Showing posts with label Russia Investigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia Investigation. 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.

Saturday, November 10, 2018

Vladimir say: “Зачем вмешиваться в выборы? У вас есть демократы!”

image

In case you didn’t study Russian in High School or college, Russian President Vladimir Putin asks a valid question: “Why interfere with election? You have Democrats!” He hasn’t yet posed the question but he might as well have. By the way, did you know that Russians consider it rude and presumptuous to use a diminutive or nickname for someone with whom you are not intimate or close friends? Don’t call him “Vlad,” unless you’re really close to the guy. He’s not the kinda guy you want to piss off.

Anyway, at the close of business last Tuesday Arizona GOP Senate hopeful Martha McSally had appeared to eke out a close, 9,000 vote win over pretend moderate Democrat Krysten Sinema. By close of business Friday, Arizona election officials had miraculously found enough Democrat ballots to put Sinema up by 20,000 or so. In a red state.

Down in Florida, where Democrats have made election theft a finely honed skill, it took a state judge to force election officials in south Florida to stop fabricating Democrat votes out of thin air and the trunks of private vehicles.

Maybe some readers will remember the 2000 election, when it took a US Supreme Court order to halt a manufacture-and-count-ballots operation in the same counties that have been rigging the vote count so many times that they don’t bother to hide it any more.

Meanwhile across the state line in Georgia Democrats are feverishly and brazenly scouring for votes in what even the New York Times openly calls  “post-campaign campaigning.” Republican Bryan Kemp won a 50.35% of the vote on election night, with 100% of all precincts reporting. Democrat Stacey Abrams won 48.71% and Libertarian Ted Metz got 0.95%.

Under Georgia law, if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote, the top two candidates go to a runoff.

Give Georgia Democrats some credit for coming up with a new election theft tactic: Find people to swear up and down that they voted via absentee or provisional ballot even and especially if they didn’t, and scream “VOTER SUPPRESSION!!!” when otherwise lawfully acting election officials (doing a heroic yet thankless job) can’t find the nonexistent ballots.

If you’re pulling for Team Blue, all the Abrams gang has to do is find about 28,000 extra ballots for their side to push the election into a runoff. Don’t you dare think they can’t do it. If Arizona Democrats can find tens of thousands of ballots in a desert and Florida Democrats can find them in a swamp, then Georgia Democrats ought to be able to find’em somewhere between the hedges.

This drives Rule of Law loving people crazy because while we may not like outcomes, the process counts for everything. Democrats don’t give a rat’s ass about process. It’s all about getting the desired outcome. To them, “process” is just another word for “by any means necessary.”

No wonder the Russian President is pointing and laughing. He doesn’t need to lift a finger to create chaos, uncertainty and distrust in our election process. Why should he, when the Democrats will do it for him?