President Joe Biden, gives a clue as to some of those conspirators. The meeting discussed the Steele dossier and Russian collusion, but curiously Rice stressed that the former president said every aspect should be handled “by the book.” Yet, Strzok had told his FBI colleague and paramour Lisa Page not to worry about Trump being elected because “We’ll stop it.”

 

The brazen plot against President Trump by the Obama-era FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media. The odor of corruption has long been noxious. But the Democrats and media hold their collective noses. The criminal clique, via the New York Times, has announced to the world, “Catch me if you can.”

 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY VICTORIA TOENSING

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY JOSEPH DIGENOVA

 

Joseph diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, co-founder of the law firm of diGenova & Toensing and an informal legal adviser to President Trump.

 

Victoria Toensing is a former chief counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice, where among other assignments she created the anti-terrorism section. She is a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing.

______________________

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Blog Editor Disclosure: Permission was not acquired hence upon Fox News request for removal, this Blog will comply.

 

Why Isn’t the Largest Terror-Funding Case Being Prosecuted?


The Obama DOJ nixed prosecution without credible reason of Islamic terrorist funding by the so-called charity known as the Islamic Relief.

 

No surprise there, BUT what will the Trump Administration and the Trump DOJ do about it?

 

Write the President and your members of Congress (Senate and House) to stir some investigation!

 

The Clarion Project highlights this issue with an interview with Ryan Mauro (about 15 minutes) highlighting potential Islamic Relief criminality.

 

SEE ALSO:

 

Obama Administration Dropped Huge Terror-Funding Case; By Ryan Mauro; Clarion Project; 12/2/18

 

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security [in relation to Islamic Relief begins on page 12]; Submitted by Dr. M. ZUHDI JASSER; Oversight.House.gov; 27 pgs.; 7/11/18

 

JRH 1/2/19

Please Support NCCR

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

Why Isn’t the Largest Terror-Funding Case Being Prosecuted?

 

(Photo: Army University Press)

 

BY CLARION PROJECT

January 2, 2019

Clarion Project

 

Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst and Director of the Clarion Intelligence Network Ryan Mauro personally worked on a case that would have been the largest terror-funding case in the U.S. The case involved Islamic Relief, one of the world’s largest Islamic “charities.”

 

After his briefing, three government agencies were prepared to go ahead with prosecution, but the Obama administration declined. Find out why in this interview with Mauro below and see if the Trump administration has picked up the ball.

 

VIDEO: Mauro: Obama DOJ Dropped Massive Terror Finance Case I Worked On

 

[Posted by Ryan Mauro

Published on Dec 31, 2018

 

Ryan Mauro, Director of the Clarion Intelligence Network and Shillman Fellow for the Clarion Project, talks to The Daily Caller about how his research into Islamic Relief triggered an investigation by three agencies, resulting in a joint criminal case that was dropped in 2016.

 

Read his full first-hand story here: https://clarionproject.org/terror-funding-case-dropped-by-obama-administration/]

_________________________

Copyright 2018 Clarion Project Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

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

 

About Clarion Project

 

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

 

Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than 125-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad — to threaten the West.

 

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

 

Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve its goals.

 

READ THE REST

 

What! Obama FBI Spied on Trump Campaign


With TWO Spies?

John R. Houk, Editor

Posted May 22, 2018

 

Even as the Leftist Mainstream Media and Obama Deep State operatives spin an alternative story, only a fool or a lying spin doctor would not admit Obama inserted his political desires into the 2016 election cycle.

 

Here are two news articles discussing FBI spying.

 

JRH 5/22/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Hold On, The FBI Was Spying On The Trump Campaign *Before* The Counterintelligence Probe Officially Started?

 

By Matt Vespa

May 22, 2018 2:27 PM

Townhall

 

Donald Trump

 

Who is the FBI spy that was trying to glean information on the Trump campaign? Well, reportedly, it’s longtime CIA operative Stefan Halper. And no, it wasn’t leaked. If this is true, and most likely it is, there’s enough public information on him, along with the news media leaving a trail of breadcrumbs that confirmed his identity. They were as subtle as a sledgehammer.

 

Last week, it was reported that the FBI had spied on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. It was later revealed by Axios that Halper had tried to get a top-level job in the administration after the campaign. Yet, before we get into what The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald and others have noted about the timeline of the FBI’s Russia probe, let’s look real quick at the linguistic martial arts the news media is playing here. All of this deep state/Trump was spied on stuff was written off by the news media as conspiratorial garbage. Well, it turns out they were wrong. They’re wrong about everything it seems, especially reports covering this White House. This is how The New York Times covered this development. They also said that this spy is someone well known within D.C. circles.

 

President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”

 

In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.

 

[…]

 

F.B.I. agents were seeking more details about what Mr. Papadopoulos knew about the hacked Democratic emails, and one month after their Russia investigation began, Mr. Papadopoulos received a curious message. The academic inquired about his interest in writing a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, a subject of Mr. Papadopoulos’s expertise.

 

The informant offered a $3,000 honorarium for the paper and a paid trip to London, where the two could meet and discuss the research project.

 

“I understand that this is rather sudden but thought that given your expertise it might be of interest to you,” the informant wrote in a message to Mr. Papadopoulos, sent on Sept. 2, 2016.

 

Mr. Papadopoulos accepted the offer and arrived in London two weeks later, where he met for several days with the academic and one of his assistants, a young woman.

 

Over drinks and dinner one evening at a high-end London hotel, the F.B.I. informant raised the subject of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails that had spilled into public view earlier that summer, according to a person familiar with the conversation. The source noted how helpful they had been to the Trump campaign, and asked Mr. Papadopoulos whether he knew anything about Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

 

Yeah, how is that not spying? It is. And this is the problem with liberalism as of late; they’ve wantonly decided to ignore the definition of what words mean. Spying is now informing. Invasions are now called “uncontested arrivals,” but back to Mr. Halper and the timeline. It seems that his alleged information gathering operation started way before his rendezvous with Papadopoulos. Carter Page and Sam Clovis, two others affiliated with the Trump team, were also approached by Halper as well.

 

Greenwald noted that Halper has history with this sort of operation; he reportedly did something similar to Carter’s 1980 re-election campaign. Halper with some other former intelligence operatives allegedly funneled information on then-President Carter’s foreign policy to Republican candidate, and future president, Ronald Reagan. This was all revealed in 1983.

 

 

Greenwald also noted that while the news media knew who the FBI spy was, they refused to reveal his name, though they left so many clues that they might as well have disclosed the source. He also adds that the FBI and members of Congress are being more or less absurd that revealing the source would be damaging to national security; we pretty much already know who it is. And his work was already been reported. The Intercept then details how the Daily Caller was able to discern whom the source was using entirely public information, which brings us to FBI timeline. When did this investigation begin because it seems there were other times that Halper reached out to Trump team members prior to the Papadopoulos meeting that supposedly led to the FBI opening up a counterintelligence investigation in July of 2016. By the way, this theory was published by the Times in December of 2017, and it was ripped apart.

 

Via Intercept:

 

…the New York Times reported in December of last year that the FBI investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia began when George Papadopoulos drunkenly boasted to an Australian diplomat about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was the disclosure of this episode by the Australians that “led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired,” the NYT claimed.

 

But it now seems clear that Halper’s attempts to gather information for the FBI began before that. “The professor’s interactions with Trump advisers began a few weeks before the opening of the investigation, when Page met the professor at the British symposium,” the Post reported. While it’s not rare for the FBI to gather information before formally opening an investigation, Halper’s earlier snooping does call into question the accuracy of the NYT’s claim that it was the drunken Papadopoulos ramblings that first prompted the FBI’s interest in these possible connections. And it suggests that CIA operatives, apparently working with at least some factions within the FBI, were trying to gather information about the Trump campaign earlier than had been previously reported.

 

Then there are questions about what appear to be some fairly substantial government payments to Halper throughout 2016. Halper continues to be listed as a “vendor” by websites that track payments by the federal government to private contractors.

 

[…]

 

Equally strange are the semantic games which journalists are playing in order to claim that this revelation disproves, rather than proves, Trump’s allegation that the FBI “spied” on his campaign.

 

So, there’s the new line of inquiry. The FBI spy was investigating something prior to the official start of the counterintelligence probe. Byron York’s column in The Washington Examiner noted that Trump March meeting with The Washington Post editorial board is where the FBI and DOJ probably got the first batch of names to peruse; Trump has announced that Papadopoulos and Carter Page would be lending a hand:

 

Trump’s announcement did not go unnoticed at the FBI and Justice Department. The bureau knew Page from a previous episode in which Russian agents had tried, unsuccessfully, to recruit him. It’s not clear what the FBI knew about the others. But then-Director James Comey and number-two Andrew McCabe personally briefed Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the list of newly-named Trump foreign policy advisers, including Page, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

 

Lynch told the House Intelligence Committee that she, Comey, and McCabe discussed whether to provide a “defensive briefing” to the Trump campaign. That would entail having an FBI official meet with a senior campaign official “to alert them to the fact that … there may be efforts to compromise someone with their campaign,” Lynch said.

 

It didn’t happen, even though it was discussed again when Comey briefed the National Security Council principals committee about Page in the “late spring” of 2016, according to Lynch’s testimony. (The principals committee includes some of the highest-ranking officials in the government, including the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, and Homeland Security, the attorney general, the head of the CIA, the White House chief of staff, U.N. ambassador, and more.)

 

So the nation’s top political appointees, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies were watching Trump campaign figures in the spring and early summer of 2016.

 

And all of this brings us to a figure that has remained under the radar in all of this: President Barack Obama. What did he know and when did he know it because the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. was under his administration, along with the FBI/DOJ. It’s relevant to bring the former president and his team under the microscope again. Until then, what we know via Larry O’Connor is that a) the Trump campaign was spied on; and b) the motive was political pending new developments:

 

First, let’s hope that all Americans, Left, Right and Never Trump, can agree that this operation was unprecedented and extraordinary. The FBI has never, as far as we know, conducted a clandestine investigation on a presidential campaign complete with electronic surveillance and a spy. The bar to initiate such an investigation would have to be pretty high. The FBI would not, under normal circumstances, authorize this kind of operation unless there was extreme and justifiable reasons to do so.

 

So, whatever the reason to initiate this operation, one expects that reason to be pretty concrete and conclusive.

 

Now, let’s examine the underlying political atmosphere surrounding the decision to launch this extraordinary, unprecedented investigation.

 

Donald Trump was President Obama’s political enemy. He was running, specifically, to undo Obama’s legacy and everything he had instituted through executive actions. He was also running against Obama’s chosen successor.

 

[…]

 

We know that the atmosphere surrounding the decision to launch the investigation was highly political. It was political in the most personal sense for President Obama, who held the reigns [sic] of power over the FBI and the DOJ at the time of the investigation.

 

We know that the political document known as the “Steele dossier” was used, at least in part, to justify many elements of the spying operation against the Trump campaign.

 

We know that George Popadopoulos’ statement in a bar with an Austrailian [sic] diplomat triggered some element of the investigation as well.

 

A guy making a statement in a bar and a pile of unverified opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign doesn’t even come close to the very high bar needed to be cleared to initiate a clandestine investigation on any American citizen, let alone a member of a presidential campaign just weeks before election day.

 

But, it appears, that’s all we have

 

[…]

 

Given the politically charged backdrop of the Obama versus Trump death match, coupled with the use of the Steele dossier (by definition a political document paid for by Trump’s political opponent) the only reasonable conclusion to reach is that the FBI spying operation was launched for political purposes.

 

And now the wait begins—and it could take years.

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

Ex-Trump Aide Comes Forward… Says There’s Second Spy, Second Intel Agency

 

BY CILLIAN ZEAL
MAY 22, 2018 AT 7:27AM

Conservative Tribune by WJ

 

Michael Cavuto on Fox News – Screen Capture of CT Video

 

One of President Donald Trump’s most explosive claims about the 2016 election — one that was dismissed out of hand until recently — was that his campaign was the subject of extensive surveillance.

 

Now, a former Trump aide is saying something even more explosive: There wasn’t just a mole inside the Trump campaign, there was a second spy and intelligence agency.

 

Michael Caputo is pretty much the definition of a political lifer. A media strategist, he worked with Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and various other Republicans. After the fall of the Soviet Union, he began doing work with the Russians.

 

This didn’t get the attention of too many people until he started working for Trump. Much like Carter Page, the low-level Trump campaign staffer whose ties to Russia became the subject of a million conspiracy theories, Caputo’s ties to the Russians became of intense interest to the overzealous FBI people charged with finding some sort of evidence that Trump was the Siberian Candidate.

 

Caputo appeared on Fox News just hours after Axios reported “President Trump’s top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, recommended appointing Stefan Halper, an academic and suspected FBI informant on the Trump campaign, to a senior role in the Trump administration.”

 

That’s bad. According to Caputo, things were even worse.

 

“Let me tell you something that I know for a fact, this informant, this person that they planted, that they tried to plant into the campaign and even into the administration, if you believe Axios — he’s not the only person that came into the campaign!” Caputo said.

 

“And the FBI is not the only Obama agency who came into the campaign,” he added.

 

“I know because they came at me. And I’m looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public. This is just the beginning and I’ll tell you, when we finally find out the truth about this, Director Clapper and the rest of them are gonna be wearing some orange suits.”

 

Orange suits are an unlikely outcome, but Caputo’s statement indicates that Obama-era surveillance of the Trump campaign — once dismissed as tinfoil-hattery — might actually be very real.

 

Of course, Caputo may have a reason to prevaricate about such things. Kimberley Strassel doesn’t. She’s the Wall Street Journal writer whose reporting has indicated that she believes there was an FBI mole inside the campaign.

 

“The Bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a ‘top secret intelligence source’ of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe,” she wrote in an article earlier this month.

 

“When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

 

“This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting,” she added. “It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough.”

 

During and after the campaign, Trump’s claims that he was surveilled (and that the surveillance was politically-motivated) were dismissed as baseless fantasies, yet another sign this was an unbalanced person who shouldn’t be normalized or believed.

 

And yet, here we are, weeks away from the inspector general’s report on the Clinton investigation, which doesn’t sound like it’s going to simply be the pro forma postmortem it normally would be, considering it involved a losing campaign. The report is expected to detail a whole host of tactics by the “deep state” that could easily be construed as being in service of the Clinton campaign and to the detriment of the Trump campaign.

 

If Caputo is telling the truth, this means there’s a whole host of issues here. Who was involved? The DOJ and FBI, obviously, but the CIA too? Other agencies under the aegis of the ODNI?

 

I can predict just one thing: Things are about to get very interesting for everyone who called Trump crazy when he talked about surveillance.

 

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

____________________

Hold On, The FBI Was Spying On The Trump Campaign *Before* The Counterintelligence Probe Officially Started?

 

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.


Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.

_______________________

Ex-Trump Aide Comes Forward… Says There’s Second Spy, Second Intel Agency

 

Conservative Tribune by WJ homepage

 

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