Tag: CIA

Ocasio-Cortez bans the press so the people will feel “safe”

It wasn’t Trump who banned the media from a recent townhall.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez banned the media from a recent press conference claiming that it was a “non-story” and that she did it so that her potential constituents could “feel safe discussing sensitive issues in a threatening political time.”  So far no one in the media has thought to ask her if she thinks the press are the “enemy of the people”.  But many media members weren’t buying her reasons.

Ocasio-Cortez bans the press so the people can feel safe

James Clapper, Leon Panetta, and several other former CIA directors and Obama administration big wigs joined 70 former CIA leaders in ridiculing Trump for taking away John Brennan’s security clearance.  Apparently their argument is that former intelligence officials should be able to use their unclassified information to hit the President with partisan attacks.  However, security clearance is usually maintained for those who “need to know” so that their successors can go to them for help and information.  But it is doubtful that anyone from the Trump administration is going to be going to hostile John Brennan for help.

Former intel agents upset about Brennan’s clearance being revoked

The jury in the Manafort trial is home for the weekend, but Judge Ellis is not revealing any information about their identities.  Apparently the jury had expressed to him that they feared their identities being released.  That’s probably a good move.  The media and public opinion has already condemned Manafort, and any verdict that sets him free is sure to cause riots.  As it is, the Manafort trial has been a disappointment for many on the Left.  He is in trouble for tax and bank fraud, but the massive Russian collusion has once again failed to materialize.

Manafort jury fears the press

Advertisements

Drain the Swamp: Brennan loses security clearance

Former CIA director turned far left political commentator John Brennan saw his security clearance finally revoked on Wednesday.  Brennan was cited for “lying” and conduct unbecoming for someone who has access to the nation’s secrets.  But Brennan isn’t the only one on the list being considered.

Politico also names FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Bruce Ohr.  McCabe and Strzok were fired from the FBI for misconduct.

Bruce Ohr has been demoted from assistant deputy attorney general and may not have a job much longer.  He was a crucial part of the Russian investigation, even though his wife worked for Fusion GPS.  In addition to Bruce Ohr’s connections to Fusion GPS, Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was also a client of Fusion GPS when she set up her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. in Trump tower.  Nothing happened at the meeting, but it has been cited by liberals as Russian collusion.  Some speculate that entire meeting was a Fusion GPS setup.

It’s possible these late moves are more than just cleaning house.  Many of these individuals have a very suspect past when it comes to the botched Clinton investigation and the unnecessary Trump investigation.  We have seen plenty of evidence from Strzok’s texts of collusion with the Obama administration to stop Trump.  And when you add in the Fusion GPS connections, everyone seems to be in bed with everyone else.  In some cases, literally.

The Inspector General’s office continues it’s investigation into these individuals, but Horowitz’s conclusions have thus far been suspect.  His decision that Strzok’s texts didn’t show bias gives me little hope for the future of that investigation.

How Obama Saved Trump

Ok, let’s be honest.  Anyone who says Trump committed treason in Helsinki is a moron who doesn’t know how our government works.  Yes, John Brennan – former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, you are a moron who doesn’t know how the constitution works.  It’s so bad, left leaning Politifact had to fact check your claim. Politifact had to fact check a claim by the former CIA director of whether the President of the United States had committed treason.  And you lost.

Maybe that’s why Trump is revoking Brennan’s security clearance.

Brennan wasn’t alone.  Representative Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, also called Trump’s statements treason.  The soon to be irrelevant New York Daily News led with the cover title “Open Treason”.  A recent poll shows that nearly half the country (guess which half) think Trump committed treason.

But here’s the best part: Trump didn’t commit treason because Obama never treated Russia’s cyber attacks as an act of war.

One of the key essentials to treason, as pointed out by Politifact, is that we be at war with the “enemy” that the traitor provided aid and comfort to.  We aren’t at war with Russia, Trump can’t be a traitor for saying nice things about them.

So then you might ask, if Russia issued a cyber attack against us and tried to influence our elections in 2016, why aren’t we at war with them?  Because when Russia used cyber attacks to steal DNC emails and try to influence our election, President Obama issued a stand down order to cyber security chief and told him to back burner any action against Russia. 

In other words, if Trump committed treason by fumbling with his words and saying he couldn’t understand why Russia would meddle (never mind what he thought he meant to say), then Obama committed treason in 2016 by secretly issuing the stand down against Russia.  Otherwise, Russia is not our enemy and Trump can say whatever he wants.

Maybe Democrats should knock off the bull crap and follow through with what they claim to believe.  Maybe Democrats should introduce a declaration of war on Russia in Congress.  If Russia actually was our enemy, maybe they could start tossing around legitimate treason claims that stick.  But given the cozy history between major Democrats and Russia in the past, they’d probably end up regretting it.

Newsflash 7/23/18

Rand Paul is expected to ask Trump to revoke former CIA chief John Brennan’s security clearance.  Since leaving the CIA, Brennan has joined up with MSNBC as a political commentator, often hostile to Trump.  Brennan recently accused Trump of treason and said he should be impeached over his press conference with Putin in Helsinki.  Paul suggested that Brennan was using his security clearance to enrich himself by passing state secrets to MSNBC.  Republicans have expressed concern over the extreme partisanship shown by the former CIA director and former FBI director James Comey.

Rand Paul to ask for Brennan’s security clearance to be revoked

Need to know 7/23/18

Iran, in trouble with their people and staring down the barrel of new US sanctions, began a tweet war with Trump over the “mother of all wars”.  Trump responded in all caps that Iran’s leaders would suffer consequences few others have.  In the end it’s likely all blowing smoke.  Iran doesn’t have nuclear capabilities and the US isn’t about to go invade another Middle Eastern country.  But the developments continue to show that despite the rhetoric and narrative, Trump has been tougher on Russia allies than Obama was.

Rouhani warns Trump about mother of all wars

Speaking of rhetoric on Russia, Trey Gowdy had a warning for Trump administration officials that they should steer Trump to take Russia more seriously or consider leaving their posts.  Gowdy has consistently chided the Trump administration for not being tough enough on Russia’s election interference, however he has also acknowledged the extreme prejudice shown by Obama’s intel apparatus. In addition to noting that James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan continue to show their anti-Trump bias in editorials, Gowdy recently took Inspector General Michael Horowitz to task over his failure to call out anti-Trump bias deeply rooted in the FBI.  Texts from Peter Strzok reveled that the Russia/Trump collusion investigation was an “insurance policy” to “stop Trump”.  But so far, nothing has actually tied Trump to Russia or proven collusion.

Anti-Trump bias in the FBI can’t be put aside

Speaking of bias, the FISA court warrant to spy on Carter Page and the Trump campaign has been released through a Freedom of Information Act request.  This extraordinary release marks the first time a secretive FISA warrant has been released.  It proves two things.  The first is that Hillary Clinton’s paid for political propaganda dossier played a major role in getting the warrant.  Second, that the secret warrant to spy on a US citizen during the Obama administration was obtained simply because there was suspicion that Russia was trying to recruit him.  It’s also important to know that the warrant was issued after Page was no longer with the Trump campaign. Spying on a US Citizen because there is a belief that a foreign power might try to recruit them is likely a violation of the 4th Amendment.

For some good reading, here is Andy McCarthy’s argument why suspicion that someone is being recruited by a foreign government is not good enough to secretly spy on a US Citizen.

If you want to read through the FISA Warrant, you can do that here.

What do Sacha Baron Cohen and James O’Keefe have in common?  Both used hidden cameras to expose the other side.  It’s interesting to see how many lend credence to what Cohen exposes compared to those who dismissed O’Keefe’s videos out of hand  because they felt he was using trickery or deceptive editing.  O’Keefe’s undercover operations exposed massive Democrat voter fraud and routine illegal activities being carried out by Planned Parenthood.  Cohen got a racist Georgia politician to drop his pants and shout the N word.  I wonder if the Left will dismiss Cohen so quickly.

Sacha Baron Cohen gets former GOP lawmaker to make racist jokes 

 

Susan Power – The New Face of the Unmasking Scandal

A new name has surfaced in the unmasking scandal. UN Ambassador Susan Power made hundreds of unmasking requests in the last year of the Obama Presidency. Unmasking is the process by which individuals caught up in warrantless NSA surveillance are named in intelligence reports. It is a violation of the 4th amendment when misused.

During the Trump campaign and transition period, there were leaks of damaging information only discovered by government surveillance. At some point, Trump officials were unmasked in US intelligence reports and those reports were leaked to the press. The New York Times was one that reported Trump ties to Russia that were gleaned from NSA wiretaps.  They have since attempted to back off the claim.

Illegally unmasking a US citizen and leaking that information is a felony and carries up to 10 years in jail. The prime people of interest are former CIA director Brennan, Susan Rice, and now Susan Power.

So why would a UN Ambassador be caught up in this? The potential answers to that question truly scare me. If Susan Power was leaking intel on the Trump transition team to other UN member nations, that would be a huge development. Don’t forget, much of the Russia collusion speculation came from intel provided by the UK, Germany and the Ukraine. Were they doing the spying? Or was the US doing the spying, laundering the info through them, and then using it to smear Trump and attempt to influence the election outcome and bolster the resistance movement?

A crime was committed. The fact that we know anything about the Russia investigation is indicative of the many illegal leaks. What we know shows that those leaks include information only our intelligence agencies should know.  Brennan and Rice have both been openly hostile towards the Trump administration.  It will be interesting to see where the investigation of Susan Power goes.

The Russian Fiction

Obama complained for months about the Russians tampering with the US election to get Trump elected.  Apparently for all of Trump’s lack of political experience and his apparent intention to start World War III the first time he loses his temper, he is also somehow irresistible to the Russians.  It has nothing to do with Trump’s desire to sell the American uranium industry to the Russians, Hillary already did that.

For some unexplainable reason, Russia is willing to start a cyber war to install Trump.  So much so that they “hacked the election”.  They literally caused you to vote for Trump. The Russians worked intentionally to aide Trump.  I’m not even sure if we can call this America anymore or if we are just a puppet of Russia.  And of course, if Trump doesn’t denounce Russia and concede this sham election, he should be hung for treason, right?

Back to reality.

What does the media mean when they say Russia hacked the election?  Russia did not tamper with voting machines.  Russia did not funnel fake news to the mainstream media who then dutifully reported it.  In fact, the last major example we have of that was when the CIA told the President who told the media that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs.  Russia did not get into your computer and use subliminal messages to make you feel like voting for Trump.  None of that happened.

In fact, it’s not clear that this was a Russian national effort.  Apparently the CIA has identified some Russian officials (unnamed) who might be involved.  But there’s another wrinkle.  The CIA might not even know what they are talking about.

The “hack” of the election wasn’t a hack of the election at all.  It was a hack of the DNC servers.  To be clear, no one invented the Podesta emails.  No one modified them.  Whoever the hackers are, whether Wikileaks who took responsibility for it or Russian officials according to the CIA, all they did was publish real, actual emails written by real, actual Democrat staffers.

According to the CIA, the hackers hit the GOP and DNC, but only released the DNC emails. The FBI disputes that, saying the GOP servers were never hacked.  If the GOP servers were never breached, that eliminates the CIA argument that the Russians were trying to hurt just the DNC.  In fact, the argument was flimsy to begin with.  It’s possible they hacked the GOP and just didn’t find anything incriminating.

So did Trump really win simply because Russia hacked the DNC?  Did people walk into the voting booth thinking to themselves “Gosh, I just can’t vote for a party that let’s their servers get hacked by the Russians”.  It seems like Hillary Clinton’s loss had a little bit more to do with what was on those emails.  Contained in the Podesta emails was evidence of media manipulation, CNN sending debate questions to Hillary ahead of time, racism within the party, Hillary’s health issues, and of all things proof that Team Hillary not only rigged the DNC primary, but also promoted Trump in the GOP primary because they thought they could beat him.

Just to make sure the reader caught that: Hillary Clinton and her team rigged both party’s primaries in 2016.

Problem emails didn’t just come from Wikileaks.  Team Hillary also got in trouble with the emails released by the FBI from her illegal server, and the undercover video of Scott Foval and others by Project Veritas.  Those two sources showed how the DNC bussed people across state lines to vote illegally, and even paid homeless people to go into Trump rallies and cause violence.  One would think the CIA might be interested in that.  At least one might think that had more to do with Hillary’s loss.

Calling on the Russians to hack and rig an election is nothing shockingly new.  Ted Kennedy did it in 1984 to try to get rid of Reagan. But the Russians didn’t decide the US election in 2016. If they are truly involved, all they did was shed light on the treacherous, terrible, racist, and illegal things the DNC was already doing to hack the election.

Maybe we should send them a thank you card.