Tomorrow, Saturday August 25th, the TruthNewsNetwork will present evidence of serious and actual illegalities and political partisanship that is driving the “new” justice in our nation. It will shock you.
Make sure and come back tomorrow morning for the inside scoop. And if you haven’t registered your email address, feel free to do so on the home page. Your address is secure, no one will ever see or have access to it. We don’t sell anything at all either. Doing so will simply result in your receipt of a brief email reminder with a “click-link” to any/every new story and/or podcast when published at TruthNewsNet.org.
I avoided this topic for obvious reasons. I have never liked soap operas. They seem mushy, unrealistic, and cheesy, to be frank. This is nothing more than another soap opera. But this one plays out on a national stage called the White House. The star of this soap opera is a former reality show star fired several times by another former reality show star who happens to now be President.
I know very little about Omarosa Manigault-Newman — no relation to this writer. The little I DO know about her is nothing more than the spin from the press about her and her idiosyncrasies. I was not an “Apprentice” fan, but even with that I knew a little about her — the media always loves controversy and made her controversial during that show’s run.
Moving from an NBC hit television show to the White House was quite a move for Donald Trump AND Omarosa. The tension between the two on television transitioned to the White House. Everyone thought Mr. Trump and Omarosa kissed and made up. Why else would she get a PR position in his administration? Apparently, if amends were made between the pair, they did not last long.
As one can imagine, the Media has gone bonkers with non-stop factual coverage and, of course, non-stop demonizing of President Trump for not only firing Omarosa but calling her a “dog” in the subsequent back-and-forth initiated by Marigault-Newman. Watch just a fraction of the “Omarosa — noise” and obsession in the Media:
The “Real” Story
There was a “real” firing that should have dominated the news cycle on Tuesday. And it wasn’t the firing of Omarosa by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. It was the firing of FBI agent Peter Strozk. But another FBI firing would not have played well in the anti-Trump 24/7 Mainstream News Media reporting, even if Strozk’s termination is of national security and American justice importance. Omarosa’s termination gave the Media sharks another chance to take shots at the President. And they did.
I will not waste your time discussing Strozk. By now, everyone knows he was the pivotal investigation head of the FBI’s Hillary Clinton private server debacle but was also a key part of Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump Campaign for alleged Russian election collusion. It was with Mueller’s discovery of Strozk’s extreme bias against Trump evidenced by his obsessive string of texts with his girlfriend Lisa Page Mueller pulled the plug on Strozk’s job with his investigative team.
Strozk will probably be remembered most for his bombastic public testimony before Congress in which he brazenly defended his vitriolic political rants with his lover through those texts in which veiled threats were shared against “Candidate” Trump and then “President” Trump after the election. It is more than fair to say both Strozk and Lisa Page were/are adamantly opposed to Donald Trump being President.
Strozk is certainly in the spotlight of the DOJ regarding security clearances, threats against the President, and discussions of conspiracy with others regarding actual plans to stop Trump from winning the election and then “taking him out” after he won.
The “Other” Story
John Brennan. “Oh what a web we weave.”
The former CIA Director who has made himself probably the most ardent opponent of this President lost his security clearance for very obvious reasons: He perjured himself in Congressional testimony twice (with charges for those pending), one of which was regarding CIA hacking Senate computer systems while the Senate was investigating the CIA for wrongdoing. In sworn testimony, Brennan denied such hacking actually happened.
Additionally, that selacious “Steele Dossier” was actually put on public record by Brennan himself. He is the guilty party that brought the Dossier quietly to former Senator Harry Reid who took it to James Comey’s FBI. This happened while Brennan was still CIA Director.
Just yesterday, Brennan in the wake of his crying fowl for the President’s termination of Brennan’s security clearance maintained he knows factually that Trump colluded with Russia.
Think that fact through:
If while CIA Director Brennan discovered evidence of this happening, he was bound by requirements of his job to bring that evidence to prosecuting authorities — the Department of Justice that would have gladly used that evidence to prosecute Candidate Trump (Loretta Lynch was Attorney General at the time);
If he found evidence of collusion after he left the CIA, he violated security laws by NOT taking it to authorities.
Brennan is not a good person and certainly not an honest person. It’s sad that a person with such drastic character flaws ran the largest foreign intelligence agency on Earth for so long. How could President Obama appoint such a person to that role?
There are a bunch of bad people in this world. How is it that so many seem to have raised their heads and been exposed of late? How is that so many come from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI? Think about how many there are:
And there are plenty more.
It is shocking to know that there are approximately 2 million people in America that have government security clearances! How could that happen? How in the world could that many people have security clearances?
Let’s be honest: there is only one possible justifiable reason for any “former” federal employee or contractor to have such a clearance: if whoever follows them in their post or office needs to consult with them to draw from their knowledge and/or perspective on specific government topics, they would be required to have a security clearance to do so. And getting that clearance takes an inordinate amount of time.
But that simply does not justify so many people having legal access to significant documents and information after leaving their federal positions. I feel strongly that EVERY federal person who has a security clearance of any kind should have that clearance terminated simultaneously with their job departure. In this politically charged foreign and domestic environment, there are far too many opportunities for confidential and top secret information to pass to people who will use it against the United States. The U.S. has had enough of Snowden and Assange passing such information around to our enemies.
But the thing that galls me the most is that guys like Brennan, Comey, and Clapper use their security clearances in the private sector for profit. Yes, such authorizations gives them a leg up in the news world because of their “special” access to inside information that regular folks cannot legally access.
The problem is that all these people listed above are just the type who (for a buck or two) have and will continue doing so unless their clearances are terminated.
In The “Truth” Part 1, we examined and explained some of the hoopla in D.C. regarding dissemination of information as fact when it has not been true. This includes alleged collusion by the Trump Campaign with Russians during the 2016 election cycle, and alleged Obstruction of Justice during that same time. Today we will move forward looking deeper into the heretofore mysterious circumstances surrounding the massive negativity that permeates the Nation regarding all things political. We have not seen such negativity in our country since the 1960’s when young people literally revolted against the U.S. Government regarding the Vietnam War. First, we address some more of the “noise” — or as President Trump terms it “Fake News” — to dispel some of the rumors so you can get your brain around facts. Then we will discuss some behind-the-scenes actions being taken.
Obstruction of Justice
In Part I we quoted the segment of the legal definition of Obstruction of Justice in federal law that pertains to Obstruction allegations made against the Trump Campaign and those associated with it that pertain to the Mueller Investigation. But there are other parts to the Obstruction law that do not necessarily apply to the Trump Campaign but do apply to others regarding the 2016 election and matters since.
The former FBI Director has pretty much kept himself in the limelight before, during, and after the 2016 Presidential election. We have in previous offerings here documented his professional (and often questionable) background. He has a speckled past, no doubt. However, listening to him in speeches, reading his book, or even listening to his sworn testimony before Congress, one would think he is a ray of sunlight in the total darkness of Washington D.C. And he hates Donald Trump.
Unfortunately for Mr. Comey, he HAS a public past. And unfortunately for James, his past is easily visible to all who care to take a look. James Comey — by federal statute — committed criminal acts while serving as FBI Director and since his removal. He has been and still is relying on his friends in federal law enforcement to protect him from prosecution for his wrongdoing. But if Justice is really “Equal under the law” for all, Lady Justice will soon come calling on Mr. Comey.
What did he do?
He forwarded FBI confidential memos of his meetings with President Trump to his friend at Columbia University expressly to be disseminated to the Press. Comey’s doing so violates 18 U.S. Code 798 which states “it is a violation to disseminate classified information to any unauthorized person. The term ‘unauthorized person’ means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.” Comey has given two different excuses for his releasing those memos: 1) the memos were NOT the property of the FBI, but his personal notes; and 2) his giving them to his friend was authorized because Comey was no longer an FBI employee. By law, the memos ARE property of the U.S. Government. In addition to the terms of the federal statute regarding his illegal release, The FBI employee agreement which Comey signed clearly states that all such documents belong to the FBI even after employment termination.
He lied under oath, and in doing so affected an ongoing FBI investigation. 1) Comey stated under oath there was no coordination between the DOJ and the FBI regarding the Clinton email investigation. Recovered text messages between FBI’s Peter Strozk and then DOJ Attorney Lisa Page expose that was not truthful; 2) Either James Comey or fired FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe lied to Congress. Comey stated (under oath) he never personally nor authorized anyone else to release any investigative information to the Press. Andrew McCabe in his sworn Congressional testimony stated HE gave information to the media and Comey knew about it making it authorized dissemination; 3) Comey testified that the decision to not indict Hillary Clinton for illegal use of a private email server to share classified information was made shortly before the press conference in which he announced that FBI decision. It was discovered that he penned the note announcing that decision two months before the FBI even interviewed Clinton or any of her aids.
There are more examples of Comey obstruction, but for the sake of time, we’ll leave it there.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch
This is a tough one. It is rare for any Presidential Administration to take legal action against members of their predecessors. Why? Doing so would seem to be taking punitive actions for strictly political purposes of “Payback,” which no one wants to experience when THEY leave office. However, where there’s smoke there’s fire.
What did she do?
Apparently, that mysterious and “unscheduled” meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Sky Harbour Airport in Phoenix was NOT so “unscheduled.” According to reports, pilots later debunked that story saying the meeting WAS planned and coordinated.
James Comey testified that the Attorney General had asked Comey to call the FBI “investigation” into the Clinton email issue a “Matter” and not an “Investigation.” If her doing so was to deflect ordinary investigation into criminal matters, her doing so from her position of authority would be Obstruction.
Additionally, during Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention. The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document. Hamstringing the investigation by ordering the FBI director to mislead the public by calling it a “matter” instead of an investigation perfectly fits the description of keeping “the Clinton investigation from going too far.” After all, an investigation might “go too far” for those who wanted to protect Clinton, but a “matter” never ran that risk. Lynch’s interference also perfectly fits the description of “obstruction of justice.”
The Justice Department’s inspector general submitted a criminal referral for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred the matter to the US attorney’s office in Washington, DC, for potential prosecution. McCabe has been harshly criticized for months for alleged anti-Trump bias, he’s been investigated for and may be charged about a different topic entirely — his purported attempts to mislead about his role in a leak at Hillary Clinton’s expense. The gist is that McCabe orchestrated a leak to a Wall Street Journal reporter shortly before the 2016 election, describing private deliberations he’d had with Obama Justice Department officials about an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. McCabe leaked that he had tried to keep this investigation moving forward, over an unnamed Justice Department official’s resistance. His motivation for leaking about this pending investigation, it appeared, was to rebut an earlier Journal article raising questions about his impartiality in the Clinton email probe, and a planned follow-up piece along similar lines. Once the FBI began looking into how the Clinton Foundation leak happened, Horowitz claims that McCabe repeatedly misled officials about his involvement.
Under McCabe’s watch, Anthony Weiner’s laptop was taken into possession of the FBI field office in New York. It was immediately discovered there were potential illegal pictures stored on Weiner’s laptop of underage girls. McCabe was notified by the Manhatten office of the laptop and its illegal contents, but McCabe slowplayed retrieving that laptop for forensic examination in New York. In doing so (and by not letting then FBI Director Comey know of the laptop and its contents) McCabe apparently was hiding the evidence of Weiner’s wrongdoing until after the November election. Accusations are that he was protecting Hillary Clinton whose chief aid was the wife of Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin. If true, McCabe committed Obstruction.
Where do we begin? Hillary Clinton: Obstruction of Justice “PLUS”
18 U.S. Code 798: “(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information, concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
The unsecured email server: based on legal requirements of protecting and keeping confidential documents and classified information, Clinton’s use of a non-certified computer server in an unsecured environment was a gross violation of the law. “Knowingly” is the keyword that exposed Clinton. Think about this: using that email server, then Secretary of State Clinton when traveling in foreign countries exchanged texts and emails with President Obama from an unsecured Blackberry transmitting messages via that server to Obama’s secret Gmail account. Multiple violations of multiple statutes by both Hillary and Barack.
46 CFR 503.59 – Safeguarding classified information: “All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification. Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.”
It is safe to say that using an unsecured server and a private (non-.gov) email address, Secretary Clinton grossly violated the law protecting classified documents and information. Notwithstanding her insistence regarding the “marked classified” status of some of those documents and emails, the fact the server was NEVER certified by the State Department and therefore was not an authorized server for use by the Department, can under the law be classified as obstruction of justice. If technically it would NOT be Obstruction, it would definitely have violated 46 CFR 503.59 — and makes it a felony.
There is no doubt there was Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller probe and also the Clinton email investigation — but apparently not by President Trump or members of his campaign, based on at least what we know now. But the others obviously have “dirty hands.”
Will there be any prosecution in these cases? At this point, it is hard to say. However, a prosecution is definitely warranted. There are numerous cases in which those guilty of far less serious infractions were sent to prison for their wrongdoing. If these escape penalties for their actions, it will prove the point that many Americans feel is applicable today: that political elites receive special treatment under this Justice Department and have for some time. It will be a travesty.
But wait: there’s more! In The “Truth” Part III that will be released tomorrow, read or listen to find out what the “Three Amigos” have been up to. Who are the “Three Amigos?” Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and James Comey. What have they been up to? I will NOT give it away today. But I assure you it is mind-boggling and exposes the worst elitism to date uncovered in the Justice Department. You will shiver to think that such corruption is alive and well in the very government department charged with protecting the laws of our Nation.
Is there Obstruction of Justice and/or Collusion going on now (or has there been) in the Mueller Russia Collusion Investigation of the Trump Campaign? If so, who is guilty? What is truthful we are hearing from the Mueller Investigation — from both sides?
There are so many facets to the answers to these questions we cannot answer them all with accompanying facts and examples in just one setting. For the sake of YOUR time, this is a two-part presentation. First, we will talk about “The Truth.” Secondly, we will discuss (with examples of) how “The Truth” is being abused and even abandoned in this investigation as well as other Justice matters in Washington.
The “Playing Field”
Before we get started, there are a few things we need to settle for the purposes of this conversation:
Collusion defined in federal law: wheretwopersons(orbusinessentitiesthroughtheirofficers or otheremployees)enterinto a deceitfulagreement,usuallysecret, to defraudand/orgain an unfairadvantageover a thirdparty,competitors,consumers or thosewithwhomtheyarenegotiating.Collusioncanincludesecretprice or wagefixing,secretrebates, or pretending to be independent of eachotherwhenactuallyconspiringtogetherfortheirjointenrichment. “Collusion” in federal law attaches specifically to antitrust actions in which two or more people or companies work together to fix prices — such as two competing cell phone entities or oil companies collude with each other to set prices for consumers to secure unfair financial benefits. There is NO place in the Mueller Trump “Collusion” investigation where such a statute is applicable. Collusion, as used by the Press in the Mueller investigation, does not exist as a crime.
Obstruction of Justice defined: (a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). That definition does not require that there be a direct order that would quash or affect the investigation.
Let’s Analyze Collusion in the Mueller Investigation Scenario
After 15 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.
When noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 15 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign.
There are some individuals who, according to media reports, may have sought hacked material from WikiLeaks. There also is an unnamed journalist who sought such information, and even an unnamed candidate for Congress. That does not mean, however, that it is a crime for reporters or academics or political activists to review such information if they did not play a role in illegal removal.
The efforts of the Russian operations detailed in these indictments do not establish a particularly significant impact on the election. When the Russians began this operation in 2016, we were already divided as a nation between the two least popular candidates ever to run for the White House. Thirteen trolls in St. Petersburg, or 12 military hackers in Moscow, certainly could spit into that raging ocean, but it remains highly unlikely to have had a material impact on the election.
To summarize Collusion as is used from the beginning of the Mueller investigation: Collusion is NOT a violation of any federal statute, even IF it was unearthed by Mueller.
Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Investigation Scenario
From even before the formal inception of the Muller probe, politicians and Leftist Media members have tossed the “Obstruction of Justice” allegation against President Trump all day every day. We defined “Obstruction of Justice” in #2 above.
We could provide video after video, speech after speech, and news story after news story here that each contain multiple allegations and examples of how the President was/is guilty of obstructing justice. As recently as several days ago, Democrat members of Congress railed about the President’s obstruction because of a tweet:
“This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to the USA!”
The cry is that Trump is telling the Attorney General to stop the Mueller investigation “right now.” Unfortunately for the angry Democrats and the Mainstream Media, the President’s tweets are NOT by law obstruction, especially in light of his saying to A.G. Sessions he “should” stop this Rigged Witch Hunt but stops short of telling him to stop. And even if he told Sessions to stop the investigation, it would not be Obstruction of Justice. (See/listen to tomorrow’s story “The Truth Part II” for details of this)
To help us all to understand what IS and what is NOT Obstruction, Senator James Risch (R-ID) in the Senate hearing with former FBI Director James Comey brought up this topic in Q & A. This will make understanding Obstruction easier. Risch used his time during the Intelligence Committee hearing to probe whether President Donald Trump had explicitly “ordered” or “directed” former FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser who was fired just 24 days into the new administration. Comey said that he took it as an order, but that Trump used the words “I hope.”
Risch asked Comey, “Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?” Comey said he wasn’t sure, but, “I took it as a direction. I mean, this is the president of the United States, with me alone, saying, I hope this. I took it as: This is what he wants me to do.”
Risch seemed satisfied he’d scored his point. “He said, ‘I hope.’ You don’t know of anyone who’s ever been charged for hoping something. Is that a fair statement?” Comey shrugged, “I don’t as I sit here.”
The exchange raises the question, then, of whether an explicit order is necessary for the definition of obstruction of justice. Here’s the relevant section of the federal legal code (our emphasis):
(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) has a different take on the President’s tweet:
Unfortunately for the Senator and the Liberal Media, he (and they) are dead wrong at calling such tweets and any other previous statements made by President Trump as obstruction of justice. By statute, they are absolutely wrong.
So why do they continue?
The Mid-Term elections. Democrats have NO platform…NO agenda…NOTHING to attract their base to turn out in force to vote the House back to Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. Their only hope is to find something — anything — to discredit this president, even if it is not factual.
Dems cannot use the economy against the President;
Dems cannot use unemployment against the President;
Dems cannot use foreign policy against the President;
Dems cannot use lack of American confidence in his leadership against the President.
There is nothing of substance they can point to any bad policy or negativity in the Nation to discredit President Trump or his policies in office. Therefore they have only one thing left: blame of Obstruction of Justice and/or Russian collusion — neither of which is substantive or applicable to President Trump, his administration, or his staff.
Tomorrow we will look closely at REAL obstruction of justice playing out right under our noses as part of the Mueller probe, the day-to-day operations of the Department of Justice and the FBI. We will also look closely at obstruction by the Clintons and James Comey and what is underway to call those guilty to task.
Remember this: one of the age-old methods to deflect attention from wrongdoing is to loudly scream angrily at our foes, blaming them for exactly what we are guilty of themselves. (It’s the “real version” of “the first chicken to cackle is the one who laid the egg”)
Additionally, we will discuss strategy being planned (even already implemented in part) by the Democrat Party to craftily take the House of Representatives back from the G.O.P., and even wrestle away a few Senate seats.
Over the next few days, we are going to concentrate on the specific dangers Americans now face because of the growing disparities in the American justice system as they play out in the lives of Americans. The current state of the justice system is front and center daily through the Mueller probe, investigations by various Congressional committees, and media gross misrepresentations of all these in the Media.
Today we take a look at the “current” need for — and efforts to — “Drain the Swamp,” which is Washington D.C.
Let’s get started!
Our media’s valiant efforts to distract us notwithstanding, information continues to seep out that underscores how badly a housecleaning is needed in Washington, D.C.
Last week saw the release of the applications used to obtain warrants from the FISA court to spy on Carter Page, an adviser to the Trump presidential campaign. Obtained by Judicial Watch, the 400-plus pages of (heavily redacted) documents support the conclusions earlier drawn by the House Intelligence Committee (and denounced by Democrats as hysteria): the FISA warrants were obtained through obfuscation and deceit.
As various commentators predicted would be proven, the bulk of the information that formed the basis for the FISA warrant applications was the “dossier” of allegations about Donald Trump’s activities in Russia. This dossier was provided to the FBI by British spy Christopher Steele. Steele was hired during the 2016 presidential campaign by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, who was paid by Hillary Clinton’s law firm Perkins Coie, who was paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The allegations were scandalous and completely unverified, in violation of federal statutes and FISA court rules.
In other words, the FBI used oppo research paid for by the Democrats as justification for government spying on a political opponent and other Americans.
But there’s more. In another incredible coincidence, Fusion GPS had hired scholar and professor Nellie Ohr as a “paid Russian expert.” Nellie Ohr happens to be married to Bruce Ohr, deputy attorney general in the Justice Department. Bruce Ohr is alleged to have passed his wife’s anti-Trump research to the FBI. He was demoted for failing to disclose not only his wife’s employment with Fusion GPS, but also his own meetings with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.
The FISA court was never told any of that. They were never supposed to know. None of us was ever supposed to know.
When thousands of DNC emails were leaked to the public through Julian Assange’s organization WikiLeaks, we learned that Hillary Clinton had abused the primary process, nearly bankrupted the DNC and effectively stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. We also learned the press played favorites with Clinton, getting her approval before running stories and forwarding debate questions to Clinton in advance. (The official line is Russians hacked the DNC computers and gave the emails to WikiLeaks. Assange and former U.S. and U.K. intelligence officials vehemently deny this and maintain it was an inside “leak,” not a hack. The DNC refused to turn over their servers to the FBI for inspection.)
And then there is Hillary Clinton’s misuse of a personal email server to handle classified State Department information. We now know that then-FBI director James Comey decided not to prosecute Clinton before the investigation was even concluded. We also know that FBI attorney Peter Strzok rewrote Comey’s initial report to change Comey’s description of Clinton’s conduct from “grossly negligent” — which was a violation of the applicable federal statute — to “extremely careless.”
This is the same Peter Strzok who expressed his loathing for Donald Trump in many of the tens of thousands of texts he exchanged with his lover and fellow FBI attorney Lisa Page. Strzok infamously assured Page that they had an “insurance policy” and that they “would stop” Trump from becoming president. At a congressional hearing two weeks ago, Strzok arrogantly insisted that his bias did not affect his job performance.
He must think we’re all idiots.
But then, we were never supposed to know any of this.
Hillary Clinton was supposed to win. No one would know the FBI “investigation” into her violations of federal statutes was a foregone conclusion that would exonerate her. No one would know that members of the FBI and the DOJ were using their government powers to attack and discredit the man who wasn’t “supposed” to win, but did.
Trump’s unorthodox presidency has been a great gift. It has exposed the corruption in our government, and the betrayal of the American public by so much of the press.
We are going to tomorrow discuss specific inequities in the methods the DOJ is using to enforce the law and what is missing. The disparities are blinding! And we are growing numb to their impact.
”Equal justice under the law” is quickly becoming a withering memory from an old way of life. Americans are paying for that in alarmingly rising numbers.
We will also discuss the 45,000 sealed indictments that we are waiting for the Feds to take action on. What could they include and against whom?
(Laura Hollis contributed to this story)
As you know, we asked you to weigh-in with your thoughts on TruthNewsNet doing a daily 9-11 AM Central live web interactive talk show. Many of you did respond and I thank you for it. However, with the large number of participants we have here, the positive responses we received didn’t really represent a large enough sample of our partners to feel comfortable in moving forward with that venture.
That being said, we are NOT saying such a project is something we will not do in the future. But we will wait to initiate it until enough of you voluntarily request it. There are many conservative talk-show options for us all. Another one just to have one is not worthy of the effort or the expected contributions of your time.
Until that happens, we will continue down this road in similar fashion on an almost daily conversations with you in the same manner.
As you feel you want to express your ideas on this and/or any other subject, please feel free to drop me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org. Nothing you want to express to me about what we do here is too trivial and certainly is important for me to hear. Please feel free to question or comment.
Also know that everything about everyone who participates here remains 100% confidential. No one has access to any member’s information in any way. Our partner list is kept under lock and key. We have never tried to market any products or services here, and we’ve never attempted to sell advertising on the site, even though we receive almost daily inquiries from potential advertising sources. This is a joint venture with our partners: YOU. And YOU call the shots.
Vladimir Putin is certainly on his way to Washington D.C. to take over our government. That’s what you’d think listening to ALL of the political pundits today. It’s not just the Left. It’s not just Democrats. It’s coming from every “Never Trump-er” in the World — even those at FOX News!
Trump and Putin got together in Helsinki Monday for a bilateral summit. Half of U.S. political wannabees weighed in on what President Trump should say, not say, do, not do, and even what he should wear. The other half said he should cancel the summit, especially in light of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “Friday Surprise” indictments of more Russians in advance of the summit. Perfect timing, wouldn’t you agree?
Here’s the question and President Trump’s answer that has the World in an uproar. And listen to Putin’s translated responses:
The 900 Pound Gorilla
The uproar centers around the President’s response to the Reporter’s question of Mr. Trump: does he believe President Putin’s claims that the Russian government made no attempt to hack the U.S. 2016 election or does he believe the American Intelligence agencies? You just heard the President’s response. No doubt it shocked many. But to many, his response makes perfect sense.
Let’s be honest: what evidence do U.S. Intelligence Agencies have specifically that have proven the Russian hacking attacks? Yes, Mueller issued multiple indictments against 2 groups of Russians. But must I remind everyone that indictments are simply charges, not convictions? Must I also remind everyone that grand jury indictments are not nearly as evidence-backed as those brought by a prosecutor? There’s a saying among attorneys who defend those indicted by grand juries: a good prosecutor can talk a grand jury into indicting a ham sandwich. Why is it so easy? Those charged have NO defense during grand jury proceedings. They are not even entitled to have attorney representation with them during grand jury testimony.
The Truth About Mueller’s Indictments
The first Russians Mueller indicted were not expected to even show up for their first court hearing. One of the groups actually DID retain U.S. legal representation who DID appear at that hearing. They shocked Mueller and the Court by filing a motion asking the judge to compel Mueller to provide their clients with the evidence Mueller used to obtain those indictments. The Mueller team has fought to NOT provide that evidence, and to this point have NOT done so. Why is that?
In the batch of last Friday’s indictments, Mueller actually included this disclaimer: “According to our Constitution, people are all innocent until proven guilty.” What he was saying is that the indicted Russians are NOT guilty, just charged. Mueller knows that none of them will actually be tried: it’s almost certain Russia will not extradite those Russian citizens to the U.S. So what action has Mueller taken about that? He turned ALL of those indictments over to the Department of Justice to be investigated as a “foreign intelligence legal matter.” Mueller is a DOJ/FBI expert. He knows that his doing so means NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO ANY OF THE INDICTED INDIVIDUALS OR COMPANIES.
The Mueller indictments of those Russians was for one thing and one thing only: to embarrass the President, anger Americans who already believe the Russian collusion story, hoping that is enough to discredit President Trump. Mueller has no intention to get to the truth of any attempted election tampering by the Russians. How do I know?
Think about this: how would any of the intelligence and/or law enforcement agencies be able to prove hacking? They would certainly have to find the hacking or attempted hacking evidence. They made NO attempts to do so! The FBI never examined or even saw any computer servers of the Democrat National Committee OR the Hillary Clinton Campaign — the servers alleged as those attacked by the Russians. The DNC nor the Clinton Campaign would allow the FBI access to those servers. I wonder why?
I also wonder why instead of allowing stonewalling, the FBI did not simply eize those servers for the purposes of national security. Certainly, if the FBI, DNI, or the Department of Justice were serious about finding alleged election tampering through hacking they would have immediately demanded those servers to find the evidence. How could they say there was hacking without being able to verify it?
On July 15th in our story and podcast titled “Our Elections Hacked by Russians: Fact or Fiction,” The Truth News Network (TNN) pointed to evidence that questions Russian hacking — or at least that alleged by Mueller. Don’t get me wrong: I am confident the Russians at least “attempted” to hack us to impact our elections. I am certain they do so every election as do numerous other countries. And in that same story, we detailed The United States has attempted to infiltrate and to impact other countries’ elections AT LEAST 61 TIMES, INCLUDING RUSSIA! And in the 1996 Presidential election in Russia, the U.S. made a major successful multi-million dollar intrusion that aided a Russian president to win election.
Who are we to be so sanctimonious? What entitles the United States with no authority to do anything WE deem necessary to change a foreign election’s results? We do it. If others follow our example, how can we demonize them for doing exactly what we do?
“IF” Mueller really wants to get to the truth of his charges against those Russians, there’s a way to legally do so. In 1999, Russia and the U.S. signed a Treaty in which both countries agreed to cooperate in the event either takes criminal actions against citizens of the other country. President Putin referenced this treaty in his Helsinki speech and stated that “IF” Mr. Mueller wishes, the Russian government will cooperate with him, his investigators, and will welcome the Mueller team to Russia to present their evidence against those Russian citizens. Terms of the treaty define exactly how that process is to work. (Find a link to the treaty at the bottom of this story and is downloadable for anyone to see)
With all of the noise and uproar from everyone in the Mainstream Media — even many in Conservative Media — politicans on the Left and even many on the Right, one thing sticks out to me: the American people don’t buy all the Russia complaining, allegations, indictments, and the reasoning behind the hollow claims against this President. Polling bears this out:
Regarding American’s approval of Robert Mueller, his investigative team, and all things involved in his investigation, it doesn’t look good for Mr. Mueller. His approval ratings among Democrats and independents are at 24 percent and 33 percent, respectively. Thirty-six percent of all registered voters are also seeing Mueller unfavorably, which represents the highest level since the polling first raised the topic 11 months ago. Back then, 23 percent of all voters said they viewed Mueller negatively.
“Robert Mueller’s disapproval rating is at its highest point since Morning Consult and Politico began tracking the Special Counsel,” said Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult’s managing director. “A key driver of this movement appears to be Republicans. Today, 53 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable impression of Robert Mueller, compared to just 27 percent who said the same in July 2017 — a year ago.”
Americans no longer buy the supposed honesty and integrity of (at least) senior management at the FBI the past few years;
Americans desire finality in this Russia collusion investigation — especially after well over a year and Mueller’s team spending a reported $20 million. Even with these and a couple of other indictments, none have anything to do with Russian collusion;
Americans are aghast at having the likes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, James Clapper, John Brennan, and others being in “the” positions of authority in our Intelligence Agencies making life-changing decisions using tainted-at-best intelligence and “facts” to do so. With those acts, honest and good American lives are being destroyed with faked evidence;
Americans do not understand why a man like Paul Manaforte, who has been indicted for alleged crimes committed more than a decade ago (for which the Obama Justice Department declined to prosecute), could be jailed in solitary confinement 23 hours a day, not having even been tried.
Is the President’s term for the Mueller investigation “Witch Hunt” deserved? So far it is. More importantly, Americans are tired of the Leftist attempts to (for political reasons only) ramp up the empty attack-rhetoric against this President to somehow run him out of office. How dare they ignore the will of the American People who voted Constitutionally to put Donald Trump in office as President? Just because 535 of them were elected to represent us in legislative matters does NOT give justification for creating a scenario in which they somehow think they are justified at attempting to destroy the Trump presidency.
Hatred lives among us…anger lives among us…and attempts at a Leftist coup live among us more than at any other time in American history.
Watch in the next few days as the tide of this fake shock and horror from the Left quietly fade away in the wake of the real story as it unfolds. It’s amazing to me that Coastal Potomac Political Elitists don’t accept the fact that the only thing that is a 100% cure for darkness is light.
The light is about to be shined in Washington D.C. And the roaches are already scrambling for cover.
In keeping with our commitment that “If it’s Relevant, You Will Find it Here,” the Thursday testimonies by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray ARE relevant. To say that several Congressmen threw a shot across the bow of Wray and Rosenstein is being kind! There’s no better way to illustrate for you just how frustrated members of the House are at the constant resistance from the DOJ and FBI to turnover relevant documents to Congress regarding multiple investigations than to simply show you contentious confrontations between Wray, Rosenstein, and a couple of House members. If you’re reading this, see the video of the two below. If you’re listening via Podcast, coming up first is Trey Gowdy (R-SC) followed by Jim Jordan (R-OH):
Congressman Trey Gowdy takes on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
Congressman Jim Jordan goes Postal on Rod Rosenstein
As you can see/hear, both of these Congressmen are having a really tough time with accepting what the Department of Justice and FBI are NOT doing in supplying Congressional committees with documents as requested by Congress. To make matters worse, several times in responses to Congressional requests for documents and information, DOJ and/or FBI DID provide a small number of requested documents. But those documents are so heavily redacted much their content is unintelligible. When Congress asks for explanations for the redactions, the DOJ and/or FBI respond the redactions are to protect classified information.
That in itself seems prudent today, especially in the case of protecting national security. The Mueller Russian Collusion investigation is NOT a criminal investigation, rather a “counter-intelligence” investigation. Because it is labeled as such, investigators are able to label certain information and documents “classified.” Doing so allows those agencies to redact certain documents (or to simply not provide certain documents) and designate persons revealed in the documents with numbers rather than their names, all to justify hiding those to “protect identities of confidential informants, and to protect ongoing investigations.”
Clearer now? Well it darkens a bit. As committees in Congress have turned those requests for documents into subpoenas, and then to threats of potential impeachment of those who obstruct Congressional requests.
Some documents have been turned over to Congress. But in most of those, committees have discovered the real reasons for the FBI and DOJ to delay sharing many of those documents in the first place. Their reluctance was NOT for security reasons at all, but to protect each department from being embarrassed by the redacted information in documents provided.
Seeing now how Jordan and Gowdy go so angry and insistent to Rosenstein and Wray?
It’s pure politics! And it always has been.
I will not add portions of questions in this hearing asked by Democrat members. Let it suffice to say that every question I heard asked by Democrats of Rosenstein and Wray were softballs that were choreographed to make it easy for the two to slide right through today’s hearing unscathed with an assurance that Dems “have their backs.”
One Democrat made a demonstrative effort to illustrate just how ridiculous Republicans are for their insistence for documents and information from DOJ and FBI about an ongoing investigation, not allowing investigators to complete their work. One Democrat angrily noted that in any investigation, evidence obtained by prosecutors is never discussed with the subjects of that investigations or their lawyers. And he further denigrated all those in Congress that would expect such a ridiculous thing to happen was realistic. Such demands certainly verify that the G.O.P. is merely on its own witch hunt to give the President’s legal team ammunition to mount their defense against the certain pending Mueller indictments of the President and/or members of his campaign. Republican members should just trust the DOJ and FBI and let them finish!
It seems certain that Mueller WILL be allowed to finish the investigation — and at extreme cost to taxpayers. (Unofficial reports of expense so far are at $22 million)
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, MANY SENATORS, AND MOST AMERICANS THINK THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION HAS NO FACTS IN EVIDENCE AND IS SIMPLY TRYING TO CONTINUE INVESTIGATING HOPING TO TURN SOMETHING UP TO MAKE DONALD TRUMP LOOK BAD OR GUILTY OF SOMETHING YET UNKNOWN!
It’s true, Democrats in Congress: Congressman Trey Gowdy and Congressman Jim Jordan (just like most Americans) don’t trust the FBI and DOJ to conduct a fair, thorough, and accurate investigation into these matters. Why?
Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Christopher Steele, Bruce Orr, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, The Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and all the others who have been caught in lies, massive political bias, manipulation of evidence to affect the 2016 election and to even to impeach President Trump — that’s why millions of Americans do not trust the Mueller investigation.
Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Wray: THEY DON’T TRUST YOU!
A big “ditto” to what Trey Gowdy said in his remarks to Rod Rosenstein: it’s time for Mueller to bring forward the evidence against President Trump and/or members of his campaign for Russia collusion to impact the 2016 election results — not to give to the press, but to give to an empaneled Grand Jury to prosecute.
As Gowdy concluded, “You must do this. This is tearing our country apart.”
Answer this question for yourself: Why the intense effort to hide information, documents, names, dates, meeting details, etc., if nothing was done wrong, against regulations, laws, or policies? And why are so many people obviously so afraid they will do anything to protect themselves?
Answer: there are many people in Washington D.C. that do not want the American people to know the truth about all of the “stuff” those people are hiding.
How did the search warrant process develop and get implemented that was used for the “legal” early morning raid of President Trump’s personal attorney’s office, home, and hotel room? Rather than continue wondering and speculating as the Mainstream Media continue, let’s detail facts:
There are a lot of procedural hurdles that must be overcome to obtain approval to search any lawyer’s office, never mind the political minefield involved in raiding the office of the sitting President’s lawyer. It’s worth noting that the FBI does not normally raid the offices of lawyers. The files and emails held by a lawyer are mostly protected by the attorney-client privilege and seizing them creates all sorts of issues for the FBI.
There are two DOJ relevant policies here–one governs if Mr. Cohen IS the subject of the investigation and one governs if Mr. Cohen is NOT the subject of the investigation. Let’s take a quick look at each of them.
If Mr. Cohen Is a Subject of the Investigation
The U.S. Attorney’s Manual (USAM) has a section (9-13.420) about “Searches of Premises of Subject Attorneys.”
Here are the basics:
First, this particular policy applies only to “subjects” of investigations, which is defined as someone who is a “suspect, subject or target,” or an attorney who is related by blood or marriage to a suspect, or who is believed to be in possession of contraband or the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime.
Second, § 9-13.420 says that “prosecutors are expected to take the least intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective law enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney actively engaged in the practice of law.” It advises that prosecutors should consider using subpoenas rather than a warrant unless such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective.
Third, the Acting Attorney General (AAG) for the Criminal Division (right now Acting AAG John Cronan) or the U.S. Attorney (Southern District of New York – SDNY – U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman) must give prior approval of the warrant. So, this is not just an SDNY line attorney acting alone. Most likely, it was Mr. Berman who approved it since he oversees the office that sought the warrant.
Fourth, the prosecutor must document the process that will be used to protect the privilege, likely through a “taint team” or “privilege team.”
All in all, the procedures for obtaining a search warrant to search Mr. Cohen’s office are set forth in much more detail than in most types of searches. SDNY did not decide on a whim to obtain this warrant and execute it. Most interesting, the prosecutor would also have had to justify to the magistrate judge why a subpoena would not work. That’s usually done by explaining that documents could be destroyed without the element of surprise inherent in a search warrant. That’s a heady accusation against the lawyer for the sitting President. I’m guessing the reasons were very well supported by evidence. (I have no inside baseball on the reasons given by the prosecutors; I’m just speculating here based on experience.)
If Mr. Cohen Is Not a Subject of the Investigation
There is also a section of the USAM that covers the way prosecutors can obtain a warrant for a lawyer’s office even if Mr. Cohen is not a subject of the investigation. That is in USAM § 9-19.221.
That section provides:
Where the materials sought are in the possession of a disinterested third party physician, lawyer, or clergyman, application for a warrant must be approved by the appropriate Deputy Assistant Attorney General as described in 9-19.220. The request for authorization from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General should be made in writing and include a copy of the warrant application as well as a brief description of the facts and circumstances that form the basis for the recommendation of the authorization. In addition, the request must include a statement that it is authorized by the United States Attorney or the supervising Department of Justice attorney. If the request for authorization is made orally, or if, in an emergency situation, the application is authorized by the United States Attorney or the supervising Department of Justice attorney, a written record, as described above, must be sent to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General within seven days. 28 C.F.R. § 59.4(b)(3).
The approval process is roughly the same–it had to be approved by someone other than the SDNY prosecutor. This process allows for a slightly lower level of approval, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (there are several of them in DOJ, since each oversees a particular subject area or areas).
This is an extremely interesting development. It will no doubt take some time to have the documents reviewed by the taint team, but I’m guessing the prosecutors are looking for something very specific here. DOJ officials and a magistrate would not have approved this search warrant if it was a fishing expedition.
None of the research we have given is factual information about such a warrant and raid are specific to that which resulted in Cohen’s specific raid. I do feel strongly that sometime during the next few days we will be able to obtain and provide to our readers the actual warrant that was used to execute this raid. The above information is simply the “text book” methods from the law that determine basic fundamental guidelines for U.S. Attorneys to take such actions and for a judge to sign a warrant.
It is interesting to note, however, that speculation, leaks to the Mainstream Media, and “he said, she said” rumors are rampant. With fired FBI Director James Comey’s new book release, the marketplace of American information is already awash with a dump-truck full of information, most of which is purposefully damning to President Trump. Take heart, however, for much of this information is simply more of the same: fake news.
You know what is most discouraging to the majority of Americans? The hogwash spewed daily by Leftists is accepted as fact by far too many Americans. Is it not scary to know that millions of our fellow Americans so quickly swallow gossip as facts without any consideration of the veracity of those who provide such “news” or their sources?
(If you prefer to listen to this rather than read it, scroll to the bottom and click on the Podcast Audio Link)
It’s hard to even say “Intelligence Corruption.” American Intelligence agencies have for decades been the most effective, most successful, most scandal-free of World Intelligence Agencies and have on the most part kept America safe. But in the last few years Americans are to their horror discovering that American Intelligence may not be so successful, may not be so effective, and certainly are NOT the most scandal-free of Intelligence Agencies across the Globe. For Americans, that is an unsettling thought — just one more thing about our government for which to be concerned.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Let’s start with the George H.W. Bush C.I.A. at a time when foreign intelligence information was purposely hidden from Americans — and not just the general public. Even members of Congress knew nothing or very little about operations in the Bush C.I.A. Bush (before he was “Bush 41”) ran an apparent corrupt C.I.A., rife with graft and corruption that included the funding of foreign militias and insurgents in countries around the world that smiled on drug smuggling, torture and murder used by these thugs to prop up their “worthy” causes, and even the overthrow of governments. How did you think the Bush family members obtained such close relationships with members of the Saudi Royal Family that are still in place even to this day? Bush protection and promotion of oil markets for the Saudi royals and, of course, “quid pro quo.”
Under Reagan it was the Iran Contra scandal that resulted in very public Congressional hearings, Reagan being caught in a “little white lie,” and Lt. Colonel Oliver North being convicted in the Contra Rebel scandal with guns from Iran.
Bill Clinton’s C.I.A. gave the President the opportunity to “do away” with Osama Bin Laden immediately following the first World Trade Center bombing. But Clinton passed on Bin Laden’s elimination. But the C.I.A. under Clinton experienced a horrendous scandal because of the exposure of a double agent. Aldrich Hazen Ames is a former C.I.A. officer turned KGB mole, who was convicted of espionage in 1994. He is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole in the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Ames was formerly a 31-year C.I.A. counterintelligence analyst who committed espionage against the U.S. by spying for the Soviet Union and Russia. At the time of his arrest, Ames had compromised more C.I.A. assets than any other mole in history.
It started getting worse at the C.I.A. in the George W. Bush (Bush “43”) White House. For four years, according to C.I.A. records, no one from the agency ever came to the Oval Office to give President Bush a full briefing on what was happening in the dark dungeons of Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. For four years, interrogators stripped, slammed and soaked their prisoners without the president’s being told exactly what was going on. By the time the C.I.A. director came in April 2006 to give Mr. Bush the agency’s first briefing about the interrogation techniques it had been using since 2002, more than three dozen prisoners had already been subjected to them. And when told about one detainee being chained to the ceiling of his cell, clothed in a diaper and forced to urinate and defecate on himself, even a president known for his dead-or-alive swagger “expressed discomfort,” according to a report released later.
“The C.I.A. repeatedly provided incomplete and inaccurate information to the White House,” a Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded. Not only did the agency overstate the effectiveness of the interrogations in obtaining meaningful intelligence that could not be gained elsewhere, but specific questions posed by White House officials “were not answered truthfully or fully.” Even to the extent that the President and his advisers understood the program, they kept other top administration figures out of the loop, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. An internal C.I.A. email from July 2003 said that the White House was “extremely concerned Powell would blow his stack if he were to be briefed on what’s been going on.”
In the Obama years, the big foreign intelligence occurrence was the “dismissal” by C.I.A. operatives of Osama Bin Laden. A handful of documents — some of which came from Bin Laden’s house — where released to the public by the Obama White House. That partial release was not a scandal at all, because those documents contained just a small trove of information. The real scandal was how Obama and his C.I.A. heads Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, John Brennan, and acting head Mike Morell released only what upheld and affirmed Obama’s theories about Iran. Had the U.S. public known about the Iranian leadership’s outreach and association with al Qaeda, even Democratic Congressmen might have been far less willing to tolerate the trust which Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry placed in their Iranian counterparts. After all, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, the coordinating body for Iran’s security and defense policy, at a time when Iran was developing its al Qaeda outreach. Mike Pompeo when named C.I.A .Director released the additional documents previously kept hidden by Obama that revealed the damaging information about Obama and his minions. Let’s not forget the Edward Snowden scandal. Snowden today lives in exile in Russia after providing thousands of classified documents to Julian Asange who published for all the world to see.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Where to begin: J. Edgar Hoover’s reported extreme racist activities with his FBI’s intense surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or his hatred for the Kennedy brothers — JFK and Robert — that began just because of their Catholic faith? For sake of time and space, let’s fast forward a bit.
Richard Nixon The FBI scandal during Nixon’s presidency was not one of the Bureau itself, but was uncovered by the number 2 man at the FBI — W. Mark Felt. He smelled a rat in the Nixon campaign and found a young reporter at the Washington Post to pass that information along to: Bob Woodward. Watergate was birthed and railroaded the Nixon presidency.
Ronald Reagan William Sessions, a former federal judge who took the FBI Director job under President Ronald Reagan in 1987 focused on white-collar crimes. Mr Sessions, however, violated bureau procedures and federal law by using FBI resources for personal trips and home improvements. After an in-depth internal ethics investigation, he sternly resisted six months of White House demands for his resignation. Sessions was retained until President Bill Clinton personally telephoned Sessions and fired him in July 1993.
George W. Bush Bush “43” appointed Robert Mueller as FBI Director in July of 2001 after his being Deputy Attorney General under Bush. Mueller received unanimous confirmation from the U.S. Senate. His service at FBI was remarkably without any serious scandals, although after the Boston Marathon bombing he admitted the FBI had received information about potential threats of terrorist violence from the older of the two brothers who activated the bombs.
Barack Obama retained Mueller’s services at the FBI. Amazingly, there were no reported real FBI scandals during those years. Mueller when he resigned as FBI Director gave Obama the strongest of recommendations to hire James Comey as his replacement. Obama did so. Comey served through the 2nd Obama term and into the first year of the Trump Administration. Then the “Scandal Bomb” at the FBI exploded.
James Comey On July 5, 2016, FBI Director Comey announced the bureau’s recommendation that the United States Department of Justice file no criminal charges relating to the Hillary Clinton email controversy. During an unusual 15 minute press conference in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, Comey called Secretary Clinton’s and her top aides’ behavior “extremely careless,” but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” On October 28, 2016, less than two weeks before the presidential election, Director Comey, a long-time Republican, announced in a letter to Congress that additional emails potentially related to the Clinton email controversy had been found and that the FBI will investigate “to determine whether they contain classified information as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” At the time Comey sent his letter to Congress, the FBI had still not obtained a warrant to review any of the e-mails in question and was not aware of the content of any of the e-mails in question. After Comey’s letter to Congress, commentator Paul Callan of CNN and Niall O’Dowd of Irish Central compared Comey to J. Edgar Hoover in attempting to influence and manipulate elections. On November 6, 2016, in the face of constant pressure from both Republicans and Democrats, Comey conceded in a second letter to Congress that through the FBI’s review of the new e-mails, there was no wrongdoing by Clinton. On November 12, 2016, unsuccessful presidential candidate Hillary Clinton directly attributed her election loss to FBI Director James Comey.[To quote many historians, political pundits, and many current and former intelligence officials, “we have just scratched the surface of FBI corruption under Obama.”
On February 2, 2018, a four-page confidential memo by Republican House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, was released after being signed by President Trump. According to the memo, a dossier by Christopher Steele and opposition research firm Fusion GPS, was utilized by DOJ and FBI officials for FISA warrants to surveil Trump’s campaign member Carter Page. Additionally, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who resigned before the release of the memo, stated that the FISA warrant wouldn’t have been obtained without the information in the Steele dossier. It has been revealed that the Democrat National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Campaign paid through a D.C. law firm for the Steele dossier. And in NONE of the 4 FISA applications was the Clinton relationship with the production of the dossier revealed. All four FISA applications were signed by McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and former FBI Director James Comey.
Let’s summarize this latest FBI corruption with a summary list of James Comey lies:
Comey stated under oath he did not make the exoneration decision for Hillary’s transmission of classified information on that server until after she was questioned. Later it was proven he wrote the exoneration speech long before her interview;
Comey released some of his memos to a professor friend for that friend to release them to the Media. Comey stated none of the memos content was classified. That was later confirmed to be untrue;
There’s the claim Comey made when he issued his statement exonerating Clinton that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” That, too, was not true. As we noted in earlier writings here, “career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged;”
Comey testified that he briefed Trump about the salacious “dossier” before Trump was inaugurated because he’d learned that the media were about to report on it. But it was later proven that Comey briefed Trump for the express purpose of getting its embarrassing content out into the public. Since, as soon as that meeting was over, it leaked to the press;
In his Senate hearing, Comey was asked two questions by Senator Grassley: “Did you leak any FBI information to anyone in the press,” and “Did you authorize anyone to give information to the press.” To each Comey replied “No.” He lied under oath…..twice here. He gave his memos to his professor friend to leak to the Press. And Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe stated after he was fired that he (McCabe) was authorized to give information to the media and the he had done so. He further stated that Comey knew about his doing so and had approved — another lie.
For the sake of time, I will not detail any additional FBI corruption. But we all are aware of many more instances than these. But I am certain you get the message: the C.I.A. and the FBI have histories of corruption. Who pays the price for it all? The American people AND the Nation! For purely political purposes, leadership at both agencies have put themselves and that political purpose ahead of doing the right thing — which they committed to do in all circumstances while in office — which is to strictly serve the American people and keep bad people from hurting Americans and the Nation.
Both of these agencies are literally “in the tank.” I am not certain they can survive what we have seen in the last 2 years and what is certainly ahead as these current instances of corruption are dealt with. And apparently many more remain hidden still! No doubt there is more to come.
Regarding “more to come,” tomorrow we will look closely at a few other agency “players” and corruption there: the NSA, the DNI, the DOJ, Susan Rice, former Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, and even former Obama UN Ambassador Samantha Powers.
Stay tuned….there’s a lot more to come in the coming days. And remember this: Candidate Donald Trump promised if elected, his job #1 was to “Drain the Swamp.”
It’s a big swamp with a bunch of bad creatures. His work is cut out for him.