Thank God Trump won, not so much for Trump but for what we avoided by not having HRC or Kaine in charge. Don’t believe me? Look at what he created- his son.
Linwood Michael Kaine, a son of former 2016. Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine, faces criminal charges for allegedly joining in an anti-Trump riot to attack supporters of President Donald Trump in March in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Authorities charged the 24-year-old Kaine with “fleeing police on foot, concealing his identity in a public place, and obstructing legal process,” according to a detailed Twin Cities Pioneer Press report. “When people seek to prevent others who are peacefully assembled from making their voices heard, it threatens the very foundation of our democracy,” a local attorney said Friday after the charges against Kaine and seven others were announced.
Police said Kaine was allegedly part of a violent, masked group:
Security officers saw five people dressed in black leaving the Capitol, including one who threw a smoke bomb inside, according to complaints filed by the city attorney’s office. They went to a nearby spot and “tried to change their appearance by doing things like taking off their black clothing, putting on different jackets or hats, and turning their clothing inside out,” the complaints said.
When police approached, they scattered and ran. Steve Frazer, who was then a St. Paul police senior commander, chased a man who was later identified as Woody Kaine.
A Mar. 7 Twin Cities Pioneer Press report states that Kaine allegedly fought with police after being part of a group that threw a smoke bomb in a government building during a rally for President Trump:
Clad in black and wearing a mask, the youngest son of Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine wrested himself from the cop and then “squared off” with him.
Woody Kaine, 24, was among five masked, black-garbed people suspected of lobbing a smoke bomb minutes earlier inside the Minnesota Capitol rotunda Saturday afternoon.
Officers had chased him down, but Kaine wasn’t about to submit, according to a more detailed account provided Wednesday by St. Paul police.
In the end, it took three officers, a “knee strike” and a chemical spray to subdue Kaine after he was identified as one of the counterprotesters [sic] who allegedly used fireworks or a smoke bomb to disrupt a rally in support of President Donald Trump at the Minnesota State Capitol, according to police spokesman Steve Linders.
Less than two months before his son was arrested after the anti-Trump and anti-free speech riot, Kaine said on MSNBC that progressives must “fight in the streets” after Trump’s election.
Think this through. Tim Kaine was a radical in his youth and not any different as a grown man. This shows a bit of an unstable personality. His son learned from his father’s behavior and is being told, along with thousands of others, to “fight in the streets” to stop a sitting President of the United States. This war is promoted- instead of debating the ideas and policies like grown men.
Hey Dad, did I do good?!
And this guy, Kaine, was going to be a VP… We got lucky. Here’s his statement about his son’s arrest. (PS. If I did this, my dad’s total statement would be “Kid went bad, had to put him down.”
“What we’ve got to do is fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box, and now there’s the momentum to be able to do this,” Kaine told MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski on Jan. 31.
After his son’s arrest, Kaine issued a statement that did not appear to condemn his son’s alleged actions.
“We love that our three children have their own views and concerns about current political issues. They fully understand the responsibility to express those concerns peacefully,” Kaine said, as reported by Breitbart News.
Seriously, we got lucky.
Another PS. Will Tim feel the same if Woody goes too far and hurts someone or a cop has to put him down like my dad would have done to me? It’s all fun and games until someone take a rubber bullet to the noggin!
Let’s say for fun this is WW2. The plan for the British to defeat the Nazis is to import 23,000 Nazi soldiers- or two and a half divisions of trained warriors – and send them to all parts of the nation.
Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday.
The scale of the challenge facing the police and security services was disclosed by Whitehall sources after criticism that multiple opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber had been missed.
About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services. The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorised as posing a “residual risk”.
A military division is around 10,000 soldiers. Britain has 2.5 divisions of potential fighters and support units of terrorists. This is why the leaders of Britain are afraid to tell the truth. They screwed this up with unrestricted liberal immigration and submitting to a culture that hated the West.
Now they have no solution. That is why they lie, why they say everybody has to get along and accept there will be violence and death to innocents. At some point the death in Britain will drive the leaders to stop their efforts in the Middle East, thus allowing for the victory of the Islamic extremists- or at least that is the bad guy’s plan.
Imagine how long ANY British government would last in WW2 if this was the visual walking down a London highway.
And yet, here we are. I expect Americans can learn from the mistake of Europe and Britain and not end up with divisions of terrorists among us.
Yesterday the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order that found President Trump’s second travel ban to be unconstitutional. This is one of those news stories that make me sad rather than angry.
The decision is ridiculous. The court’s majority relied heavily on candidate Donald Trump’s stump speeches in which he talked about a ban on all Muslim immigration. The court found that this “context” demonstrated a discriminatory intent. The decision’s implication is that a different president could have issued the same order, and it would have been constitutional. The ACLU’s lawyer made this explicit during his oral argument, saying that the order under attack may well have been constitutional if it had been issued by Hillary Clinton.
This is idiotic. For a court to say that a presidential order may or may not be constitutional depending on who the president is–constitutional if issued by a Democrat, unconstitutional if by a Republican–is the ultimate repudiation of the rule of law. Moreover, the president’s order didn’t ban all Muslim immigration. It is absurd to condemn the order the president issued by arguing that he really wanted to issue something different.
It is also worth noting that the idea that a president can’t “discriminate” with regard to travel to the U.S., or immigration, is ridiculous. Of course he can, and so can Congress. For most of our history, our immigration policy has been explicitly discriminatory. It arguably still is. Under federal law, the president has blanket authority to suspend immigration or travel, wholly or in part, from any country or group of countries, on the ground that it is in the national interest. The suggestion that a random Yemeni has a constitutional right to enter the United States is untenable, and flies in the face of all precedent.
Decisions like those we have seen on Trump’s travel orders can’t be viewed as legal rulings. As such, they are absurd. They can only be understood as part of the establishment’s war on the Trump administration. The Democrats (the 4th Circuit is now heavily Democrat) simply refuse to accept Trump’s authority as president.
We sadly do not lack for the same kind of idiocy in our leadership. We are a big, but soft, nation. If a few thousand organized attacks we’d be seeing carnage unlike since the Civil War. The question would be what would McCain, Pelosi, Schumer and the judges say then?
Update: Seems the FBI warned the Brits of the bomber’s intent MONTHS earlier. The Brits investigated (also having their own intelligence about the guy) and then didn’t do anything and pushed him lower down the threat list.
UK security chiefs were warned in January that Salman Abedi was planning an attack in Britain, it was claimed last night.
According to a security source, the FBI told MI5 that Abedi was part of a North African Islamic State cell plotting to strike a political target in the UK.
The information came from a US investigation into Abedi and his links to terrorist groups in Libya. The Mail on Sunday has also been told that US security services put him on a terror watch list – used by agents to identify key suspects – in 2016.
‘The information came from the interception of his communications by US federal agents, who had been investigating Abedi since the middle of 2016, and from information unearthed in Libya, where his family was linked to terrorist groups.
‘Following this US tip-off, Abedi and other members of the gang were scrutinised by MI5. It was thought at the time that Abedi was planning to assassinate a political figure.
‘But nothing came of this investigation and, tragically, he slipped down the pecking order of targets.’
Holy Boston Bomber Batman. Same scenario but we are the Russians and MI5 is the FBI! Even liberals have to see this right? (quick somebody check online CNN and see if it is even mentioned!)
Now this is exactly what we are talking about here. They have such a number of suspects and only so many police they cannot vet them all. The problem is they have TOO MANY potential troublemakers already in the country. Shades of the Trump travel ban. As the courts here want to make their SJW buddies happy by violating the law, we see what happens when you do not apply common sense to a problem. Literally the definition of government- power without common sense.
Theresa May is upset. British law enforcement is upset. The culprits are a leaker and the New York Times. They have no excuse. I will not link to the story, but the NY Times gave out FAR TOO MUCH information about the bombing. Then the outrage, because the NY Times overstepped. So they attempted to justify their decision. It’s a bad attempt, as they offer readers reactions instead of making a real argument as to why they released detailed photos of the trigger and the battery. Now they will argue WE need to know. I guess because maybe we are all bomb experts or the jihadis would look at the trigger and say “Oh golly, that looks like Ali’s work! Let’s hurry up and call MI5!”
This is what happens when the wrong people get all excited about doing the wrong thing. In their zeal to harm Trump, they screwed up a serious investigation by giving away evidence that may create leads to wrap up other threats. And they did it for only one reason- to get Trump.
PM May is unhappy. She complained to Trump, Trump shrugged his shoulders and said, “You ain’t telling me nothing I don’t already know!”
The world’s closest intelligence sharing arrangement is in jeopardy after key details and photographs from the Manchester bombing were apparently leaked by United States’s law enforcement sources to domestic journalists, leaving Manchester Police and the British government — who are collecting and analysing the finds — “furious”.
The United Kingdom has now stopped passing intelligence gathered as part of the investigation into the Manchester bombing to the United States according to claims made by the British state broadcaster BBC.
Hopefully, Trump will come back, get some people identified and arrested and prosecuted for this one event. The rest can wait until after the Russian mess is cleared up and then they can get fired.
It will continue to hammer Trump and his close family and allies. Not with the truth mind you but with slanted, troubling “truths” that reveal more about them than Trump.
Here, we have the latest bullsh*t story. Kushner wanted to open a channel with the Russians- the biggest “threat/ally/troublemaker- because that is what incoming administrations do. In the article, the Post makes sure they remove any mention of this in the breathless first paragraph or two.
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.
Let’ go over a few things. First, Trump’s people already said this in March. As reported in the article as a passing comment. Second, EVERY incoming administration works with other governments setting up future communications. You, as Americans, want that. Did the Washington Post breathlessly reveal that in 2008 the Obama administration met with and told the Iranian government NOT to work with the GWB administration about any nuclear deal- because Obama promised them a better one. (And boy, did deliver a deal…for them!)
Washington Times, in 2008, wrote about the effort becoming public.
The incoming Obama administration plans to create a new position to coordinate outreach to Iran and is considering a number of senior career diplomats, State Department officials and Iran specialists say.
President-elect Barack Obama promised during his campaign to seek dialogue with Iran without preconditions in an effort to persuade Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, but also has pledged to toughen sanctions.
A State Department official said the idea of naming a senior Iranian outreach coordinator was broached in the first transition meetings with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s choice for secretary of state, and her transition team earlier this month.
“The idea is that the position should build on the existing diplomatic framework,” the official said. He asked not to be named because a nominee has not been announced.
A spokeswoman forMrs. Clinton declined to comment for this article. Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman for the transition, also would not comment.
Also, ask yourself WHY the Trump people were looking for extra secure backdoor communications? Because the regular system was compromised by Obama/Never Trumper who were spying on the Trump people and leaking everything he does or say to the…Washington Post!
The Post uses more “officials” and other anonymous sources to create this hit piece. The highlighted part is mine.
The White House disclosed the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the mattersay the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.
Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.
“People familiar with the matter”… Who would that be?
Then the Post responds to the pressure they feel about fact the Obama administration was spying on Trump’s team. Which- is a crime.
Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance, officials said.
Let’s take this apart. The Post insists we know that neither the meeting or the communications of Americans were surveilled! How cool! Great! But then how do we know the DETAILS of this meeting including a personal impression gotten that Kislyak was shocked? What source gave us that personal, immediate impression?
In recent years, documents of the FVEY have shown that they are intentionally spying on one another’s citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on spying. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the advocacy group Liberty, claimed that the FVEY alliance increases the ability of member states to “subcontract their dirty work” to each other. The former NSA contractor Edward Snowden described the FVEY as a “supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn’t answer to the laws of its own countries”.
As a result of Snowden’s disclosures, the FVEY alliance has become the subject of a growing amount of controversy in parts of the world:
Canada: In late 2013, Canadian federal judge Richard Mosley strongly rebuked the CSIS for outsourcing its surveillance of Canadians to overseas partner agencies. A 51-page court ruling asserts that the CSIS and other Canadian federal agencies have been illegally enlisting FVEY allies in global surveillance dragnets, while keeping domestic federal courts in the dark.
New Zealand: In 2014, the NZSIS and the GCSB of New Zealand were asked by the New Zealand Parliament to clarify if they had received any monetary contributions from members of the FVEY alliance. Both agencies withheld relevant information and refused to disclose any possible monetary contributions from the FVEY.David Cunliffe, leader of the Labour Party, asserted that the public is entitled to be informed.
The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering infrastructure. … The result of this was over decades and decades some sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn’t answer to the laws of its own countries.
So, to answer the question of how our guys didn’t “spy on Trump” but all the information from the meeting was given BACK to our spies, who then gave it to the Washington Post, this is how. And much, much more.
Then The Post throws this in.
Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts. But officials said that it’s unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations with Trump.
Uh, what, wait, is the Post admitting the entire source was someone spying on the Russians? Which means their source gave up a means and method?
The Soviet Union realized back in the thirties that the most dangerous element facing it was religion. And violent attack against “the Church” would not have worked. So, they figured out a different approach. They created Social Justice Warrior philosophy within religion and directed that effort toward third or second world populations. The communists are a patient group, twenty or thirty years of quiet corruption is just fine with them, as long as it works in the end. Out of this effort came some serious socialists and communists, who somehow claim to be both religious and communists at the same time. One of them is the Pope’s right hand man. The Pope himself is a hard line socialist, which makes him dangerous to free societies like ours. You would think anyone who had any knowledge of the hundreds of millions of people murdered and imprisoned by Communists would reject the concept. But then again, where’s the money in that?
After Pope Francis early in his papacy decried capitalism as “trickle-down economics” — a polemical phrase coined by the left during the Reagan years that Francis frequently borrows — radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh commented, “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope.” Talk show host Michael Savage called him “Lenin’s pope.” Pope Francis took such comments as a compliment. “I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended,” he told the Italian press.
Pope Francis grew up in socialist Argentina, an experience that left a deep impression on his thinking. He told the Latin American journalists Javier Camara and Sebastian Pfaffen that as a young man he “read books of the Communist Party that my boss in the laboratory gave me” and that “there was a period where I would wait anxiously for the newspaper La Vanguardia, which was not allowed to be sold with the other newspapers and was brought to us by the socialist militants.”
The “boss” to whom Pope Francis referred is Esther Ballestrino de Careaga. He has described her as a “Paraguayan woman” and a “fervent communist.” He considers her one of his most important mentors. “I owe a huge amount to that great woman,” he has said, saying that she “taught me so much about politics.” (He worked for her as an assistant at Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory in Buenos Aires.)
“She often read Communist Party texts to me and gave them to me to read. So I also got to know that very materialistic conception. I remember that she also gave me the statement from the American Communists in defense of the Rosenbergs, who had been sentenced to death,” he has said. Learning about communism, he said, “through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized a few things, an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church.” As the archbishop of Buenos Aires, he took pride in helping her hide the family’s Marxist literature from the authorities who were investigating her. According to the author James Carroll, Bergoglio smuggled her communist books, including Marx’s Das Kapital, into a “Jesuit library.”
Holy Papal Batman! What is going on here? Remember, this is not about religion, this is about controlling a religion that was essential in the overthrow of the Communist government in USSR. Pope John Paul worked with Reagan to destroy the Polish communist government and set the USSR on its heels.
Uh, anyone else a little queasy?
He can say he’s not a hard line socialist but the facts are clearly on the table. He bugged Trump about the environment. The environmental cause is about two things, seizing taxes for government and controlling people’s activities. A selling point for lesser societies is the promise of payment by the first world controllers to third world countries to “help them” with their environmental issues. We all know that money would never get past their corrupt government officials and probably a good number of religious leaders.
One of the major people influencing a not so bright Pope (does he have a degree in climate studies himself?) is Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo.
VATICAN CITY, July 16, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) – Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Science and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, spoke at a press conference Wednesday morning pushing, among other things, redistribution of weath.
Discussing a joint symposium July 22 with the United Nations’ initiative the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (headed by abortion and population control advocate Jeffrey Sachs), Sorondo justified the Vatican’s collaboration with the UN, claiming, “The United Nations is not the devil.”
The symposium will include around 60 mayors from around the world, consisting entirely of the political left. This fact was not lost on at least one journalist, who asked Sorondo whether the “exclusive presence of mayors of the left of center is not a sign of partiality.” Sorondo responded, “The invitation is open to everyone.”
This marks the second event organized by the pontifical academy that involves major UN representatives. The first was the Vatican summit on global warming, held in April, which also included Jeffrey Sachs as keynote speaker along with UN general secretary Ban Ki-Moon, another well-known proponent of abortion and population control, who gave the opening speech. The academy came under heavy criticism from Catholic media for the prominent role these abortion advocates played at the climate change conference. Both men were invited by Sorondo.
Sorondo was also responsible for systematically removing or preventing climate change skeptics from attendance at the global warming summit. Philippe de Larminat, a scientist from Nantes, France, registered for the conference and bought a plane flight to Rome, after assurance by Cardinal Peter Turkson that he was welcome. But five days before the event he was told there was no room for him.
It turned out that Sorondo was the one who vetoed de Larminat’s presence. When asked why, he wrote, “because he’s not an academic authority in this field, neither a religious authority nor a UN authority.”
But other climate change skeptics also met the same fate, screened out and prevented from attending the conference. “They didn’t want to hear any other opinion,” de Larminat said.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a British journalist and former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, was the only skeptic to make it through — but only based on his press credentials as a journalist. Once Sorondo discovered Monckton’s position against anthropogenic climate change, he promptly had him removed.
Now there’s a good Catholic, a man who wants to hear from all voices in this very important issue…oh..sorry.
Who is this guy? He is a “warrior” for social justice and uses the environment in an attempt to seize money and control. Why is anyone listening to him? Hopefully, Trump will take anything the Pope says about the environment with a grain of salt.. or maybe a pound or two.
Because it is, and has always been, about the money. Robes or not.
The question is why is she so worked up. If her IT guys, the ones from Iran, who are now scattering across the globe to avoid prosecution, were just bad guys taking advantage, she should welcome the chance to be a good victim/witness. But maybe she doesn’t want the truth to get out?
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that she says belongs to her in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani staffer suspected of massive cybersecurity breaches involving funneling sensitive congressional data offsite.
The Florida lawmaker used her position on the committee that sets the police force’s budget to press its chief to relinquish the piece of evidence Thursday, in what could be considered using her authority to attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation.
The Capitol Police and outside agencies are pursuing Imran Awan, who has run technology for the Florida lawmaker since 2005 and was banned from the House network in February on suspicion of data breaches and theft.
“My understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate Members’ equipment when the Member is not under investigation,” Wasserman Schultz said in the annual police budget hearing of the House Committee On Appropriations’ Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
“We can’t return the equipment,” Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa told the Florida Democrat.
“I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences,” Wasserman Schultz said.
At this point, and in my fantasies, the police chief pulls out a pair of handcuffs, drops them on her desk and says, “The next time I hear you say something like this, you’ll be wearing these on the way out this door.”
But, he’ll play along with the politics because I pretty much think being a Capitol Police officer is a whole lot of looking the other way. Those people up there have to be a mess to work around. The secrets the CPD have to keep would make for the ultimate best selling novel of corruption and bad behavior.
However, this case needs to be looked at. The IT people stole a ton of data and some equipment, set up accounts where all the information of the staff went through ONE Iphone account. There is no way they aren’t spies.
Flirting with criminal charges and blackmail. What were they thinking?
If there were a real case, with a real prosecutor and detectives working the investigation, NONE of what you would be seeing would happen. The establishment is treating Comey as a witness and an investigator, rather than a potential target for lying to Congress or perhaps leaking confidential information. There is a report that Comey met with Mueller before his testimony in Congress. Now we hear that testimony is cancelled. Why? Because keeping lies straight is getting difficult.
Former FBI Director James Comey will speak privately with Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Russia probe, prior to testifying in public before the House or the Senate.
House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said that decision of Comey’s means he would delay a hearing he had planned for this week.
“Spoke with Comey. He wants to speak with special counsel prior to public testimony. Hearing Wed postponed,” Chaffetz tweeted. Comey was also slated to talk to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
As noted before, Comey is Mueller’s protege. They are buds. What did Mueller say to Comey to make Comey change his plans?
Another proven liar is John Brennan, who- from what I gather- testified with new information or an opinion on a previously discussed issue. In a real case, that witness would be torn apart by the defense. Here’s the problem with Brennan, he’s a liar trying to thread his way through a very dangerous landscape. One misstep and he’s proven- again- as a person willing to lie to protect himself and his allies. Gowdy did his best to make Brennan stumble. Which might have happened.
Today former CIA Director John Brennan testified to congress on the Russian counter-intelligence operation which began in July 2016. Today, John Brennan completely contradicted the March 20th, 2017, testimony of former FBI Director James Comey.
So, Trump, who cannot defend himself outside ill timed and ill considered tweets, is being made to look like a bad guy through leaks and “newly discovered” memories from people who have NO DESIRE to see him succeed.
If Congress were really willing to follow the rule of law, they should remind each witness that any lying to Congress will be immediately sent to the DOJ for prosecution. I’m willing to bet you’d see a ton of people follow Comey’s move and suddenly cancel. This has been a series of people playing a game to harm a sitting President. Whether you like Trump or Obama or Hillary that has to stop. This is getting dangerously close to turning into a process crime. Where the “charge” will be lying to the FBI, the Martha Stewart trap as it is called. That’s just crazy. Politics is tough, but as some have said, this is a soft coup. Which is wrong.
Investigate the crimes if there are any. Shut up about the rest. If we catch you lying, you go to jail.
Or the fraudulent, manipulating, story telling, always the hero bureaucrat that wants to protect- and enhance- his reputation. Comey is smart and wily, a veteran of inside DC hardball, and an angry former employee.
Trump should have followed protocol and fired Comey in the right way. That’s on the impulsive Trump. However, once fired, a decent man would simply go away- knowing he compromised himself repeatedly throughout his career- and then do something all former insiders do- write a book.
But not Comey- who’s ego may rival Trump’s- but in a quieter more manipulative way. He has decided to testify in an open session, in front of the cameras he’s grown to love, and shoot Trump in the foot. He wants to paint a picture of him being the hero again, trying to save Trump from himself, but in the end realizing Trump was actually a bad guy.
Now, as a veteran detective, I would eat Comey alive in about five minutes. As smart as he is, he has created a trick bag that he has become obsessed in cleaning up. He made the mistake of letting his moron friend- another lawyer- speak for him. In doing so, his friend went too far and put Comey in a spot he has to talk himself out of.
Comey, and the allies inside DC establishment, are hoping his OTHER friend, Mueller, will get him out of the bag.
Okay, let me explain. I was going to say something, but I had a job I liked, so I didn’t. But he fired me, and well screw that right?! So I’m here to get even..I mean tell the truth- kinda.
Here’s the rub. Comey said, under oath, that he felt no influence from anyone to do his job. Since he is not in control of the actual investigation- DOJ and his agents are- that makes sense. What Trump did, according to Comey’s mysterious notes, is ask to wrap up the investigation and go easy on Flynn “because he’s a good guy.”
There is nothing in Flynn’s history to say any different. A stellar military career, Flynn’s only “offense” was to buck the false narrative Obama’s idiots were pushing about the Middle East. Flynn turned out to be right, but they fired him. Then he hooked up with Trump. His position, the one Trump signed onto, was we needed to totally rethink how America interacted with the Middle East. The establishment wanted things just the profitable way they were- so Flynn had to go. (Flynn apparently did some consulting work and took money from foreign companies and countries. If that’s a crime then lock up Podesta, Hillary, Bill and Biden’s kid, not to mention hundreds of others. But that’s the way things are. Good for me the liberal, bad for you the conservative, mainly because the media looks the other way.)
Enter the effort by the establishment, accompanied by Comey, to destroy Flynn, then destroy Trump. Two flies too many in their collective soup.
Comey has a history of worming his way through situations that didn’t turn out well and still came out looking like a hero, usually through his excellent storytelling ability to make himself look like one. Now we are going to see that ability again.
According to one source with knowledge, Comey’s relationship with Trump was uncomfortable from the start. The director had some hope that, over time, he could effectively point out the appropriate procedures and guidelines to both Trump and the White House staff about how the process of communications normally works. It didn’t turn out that way.
One Comey memo reportedly claims that Trump asked the FBI director to “let this go”– referring to the FBI investigation into Gen. Michael Flynn’s contacts with the Russians — although the President himself has flatly denied that he ever did that.
While it is unknown whether the President has either tapes or notes of his conversations with Comey, the FBI director kept meticulous memos and shared them with his team contemporaneously.
Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a Comey friend, writes that Comey called his interactions with Trump “training” in order to “re-establish” appropriate boundaries. In his conversations, Wittes writes, “Comey never specifically said this was about the Russia matter” but he assumed that it was. Comey saw his job, Wittes writes, as an effort to “protect the rest of the bureau from improper contacts and interferences from a group of people he did not regard as honorable.”
Wittes told The New York Times that the now-infamous hug from the President — from which Comey tried to hide behind a blue curtain — left the director “disgusted.” Wittes writes “he regarded the episode as a physical attempt to show closeness and warmth in a fashion calculated to compromise him before Democrats who already mistrusted him.”
The dinner with the President, which Wittes describes as “the loyalty dinner,” took place five days after that hug.
When the writers of this article were constructing it, did any of them ask the obvious questions.
1- How is it okay that an FBI director takes it upon himself to school a President. How is that his job? In Comey’s storytelling world, he was trying to be the good guy. He never said Trump was wrong- just rough and unschooled. So like a good mentor, Comey was going to fix that- so he’s the hero…right!
Comey has a history, even as recent as last October and July, where his own sense of morality set his actions in motion. The Left and the MSM were HATING HIM! Now he’s the storyteller they are waiting for with baited breath. Here’s a follow up question- Why? Why is he at the center, and maybe that is what he craves. So is he willing to say whatever it takes to stay there?
Which leads to the second question; 2- Why is this coming out now and why suddenly is Comey saying it could be obstruction? The answer is twofold. It is coming out now because Comey is mad, his ego bruised and his stellar reputation harmed. So he is striking back. The reason he is using words like obstruction is because it plays better in the story. He will be seen as the victim/hero, a martyr on the pyre that is the Trump crisis presidency.
Comey picked this committee and not that committee because his story cannot be retold twice. Because, as we all know, stories change as they are retold. Each time a little bigger and a little grander for the storyteller. Comey is avoiding the committee he swore to that no influence had occurred and picking a new committee with different make up of members. I’m sure he’s researched the issue and is picking the sweeter of the two landscapes.
Comey has to be really careful. If he goes too far, his story falls apart. If he sounds to insistent, he is a just an angry ex-employee trying to get back at his boss. His advantage is the mistakes will not be reported. His danger is he’s messing with a guy who will not sit and take it, and who also may have notes.
Comey’s ability to, in a way, “hang back by the curtains” of the federal government, inserting himself here and there after careful thought, is his strength. Here he is wide open, over his skis and flying downhill. If he gets it wrong, in a real world, an indictment or an embarrassment.
Trump overplayed his hand by hammering Comey. Comey’s ego may make him overplay his hand in return. As a point, Alan Dershowitz explains that Comey is being cowardly in using his friend to speak for him. I agree. Comey can allow the accusations to go forward, then claim his friend misunderstood what Comey said, so neither can be held for intentionally saying a harmful statement. That’s pretty cheezy.
Dershowitz said that he’s always liked Comey, but Comey has been “using his friends to get his point out. It’s cowardly. And I think it’s about time that Comey is confronted directly with cross-examination. He was a great director of the FBI, but when the whole Hillary Clinton thing began, he cared more about his reputation and his dignity than about what was good for America.”
Dershowitz added, “I’d want to find out if he was the source of the leaks of the memo that he was quoted in. Second, I would ask him why he didn’t talk directly, why he’s using his friends. I would go back to his decisions to speak to the public.” He continued that while he disagreed with President Trump’s reported characterization of Comey as a “nutjob,” calling him a “showboat” is “not a bad characterization.”
He further stated Comey’s motives are “all about preserving his reputation above everything else.” Dershowitz further argued that Comey revealed Clinton investigation because thought Clinton was going to win, and he would be faulted by Trump supporters for not revealing the investigation, and so Comey revealed the Clinton investigation to preserve his reputation.
Dershowitz also stated that he believes Trump fired Comey due to Comey’s statement that he felt sick over the prospect that he might have influenced the election.
Here’s the video.
This isn’t the way our government should work, but it does expose the venial corrupted personalities that run our country, which should frighten all of us. When pressure is applied they all just seem to turn into rabid animals, biting and snapping, to protect their food bowl.
Truly one of the “ah ha!” moments! Everything makes so much more sense!
Journalists’ brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking.
The study, led by Tara Swart, a neuroscientist and leadership coach, analysed 40 journalists from newspapers, magazines, broadcast, and online platforms over seven months. The participants took part in tests related to their lifestyle, health, and behaviour.
It was launched in association with the London Press Club, and the objective was to determine how journalists can thrive under stress.
Each subject completed a blood test, wore a heart-rate monitor for three days, kept a food and drink diary for a week, and completed a brain profile questionnaire.
The results showed that journalists’ brains were operating at a lower level than the average population, particularly because of dehydration and the tendency of journalists to self-medicate with alcohol, caffeine, and high-sugar foods.
Forty-one percent of the subjects said they drank 18 or more units of alcohol a week, which is four units above the recommended weekly allowance. Less than 5% drank the recommended amount of water.
However, in interviews conducted in conjunction with the brain profile results, the participants indicated they felt their jobs had a lot of meaning and purpose, and they showed high mental resilience.
Just because you are resiliently dumb, doesn’t make it a good thing!
Basically, if you gathered all the journalists together, it would look like this;
Big headline but proves the point that in this rarified air that the DC/New York/international business lives in- everybody knows everybody.
Let’s throw out the issue that Mueller and Comey are friends.
Don’t worry pal. It’s all good!
Let’s throw out the BIG issue that John Podesta, Clinton’s chief of staff, lobbied for a Ukrainian business, and is lobbying for a Russian bank…currently! Understand, this is payoffs and bribery in the 21st century. Instead of money in a paper bag handed under a table, this system was developed to make it all seem legal. They hire Hillary’s Chief of Staff’s brother, pay him big money for nothing, HRC’s chief of staff owes a favor. If John is part owner of lobbying firm, he gets paid directly too. This is the big “establishment” scam that domestic and international interests have used to payoff politicians for years.
Let’s throw out the millions paid Bill and Hill WHILE Hill was Sec of State, giving favors to people who “donated” to her so-called money laundering charity.
So when the MSM screams about Trump and the Russians, remember from what hilltop they are standing on.
It was easier when I was young because we never actually saw the corruption as blatant as this. It was there, just in the backroom because it mattered to the politicians that we didn’t know, a sense of respect and maybe some fear. Now it is a finger in the eye and a middle finger in general when we complain. It has now become their “right” to steal.
So, getting to Mueller. I have an issue with someone like him, a friend of Comey’s, looking into what is going to really jam Comey up if someone who wasn’t his friend was looking into this mess.
First and foremost, this whole Russian deal was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign as a way to excuse her loss and screw with Trump. With the media and democrats helping it worked.
Second, it is becoming apparent that Comey is all about Comey. I admit I still agree with what he did in July with the press conference. I was convinced by his public reputation that he just couldn’t stand the corruption any longer. I was wrong. The problem with Comey is that it is all about Comey. He had massaged stories and remembrances of events in order to promote his public reputation of being a straight shooter. He may be, compared to the rest of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, but he works hard making sure everybody believe “He’s the guy!”. So him coming out in July may have been more about him getting in front of a scandal he knew was coming if Hillary won. My point, he was doing it more for himself than us, it just worked out good for America. Hillary would have been a corruption machine!
Alberto Gonzales tells his version of the well known Comey story about how he stopped Gonzales from getting a program reauthorized by AG John Ashcroft, when Ashcroft was hospitalized. The Comey version is he had a problem with the program, he didn’t want to sign it, Ashcroft was in a hospital and he went there to stop Gonzales from getting Ashcroft to sign what COMEY thought wasn’t right. Not illegal, not unapproved, just what Comey -in his Diogenes moment- one of many apparently- decided could not be authorized. Comey said he was sitting by the bedside and confronted Gonzales- thus saving the day (From what? Not sure.).
However, Gonzales remembers it differently and make sure you read the whole article to grasp an idea of what is the Comey perception problem.
Gonzales’s descriptions of his interactions with Comey, included in his 2016 book “True Faith And Allegiance,” are detailed and extensive. While his tone is measured, the language he uses to describe Comey’s actions in 2004 and 2007 leaves little doubt about the former top Bush official’s views on Comey’s character. Gonzales’s opinion is clearly colored by the fact that Comey cravenly used him to jumpstart his own political career by going public with surprise (and questionable) testimony that Gonzales had attempted to take advantage of a deathly ill man in order to ram through authorization of an illegal surveillance program.
Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft had taken ill and was in the hospital at a pivotal time. The legal authorization of a surveillance program meant to find and root out terrorist threats was days from expiring. What happened in Ashcroft’s hospital room in March of 2004 later became political fodder for a hearing in which Senate Democrats used Comey to dredge up the 2004 hospital meeting to tar Gonzales’ credibility and suggest he was unfit to continue serving as attorney general. As the 2004 and 2007 sagas show, Comey is clearly no stranger to using the unarguably legal dismissal of government employees as the backdrop for casting himself as the story’s protaganist standing up to the forces of corruption.
“[I] told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital,” Comey testified. “I got out of the car and ran up — literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.”
“I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that,” Comey said.
Comey’s use of the phrase “overrule me” is especially noteworthy, given that the authority he referenced belongs not to the deputy attorney general, but to the attorney general himself. However, unbeknownst to anyone at the White House on that day, Comey had assumed for himself the authorities attendant to Ashcroft’s position. Rather than personally informing anyone at the White House, including the president, the vice president, the White House chief of staff, or the White House counsel, the Department of Justice sent a mere fax to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue noting the change in power. For some reason, the newly designated acting attorney general didn’t feel compelled to personally inform any of his superiors that he was now a cabinet official.
I sat down in an armchair by the head of the attorney general’s bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Mrs. Ashcroft stood by the bed holding her husband’s arm. And we waited.
And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was — which I will not do.
And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me — drawn from the hour-long meeting we’d had a week earlier — and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, ‘But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general.’
And as he laid back down, he said, ‘But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general. There is the attorney general,’ and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left. The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief — a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.
Gonzales was taken aback by Comey’s appearance and testimony. It turns out that was by design. Comey kept secret his pre-hearing planning with Schumer and his staff to maximize the fallout of the bomb he planned to drop on Gonzales and the Bush administration. In a significant breach of protocol, Comey also refused to share with the White House or the Department of Justice that he had planned to testify about his work at DOJ, a move which made it impossible for the White House to consider whether it needed to assert executive privilege over portions of Comey’s planned testimony.
As fate would have it, the Schumer staffer who spearheaded the entire spectacle was none other than Preet Bharara, a former employee of Comey’s in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York. Bharara, like Comey, was fired by President Donald Trump earlier this year. And Bharara, like Comey, owes his most recent position of authority in the U.S. government to Schumer and President Barack Obama.
“When I found out from our DOJ legislative liaison that Comey was testifying, I was surprised,” Gonzales wrote after noting that Comey hadn’t worked at DOJ for years when the U.S. attorneys were fired. “It was also odd that we had received no notice at DOJ regarding the appearance of one of the former members of our leadership team at a Senate hearing.”
“I called the White House counsel Fred Fielding, and Fred confirmed that he had no prior notice of Comey’s testimony either,” Gonzales continued. “I was disappointed that the man who had been given so much in his legal career — appointed by President Bush as a U.S. attorney and then as deputy attorney general — did not even notify the White House or me in advance of his testimony.”
“It felt to me that Jim’s loyalty was more to his friend Preet Bharara and to Chuck Schumer,” he wrote.
Gonzales also questioned whether Bharara’s role in ambushing the previous Republican presidential administration was the reason Obama later appointed Bharara to Comey’s old job as U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York.
Comey’s 2007 testimony went off just as he, Bharara, and Schumer planned. It was shocking and dramatic. Comey weaved a tale that involved him being notified at the last possible second that Bush’s chief of staff and counsel planned to ambush Ashcroft in his hospital bed and force him against his will to sign a legal document authorizing an ongoing mass surveillance program that Comey and his deputy, Jack Goldsmith, had very recently decided was illegal despite multiple DOJ and National Security Agency legal opinions to the contrary. According to Gonzales, despite having been on the job for months, Comey and Goldsmith didn’t disclose their concerns to the White House counsel about the legality of the surveillance initiative until March 6, just five days before the program’s authorization expired.
The narrative Comey provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee was riveting. But according to Gonzales, it didn’t actually happen the way it was presented. And the conflicting details between Comey’s and Gonzales’ account, given Comey’s current attempts to use his credibility and recollection of events witnessed only by himself to take down a Republican official, raise significant questions about the trustworthiness of Comey’s current claims.
According to Gonzales, rather than sitting directly next to Ashcroft, Comey and his two deputies, Goldsmith and Pat Philbin, never made their presence known, and neither Gonzales nor Andy Card, Bush’s chief of staff, had any clue they were there during the 10-minute meeting. To the contrary, Gonzales noted in his book that he assumed the small handful of people hiding in the periphery of a darkened room were actually Ashcroft’s security detail doing their best to stay out of the way.
More important, in Gonzales’ telling, Ashcroft never even mentioned Comey, let alone pointed him out to Gonzales as being physically present in the room.
“I was told this morning that I’m no longer attorney general,” Gonzales wrote was Ashcroft’s response to a request to re-authorize the Stellar Wind program, a far cry from the forceful declaration Comey attributed to Ashcroft.
“Certainly, had the vice president, Andy, or I known about the matter, we would have informed the president, and he could have simply summoned the deputy attorney general,” Gonzales wrote. “But none of us knew until John Ashcroft announced the news to us in his hospital room.”
President George W. Bush himself, in his book “Decision Points,” expressed his feeling of shock when he found out that Comey had seized the attorney general’s authority in March of 2004.
Hmmm…self aggrandizing much?
In this light comes the “notes” read to an anti-Trump newspaper by an associate of Comey’s. Which, on a side note, is just weird. Who does that?
Anyway, Comey took notes saying Trump may have tried to influence his investigation into Flynn by saying Flynn’s a good guy and to be easy on him. Of course Comey resisted, as only Diogenes can!, and wrote it down. Here’s the rub. Comey didn’t say a word UNTIL he got canned. Suddenly, he has all this information on how Trump acted badly, something he was willing to accept as long as he could stay in the spotlight. (Shades of the Hilllary/Lynch/Obama days!)
Trump did him wrong by just firing him unceremoniously. Bad form. Comey is going to seek revenge, because that is what Comey’s ego demands be done. So strap in. But before you do, ask yourself this. If Comey felt pressured by an attempt at obstruction- why didn’t he report it? He was required to, had a chance before Congress, while under oath. But he denied it. And if by saying now it was obstruction, but in front of Congress lied about it, doesn’t that put him in the trick bag? Mueller, Comey’s friend needs to address this.
Mueller, who is compromised out the door, needs to do some other things if he is serious.
One- seize ALL of Comey’s notes. Raw and unedited from his entire time as FBI director. Why? Because for one, they no longer belong to him. By using them as a source to undermine a sitting President, and because at the time he was taking those notes he was personally involved in investigations as a paid employee of the federal government- those notes belong to us. Further, the notes can be used to create context. Will we see a series of notes reflecting accurately the facts of events we can verify? Or will we see a perception of a man who thinks he is the last honest man left in DC, always the hero? That is very, very important. It is a duty of any investigating detective to make sure any witness is accurate and vetted for veracity. If not, the detective needs to information the attorney involved and the jury if need be.
Does Comey embellish? The short answer is yes. Here is a perfect example. Comey tells a friend, who tells the papers (again, wtf?) that he avoided hugging the President. First, the question is why does he hate Trump so much to start out. They don’t even know each other. So there is that bias. Then he tells the story of how he tried to hide from Trump to avoid shaking his hand, telling us more about Comey than about Trump. THEN he says that he didn’t let Trump hug him. This is all to set up Comey as the guy who realizes early that Trump is unfit and does “the right thing”. All about reputation.
Sadly, for Comey, there is video.
As for him being pressured to the level of obstruction? Well, either he’s lying then, or he’s lying now. But will Mueller do anything to harm his inner circle buddy?
And this is the rub for Mueller, IF he can stay on. There seems to be a legal problem.
Robert Mueller has a serious conflict of interest that should disqualify him from serving as special counsel.
He has had a long and close relationship with someone who will surely become a pivotal witness –James Comey.
No one doubts Mueller’s sterling credentials. That is not the issue. He is eminently qualified. The problem arises in his duty to fairly and objectively evaluate the evidence he gathers.
How can Americans have confidence in the results if they know the special counsel may harbor a conspicuous bias? They cannot. The conflict inevitably discredits whatever conclusion is reached. It renders the entire investigatory exercise suspect, and it only elevates the controversy surrounding it.
For this reason, Mueller should not serve as special counsel.
The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits him from serving if he has a conflict of interest in the case. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification.
A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. The conflict itself creates a clash between that individual’s self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest. It calls into question whether he can discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner.
Identical rules govern prosecutors who, for example, must recuse themselves from handling a case against a person with whom they have worked or had a personal relationship. The same would be true if a prosecutor had a close relationship with a witness in the case. The prior association raises the real or perceived possibility of prejudice or favoritism which is contrary to the fair administration of justice.
So what exactly is Mueller’s conflict? He and Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand at the FBI and Department of Justice. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004.
Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé. When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller as FBI Director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another. Their relationship is not merely a casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against.
If I were Trump I would bring this up and demand someone TRULY on the outside of the DC swamp if possible. It also makes you wonder what the hell the assistant DOJ attorney was thinking when he offered up Mueller!
Plus, we learn that Mueller’s legal firm worked for Jared Kushner in a business deal, plus Manafort- arguably the biggest interest in this “investigation.”
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said Thursday that the agency will conduct a background investigation and detailed review of conflict-of-interest issues, a process outlined in the regulation governing special counsels under which he was appointed.
For the past three years, Mueller has been a partner in the Washington office of WilmerHale, whose attorneys represent former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.
Federal regulations prohibit officials from participating in matters involving their former employers for two years after joining the government unless they receive a waiver to do so.
Bruce Berman, WilmerHale’s general counsel, said that Mueller had no involvement in the representation of Manafort, Kushner or Trump, or any client in connection with any Russia-related inquiry. The firm says there are no potential conflicts regarding Mueller’s role as special counsel, Berman said.
Ahhh, whatever dude! This is typical, amoral legal crap from lawyers. To make this simpler, would parents let the cousin of the opposition coach umpire a ballgame for their kids? NOOOOO!!
Yet, here we are. And frankly PJ media points out IF Mueller makes it, has some serious steps he must take- none of which I have confidence he will do. In fact, I am convinced that the smartest thing Trump can do is say no- point out the conflicts and demand a truly impartial attorney. Maybe pull in some guy from the Arizona or Florida office.
For Mueller to separate them or to disregard any of the three will mean his investigation is essentially a useless charade. They are:
One: the matter of the Hillary Clinton email server. This has resurfaced dramatically in the firing of James Comey, reasons for which are laid out in Rod Rosenstein’s memo. Whether he wrote this memo before or after Trump decided to get rid of Comey is immaterial since the Deputy AG has now stated he stands behind its contents. Further to this portion of the narrative is the overall question of putative Russian government hacking into the Clinton campaign. So far we have seen no public evidence that this is true. We have actually seen circumstantial evidence (the Seth Rich murder) to the contrary. Mueller must also explain why the DNC refused to open its servers to the FBI after it was supposedly hacked by the Russians and why the FBI, incredibly, acquiesced in this. The questions here are endless—including why the FBI gave immunity in so many cases and allowed for the destruction of evidence.
This is about establishing a baseline. IF the Russians did not hack into the DNC, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!
Two: the matter of government surveillance of Trump and his people. The president famously complained in a tweet of being “wiretapped” by Obama. Despite endless criticisms of his language when he actually put the word in quotes, the possibility of this obviously high-tech surveillance and the various attendant unmaskings is by far the most serious question that must be dealt with in this investigation. If the massive intelligence capabilities of the NSA and the CIA are being used for internal political purposes, the United States of America, as we know it and the Founders envisioned it, no longer exists.
How did Yates, Rice, Obama and all news outlets get any information at all about anyone talking to the Russians? Again, illegally obtained information is out!
Three: Trump and the Russians, of course. It’s clear from his campaign statements that Trump wanted better relations with Russia and Putin. This was nothing new. Several American presidents have sought the same thing at the beginning of their administrations only to be blindsided by reality. Obama seemed particularly desperate when he got caught on camera naively whispering to Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more to offer Putin after the election (as if Vladimir didn’t know). The rest, including the failed “red line,” Iran on the rampage, and the endless Syrian civil war, is history. The question now is to what extent Trump and his people may have colluded with the Russians and whether this “collusion” meant anything. In the case of Manafort, as it was with John Podesta, this seems to have been no more than normal (and somewhat repellent) greed.
All true. In 2008 as Obama was running against McCain, his people were actively undermining the GW Bush administration efforts to get a deal with the Iranians by CONTACTING THE IRANIANS and telling them to sign no deal until they got into power and would offer something far sweeter- which they did.
So, what does Donald Trump winning the White House expose? The HUGE, CORRUPT, INCESTUOUS CABAL of DC elites who are parasitically feeding off our nation- and do not want to stop.
That’s the bottom line. He ripped the cover back and we now see just how lost our nation is. Despite Comey’s insistence, there are no honest men left.