Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 7      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #26 

Warner admits Barack Obama "choked" in handling the Russian election interference

Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.), who is a leader in promoting the Trump-Russia collusion myth, admitted on CNN yesterday that the Obama administration "choked" in its handling of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, made the comment to CNN's Fareed Zakaria, who asked Warner if he believes the Obama administration mishandled Russia's interference in the election.

"Do you think that the Obama administration choked and should have done more when it knew that the Russians were interfering?"

Listen to how Warner responds:

"With the value of hindsight, yes, but I also know that most of the information, there were so many threads coming in from both signals intelligence, from human intelligence, from actions of the FBI, but no one really put the whole, all the pieces together until after the election."

Warner admits that Obama failed to do anything to stop the Russian meddling.

Obama became aware of the Russian meddling as early as June 2016, but did nothing to stop it. It wasn't important -- until Hillary lost. That's when the Russian hacking became an issue -- to excuse Hillary's horrible campaign.

That's when the "Russians-Trump collusion" myth was created by the Democratic Party and the #FakeNews media.

The Democrats and the #Fake News media are really the people that are colluding and they have been exposed. That's why they are playing their last card, the Special Counsel, led by the Democrat Robert Mueller and his staff of partisan Democrats and Democratic Party contributors.

Everything bad that has happened in the last 8 years is directly a result of Obama's practice of "leading from behind" and ignoring threats.

It's why we had Libya. It's why the Russians seized The Crimea. It's why we had the rise of ISIS. It's why we have Syria -- remember the "red line?"

Obama never could make a decision -- except his decision to promote Islam and #BlackLivesMatter.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #27 

The "vast Russian conspiracy" media retreat continues


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that an interesting New York Times "correction" appears yesterday providing yet further evidence of a convenient retreat from six months of media propaganda.

The correction references a Russian Election Interference Joint Analysis Report, widely called the "Russian Intelligence Report", which has been falsely used by most media to frame a narrative that 17 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community agreed that Russia attempted to interfere with the U.S. election.

And guess where that lie originated?

The Times Correction somewhat opaquely clarifies that only the CIA (Brennan), FBI (Comey) and NSA (Rogers) participated in the December Intelligence Analysis that underwrites the overall report.  ODNI (Clapper) is a hub for gathering and sharing information and does not generate intelligence as an entity in/unto itself.

It is not coincidental the two most politicized intelligence operatives, John Brennan (CIA) and James Comey (FBI), presented the information along with like-minded political traveler ODNI James Clapper. While Admiral Mike Rogers (NSA) is also included in the report authorship, it is largely overlooked that Rogers only held a "moderate confidence" in the overall report finding. It was only Brennan and Comey who claimed "high confidence" in the overall report content.

We have continually pointed out at the time the report was written it appeared to be entirely political in construct. The intent of the report was to provide source material for the overall Russian conspiracy narrative; and also establish some framework for the White House to take action, vis-a-vis sanctions.

Against the backdrop of the December 2016 sanctions announcement, President Obama's administration released the Joint Analysis Report claiming it outlined details of Russia's involvement hacking into targeted political data-base or computer systems during the election.

Except it didn't

Not even a little.

The "Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report" (full pdf below) was/is pure nonsense. It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor.

This might as well be a report blaming Nigerian fraud phone solicitors for targeting U.S. phone numbers.  Just because you didn't actually win the Nigerian national lottery doesn't mean the Nigerian government are targeting you for your portion of the lottery revenue.

The December FBI report was/is, well, quite simply, pure horse-pucky.

What the report does well is using ridiculous technical terminology to describe innocuous common activity. Example: "ATPT29" is Olaf, the round faced chubby guy probably working from his kitchen table; and "ATPT28" is his unemployed socially isolated buddy living in Mom's basement down the street.

This paragraph below is priceless in it's humorous and disingenuous gobblespeak:

Both groups have historically targeted government organizations, think tanks, universities, and corporations around the world. APT29 has been observed crafting targeted spearphishing campaigns leveraging web links to a malicious dropper; once executed, the code delivers Remote Access Tools (RATs) and evades detection using a range of techniques.

APT28 is known for leveraging domains that closely mimic those of targeted organizations and tricking potential victims into entering legitimate credentials. APT28 actors relied heavily on shortened URLs in their spearphishing email campaigns. Once APT28 and APT29 have access to victims, both groups exfiltrate and analyze information to gain intelligence value.

These groups use this information to craft highly targeted spearphishing campaigns. These actors set up operational infrastructure to obfuscate their source infrastructure, host domains and malware for targeting organizations, establish command and control nodes, and harvest credentials and other valuable information from their targets.

(*note the emphasis I placed in the quote) All that nonsense is saying is a general explanation for how hacking, any hacking, is generally carried out. The entire FBI report was nothing more than a generalized, albeit techno-worded, explanation for how Nigerians, Indians, or in this case Russians, attempt to gain your email passwords etc., nothing more.


What was alarming to consider was: A) how far the various radical leftists were willing to go to create a straw man crisis for political benefit; and B) how diminished the executive office of the U.S. presidency actually became amid this level of ridiculous propaganda.

There's no doubt the intended outcome was to create internal confusion amid the U.S. electorate, and seed a media narrative. There were/are millions of people who bought into these widely discussed fabrications.

Consider the example inside a Yahoo News article showcasing the report:

[…] The US intelligence community has concluded that a hack-and-release of Democratic Party and Clinton staff emails was designed to put Trump — a political neophyte who has praised Putin -- into the Oval Office. (link)

There was no evidence the DNC was "hacked" (WikiLeaks claims the information was an inside job of "leaking"), Hillary Clinton blames the Macedonians, and even John Podesta admitted himself he was a victim of an ordinary "phishing" password change scam.  Not exactly a "hack" per se'.

Does hacking exist, of course it does. Do hackers exist in every country connected by the internet, of course they do. Do state governments participate in hacking offense and defense, again -- yes, of course they do. And yes, the FBI and U.S. intelligence community act purposefully against all participants they can catch.

But what does that intellectual truism have to do with the specific allegation that hostile Russian hackers attempted to gain entry into the DNC or John Podesta? These are two entirely different issues which the Obama administration (Brennan and Comey) attempted to conflate simply for political and ideological purposes.

Here is where we see the overall intended and conflated outcome. Consider the Yaho0 media paragraph above against the headline which accompanied the content:


There's a reasonable case to be made that all of those previous political players have quite a bit to hide within the construct of the entire narrative. Some like James Comey, and possibly Susan Rice, appear to have violated laws on leaking information and unmasking U.S. citizens within intelligence reports.

Former CIA Director John Brennan has clearly established his own exit from the risk matrix.  While former ODNI James Clapper is almost too inept to be held accountable for any of it.

It would be disingenuous in the extreme to ignore that NSA Director Mike Rogers was the least willing and least engaged intelligence leader within the scheme and simultaneously highly political ODNI James Clapper was calling for him to be fired.

Admiral Mike Rogers traveled to Trump Tower (after the election) on November 17th without notifying the White House or Clapper.  The next day, November 18th, President-Elect Trump moved the entire Transition Team to his New Jersey country club.  Mike Rogers remains the current head of the NSA.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #28 

Newt says Mueller is hunting for any dirt he can find

Truth Feed News is reporting that the crooked Mueller is on a witch hunt and looking to justify his existence as "special counsel."

He's out to get revenge for his best buddy James Comey and he's looking to defend the "Deep State" against the populist Trump White House takeover.

Newt outlines exactly why Mueller is out to get Trump and the incredible lengths he's willing to go.

This guy is up to no good and everyone knows it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #29 

The political intelligence community opened an investigation of nothingness -- to nowhere


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that Hillary Clinton and aligned political operatives manufactured the illusion of a connection between Russian entities and the Trump campaign/organization. Those manufactured points of evidence, including a sketchy Russian Dossier, were used by the political intelligence community (Clapper, Brennan Comey) to open an investigation of nothingness -- to nowhere.

The mere existence of the investigation was then used as the originating point for a series of media intel leaks (the narrative) intended to cloud and damage the Trump campaign/organization.  CNN, The Washington Post and New York Times led the charge:

Washington (CNN) -- The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

FBI Director James Comey, as head of one of the investigative agencies. became a willing part of that political apparatus, kept congress in the dark, and yet engaged in leaking information to his friends and media allies.

However, now, with usefulness exhausted and with increasing sunlight representing a legal risk, it's CYA time all around for the originating entities.  "CNN President Jeff Zucker is personally involved in the internal investigation into a now-retracted hit piece, sources inside CNN with direct knowledge confirmed to Breitbart News."  CNN now saying any reporting pushing the Russia conspiracy need executive approvals before being allowed.

This slow walk to the exits occurs simultaneously to the sketchy organization, Fusion GPS, with direct ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign effort, refuses to give any information to congressional investigators.

(New York Post) A secretive Washington firm that commissioned the dubious intelligence dossier on Donald Trump is stonewalling congressional investigators trying to learn more about its connections to the Democratic Party. (more)

This is happening after former CIA head John Brennan already walked away and left James Comey holding the Russian Conspiracy bag.

The entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative is phoney.  The entire narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 election was entirely made up.  Last week's Washington Post story was long-worded manufacturing.  It's all fake news. ALL.OF.IT.

What President Trump tweeted yesterday morning is linguistic and political judo targeted to draw that reality into the sunlight.  The intended audience is not us. He's targeting everyone who has opposed his presidency and manufactured this false construct.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #30 

Julian Assange destroys the Democrat Party in searing essay


Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange wrote a searing essay destroying the Democrat party over their Trump-Russia hysteria which he says is a "political dead end."

Julian Assange started out by slamming the Democrats' Trump-Russia hoax that has been dying a slow death due to lack of evidence of any collusion:

1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't lose -- Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives, daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).

Assange continues by calling the Trump-Russia narrative a "political dead end":

The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is no evidence of collusion [

]. Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment.

Assange also criticized the GOP but said the Democrat establishment can't even attack Trump's goals because the Russian collusion narrative has consumed all its energy.

Assange concludes that the Democrat party cannot go on as they are. The Democrats are a party of coastal elites, so far removed from the voter base that they will eventually cease to exist:

The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party elite shows no signs that they will give up power.  The existing Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat, the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #31 

The propaganda of the Washington Post continues


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that there is a long-worded Washington Post story gaining lots of attention as the definitive article outlining the ‘vast Russian election conspiracy‘.  However, anyone who walks in the deep weeds of DC propaganda constructs will immediately note the Ben Rhodes styled fingerprints of obfuscation and disingenuous nonsense.

The article is transparently presented for several aligned purposes; all of them political, including the intensely political objectives of John Brennan and James Clapper, and all of them transparently spreading the truth-sauce way too thin.

As a deep weeds walker myself, and having inoculated against the nonsensical -albeit fashionable to believe- infection, here's my take. [All emphasis mine]

(WaPo) Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried "eyes only" instructions that its contents be shown to just four people -- Barack Obama and three senior aides.

Ah yes, the "just four people" dispatch from CIA Director John Brennan.  The small circle makes fiction much more difficult to disprove, and simultaneously stops the larger circle from refuting the entirety of the inherent false and political claims.  See how that works?

Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.

Ah yes, again the innocuous and carefully chosen word "sourcing".  Notice the ambiguity, the entire article is fraught with disingenuous use of ambiguous indirectness.   The more specific the claim: "Putin's direct involvement", the larger the need for ambiguity.

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

The Washington Post couldn't have it any other way could they.  The underlying premise behind such a long-worded enterprise is to soothe the sentiments of fellow travelers.  Forget the basic reality that all "real evidence" (insert Steele Dossier here) points to numerous ideological factions, including Russia, trying to damage candidate Donald Trump.

At that point, the outlines of the Russian assault on the U.S. election were increasingly apparent. Hackers with ties to Russian intelligence services had been rummaging through Democratic Party computer networks, as well as some Republican systems, for more than a year.

In July, the FBI had opened an investigation of contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates. And on July 22, nearly 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee were dumped online by WikiLeaks.

Ah-ha! Those damn pesky Macedonians again.  Always with the Macedonians.  And yes, in July the FBI, more specifically James Comey under the auspices of a counterintelligence investigation that he admitted was never briefed to congress, needed some basic premise for the political surveillance and unmasking used by the White House to monitor political opposition.

The material was so sensitive that CIA Director John Brennan kept it out of the President's Daily Brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad.

What, you mean Evelyn Farkas, a recipient amid 30+ others of the PDB wasn't going to read this stuff?   No. What's really inherent in this paragraph is the authors need to explain how an entirely fabricated premise within the article is "news" to those who would otherwise have known.  This is how you construct propaganda, by claiming those who would be in a position to refute propaganda didn't have access to the information.  See how that works?

The CIA package came with instructions that it be returned immediately after it was read. To guard against leaks, subsequent meetings in the Situation Room followed the same protocols as planning sessions for the Osama bin Laden raid.

Insert dramatic music here.  This is called the build-up…

It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA's view.

Only in the administration's final weeks in office did it tell the public, in a declassified report, what officials had learned from Brennan in August -- that Putin was working to elect Trump.

The other real intelligence agencies, namely the NSA (Mike Rogers), were not buying John Brennan's bullshit.  Go figure.  Everyone knew Brennan was a political operative, not a CIA Director.   And then the drop from the build-up: "Putin was working to elect Trump".   See how they just drop that in there?

Over that five-month interval, the Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could "crater" the Russian economy.

Remember, this is written post-facto, and generally meant to provide some form of justification for the actual political surveillance behavior of the White House crew.  There was no ‘there' there to generate a response to; that's evident by the do-nothingness they now seek to justify in hindsight while claiming there was actually a ‘there' there.

But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package combining measures that had been drawn up to punish Russia for other issues -- expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds -- with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.

Well, they had to do something to cover their surveillance asses and drum up a good story. It was only six weeks earlier the entire White House and (Brennan, Comey and Clapper) realized President Trump was winner and their posteriors were seriously at risk.  Quick, time to work up a good ‘muh russia' narrative, and, and, throw in some disingenuous sanctions or something… yeah, yeah… that's the ticket.

In political terms, Russia's interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy.

Oy vey, that paragraph reads like Ben Rhodes wrote it himself.

It was a case that took almost no time to solve, traced to the Kremlin through cyber-forensics and intelligence on Putin's involvement. And yet, because of the divergent ways Obama and Trump have handled the matter, Moscow appears unlikely to face proportionate consequences.

"No time to solve" they say. Do you notice the contradictions inherent in the presentation of this?  That's one of them.  It is also a tell-tale sign of creationary fiction.

Those closest to Obama defend the administration's response to Russia's meddling. They note that by August it was too late to prevent the transfer to WikiLeaks and other groups of the troves of emails that would spill out in the ensuing months. They believe that a series of warnings -- including one that Obama delivered to Putin in September -- prompted Moscow to abandon any plans of further aggression, such as sabotage of U.S. voting systems.

Again, when creating post-facto justifications for manufactured nonsense there's always a need to explain why nothing claimed by the author's build-up of fiction actually takes place in reality.  "They abandoned plans"… ok, gotcha.

Denis McDonough who served as Obama's chief of staff, said that the administration regarded Russia's interference as an attack on the "heart of our system."

"We set out from a first-order principle that required us to defend the integrity of the vote," McDonough said in an interview. "Importantly, we did that. It's also important to establish what happened and what they attempted to do so as to ensure that we take the steps necessary to stop it from happening again."

Well, there's the first named source for this fictional storytelling.  Denis "the fixer" McDonough.  And with that name we also now know the circle of sourcing for this ridiculous article, needed to prop up the narrative, is definitively Ben Rhodes.

Does WaPo ever get to the part where they explain U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power's need to unmask Trump officials in surveillance reports?  Nope.  Move along comrades, move along….

The post-election period has been dominated by the overlapping investigations into whether Trump associates colluded with Russia before the election and whether the president sought to obstruct the FBI probe afterward. That spectacle has obscured the magnitude of Moscow's attempt to hijack a precious and now vulnerable-seeming American democratic process.

Or put another way.  We have failed to get any traction on the "collusion" and/or "obstruction" narratives, and so therefore we find a need to fall back upon the "Russian Hacking the Election" narrative.  See how that works?

Beset by allegations of hidden ties between his campaign and Russia, Trump has shown no inclination to revisit the matter and has denied any collusion or obstruction on his part. As a result, the expulsions and modest sanctions announced by Obama on Dec. 29 continue to stand as the United States' most forceful response.

Where "allegations" would be more aptly and accurately written as "media allegations", and because there's no ‘there' there only Obama's silly faux-sanctions stand as evidence that anyone was ever buying this nonsense.

[…]  The CIA breakthrough came at a stage of the presidential campaign when Trump had secured the GOP nomination but was still regarded as a distant long shot. Clinton held comfortable leads in major polls, and Obama expected that he would be transferring power to someone who had served in his Cabinet.

The CIA "breakthrough" they speak of here is the Steele Dossier.  The "Trump paid hookers to pee on Russian beds" opposition research file, initially begun by candidate Jeb Bush and later passed along to fellow traveler Hillary Clinton and never trumper John McCain.

[…] The Washington Post is withholding some details of the intelligence at the request of the U.S. government.

Ah, convenient that.

In early August, Brennan John Brennan CIA director alerted senior White House officials to the Putin intelligence, making a call to deputy national security adviser Avril Haines and pulling national security adviser Susan Rice aside after a meeting before briefing Obama along with Rice, Haines and Denis McDonough in the Oval Office. (continue reading)

It's the missing names that reveal sources.  Notice the absence of Ben Rhodes from this paragraph.  The fingerprints of Rhodes upon this entire article are transparent.  The article continues, but it's much more repetition of the same.   There simply is no ‘there' there, and there never will be.

Political intelligence operatives John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI) and James Comey (FBI) weaponized intelligence as surveillance before the election, and as tools to undermine President-Elect Trump after the election.

[ To their chagrin NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers refused to join the club, and kept his focus solidly on facts; just the facts.  That's ultimately why Brennan and Clapper continued to call for Rogers to be fired. ]

Together with a willfully blind Loretta Lynch (DOJ) and Jeh Johnson (DHS) this entire ‘muh Russia' fiasco is layers upon layers of narrative-building, justification and manufactured constructs all in an effort to avoid sunlight upon their own political endeavors, and simultaneously frame some basic premise behind the intended goal of undermining the Trump presidency.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #32 

Sitting presidents cannot be "indicted, prosecuted or tried while serving in office"

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that lifelong Democrat and Harvard constitutional law professor, Alan Dershowitz said on Tuesday that the Justice Department was very clear that sitting presidents cannot be "indicted, prosecuted, or tried while serving in office."

Via Fox News:

The Harvard lawyer reminded everyone that the president must first be impeached and removed from office before he can be charged with a crime.

The Washington Post reported last week that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is currently investigating the president for obstruction of justice over his firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Subsequent reports contradicted this, saying that Mueller has not decided whether to investigate the president.

Regarding the investigation Dershowitz said, "The answer is 'ish.' He's under investigation 'ish.'"

"The president would be making a terrible mistake by getting into the weeds of arguing the facts rather than sticking to the conceptual constitutional issues," Dershowitz said.

Re: "that sitting presidents cannot be "indicted, prosecuted, or tried while serving in office." They must be impeached.

With the Republicans in the majority in both houses that's not likely."

So the Democrats, the media and their supporters will continue to act like two-year-olds.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #33 

Bombshell report shows Mueller and Hillary are joined at the hip

Truth Feed News is reporting that in addition to his clear conflict from being James Comey's best pal for over 15 years, we are now finding out that Robert Mueller may also have ties to one of Hillary Clinton's notorious schemes to sell Russia 20% of U.S Uranium.

This may also explain why Mueller has opted to hire a lawyer for his "investigation" that previously worked for the Clinton Foundation.

Shepard Ambellas (Intellihub) is reporting that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated the transfer a highly enriched uranium (HEU) previously confiscated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) during a 2006 "nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices," a newly leaked classified cable shows.

So-called "background" information was provided in the cable which gave vague details on a 2006 nuclear smuggling sting operation in which the U.S. government took possession of some HEU previously owned by the Russians.

"Over two years ago Russia requested a ten-gram sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) seized in early 2006 in Georgia during a nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices.  The seized HEU was transferred to U.S. custody and is being held at a secure DOE facility."

The secret "action request," dated Aug. 17, 2009, was sent out by Secretary of State Clinton and was addressed to the United States Ambassador to Georgia Embassy Tbilisi, the Russian Embassy, and Ambassador John Beyrle.


It proposed that FBI Director Robert Mueller be the one that personally conduct the transfer a 10-gram sample of HEU to Russian law enforcement sources during a secret "plane-side" meeting on a "tarmac" in the early fall of 2009.

"We require that the transfer of this material be conducted at the airport, on the tarmac near by the plane, upon arrival of the Director's aircraft."

The FBI Director was originally scheduled to ‘return' a sample from the DOE stockpile to the Russians in April but the trip was postponed until September 21.

Paragraph number 6 of the leaked cable confirms Dir. Mueller's Sept. 21 flight to Moscow

"(S/Rel Russia) Action request: Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives to Moscow on September 21. Post is requested to convey information in paragraph 5 with regard to chain of custody, and to request details on Russian Federation's plan for picking up the material. Embassy is also requested to reconfirm the April 16 understanding from the FSB verbally that we will have no problem with the Russian Ministry of Aviation concerning Mueller's September 21 flight clearance."

But possibly even more shocking is the fact that the State Department wanted the transfer of the HEU to take place on an "airport tarmac" which is rather reminiscent of the infamous Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton meeting which occurred on a Phoenix, Arizona, tarmac back in June of 2016.

Past dealings with the Russians were also mentioned in the cable, signifying that previous deals have taken place.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #34 
Russian ambassador visited Obama 22 times


Amy Moreno (TruthFeed) is reporting that Democrats have taken their "Russia obsession" to the point of absolute absurdity.

It's reached such hyper-emotional levels that Democrats actually believe it's a "bad thing" for our government to meet with Russians in any capacity.

Uh, that's called "foreign policy," you idiots.

It's almost as if Russia is so evil, and such a vulgar enemy, that to meet with them would instantly signal impropriety.

However, making deals with Iran is "hunky dory."

Interestingly enough, it appears Democrats didn't have this aversion to Russia back when Obama was in office.

During Obama's 8 years as president, he met with the Russians 22 times.

That's right, 22…

From Town Hall

Democrats are obsessed about Russia.

It's got to the point where some of them think that any meeting with the Russians is inappropriate. And yes, Democrats have lied about their own meetings with Sergey Kislyak.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have said they did not meet with Kislyak, only to have pictures or past tweets confirm that they did meet him.

During the Obama presidency, Sergey Kislyak met with the then-president 22 times.

Are we going to have an investigation over that? Probably not -- and I'm sure in both Sessions and Obama's cases, nothing occurred. It was a typical interaction between a foreign official and a member of Congress that occurs daily.

In Obama's case, it was a meeting that comes with the job description.

Via Daily Caller:

The visitor logs, which Obama made public in 2009 in a push for transparency, show that the long-time Russian ambassador to the United States visited the White House at least 22 times between 2009 and 2016.

Kislyak appeared in the logs as recently as September 2016 when he had a meeting scheduled with one of Obama's senior advisers, John Holdren, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

The other visitors listed at the meeting are Marina W. Gross, Alexander Ermolaev, Alexey Lopatin, Vyacheslav Balakirev and Sergey Sarazhinskiy.

Though the appointment was scheduled to begin at 12:00 pm, it does not include an end time.

Kislyak was also listed on the logs in July 2016, March 2016, January 2016, August 2015, April 2014, February 2014, May 2013, February 2013, November 2012, December 2011, July 2011, December 2010, October 2010, May 2010, April 2010, February 2010, March 2010, December 2009 and September 2009.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #35 

Where's the beef?

Martha Raddatz grills loony-tunes congress-critter, Adam Schiff, on Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.

Just a reminder, the Russians didn't hack the election.

They hacked the DNC's email system and Hillary's illegal and unsecured email system.

Although Julian Assange continues to claim WikiLeaks got the stuff from a Washington, DC, source.

But there is proof of US-Russia collusion:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #36 

What Russia Investigation?

John Hinderaker (PowerLine) says the Democrats are making fools of themselves with their investigation of nothing, so perhaps the best thing we can do is laugh at them. Michael Ramirez ridicules their questioning of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There must be something about Russia lurking in his background somewhere?


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #37 

Why such silence from the media that obsesses over alleged Russian interference in our elections?


Steve Baldwin (Spectator) says that while the media obsess over an alleged Russian conspiracy to collude with Donald Trump to affect America's 2016 presidential election, what about Obama's interference in the elections of other countries? Most Americans have no idea that Barack Obama meddled in elections all over the world. And apparently, the media decided there's no reason for Americans to know about this illegal activity.

Indeed, in 2016, the Los Angeles Times did a story on how America has interfered with other nation's elections in the past, but they stopped short of mentioning the various foreign elections Obama tried to influence. But the same article reports that Obama "slapped Russia with new penalties for meddling in the U.S. Presidential election… by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails." Hypocrisy check, anyone?

Since that article appeared last December, it has essentially become fake news. The Republican National Committee was never successfully hacked into and evidence is mounting that the DNC was not hacked by Russia. Not only has Wiki Leaks itself insisted Russia was not the source, but a number of cyber security experts, including McAfee antivirus developer John McAfee, disputes this. McAfee says the hack on the DNC "used a piece of malware a year and half old" and was "not an organized hack and certainly not a nation-state that did this." Moreover, the DNC has never allowed the FBI or any government agency to analyze the computers in question.

Nevertheless, Obama, operating on unconfirmed evidence, abruptly imposed new sanctions on Russia. Many observers believe he did so in order to set the stage for the left to initiate its phony Russian-Trump collusion narrative to be used to remove Trump from office or to defeat him in 2020.

Meddling in other's elections is a violation of international law. In 1965, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed this with a resolution stating: "No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal […] affairs of any other State." And the International Court of Justice also considers such intervention to be illegal. More importantly, U.S. law prohibits the use of tax dollars to influence foreign elections.

Nevertheless, the violation of both American and international law did not stop Obama from intervening repeatedly in the elections of other nations. Moreover, most of Obama's meddling was known by many foreign correspondents and if it was reported at all, it was downplayed. Most certainly, the media did not condemn it nor drop hints about impeaching Obama.

So let's get this straight. The media is hysterical about a flimsy conspiracy theory that Russia colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 election but was mostly silent about Obama's efforts to control the outcome of elections in at least six countries during his tenure. Media bias, anyone? Let's review the examples we know about:


Investigative reporter Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily broke this story when he visited Kenya and was able to confirm that Obama, as a U.S. Senator, illegally used a taxpayer-financed trip to campaign for far-left presidential candidate Raila Odinga in Kenya's 2006 elections.

Odinga, according to the BBC, was distantly related to Obama and both families belonged to the Luo tribe. Indeed, both of their fathers served in the administration of Jomo Kenyatta in the 1960s. According to a document obtained by Corsi, Odinga promised Kenya's growing Islamic movement that if elected, he would "rewrite the constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions." The secret agreement also called for the creation of Muslim "madrassa classes," a crackdown on Christian evangelical events and gospel programs, and legal protections for Muslims suspected of terrorism, even international terrorism.

Obama's cheerleading for anti-American Odinga (who named his son after Fidel Castro) "was more than reckless," wrote former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, "it was borderline criminal (and that's being generous)." McCarthy also said Obama's intervention was an "outrageous contravention of U.S. policy and, [referring to the Logan Act] probably, federal law."

By 2010, this tribal connection resulted in President Obama quietly transferring millions of U.S. tax dollars to Odinga's government, including $2 million to convince Kenyan voters to vote for a new constitution. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the new constitution would force Kenyans to be "subjected to these [Islamic] tribunals merely by virtue of what religious community they were born into…" Some members of Congress actually called for an investigation but, typically, nothing ever came of it. By the end of 2010, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to Kenya from a myriad of U.S. agencies such as USAID, all with the likely intent of boosting the popularity of the Odinga regime.


During Israel's 2015 elections, the Obama administration — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — illegally intervened when they attempted to defeat the reelection of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by covertly funneling State Department grants to opposition groups. The Obama administration detested Netanyahu due to his refusal to cave into Palestinian demands, a group that even refused to recognize the existence of Israel.

Obama's State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the "One Voice Movement (OVM)," for supporting "peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine." However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu's reelection. OVM contracted out a group called "V15," which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama's field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard's Jim Swift wrote, "once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America's closest allies."

An investigation by the U.S. Senate found that the "State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that resources built with government grants would be deployed for political purposes." As with most investigations of Obama scandals, emails documenting this illegal election activity were destroyed. And, as usual, no one was held accountable.


The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, obtained government documents that "show the U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with leftwing, billionaire philanthropist George Soros." Indeed, Obama's ambassador to Macedonia, Jeff Baily, worked to funnel millions of dollars from the State Department and USAID to groups created by Soros which were, according to JW, working to overthrow the conservative government.

More details about this intervention were exposed by Victor Gaetan in a series of exposés in The American Spectator. Gaetan has confirmed that Soros, in conjuction with the Obama administration, "financed a left-wing agenda to divide the nation and bring a socialist-Muslim coalition to power." Incredibly, Obama's USAID "selected Soros' Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM) to manage $2.5 million in taxpayers' dollars earmarked for oxymoronic ‘democracy building,' an amount increased to $4.8 million two years later."

This funding was directed to a coalition of socialist groups that work in conjunction with the Social Democrat Union of Macedonia (SDSM), a socialist party with close ties to Soros. The intervention is, incredibly, still ongoing with the result being chaos and disruptive street demonstrations. Gaetan's investigative work also indicates that Obama's agencies intervened politically with a number of other Balkan counties, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Greece. It appears the Trump administration knows little about such interventions since many leftist Obama-appointed ambassadors continue to hold on to their positions. And USAID funds continue to pour into leftist political groups in the Balkans as if Trump never came to power. Indeed, as one Macedonia Member of Parliament quoted by Gaetan said, "Under Obama's ideological programs, it [USAID] became the super crack of the left."


In 2011, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not only interfered politically in Libya but militarily as well, by orchestrating a series of policies designed to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. While it would be a stretch to call Gaddafi a U.S. ally, he was cooperating with the U.S.A. in fighting Islamic extremists and had turned over all his WMDs to American officials. Western investment was flowing into Libya, the country was becoming more westernized and, most certainly, it was no longer a threat to the USA.

As NR wrote, "all that vanished when Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice ordered the bombings that turned Libya into a terrorist paradise." One explanation for the abrupt attack on Libya was that Gaddafi was a rival to the Saudis over the leadership of the Islamic faith and since the Saudis had contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton had, as usual, a money motive to intervene in Libya.

The opposition to Gaddafi's regime was led by the Libyan Transitional National Council, whose leaders include many radical Muslims such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj. Belhaj also headed an al-Qaeda affiliate called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.

Nevertheless, Obama spent at least $1 billion to fund a military operation to topple Gaddafi, with American soldiers actually fighting alongside jihadist-dominated rebel groups. Moreover, the Washington Times reported that the "CIA was providing covert assistance to elements of the Transitional National Council," again, a group dominated by radical jihadists. Under Obama, Libya was transformed from a moderate Islamic regime which posed no threat to the USA, to a violent wasteland dominated by various ISIS and al-Qaeda linked militias.


Shortly after Obama was elected, leftist Honduran president Manual Zelaya attempted to illegally amend the Honduran Constitution so as to allow himself to serve as President longer than one term. Incredibly, Zelaya and a mob broke into a military installation where blank ballots were stored and tried to hold a constitutional referendum without the support of the election authorities. As a result, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, he was forcefully removed from office as Honduran law calls for.

Obama attacked Zelaya's removal, falsely calling it a "coup d'état" and a WikiLeaks cable revealed that Obama backed Zelaya's reinstatement in order to please Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who, like Fidel Castro, was an ally of Zelaya. Instead of supporting the right of Hondurans to remove their president for unconstitutional actions, Obama tried to pressure Honduras into reinstating Zelaya by freezing all non-humanitarian aid. That didn't happen and Zelaya went into exile.

Eventually, new elections were held and a new president elected, but there's little doubt that the Obama administration meddled in the Honduran political process in an effort to support the hard left in that country. Indeed, when Obama announced that he supported the return of Zelaya from exile, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen announced "Now that everything is in place for Zelaya's return, there are no more false reasons for the Obama administration to continue its pressure tactics against those in Honduras who opposed Zelaya's attacks on their country's constitution and the rule of law."


Like Libya, the Obama administration encouraged opposition to President Hosni Mubarak and intervened in elections to ensure that a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Morsi, was elected president. Obama's State Department even gave political training to MB leaders. Again, similar to Gadhafi, Mubarak was relatively secular and Egypt was becoming increasingly westernized. He was an ally of the U.S.A. and an opponent of radical jihadists.

And the Obama administration was open about its efforts. The Los Angeles Times reported that the "Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned islamist organization…" The MB's mission statement states, "Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." Sounds like a group Obama would support. Indeed, one of the Egyptian MB leaders, Gehad el-Haddad, was actually on the Clinton Foundation payroll while working to help bring the MB to power. Once Morsi appeared to win what was likely a rigged election, Obama poured in $1.5 billion in foreign aid.

The Egyptian people were so upset with Obama's intervention, they forcefully removed Morsi and installed a pro-American moderate Muslim named Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as president. Morsi was then arrested by the Egyptian military for treason. But even after that, as reported by Western Journalism, Obama's "State Department hosts Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders" in order to "work against this world-be reformer's government."

So there you have it. Surprisingly, a group of Senators led by Mike Lee (R-Utah) has sent a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, demanding that he conduct a full scale investigation into the use of taxpayer funds to support leftist political movements around the world. As reported in the Washington Free Beacon, Senator Lee said the letter was written because "over the past few months, elected officials and political leaders of foreign nations have been coming to me with disappointing news and reports of U.S. activity in their respective countries" which included "diplomats playing political favorites, USAID funds supporting extreme and sometimes violent political activity, and the U.S. Government working to marginalize the moderates and conservatives in leadership roles."

On the House side, a group of Congressmen led by Republican Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), visited the Balkans last month to investigate such blatant political manipulation but have yet to report on their findings.

Tillerson needs to clean house and expedite the appointment of new Ambassadors before Obama holdovers do any further damage. At the very least, he should cut off all funds to foreign political groups and seriously consider prosecuting State Department/USAID employees found to be involved with illegal political activity.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #38 

"That's a lie!"

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) was questioned about her retirement money and its alleged ties to Russian investments, when asked, she ran away.

Tiffani Grey (ConservativeTribune) is reporting that congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is one of the Democrats' most outspoken talking heads, frequently calling for President Donald Trump's impeachment and citing his alleged "collusion with Russia." However, her bombastic speeches and calls to action have often been found baseless. In fact, a recently uncovered Russian connection was linked directly to Waters herself.

Got News uncovered a 2015 disclosure statement from Waters which "details her family's investments in BlackRock's Russia-connected Global Allocation and Balanced funds."

This is intriguing considering that as of late, Waters has used her 15 minutes of fame to bash Trump and even went as far as to tweet "Follow the Money," in order to further her claim of collusion with Russia and Trump campaign officials.

Well, some internet sleuths did follow the money -- but it didn't lead to Trump, it led right back to Waters.

According to RedFlag News, Waters "held $200,000 in Russia-linked retirement accounts."

In addition to the insane amount of money that Waters had tied up in these Russian accounts, Water's BlackRock fund revealed another surprising twist.

"A Sept. 2015 BlackRock Balanced SEC filing reveals her fund's nearly $2.8 million in obligations to the Russian Federation," Right Side News reported on the story.

So who is the one really tied up with Russia? Waters' own statement shows a personal financial connection to the Kremlin to the tune of $200,000, while her fund has millions of dollars worth of obligations to the Russian Federation.

Hypocrite much?

Share this story on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about Maxine Waters' connection with Russia.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #39 

Comey's CYA paragraph(s) -- substantiating the "unmasking"


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) says there are multiple critical paragraphs within the carefully constructed, and intentionally released, opening statement by fired FBI Director James Comey. However, one of the more brutally transparent paragraphs deserves some highlighted attention.  Page #2, paragraphs #2 and #3:

♦ We know from James Comey's own admission, the entire construct of the FBI counterintelligence investigation was predicated on the now debunked, and politically motivated, fake "Russian Dossier".

Specifically this "Dossier" was the foundational document for the FISA warrants to secretly spy-on, or surveil, associates within the Trump orbit -- during the election campaign and after the election outcome.

♦ We know directly from John Brennan's congressional testimony (May 23rd, 2017) that his CIA, in coordination with the NSA, provided the "raw intelligence", intercepted communication by foreign nationals inquiring into the political perspectives of candidate and President-Elect Donald Trump, to the FBI counter intelligence investigation.  Raw intelligence that was exclusively given to those in charge of the FBI "counter-intelligence investigation".

♦ We also know from Brennan, Rogers and Clapper's testimony, the results of the FISA captured communication [CIA says who, NSA does tasks] was the raw intelligence data assembled into ODNI and FBI counter intelligence reports.  Reports kept from congress, but given to the Obama White House.  All leaks to the media stemmed from these reports, not from the raw intelligence.

♦ We know from the prior testimony by James Comey to congress on March 20th 2017, the counterintelligence operation was intentionally kept secret from congressional oversight under the guise of: "the sensitivity of the matter".  A convenient excuse to continue a cloud of investigation (narrative) without having to justify facts within the investigation to congressional oversight.  James Comey never told congress, despite his own admission that it was normal procedure to keep the congressional gang-of-eight informed.

♦ And we also know, by their own admission, the counter intelligence reports [utilizing the raw intelligence provided by Brennan (CIA)/Rogers (NSA)] to the FBI [and James Clapper (ODNI)], were the underlying documents which became the source of the unmasking requests by Susan Rice (White House) and possibly Samantha Powers (U.N. Ambassador). Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted it was from these reports she requested the unmasking -- and then shared with the Obama National Security Council.

♦ Lastly, we know the only current factual illegal activity: 1.)  included the unmasking of unauthorized and unwarranted Americans; and, 2.) surrounded the leaking of those intelligence reports to the media.  #1 could be illegal, #2 was definitely illegal.

Both James Clapper and John Brennan have walked away from the illegal danger room by stating they only delivered raw intelligence and did not make unmasking requests for any of the counterintelligence participants involved.  All of the unmasked names were political affiliates of the Trump campaign, post election transition, and Trump administration.

Now, all of this considered…. take a look at what James Comey has carefully written against the backdrop of: a.) his decision to keep congress in the dark, and b.) his need to explain why Trump officials were subjects of the investigation:


In the boxed paragraph, fired FBI Director James Comey is covering his ass.

James Comey is trying to frame the reasoning for utilizing a fake Russian Dossier to "open an investigation" and to gain FISA warrants to monitor officials of the Trump campaign, transition and administration; and more importantly to justify the unmasking of American officials who were part of the Trump campaign, transition and administration.

That boxed paragraph above is an attempt at justifying the activity.  He is 100% covering-his-ass and trying to avoid legal risk.

Notice also that President Trump never asked Comey in that initial encounter if he was under investigation.  Why would he?   ….Yet Comey felt it necessary to tell President-Elect Trump he was not under investigation.  Why?

Answer: Because the foundational block for all of the investigation, surveillance, intelligence gathering and most importantly ‘unmasking', was predicated on the counterintelligence operation which was entirely based on the faux-Russian dossier.

The "dossier" was a political opposition research document entirely structured around President Trump, not affiliates or entities with his campaign or campaign orbit.  It was simply commissioned as oppo-research on the candidate.

Yet this same fake Russian Dossier was used by the FBI, under the auspices of the counterintelligence operation (kept hidden from congress) as the evidence to a FISA court, to gain FISA warrants, to monitor Trump campaign officials.

See the problem?

After the election, FBI Director James Comey had to tell President Trump about the broad construct of the Russian dossier issues, and the absurdity behind it meant telling Trump he was not under investigation, in order to establish (to the incoming President) a reasonable basis to explain FISA warrants that were targeted -and gained- not on Donald Trump but rather on Trump campaign officials.

Donald Trump wasn't supposed to win, and no-one was supposed to know about the surveillance, monitoring, and unmasking etc.  If Trump had lost, no-one would have ever known.

However, Trump did win -- and now five months of previous surveillance (July to November) of Trump campaign officials needed to have a justifiable basis…. yet the tool for the construct, the dossier, was exclusively about Trump.  Hence, Comey needing to tell Trump he wasn't under investigation….

Which leads to…  it being worth noting….


The Dossier NEEDED to be leaked for all the reasons necessary to justify the entire surveillance and spying operation.   Without a basis for the initial investigation, all of the participants in the spying and monitoring of a presidential campaign had a serious risk.

The leaking of the dossier and all subsequent leaks were not just designed to damage the incoming presidency, they were also designed to protect the Obama team who conducted the surveillance of the campaign.

How did FBI Director James Comey know the content of the "fake Russian Dossier" was about to be reported to the media? (Initial reporting by CNN and Buzzfeed)

Who exactly is this "we" he speaks of?


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #40 

Making fun of Hillary's Trump-Russia conspiracy claims

Hillary's email server violated State Department and federal rules. Using that server to transmit and receive TOP SECRET material is a crime.

Has Hillary been ingesting LSD?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #41 

Oops! with just four words, Clapper ruins collusion case for Dementocrats

With just 4 words -- "no evidence of collusion," -- James Clapper again admitted all the 24/7 media hoopla is just conspiracy and anti-Trump fan fiction.

When will the sore losers stop humiliating themselves and just accept the fact Trump won the election fair and square?

From DailyCaller 

Former director of national intelligence James Clapper reiterated on Sunday that he saw no "smoking gun" evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. But he did say that his "dashboard was lit up" with concerns about Trump advisers' interactions with Russians before he left office on Jan. 20.

"I have to say, at the time I left, I did not see any smoking gun certitude evidence of collusion, but it certainly was appropriate given all the signs…for the FBI to investigate," Clapper said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Brennan also told the House Intelligence Committee that he saw no direct evidence of collusion, but he was concerned enough to refer the matter of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner asking Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December about the possibilities of setting up a secret communications channel with the Kremlin. to the FBI.

Clapper said he shared those same concerns with Brennan.

"I will tell you that my dashboard warning light was clearly on, and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community, very concerned with the nature of these approaches to the Russians," he said.

"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically are almost genetically driven to coopt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique, so we were concerned."

So, Clapper didn't see any evidence of collusion, and the FBI's Comey found no evidence of collusion, nor did the CIA's Brennan.

Diane Feinstein's Senate investigation found no evidence of collusion. Even crazy Maxine Waters said the House investigation found no evidence.

But they all want an investigation anyway -- but the liberal media continues to beat this dead horse 24/7.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #42 

The government investigates the Trump-Russia collusion fantasy

Andrew Klavan sorts out the investigations that have been clogging up the news, so that at last we can make sense of them:

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #43 

Democrats claim there's a cover-up -- but can't find a crime


Garth Kant (WND) says it's the kind of crazy scenario that only Washington could invent: Democrats are now accusing the president of covering up a non-crime.

The good news for President Trump is that the Russia collusion scandal appears to be dying because there is no evidence.

The bad news is, an obstruction of justice scandal is just heating up, even though there was no apparent wrongdoing or collusion by his team with Russia.

And now, with the Democrats pushing the bizarre notion there was a cover-up, even if there was no crime, one of the nation's top political minds says there is only one way to stop the endless cycle of attacks on the administration: switch from defense to offense.

Writing in National Review, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy suggests President Trump should flip the script on his inquisitors in three bold moves that would turn Democrats from hunters into the hunted:

  • Appoint a special counsel to investigate political spying, including unmasking and leaks to the media.
  • Have Congress hold hearings on whether the Obama Justice Department colluded with the Hillary Clinton campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
  • Have Congress hold hearings on collusion between the Clinton Foundation and Russia.

McCarthy contends those investigations could succeed where the Trump-Russia collusion investigation failed, because, unlike the latter, there is evidence of actual wrongdoing.

What follows in an explanation of how Washington has gotten to the point where Democrats are now accusing the president of covering-up a non-crime.

When former CIA Director John Brennan testified before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that he did not know of any evidence of collusion, coordination or conspiracy between Trump and the Russian government, that made it virtually unanimous.

As WND has reported repeatedly, top Democrats have all admitted investigators have not found any evidence of any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign or administration.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who serves on the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees, said twice that she had seen no such evidence. Other Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have said they don't expect to find any evidence of collusion.

Fierce Trump critic Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has had to admit there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Obama's own former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, as well as former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, have said they have seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and the Russian government.

Brennan's testimony pretty much completed the circuit. Even more so, because his testimony did explain how the whole investigation into Russia began in July 2016, without any evidence.

Essentially, the former CIA chief said he saw no signs of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. But he saw some contacts. And he was worried that might lead to collusion. So the Obama administration spied on the Trump team and had the FBI launch an investigation.

"I know what the Russians try to do," testified Brennan. "They try to suborn individuals and they try to get individuals, including U.S. persons, to act on their behalf, either wittingly or unwittingly."

"And I was worried," he continued, "by a number of the contacts that the Russians had with U.S. persons and so, therefore, by the time I left office on Jan. 20, I had unresolved questions in my mind as to whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting U.S. persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion."

McCarthy wrote, "That's a weasel's way of saying he's got nothing."

Nonetheless, Brennan then concluded, "And so, therefore, I felt as though the FBI investigation was certainly well-founded and needed to look into those issues."

Rush Limbaugh saw that, and Brennan's entire account, as an admission of political spying by the Obama administration.

On his radio show Wednesday, the talk-show giant said, "When you read between the lines of what Brennan was saying these past couple of days, it sounds to me like Brennan acknowledged they were spying on the Trump campaign and individuals in it."

Limbaugh thought the former CIA director inadvertently admitted to that spying because, "in all the double-talk that Brennan was using, he said that there was no evidence of any collusion, but there was a basis to start a CIA-FBI investigation. Now, what would the basis be if there's no evidence?"

The talk-show host believes the Obama administration actually used a joke by Trump on July 27, as the basis to launch the Russia investigation.

"When Trump publicly cracked that joke asking the Russians for help in finding Hillary's 30,000 missing emails, I actually believe these humorless, dryball people really, really, in their minds and hearts really believed that Trump was asking the Russians is to hack Hillary's server to find her emails, and that got them started," asserted Limbaugh.

"There's no evidence, but there's a basis, I think that's the basis, one of them, for this whole investigation."

And that lack of evidence brings the story back to the Democrats' current dilemma of a scandal without a crime.

That lack of evidence of Russian collusion, now admitted by virtually all top Democrats, has put them in a bind. Their supporters think there is evidence of Trump collusion with the Russians, thanks to a steady stream attacks on the president by the mainstream media. And they expect Trump to suffer consequences.

In fact, 59 percent of Democrats actually believe Russia hacked the November vote to give Trump the election, according to an Economist/YouGov poll, conducted from May 20-23.

That number is notable in light of the fact given that both the FBI and NSA have debunked the notion that the Russians affected the election outcome in any way.

But Democratic Party voters sure got that impression somewhere. And Democrats are now under pressure to deliver on a scandal for which they have admitted there is no evidence.

Left-leaning political analyst Glenn Greenwald saw that coming two months ago and warned, "Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence."

He warned, "Many Democrats have reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists where evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence, and those pointing to it are instantly deemed suspect."

Last week, Democrats began a public and coordinated effort to dampen expectations and to quash talk of impeachment.

The New York Times reported "liberal activists are courting a backlash of their own as they demand of their lawmakers nothing short of driving the president from office by any means necessary."

The paper said Democratic officials fear they will invite a backlash "for overpromising about what was possible."

So, with a base clamoring for the president's head but no evidence of a scandal, Democrats have switched tactics. They are accusing the president of obstructing justice, even if it's by allegedly trying to cover-up a non-crime for which there is no evidence.

As Byron York wrote Monday: "The Trump-Russia case could become the ultimate illustration of the old Washington saying that it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. In this case, there might be no underlying crime at all."

York recited all the innuendo that had recently made Washington Post headlines: that Trump had fired Comey because of "this Russia thing"; that Comey now claims to believe Trump tried to get him to call off the investigation; that Trump asked the director of national intelligence and the head of the National Security Agency to help "push back" against the FBI investigation and to "publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election."

All of this has morphed into the new media narrative of obstruction of justice, even if Trump was allegedly trying to stop a probe into a non-existent scandal. The lack of evidence no longer matters. It's the appearance of obstruction that is driving the new story line.

"[N]ow, after the Comey sacking," York explained, "the investigation has taken what is for Trump a more ominous turn. Focusing on alleged obstruction, the president's enemies no longer have to find an underlying crime on his part to attempt to remove him from office."

York concludes: "More and more, day after day, Trump's adversaries believe that, when it comes to bringing down the president, it might not matter if collusion occurred or not. A cover-up would be enough to do the job."

McCarthy also makes those points in his National Review article on Wednesday. But the former federal prosecutor also offered a way to fight back.

"Merely calling Democrats out on this farce is not going to end it," he wrote, adding that he had three suggestions:

First, the Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate the potential abuse of government surveillance powers for the purposes of political spying and leaks to the media. The investigation should scrutinize all unmasking of Americans to determine whether it conformed to court-ordered restrictions. The president should immediately announce that he is ordering U.S. intelligence agencies to cooperate fully. He should add that he is willing to declassify forthwith relevant reports and the identities of officials involved in the unmasking of Americans -- with the caveat that important intelligence secrets will be safeguarded. It should be made clear that any official who had access to classified information that was leaked to the media should expect to be summoned for grand-jury testimony about his or her handling of it.

Second, the appropriate committees of Congress should convene hearings on whether the Obama Justice Department sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, and whether it colluded with the Clinton campaign toward that end. The committees should examine, compare, and contrast the Justice Department's treatment of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and destruction of tens of thousands of government files, versus its treatment of the investigation of suspected collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The review should include such matters as whether an effort was made by Obama-administration departments and agencies to downgrade the significance of classified information found on Mrs. Clinton's servers, while a simultaneous effort was being made to inflate the significance of suspected Trump ties to Russia.

Third, the appropriate committees of Congress should convene hearings on collusion between the Clinton Foundation and Russia, focusing especially on payments by Russian interests to Bill Clinton and to the foundation, and actions taken by then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton that benefited Russia (including approval of the sale to a Kremlin-tied energy company of major U.S. uranium assets). The committees should compare and contrast the concrete evidence of Clinton Foundation collusion with Russia versus unproved suspicions of Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

McCarthy emphasized that such extreme measures were needed because, "Democrats are not fighting for advantage. They are fighting to annihilate their opposition -- not just the Trump administration but the Republican Congress. It is not enough to say they are not fighting fair. Everyone knows that."

He concluded with a warning: "You either fight back against this sort of thing or you get rolled over by it."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #44 

Clapper and Brennan leave Comey holding the Russian conspiracy bag

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) says it is not coincidental the origin of all 'vast-Russian-conspiracy' stories seem to start with a discussion of intelligence gathering beginning in July of 2016. The GOP convention to nominate Donald Trump was July 18-21stof 2016.

Surrounding the nomination that stunned the geo-political world almost every foreign government was trying to figure out who and what Donald J Trump was all about; and more specifically: how would his run for the presidency impact their specific interests.

WASHINGTON NYT -- American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence.

[Paragraph #5] The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is continuing. It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election. (link)

The New York Times should win a Pulitzer for undermining their own "Russian conspiracy" headline narrative within the fifth paragraph.  [It's a current trend] I digress.

Obviously Russia would be asking these questions along with China, France, England, the larger EU and every nation in every continent.  It would be silly to claim otherwise.


Ergo a diplomatic mission by Russian governmental officials surrounding the GOP convention to understand the Trump orbit is no different than a Chinese, European or Arab-Asian effort for the same reason.

However, what the international interest did necessarily initiate was a bunch of foreign officials making contact with anyone and everyone who would be associated with Trump-world regardless of concentric circle distance from the epicenter.

That intellectually honest understanding highlights how the origin of the July 2016 raw intelligence gathering began so easily.

The CIA simply monitoring chatter amid foreign diplomats, their customary job, turns into raw data provided to the FBI which in turn becomes frequent FISA warrants to explore the U.S. contacts on the other side of that chatter.

The FISA warrants turn into intelligence reports and that begins the entire process now known as "unmasking" etc.  Nothing within this process so far is even in question.  This is  the accurate backdrop for the origin of intelligence reports used as political weapons.  This week CIA Director John Brennan testified to this exact process before congress.

However, what is not reported by any media outline is John Brennan, understanding the potential legal risk looming on the horizon, also completely backed toward the exit and threw James Comey in front of the rapidly approaching sunlight.

Former CIA Director John Brennan gave very specific testimony to congress where he noted he provided the raw intelligence to FBI Director Comey -- FULLSTOP.   Where "fullstop" directly and immediately indicates Brennan's throwing the responsibility for all that came next upon FBI Director James Comey.

John Brennan did the "outta-here-like-a-fat-kid-playing-dodge-ball routine" with great specificity:

"Again, in consultation with the White House, I personally briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members."

"Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member."… (link)

Shorter version: don't try pinning this investigation to no-where, and the illegal leaks, on me; I just provided the raw intelligence.

It is important to emphasize here the possibly illegal "unmasking," and the certainly illegal "leaking," were all based on intelligence reports generated from raw intelligence, and not the raw intelligence itself.

It was the FBI (Comey) and ODNI (Clapper) generating the intel reports, including the Presidents' Daily Briefing (PDB).

The CIA provided raw intel, and the NSA generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA and approved by FBI FISA warrant submissions.

The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice.  Those reports, or interpretations of the report content, was eventually leaked to the media.

During the time James Comey's FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: "because of the sensitivity of the matter."

John Brennan has effectively (and intentionally) taken himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process.  James Clapper while rubbing his face and scratching his head had taken the same route earlier.  That leaves James Comey.


How will Über-political James Comey play his hand?

The answer to that question explains why Comey changed his mind on testifying to congress before talking to newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller.

Former FBI Director James Comey is not stupid and is intensely political.  Comey understands the legal risks he is facing within the faux "Russian conspiracy story" and the "subsequent leaking" of his political FBI reports.

James Clapper (DNI) and John Brennan (CIA) have essentially left Comey holding the bag of nothing-burgers while standing on the hot coals of possibly: A) illegal leaking; and B.) unethical unmasking; and C.) illegal use of investigative resources for political objectives – All three stemming from activity within his FBI counter-intelligence investigation.

If the entire fiasco blows up, does Comey anticipate the Trump DOJ taking legal action against him?

If yes, can Comey leverage the nothing-burgers into plausible claims of investigative interference by President Trump in order to generate a get-out-of-jail card for himself?

Beside the media, who will help him in that regard?

Decisions… decisions….


*Additionally, smart move by POTUS on delaying the nomination of the FBI Director. Comey would love to know that answer before he gives his story.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #45 

You want leaks? -- let's give them leaks


DougRoss (DirectorBlue) says the nonstop (and completely fraudulent) accusations leveled against the Donald Trump since his candidacy was announced have now reached a crescendo.

We're more than 100 days in to the new administration and we're still waiting for evidence that a single person in the Trump camp "colluded" with the Russians on a topic more serious than the best brand of vodka.

In fact, thanks to the liberal authors of the new bestseller Shattered, we now know that the Clinton camp invented the collusion tale to help explain their devastating loss. The media, despite the progressive provenance of the story,

The New York Times and The Washington Post continue to publish coordinated leaks by "unnamed sources" intended to wound the president. Their efforts have set the Beltway establishment all atwitter.

They sing a siren song of impeachment and criminal charges, twin aspirations as delusional as they are unachievable.

Trump isn't going anywhere. Further, regular Americans are increasingly ignoring the fraudulent and unhinged complex of Democrat-and-government media kooks.

It is, as Kurt Schlichter has described it, nothing less than a coup against elected government.

It is nice... to have liberals finally come out against the abuse of executive power, misuse of classified material, and Russians. Welcome to the party, except we know you're full of Schumer.

It's all lies, and they know it and we know it. Normal people just shake their heads and wonder why Washington is so consumed with political nonsense instead of solving problems. But then, Washington does not produce solutions. It produces only political nonsense.

This is a concentrated, coordinated effort by elite insiders to take down not this president – Trump's not the point here – but to take down us, the normal American they seek to rule. Someone came to Washington who wasn't part of the club, and that's intolerable. So they are desperate to expel him, and by extension, us.

Every day will be a crisis, every action he takes will be the worst thing that has ever happened, and every step towards keeping his promises a crime.

There are a few ways, however, to fight back. And fight back hard, on multiple fronts:

  1. Patriots -- that is, people who believe in the American system of government who have access to the right information -- must start revealing the true scope and scale of the rampant scandals inflicted upon America by the Obama administration. From Hillary Clinton's illegal bathroom email server to Eric Holder's skullduggery, every day should bring a new revelation that can and will dominate headlines. There's no shortage of options.
  2. Carefully ignore the purveyors of fake news and anti-Trump hysteria, starting with The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. Freeze them out. Don't retweet, link to, or even read the leading purveyors of #FakeNews.
  3. Promote stories by truth-tellers in media, starting with Conservative Review, The American Spectator, The Daily Caller, The Free Beacon, Breitbart News, etc.

In short, it's time to fight fire with fire.

Gentlemen, start your leaking!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #46 

FBI Director James Comey testified under oath on May 3rd that the Trump Administration didn't obstruct investigations

GotNews is reporting that former FBI Director James Comey testified under Senate oath May 3rd that the Trump administration had not pressured his agency to halt any investigation for political purposes. Comey admitted that the FBI has always been free to operate without political interference -- flying in the face of Democrats' paranoid delusions about Russia and President Donald J. Trump, and exposing for what it is a new political witch hunt Wednesday by enemies within the president's own Justice Department.

On Wednesday, DoJ appointed a special prosecutor, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, to drum up more hype about Trump's imaginary "collusion" with Russia during the general election.

On May 9th, President Trump fired Comey, who has spent 15 years shilling for Hillary Clinton.

Videotaped testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee blows apart the phony narrative New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt wove on Tuesday, which resulted in Mueller's appointment. Schmidt's only sources were anonymous. They claimed that on Feb. 14th, the day after National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned, Trump had asked Comey to end an investigation into Flynn's connections to Russia.

Schmidt's allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct justice hinged on the sources' accounts of a memo authored the same day. Schmidt, a Democrat party lackey, admitted he hadn't even seen the document -- dated nearly three months before Comey's testimony that totally contradicted it.

Comey's statement to Hawaii Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono from May 3rd, which Center for Security Policy analyst Nick Short noted Wednesday, exposes the Democrats once again for their political gamesmanship.


Lying during sworn congressional testimony is committing perjury, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison.

"So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?" asked Sen. Hirono of Comey during the question-and-answer period of his testimony.

"In theory, yes," replied Comey.

Hirono pressed: "Has it happened?"

Comey said, "Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience."

Stay tuned for more.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #47 

Former DNI Director Clapper AGAIN says there's no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is interviewed on This Week on Sunday morning.

Clapper once again said there was no collusion between President Trump and Russia.

"At the time I left office I had no evidence available to me that there was collusion. But that's not necessarily exculpatory since I did not know the state of the investigation or the content."

So there STILL is no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, but the anti-Trump media --the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party -- will completely ignore this and continue to beat the "Russians and Trump" drum anyway.

John Hinderaker (PowerLine) adds this:

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was one of Barack Obama's worst appointees, which is no small distinction. Today Clapper appeared on CNN's State of the Union. He had no new information of any sort, but he and host Jake Tapper pushed the Democratic Party line relentlessly.

No surprise there. But check out this exchange:

TAPPER: Let's take a wider view of this for one second, and then I want to get back to some of these more detailed questions. This week, with the president firing the FBI director while this investigation is going on, and then saying that he was thinking about the Russia probe when he was making the decision, have we crossed a line here?

CLAPPER: Well, I will just say that the developments of the past week are very bothersome, very disturbing to me.

I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally — and that's the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system. And I think as well our institutions are under assault internally.

TAPPER: Internally from the president?

CLAPPER: Exactly.

This is intended as a portentous warning, but for many Trump voters, the fact that he is "assaulting" some of our institutions is a feature, not a bug.

TAPPER: Because he's firing the checks and balances? [sic]

CLAPPER: Well, I think, you know, the founding fathers, in their genius, created a system of three co-equal branches of government and a built-in system of checks and balances.

And I feel as though that's under assault and is eroding.

News flash for Mr. Clapper: the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, i.e. the Executive Branch. It reports to the president. The checks and balances inherent in the three branches of government have nothing to do with it.

The president has the power to fire the Director of the FBI, and if the Director isn't doing a good job, the president has a duty to fire him. That isn't an "erosion" of "checks and balances" or an "assault" on "our institutions," it is a president exercising oversight over the executive branch of government.

If he exercised that authority poorly, he may pay a political price. But the federal bureaucracy is not part of the constitutional system of checks and balances. It only seems that way, sometimes, because of its perennial hostility to Republican presidents.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #48 

Compare and contrast -- Democrats can't seem to make up their minds

That was then:

This is now:

Damned hypocrites . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #49 

Trump hires law firm to fight Russia collusion propaganda


The FireAndreaMitchell blog is reporting that now that Comey the Clown is out the way, Trump is apparently going to hit back at Democrats and the propaganda media for their Russia-Trump collusion bullshit that still hasn't resulted in a shred of evidence that there was any collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians..

President Donald Trump has hired a Washington law firm to send a letter to a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee saying he has no connections to Russia, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday.

Spicer's revelation was in response to a question from reporters on a briefing about committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham’s remarks that he wants to look into whether Trump has any business dealings with Russia.

"The president, obviously, was aware of Senator Graham’s suggestion after he made it today and he’s fine with that. He has no business in Russia. He has no connections to Russia. So he welcomes that," Spicer said.

This is likely to continue to the corrupt Democrat media complex meltdown for at least another day or two.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #50 

The big revelations from yesterday's Senate hearings


Forget what Sally Yates had to say. She's a partisan. This is the most important statement came from James Clapper, Obama's Director of National Intelligence.

From Fox News:

James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence during the Obama administration, stood by past assertions that he had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., whether that assessment is still accurate, Clapper said:

"It is."

The FireAndreaMitchell blog adds:

The bald weasel James Clapper admitting during today’s testimony to the Senate that he requested the unmasking of Trump associates, an important revelation in otherwise boring, tax payer wasting testimony.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted under oath that he had requested the unmasking of either Trump, his associates, or members of Congress.

During testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley asked Clapper and former U.S. Acting Attorney General Sally Yates if they had ever requested the unmasking of Trump, his associates, or members of Congress.

Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, hesitated before answering.

“Yes, in one case I did,” he admitted, but refused to give any more details.

How many times do the directors of the CIA, FBI and NSA have to debunk the "Russian connection" before the Democrats let go of this fantasy?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved