Showing posts with label 2016 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016 Election. Show all posts

Monday, December 23, 2019

Scarborough: Obama's FBI had spies inside the Trump campaign


This is not a "debunked conspiracy theory." It is not "Russian misinformation." It is not a bunch of lies propagated by the White House to save Donald Trump from impeachment. It is not the manufactured Fake News based on information obtained by a "source close to the matter."(*)

No, this is the conclusion reached by Inspector General Michael Horowitz and it is reported by Rowan Scarborough, investigative reporter for the Washington Times.
The report discloses that the FBI dispatched against Trump allies multiple unnamed FBI informants known as confidential human sources (CHS). The most publicized was Stefan Halper, a longtime Washington national security figure and Cambridge University professor. He ingratiated himself to George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, while also attempting to engage with a senior Trump campaign official in New York.

Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s Dec. 9 report says that rather than hearing incriminating statements, Mr. Halper (whom he did not identify) recorded conversations that could be seen as exculpatory.

Mr. Horowitz rapped the FBI for not including them in four sworn affidavits agents presented to federal judges to authorize Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) electronic and physical spying on Mr. Page. ...

Mr. Horowitz listed that FBI decision as one of 17 glaring omissions or inaccuracies that misled the FISA judges who signed four surveillance warrants on Mr. Page.

“None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017,” the IG said. “Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal applications.”
Our once-honest news media is very busy trying to convince you that Horowitz didn't find evidence of political bias in the launch or continuation of Crossfire Hurricane, the clandestine investigation of the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. Despite the fact that Horowitz noted at least 17 errors or glowing omissions of evidence during the investigation, the media would have you believe that all 17 incidents of oopsie went in favor of the FBI and went against a finding of innocence is... well... just bad luck.

A coin flip coming up tails twice is bad luck. A coin flip going against you 17 straight times has odds of 131,072 to 1.

Paul Sperry at RealClearPolitics.com notes that Horowitz has a well-developed pattern of pulling knockout punches. He's a good bureaucrat and just does what bureaucrats do. But even a history like that can't explain what has happened here.

On October 1, 2019, this blog told you that the current push to impeach the President of the United States is intended to deflect attention away from the Horowitz report. That blog post came more than two months before the Horowitz report was even published on December 9, 2019. I wrote about it again here, and then again right here.

Scarborough's report also confirms what we already knew about where the Horowitz findings are going.
Attorney General William Barr says the FBI started the investigation on flimsy grounds. He has tapped John Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, to conduct an inquiry into the origins of Crossfire Hurricane.... Mr. Durham has been looking into Mr. Mifsud and, according to a defense attorney court filing in a criminal case, his office took possession of two cellphones used by the Maltese professor.

Mr. Mifsud is a shadowy figure mentioned throughout the Mueller report. Papadopoulos writes that he believes Mifsud is/was a western intelligence operative; CIA, DIA or FBI CounterIntel. Whoever he is, court records show that Durham has physical evidence on his involvement and was willing to go to Europe to get it.

This blog is not exactly a lone voice in the wilderness, either. For the last two years, Sharyl Atkisson, Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, John Solomon and Paul Sperry have all been reporting on the spying that went on in 2016. But since those are conservatives, their work has never been taken seriously.

Read this though, from someone with a very different perspective on President Trump:
Imagine if a similar situation had taken place in January of 2009, involving president-elect Barack Obama. Picture a meeting between Obama and the heads of the CIA, NSA, and FBI, along with the DIA, in which the newly-elected president is presented with a report complied by, say, Judicial Watch, accusing him of links to al-Qaeda. Imagine further that they tell Obama they are presenting him with this information to make him aware of a blackmail threat, and to reassure him they won’t give news agencies a “hook” to publish the news.

Now imagine if that news came out on Fox days later. Imagine further that within a year, one of the four officials became a paid Fox contributor. Democrats would lose their minds in this set of circumstances.

The country mostly did not lose its mind, however, because the episode did not involve a traditionally presidential figure like Obama, nor was it understood to have been directed at the institution of “the White House” in the abstract.

Instead, it was a story about an infamously corrupt individual, Donald Trump, a pussy-grabbing scammer who bragged about using bankruptcy to escape debt and publicly praised Vladimir Putin. Audiences believed the allegations against this person and saw the intelligence/counterintelligence community as acting patriotically, doing their best to keep us informed about a still-breaking investigation of a rogue president.
That's from Matt Taibbi, a senior editor at left wing icon Rolling Stone, writing at his independent site on Substack.com. His is one of the honest liberal voices that people should be listening to instead of parroting the formerly honest mainstream news media. Taibbi et al are very smart people and they are not conservatives.

There were FBI spies inside the Trump campaign. They lied to federal judges to gain access to Trump campaign officials. They repeated those lies in sworn statements even after they knew the truth. They manufactured and altered evidence. And their actions were sanctioned at the highest levels of the Department of Justice.

Anyone who believes Barack Obama didn't know what was happening is a fool.


Friday, October 25, 2019

DOJ's criminal probe is NOT news, and it's NOT a Trump counterattack on impeachment circus


Folks on the left are acting like last night's 'revelation' told us something new. It's news to them that a pair of seemingly oblique Department of Justice investigations may reveal possible criminal activities during the 2016 election and the months immediately following.

It's not news. Not new news, anyway. I wrote about the subject here, weeks ago:
Democrats and the media would have you believe that DOJ's work in the last few weeks is in response to the Ukraine affair. The reverse is true: The Ukraine affair is a preemptive strike against what Democrats rightly believe will be a very ugly account of their spying on the 2016 Trump campaign.

But wait, there's more. We'll examine what pulling up the Ukrainian floorboards revealed a bit later...
A little more than a week later, I wrote about it again:
The drumbeat started sounding way before President Donald Trump had a cordial, totally innocent telephone conversation with newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last summer.

Politico shows that the investigations started in 2018. Other news sources show that the release of Horowitz's report has been delayed more than once, meaning that it has resulted in a farther-reaching probe with lots of information that will be news to John O Public.

Other news sources show that as Horowitz's probe draws to its close, a second and seemingly oblique probe by John Durham is expanding. Durham is adding investigators and widening the scope of his investigation.
A week or so ago, I laid out a case that several highly respected liberals were sounding alarms over the events that have transpired since the dud of the Mueller Report fell flat last spring:
The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped. 
Taibbi outlines a set of 10 different examples in which the intelligence elites selectively and salaciously leaked information designed to damage Trump's legitimacy and credibility. Then they offer "expert commentary" on their own manufactured press. They started almost the day after Trump's inauguration and continue to this day.

This is the stuff you'd expect from a spy thriller by John LeCarre or Robert Ludlum but with the technological proficiency of Tom Clancy. Only this isn't fiction. It's really happening.
Here's former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stammering, deflecting and worrying about the "timing" of yesterday's "news."
Don't fall for this deflection, folks. The left will try to frame the Horowitz-Durham probes as a desperate attempt by the Trump administration to fight back against impeachment. As you saw here back on October 1, the reverse is true: Impeachment proceedings are a desperate attempt by the left to get into the news stream before Horowitz and Durham drop their payloads on who did what to whom while trying to prevent Donald Trump from becoming your President.

When even well known and well respected liberals are telling you that something is wrong, listen up!

Extra point: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

Friday, October 18, 2019

Madam President-in-Exile says Tulsi Gabbard is Russian Asset


This is from the "You Can't Make This Up" Department. Hillary Clinton believes that a current candidate for the Democrat Party's nomination for President is a Russian puppet. Tulsi Gabbard, War Vet and Democrat Congresscritter from Hawaii is kompromat:
Gabbard won’t be happy to hear Hillary Clinton’s latest interview. Nor will President Trump or another of Clinton’s 2016 opponents, whom Clinton has now lodged similar accusations about.

In a conversation on former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s podcast, Clinton suggested the Russians are leveraging a number of top U.S. politicians. She suggested Russia had kompromat on Trump. She accused 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein of being a “Russian asset.” And she suggested Russia might back Gabbard as a third-party candidate.

“They’re also going to do third-party again,” Clinton said. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”
Don't believe it? Don't think Hillary is really batshit crazy enough to believe this? Think again:
What's really sad is that Madam President-in-Exile Clinton still can't accept the fact that she lost. The election wasn't stolen. The Russians didn't help Donald Trump in any meaningful way. It wasn't sexism or election fraud or voter suppression. She lost because she was a lousy candidate and treated 2016 the way Bob Dole treated 1996 and John McCain treated 2008.

No one is entitled to the White House and you don't take turns.

Thursday, December 20, 2018

More evidence of Russian collusion… with Democrats

DougJones

Why the New York Times didn’t just spike this story is as curious as the fact that they still don’t seem to get this—Democrats actively sought Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections. It was also Democrats who secretly employed Russian tactics in 2017’s special election to fill the Senate seat left open when Jeff Sessions resigned to take the U.S. Attorney General post.


As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.


The Times says that the effort was too small to have an effect on the race. It also says that “there is no evidence that Mr. Jones sanctioned or was even aware of the social media project.”

The first statement is conjecture and the second is TimesSpeak for “we didn’t bother to ask if the Jones campaign knew about the project, sanctioned it it or actively encouraged it.” Since the Times can suppose that it had no effect then we can suppose that Jones not only knew about this secret project—he embraced it with both stubby little arms.

Given that he’s behaved just like the typical Democrat party hack he has denied ever being, it’s no small stretch to conclude that he’d stoop to the “by any means necessary” tactics Democrats have employed since Newt Gingrich tipped over their punch bowl in 1994’s Glorious Revolution.

A little true history here—the infamous Steele Dossier did begin with the conservative Washington Free Beacon. But the right ceased oppo research on Trump as soon as he became the GOP nominee. It was the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign who picked up the ball and had Christopher Steele keep making stuff up. So much stuff that the Justice Department under Barack Obama then used it to get secret, sealed warrants and begin spying on the Trump campaign. Oh, but the Clinton Campaign had nothing to do with that. This topic never came up in that Bill Clinton – Loretta Lynch meeting.

Politics is a very dirty business. Neither side plays by the rules unless they have to. But one side has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to go to absolutely any length to win any battle.

This is why it’s so unusual for the Jones-Russia project to surface in the Times this week. Maybe it’s because one of the journalists involved in the whole Russian collusion circus just admitted publicly that if there is a there in there, it’s not showing up. Maybe the Times hopes its dwindling reader base will just conclude that it’s ok if everybody does it.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Why Democrats need to worry about Donald Trump

Chris Cilliza stole my thunder on this topic, comparing the presumptive GOP nominee to that unpredictable, yet talented pickup basketball player. He's the guy who never does what you expect and keeps you off your game.

Chris is absolutely right, and here's why.


Hillary Clinton and her supporters are building a massive political machine geared for winning a national election. So is Trump, but he ain't doing it right, if you ask the wizened veteran political observer. While the Clinton camp builds a machine according to well known and oft-followed rules, the Trump camp is breaking almost every rule in the book.


Nothing is more American than fighting a war against the rules, and this dates back to the Revolutionary War.


The Red coats trained and planned for full-on frontal combat, where two armies faced each other on the battlefield.

The Americans were having none of that, choosing instead to fight a guerilla campaign that had colonists picking off Red coats like ducks in a carnival shooting gallery. Hell, those dastardly rebels even aimed and shot at officers! (that simply wasn't done in gentlemanly warefare).


The Brits never figured it all out and got whipped.


Fast forward a quarter millennium and observe. Using the most unorthodox means, The Donald systematically destroyed the deepest GOP field in modern political history.


No one in Europe gave Washington much of a c
hance in 1776. No one gave Trump much of a chance last year either (myself included). But here he is, one election away from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Trump will use the same tactics against Democrats. He will refuse to fight on their terrain. He will use his MASSIVE social media presence to ridicule, infuriate and bewilder the dinosaur-ish Clintons.


And he will do it to the cheers of millions of Americans who innately understand that when you're not in a fair fight, you don't fight fair.


Trump will not fight fair.


posted from Bloggeroid

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

US to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba. Democrats can kiss Florida goodbye for 2016

This is no small tremor. This is quake with a magnitude of 8.5 on the Richter Scale. As somebody who previously lived and worked in South Florida for years, I can attest to two irrefutable truths: One, that the large Cuban expatriate community in that part of the state bitterly opposes any normalization of relations with the Castro regime. Two, that anyone (or party) who proposes or moves forward with such “progress” will be punished on the first Tuesday in November.

Ms. Clinton, Ms. Warren, or any other Democrat seeking the presidency in 2016 can officially kiss the state of Florida goodbye.

In a nutshell, US contractor Alan Gross, who has been jailed on espionage charges for nearly six years, is being released by the Castro regime in exchange for three Cuban nationals convicted of spying on anti-Castro activists in Florida. The Obama regime claims that this is a humanitarian exchange, but let there be no doubt: this is no quid pro quo deal in any way, shape or form.

Contrary to what Ed at HotAir.com believes, the Cuban ex-pat community in Florida is monolithically opposed to any actions that take pressure off of the banana republic regime that has enslaved millions, jailed thousands and continues to oppress the Cuban people. If they were predisposed to violent uprisings (they’re not), the ex-pats could make the Ferguson riots look like a peace march.

Back to my point of the post’s title, it’s important to note that two men of Cuban descent are considering a run at the White House in 2016. These are Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida. Another man considering a run is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a man that the Cuban ex-pat community named an “Honorary Cuban” in 2007.

Expect all three of these distinguished gentlemen to denounce today’s developments, and if one of them should gain the GOP nomination, the monolithic Cuban ex-pat electorate south of I-4 will crawl naked over broken glass to vote for the guy who opposes normalized relations with the regime that has bloodied and impoverished one of the most beautiful islands in the Caribbean..

Update: right on cue:

Update: And Mr. Bush:

"I don't think we should be negotiating with a repressive regime to make changes in our relationship [until Cuba changes]," Bush said at an event in Florida on Wednesday morning,according to USA Today. 

Sunday, January 26, 2014

My name is Dave, I’m officially a “Paulistinian” and this is why

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul appeared on Meet the Press Sunday, Jan 26 2014, and the video below shows that this guy is the Republican who GOP’ers need to support. He is plainspoken, tells the truth and speaks in a way that should resonate with conservative, conservative-leaning independents and Democrats who are tired of the foolishness and just want a fresh face and new ideas.

Via RealClearPolitics:



This is the kind of thinking that a center-right republic can rally around. This is a 14:00+ minute segment but frankly, it could have gone on much longer. Paul has spoken frankly and honestly about topics that were not covered in this interview, including the current regime’s “what difference does it make” meltdown.

If you are a conservative who understands how government functions and how it must provide basic services to the American people without busting the budget, this is your guy. If you believe that the USA should provide basic national defense without simultaneously defenestrating key allies, this is your guy. If you believe that members of opposite parties should find areas of common ground and formulate policy based on what you can agree on, this is your guy. On tax policy, he’s Ronald Reagan. On domestic policy, he’s Ronald Reagan. On finding common ground, he’s Ronald Reagan.

Paul is 50. I am 51. Both he and I came of political age when President Reagan presided over one of the greatest rejuvenations of the American spirit in the history of this Republic. So there is no great surprise that his message resonates with me—Reagan’s enthusiasm and optimism resonated with the vast majority of the American people, most of whom still believe that once unleashed, the spirit of this great nation cannot be defeated and will always achieve its highest goals. Paul clearly believes the same thing. So do I, and if you’ve gotten this far you probably believe it, too.

If you are one of those constantly pessimistic liberals who are always looking for someone else to pay, Rand Paul should scare you to death.

Go watch the segment above. Sit through the whole 14+ minutes. It’s worth it.

I pray every night that this guy runs for President. If he does, he’s my guy and this space will go balls to the wall to help get him elected in any way it can.