FBI and DNC leaders see a shake-up


Top DNC official out after less than a year on the job

According to a 29 January 2018 NBC News article, Jess O’Connell has been caught up in the current kerfuffle.

The CEO of the Democratic National Committee is leaving after less than a year on the job, NBC News has learned.

Veteran Democrat operative Jess O’Connell took the helm of the DNC last May with a mandate to help newly installed Chairman Tom Perez turn around a troubled party organization that was struggling after years of neglect and a brutal 2016 that included accusations of favoritism in the primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the hacking of internal emails, and the loss to President Donald Trump.

O’Connell will leave the party stabilized, if not yet fully recovered, after wins last year in Virginia and Alabama, and her decision to leave is a personal one, a DNC official told NBC News, timed to cause minimal disruption ahead of November’s midterm elections.

But O’Connell’s departure comes just months after the DNC ousted its finance director following a period of weak fundraising, as well as a shakeup last year that reignited tensions with Sanders’ allies. Still, the party has found itself subject to fewer negative headlines of late as fundraising started to improve and vacancies are filled.

(Read more at NBC News)

Something tells me that NBC has not fed us the full message. With the DNC wavering between far-left/socialist dogma and far-far-left/illegal immigrant messaging, it seems to have fallen back to a one-plank platform (as observed by cartoonist A. F. Branco).

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Hence, I think that Democrats are really waiting for the FISA-memo shoe to drop. That is, something tells me that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will be the next to depart or disappear. Unless she turns against Imran Awan or maybe the two work out a deal with the FBI, I would not be surprised if they both end in federal prison.

Of course, there has always been a tragic history associated with people who get involved in Clinton shady deals such as Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Cattlegate, and Billing-gate. Since Andrew and his wife Jill have procured major bits of funding from Clinton associate Terry McAuliffe, maybe the trashing of those outside of the inner Clinton circles will occur again.

Andrew McCabe’s departure from the FBI tied to IG investigation

The Washington Examiner revealed through a 30 January 2018 article how Andrew McCabe’s handling of the Clinton investigation likely led to his departure from the FBI.

Andrew McCabe’s decision to step down as FBI deputy director is reportedly tied to a forthcoming watchdog report on how he agency handled the investigation in Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

FBI Director Christopher Wray alluded in a message to all agency employees Monday night that he has seen information within the Inspector General’s report, and tied that information to his accepting McCabe submitting his intention to retire.

“It would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific aspects of the IG’s review right now,” Wray said in the message obtained by NBC News. “But I can assure you that I remain staunchly committed to doing this job, in every respect, ‘by the book.’ I will not be swayed by political or other pressure in my decision making.”

Wray and McCabe reportedly also met and discussed the IG’s probe.

McCabe, who was appointed by former FBI Director James Comey in January 2016, announced his intent Monday to go on “terminal leave” until he could retire and be eligible for full pension in mid-March.

The IG is investigating how the FBI handling the Clinton probe, and that report’s release is pending.

McCabe drew the ire of both President Trump and Republican lawmakers for being biased because his wife took donations from a Clinton ally while running as a Democrat for a Virginia state Senate seat — though the FBI released internal documents showing there was no conflict of interest for McCabe.

(Read more at Washington Examiner)

It will be interesting to see who else in the Obama FBI took part in twisting the law in regard to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Reports abound concerning McCabe ordering FBI agents to alter records, Strzok ignoring the letter and spirit of the law concerning Hillary’s handling of state secrets, and Page advising all of this. When the dominoes start to fall, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and others will be there — but who else?

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

McCabe Threatened To ‘Torch The FBI’ If Forced Out Of Bureau Without Pension

A 30 January 2018 Daily Wire article details McCabe’s threats against those in power.

In the days before FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was forced out of his job, he threatened to “torch” the bureau if he was ousted before his full federal retirement benefits kicked in, according to a new report.

“He was unglued,” one FBI source told True Pundit. “Someone should keep an eye on him.”

But McCabe may also have been reacting, in part, to another growing problem beyond the corruption scandals enveloping McCabe’s leadership at the embattled FBI.

An FBI insider with Intel inside the embattled Bureau who has vigilantly worked to uncover systemic corruption inside the FBI, is rumored to be penning a tell-all book that promises to blow the roof off the inner-workings of the FBI’s controversial 7th-Floor.

Well, that’s mighty cryptic.

McCabe on Monday said he would take an ‘indefinite” leave of absence, stepping down from his post months earlier than expected.

McCabe is set to receive a nearly $2 million pension, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis. But that taxpayer-funded pension doesn’t kick in until March 18, which is why McCabe decided to take “indefinite” leave. That way, he’ll hit the mark.

His decision came just hours before the House voted to reveal a controversial, GOP-authored memo about FBI procedure alleging that FBI higher-ups, including McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and former FBI Director James Comey abused the the FISA warrantless surveillance program.

McCabe has been a frequent target of President Donald Trump on Twitter since being named the FBI’s interim director (following Comey’s firing) and Republicans have viewed McCabe with suspicion, often questioning why the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, which took place under McCabe, was so poorly administered.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

With threats like this, it sounds like we are due for some great courtroom drama all around Madame Clinton — the woman who could never end her defeat to the presidency.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Many of the reasons it is almost certain Obama illegally tapped Trump’s phones


Thanks OutlawMorgan.com for the graphic.

Obama has a history of ill-advised wiretapping

Obama wiretaps leaders of key allies, Snowden exposes

For those who did not keep their own copy of the signaificant Obama administration black eye, refer to the 25 October 2013 article in the guardian to

“The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another US government department, according to a classified document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The confidential memo reveals that the NSA encourages senior officials in its “customer” departments, such as the White House, State and the Pentagon, to share their “Rolodexes” so the agency can add the phone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their surveillance systems.

The document notes that one unnamed US official handed over 200 numbers, including those of the 35 world leaders, none of whom is named. These were immediately “tasked” for monitoring by the NSA.

The revelation is set to add to mounting diplomatic tensions between the US and its allies, after the German chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday accused the US of tapping her mobile phone.

After Merkel’s allegations became public, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US “is not monitoring and will not monitor” the German chancellor’s communications. But that failed to quell the row, as officials in Berlin quickly pointed out that the US did not deny monitoring the phone in the past.

Arriving in Brussels for an EU summit Merkel accused the US of a breach of trust. “We need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

The NSA memo obtained by the Guardian suggests that such surveillance was not isolated, as the agency routinely monitors the phone numbers of world leaders – and even asks for the assistance of other US officials to do so.”

(Read more at the guardian)

Jim Hoft lists Obama wiretaps

Blogger Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit provided a significant list of times Obama has been caught wiretapping or otherwise spying on Americans and allies of America.

  1. The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
     
  2. Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
     
  3. Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
     
  4. Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
     
  5. Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
     
  6. Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
     
  7. Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
     
  8. Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.
     
  9. In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration.  It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:
     
  10. In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks.  The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.
     
  11. Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance.  The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”
     
  12. Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration.  A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.

The Washington Times lists reasons to believe Obama wiretapped Trump

A 6 March 2017 Washington Times article provides the following reasons not believing the bluster from those downplaying the possibility of Obama’s wiretaps.

“Below is a list of why some Republicans are wary at the Democratic response so far, and why Mr. Trump may have a point.

  1. Wiretapping was essential in retrieving the conversations of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador, which led to Gen. Flynn’s resignation as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser.

    According to The New York Times: ‘Mr. Flynn, who served in the job for less than a month, said he had given ‘incomplete information’ regarding a telephone call he had with the [Russian] ambassador in late December about American sanctions against Russia, weeks before President Trump’s inauguration.’

    How was it discovered that Mr. Flynn gave this “incomplete information?” Because either a transcript or actual recording of the call were overheard by FBI officials and leaked to reporters.

    It’s unclear whether the FBI — which uses Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to eavesdrop — had tapped the Russian Ambassador’s phone or Mr. Flynn’s. This is because …

     

  2. On Oct. 15, 2016, the BBC reported that the U.S. secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks in conjunction with the Trump Organization.

    The BBC report was corroborated by Heat Street, which reported the ‘FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.’

    However, The New York Times and The Washington Post — along with other mainstream outlets — haven’t been able to confirm. But they’ve gotten close.

    According to The New York Times: “In the fall, the FBI examined computer data showing an odd stream of activity between a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s biggest banks, whose owners have long-standing ties to Mr. [Vladimir] Putin. While some FBI officials initially believed that the computer activity indicated an encrypted channel between Moscow and New York, the bureau ultimately moved away from that view. The activity remains unexplained.”

    There is no confirmed evidence — other than the BBC and Heat Street reports — that the FBI got a court warrant to get a wiretap on the Trump Organization or to target specific individuals within Mr. Trump’s campaign, like Mr. Flynn.

    But no confirmed evidence, doesn’t mean it’s not out there, just waiting to be exposed by more mainstream outlets.

     

  3. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has lied about U.S. surveillance and wiretapping under oath.

    (Refer to the 6 March 2017 Washington Times article for the comparison of Clapper’s lie while under oath to the 2013 documents leaked by Snowden)

     

  4. Mr. Obama issued a carefully worded non-denial.

    Mr. Obama’s statement just said that neither he or the White House ordered the wiretapping — not that Mr. Trump’s organization wasn’t tapped.

    Here’s Mr. Obama’s statement: ‘A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.’

    David French, at the National Review, pointed out three ways that this non-denial was disingenuous. First, it’s technically the FISA court that orders such surveillance, along with the Justice Department (not Mr. Obama or the White House). The real question is whether Mr. Obama sought such authorization.

    Secondly, Mr. Obama has ordered surveillance against American citizens. Mr. French argues, ‘The notion that Obama would never have an American subject to surveillance is absurd.’ He cites drone strikes overseas.

    Lastly, FISA national security investigations are different than criminal investigations, in that they’re covert and require a presidential sign-off.

    As Mr. French notes: ‘One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing.’

     

  5. Mr. Obama expanded NSA’s powers in the days before leaving office.

    Mr. Obama, in his final days, allowed the NSA to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s other 16 intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections, The New York Times reported.

    ‘The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws,’ The Times reported. ‘These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.’

    Last week, The Times reported the Obama administration rushed to spread all evidence it collected about Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election and about possible contacts of people within Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, to ‘ to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.’

     

  6. Journalists readily believe the Trump-Kremlin international conspiracy to rig the U.S. election, but immediately put down the idea the Obama DOJ using FISA against Mr. Trump.

    Unsubstantiated and anonymously sourced reports have continued to trickle in the news media about Mr. Trump’s team’s collusion with Russian officials, without any actual evidence. Mr. Clapper, of whom most journalists are using to vehemently deny any wiretapping on Trump Tower, also said the DNI found no collusion between Mr. Trump’s team and Russia.

    The media, conveniently picking and choosing what they want to report or what leads they want to follow, reeks of media confirmation bias.”

New York Times inadvertently reports Trump was wiretapped

In a 19 January 2017 New York Times article revised to downplay the wiretaps of Trump by Obama, the centrality of the wiretaps still comes out (emphasis mine).

“American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

Additionally, a scan of a printed copy of the 20 January 2017 New York Times article shows the original headline to this article centered on the wiretap of Trump and obtained by Obama.

If the New York Times were not trying to cover for Obama, would they have done the following two things:

  1. Would they have initially focused so intently on their story involving wiretaps that they thought tied Trump to Russians?
  2. Would they then have changed the headline associated with the story from “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aids” to “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia?”

Hat tip to Freedom Daily for the captured New York Times front page.

Broadcaster and Lawyer Mark Levin lays out a case explaining Obama’s spying

In a 6 March 2017 Independent Journal Review article, a list of mainstream media quotations compiled by radio broadcaster Mark Levin illustrated the media’s knowledge of the wiretaps they now deny exist.

“Conservative radio host Mark Levin scorched news media outlets by reading off a laundry list of reports on Obama administration spying:

  1. ‘Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.’ (Heatstreet)
  2. ‘The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials.’ (The Guardian)
  3. ‘The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.’ (McClatchy)
  4. ‘The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.’ (NYT)
  5. ‘In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.’ (NYT)
  6. ‘In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.’ (NYT)
  7. Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office (NYT) [“Where’d they get this information?” Levin asks.]
  8. ‘The focus of the U.S. counterintelligence investigation has been on communications between Trump campaign officials and Russia. The inquiry involving Mr. Sessions is examining his contacts while serving as Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy adviser in the spring and summer of 2016, one person familiar with the matter said.’ [References Washington Post in video, but actually Wall Street Journal]

‘Keep in mind, this is taking place during a presidential election,’ Levin said, at one point. ‘The sitting president, the incumbent party, is investigating the presidential candidate of the Republican Party and his campaign, to some extent.’

‘The media seems to be confused about their own reporting,’ he also said.”

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBarracudaBrigade%2Fposts%2F10154674634059024&width=500

Fake News: Promoted (and Practiced) by Democrats


 

Democrats’ Words on “Fake” News

Hillary’s Complaint Starts a Whirlwind

In a 9 December 2016 Daily Mail article, Hillary launched the current Democrat wave of action when she complained about the effects of “fake news.”

“An epidemic of fake news is putting lives at risk, Hillary Clinton warned yesterday.

The failed Democratic presidential candidate said that false stories could have ‘real world consequences’.

She called on companies including Facebook and Google to ‘step up’ and take action.

Fake news – false stories and conspiracies propagated on the internet – became a major issue during the presidential campaign.

During a speech on Capitol Hill Mrs Clinton said: ‘It’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real world consequences.

‘This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk. Lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.

‘It’s imperative that leaders from the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives.’ ”

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

For Hillary Clinton or any of the Obama administration to complain about “fake” news after their weeks of insisting that Benghazi fell due to “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with,”
demonstrates the utter depravity of Democrats.  They figure, connive, and say what they will since they think Americans are too dumb or too completely bought to hold them to account.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Democrat Representative Eliot Engel admits “I haven’t heard from from intelligence sources”

The Washington Free Beacon reported in a 12 December 2016 article that the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee had not been briefed by the CIA as late as Monday:

“The CIA reportedly found that the Russia hacks were part of an effort to help put Donald Trump in the White House, a conclusion that the president-elect strongly rejects.

‘Did you hear from intelligence sources that Russia’s intent was to put Donald Trump in the White House?’ CNN host Carol Costello asked Engel on Monday.

‘I haven’t heard from intelligence sources,’ Engel said. ‘I only know what I’m reading in the newspapers, but intelligence sources have not contacted members of Congress. I’m calling on the intelligence sources to brief the members of Congress to give us a thorough briefing as to what they know and why they came to the conclusion that they came with.’ ”

(Read the entire article at The Washington Free Beacon)

It seems almost as if the Democrats have introduced their own operative into the CIA so that they can get him (or her or zer) to spout the party line.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Main Stream Media toes the Democrat line

New York Times claims CIA story about Russian hacking of US elections is built on evidence

The “news” organization who allowed Hillary to edit their stories and whose writers blatantly abandoned journalistic standards (the New York Times) now claims in a 11 December 2016 story that recent reports from the CIA come from a “swell of evidence.”

“American spy and law enforcement agencies were united in the belief, in the weeks before the presidential election, that the Russian government had deployed computer hackers to sow chaos during the campaign. But they had conflicting views about the specific goals of the subterfuge.

Last week, Central Intelligence Agency officials presented lawmakers with a stunning new judgment that upended the debate: Russia, they said, had intervened with the primary aim of helping make Donald J. Trump president.

The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.

It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election, although several officials said that parts of it had been made available to President Obama in the presidential daily briefing in the weeks before the vote. But the conclusion that Moscow ran an operation to help install the next president is one of the most consequential analyses by American spy agencies in years.

Mr. Trump’s response has been to dismiss the reports by citing another famous intelligence assessment — the botched 2002 conclusion that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction — and portraying American spies as bumbling and biased.

‘I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it,’ Mr. Trump said on Sunday in an interview on Fox News. Some top Republican congressmen have said the same, although with less bombastic language, arguing that there is no clear proof that the Russians tried to rig the election for Mr. Trump.

Yet there is a loud chorus of bipartisan voices, including Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, going public to accuse the Russians of election interference.”

American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked.

(Read as much as you can stand at the New York Times)

One part of this article that the New York Times never fact-checked was the claim that the RNC was hacked. As reported by numerous venues, RNC Chair Reince Priebus denied that the Republican National Committee had been hacked during the election season.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Main Stream Media points out inconsistencies in the “fake” news narrative

USA Today points to differences in the FBI and CIA assessments

A 12 December 2016 USA Today asked the following questions and answers:

Q: On what points of the new Russian assessment do the CIA and other intelligence authorities differ with the FBI?

A: The FBI does not dispute that the CIA’s assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community’s conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q: Is there suspicion that Russian hackers may have tampered with votes?

A: No. Federal officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey, have said that the decentralized nature of voting systems across the U.S. poses a difficult target for hackers.

‘In our judgment, it would be very difficult to alter a ballot count in any one place and have a significant consequence,’ Johnson said in an interview last month with USA TODAY.”

(Read the rest at USA Today)

At least this Q&A correctly points out that the American system of voting makes it almost impossible to hack all of the component voting systems.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Reuters reports top intelligence office does not endorse the CIA report on Russian hacking

Reuters reported on 13 December 2016 that the office overseeing intelligence efforts has not come on-board with the Obama administration and CIA regarding their assessment of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

“The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as “ridiculous” in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump’s rejection of the CIA’s judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia’s international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

‘ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can’t prove intent,’ said one of the three U.S. officials. ‘Of course they can’t, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow.’

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA’s analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said.”

(Read more at Reuters)

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Debunks Claims of Russian Involvement in US elections

In a 10 December 2016 post, Former UK ambassador Craig Murray responded:

“I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption.

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.”

The Washington Times lists ten stories originating from main stream media that proved false

A 6 December 2016 article by The Washington Times reminds us of the main stream media’s part in promoting the lies invented by Democrats:

“Since ‘fake news’ is all the rage within the mainstream media, here’s the top 10 ‘real’ news stories they reported on — and some downright propagandized — that turned out to be, well, fake. It’s the reason this new narrative of ‘fake news’ will never catch on, and why Americans’ trust in the press is at an all-time low.

  1. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it

In selling his health care overhaul, on at least 37 separate occasions, President Barack Obama pledged that Americans would be allowed to keep the plans they liked. In 2013, about 4 million Americans got cancellation letters, and PolitiFact labeled the statement the lie of the year.

But that didn’t stop reporters from writing repeated stories beforehand on how great Obamacare would be, even though, the administration knew at the time they were making the statements, some health coverage would be lost.

  • Hands Up, Don’t Shoot‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ didn’t happen in Ferguson, Missouri, but that didn’t stop the narrative from spreading throughout the news media and in Black Lives Matter protests. Faulty witness accounts spread the rumor that Michael Brown had his hands raised in surrender, and mouthed the words ‘don’t shoot’ before being shot by cop Darren Wilson.

    A grand jury couldn’t confirm the narrative, and neither could the Department of Justice in its own investigation of the shooting. What was confirmed was that Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. The popular ‘hands up’ slogan couldn’t be corroborated by any ballistic evidence, reliable witness statements, or DNA samples.

    According to the DOJ report: ‘Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and ‘charging’ at Wilson.’

    It was all a lie.

  • The Iran deal was negotiated with moderate Iranians, not the radical mullahsThis was the narrative in the mainstream media while the deal was being made. It was not until an insightful New York Times Magazine piece did we see how the Obama administration snowballed the press with its lies.

    ‘All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,’ Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told The Times in May. ‘Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change.

    ‘They literally know nothing,’ he said.

    That’s how Mr. Rhodes was able to shape the narrative that the U.S. was negotiating with moderate Iranians, not the hardliners. In The Times piece, Mr. Rhodes admits the administration wasn’t ‘betting on’ moderates taking charge in Iran, but that he was just selling the deal to a gullible press in order to further his boss’s legacy.

  • Bowe Bergdahl exchange was hard-fought/negotiatedIn 2014, the Obama administration allowed five detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to Qatar in exchange for the release of Army Sgt Bowe Bergdahl, who was being held by the Taliban. The exchange was lauded by the press and at the Rose Garden, where President Obama held a ceremony saying Mr. Bergdahl was ‘never forgotten.’

    ‘Sergeant Bergdahl has missed birthdays, and holidays and simple moments with family and friends which all of us take for granted. But while Bowe was gone, he was never forgotten’ — not by his family or his hometown in Idaho or the military, Mr. Obama said. ‘And he wasn’t forgotten by his country, because the United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind.’

    It was later revealed Mr. Bergdahl deserted his unit, and that’s why he was captured by the Taliban. He’s been ordered to face a general court martial on two charges, which could impose a lifetime sentence. Mr. Bergdahl has requested a pardon from Mr. Obama.

  • Benghazi attack inspired by online viral videoAccording to the Benghazi Report released this year by Congress, the Obama administration knew almost immediately after the attack on the American consulate it was one of terrorism, but were unwilling to admit it to the American public. The media was all too willing to swallow the administration’s weak lie the attack — which happened on Sept. 11 — was a spontaneous event spurred by protests of an online video that was offensive to the Prophet Muhammad.
  • Climate change will produce more storms like Hurricane KatrinaIn the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the media and liberals like Al Gore were predicting more storms in our future because of the rapid pace of climate change.

    In 2006 CBS’s Hannah Storm predicted Katrina-like storms would happen ‘all along our Atlantic and Gulf coastlines,’ and CBS anchor Russ Mitchell said there was ‘no end in sight’ for big hurricanes a month after Katrina hit landfall.

    On Sept. 18, 2005, NBC Nightly News anchor John Seigenthaler said, ‘scientists studying the earth’s climate say we are experiencing stronger hurricanes in this century, a trend that’s likely to continue.’

    Guess what? The U.S. hasn’t experienced a storm like Katrina since it hit more than a decade ago.

  • Cuba has great health care; murderous dictator Fidel Castro was goodAfter the death of Fidel Castro this month, the mainstream media went out of its way to romanticize the leadership of the murderous dictator — saying although the country was communist, he was a great orator who inspired his people and healthcare and literacy improved under his watch.

    ‘How Cubans Live as Long as Americans at a Tenth a Cost,’ an Atlantic headline read on Nov. 29, four days after Mr. Castro’s death. ‘Lessons of physical prosperity in a despotic regime.’

    The Los Angeles Times wrote in an opinion piece: ‘Fidel Castro, human rights violator that he was, did plenty of good for Cuba.’

    Oh really? Mr. Castro oppressed his people for 59 years, torturing and killing an estimated 15,000 of his own citizens who opposed him. His reign was so idyllic, over an eighth of the island’s population chose to go into exile, with about 700,000 coming into the U.S. prior to 1980.

  • Myth of the killer cop epidemicIf you were to listen to the Black Lives Matter movement and it’s sympathizers in the media, you would think that white police officers were out targeting and killing black men at an unprecedented tick. Black Lives Matter, and all of its umbrella organizations, has claimed that every 28 hours a black man is killed by a police officer.

    The figure comes from an April 2013 report called ‘Operation Ghetto Storm,’ by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. The report ‘is a window offering a cold, hard, and fact-based view into the thinking and practice of a government and society that will spare no cost to control the lives of Black people,’ the preface reads.

    The Washington Post’s fact-checker gave the claim four Pinocchios, saying the victims studied in the report were not all unarmed, and they were not all killed by the police. The group was including those who rushed and or ambushed police in their report as well as those killed by ‘police officers, security guards or vigilantes.’ As you can imagine, the term vigilantes was loosely defined.

    A Harvard study has also disproved Black Lives Matter’s notion that there’s racial bias in police shootings.

    The paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which examined thousands of incidents at 10 large police departments in California, Florida and Texas, concluded that police were no more likely to shoot non-whites than whites after factoring in extenuating circumstances.

  • Donald Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon is a white supremacistThere is absolutely no evidence of this, but the mainstream media loves to splash the idea around — or at least infer that Mr. Bannon, because of his association with alt-right website Breitbart, is a white supremacist, racist, bigoted, xenophobe, etc.

    ‘White nationalists see advocate in Steve Bannon who will hold Trump to his campaign promises,’ a CNN headline read.

    ‘Steve ‘Turn on the Hate’ Bannon in the White House,’ The New York Times editorial board wrote.

    The New York Daily News added fuel to the fire writing: ‘Here’s why white supremacist groups love Stephen Bannon.’

    It’s all in an effort to smear the man who won Mr. Trump the White House, and therefore the president-elect himself.

  • Donald Trump can’t win the White HouseMr. Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said during a Harvard University panel last week that the mainstream media’s narrative saying Mr. Trump could never get the 270 electoral college votes he needed to win the White House was the biggest fake news of them all.

    And she was right.

    Going into Nov. 8, here’s a sampling of the mainstream media’s headlines — heck, Newsweek thought Hillary Clinton had it such in the bag they printed out copies of their magazine ahead of time with the title: ‘Madam President.’

    NBC: ‘On eve of election day, Clinton maintains her lead over Trump’

    Washington Post: ‘Hillary Clinton has enough electoral votes to win the White House in final Fix map’

    New York Times: ‘Inside Donald Trump’s Last Stand: An Anxious Nominee Seeks Assurance’

    CNN: ‘CNN’s Poll of Polls show Clinton leading Trump by a 4-point margin’ “

 

I almost started my own “fake” news list starting with Major Nidal Hasan’s attack being called “workplace violence” by Obama, then I saw this:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Don’t forget that Democrats have been very friendly to Russia in the past

In 2012, Obama mocks Romney for not being friendly to Russia

As a gentle reminder, you might refer to how Obama chided Romney for seeing Russia as an enemy when Obama said:

“”Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said ‘Russia.’  The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.””

Let’s also not forget that Obama did much to both placate and strengthen the Russians by:

Obama to Medvedev: “I will be more flexible”

In 2012, Obama to Russians: “I will be more flexible after election”

Remember back to the 2012 Presidential race when President Obama was caught by a hot mike as he told a Russian representative to wait until after the election as reported in a 26 March 2012 Reuters aticle).

“President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have ‘more flexibility’ to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him ‘space’ until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.

U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield have bedeviled relations between Washington and Moscow despite Obama’s ‘reset’ in ties between the former Cold War foes. Obama’s Republican opponents have accused him of being too open to concessions to Russia on the issue.”

One has to wonder what Ukraine would look like had Obama not been re-elected and given more “space” to allow Russians to act.  Now he accuses Trump of being pro-Russian.

 

 

Ted Kennedy asked the Russians to flip the Reagan Revolution

A 27 August 2009 Forbes article shared how Senator Ted Kennedy tried to work with Russians to undermine the election of Ronald Reagan.

“Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

‘On 9-10 May of this year,’ the May 14 memorandum explained, ‘Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.’ (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) ‘The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.’

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. ‘The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. ‘These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.]

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. ‘The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.’ Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. ‘A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.’

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy’s motives? ‘Like other rational people,’ the memorandum explained, ‘[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.’ But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.

‘Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,’ the memorandum continued. ‘Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.’

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. ‘The media,’ Kengor says, ‘ignored the revelation.’

‘The document,’ Kengor continues, ‘has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.’

Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.”

 

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

So How Do We Avoid “Fake” News?

To keep from being tainted by “fake” news, please take in these considerations:

  1. Consider the source — Look at the history of that source of information. If that source has made false claims (like the New York Times) or tends to report from one point of view (as the New York Times reports from the left and Mark 1:1 posts from a Christian conservative position), then take that in mind while proceeding to the next step.
  2. Consider your audience — If you are compiling blog posts that might be used as source material for people arguing against the liberal left, consider news sources esteemed by the left (like the New York Times). If you are writing a term paper for a liberal professor, consider the snob power of the New York Times or a peer-reviewed journal.
  3. Consider the content of the story — Does the story fall outside the realm of possibility?  If it does, take a pause (but keep looking).  Does the story (or versions of it) appear in other publications?  If not, consider widening your search.
  4. Consider the other side of the story — Consider opposing views.  Think about how their views might effect or help the view of the story you want to communicate.

With all of that in mind, you might consider how the story matches with the overall message of your life.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Central Truth: The Word of God

Getting the true message out has always been a central point for God and his people.

What Jesus, Paul, Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah have to say about false prophets

Because the spiritual wealth of all of us works as a central consideration to God, Christ made it clear that all we need for spiritual growth is the will to diligently ask, seek, and search for it.

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! (Matthew 7:7-11 NASB)

On the other hand, when we search for spiritual growth, we must be on the lookout for those who want to have us follow other gods.

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NASB)

Additionally, we must be on guard for our own tendency to seek out comfort.

For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the Lord; Who say to the seers, “You must not see visions”; And to the prophets, “You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions. (Isaiah 30:9-10 NASB)

Along the same line, we should not let ourselves be tricked by false prophets (since God has made the true message very evident through His Word).

For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (Matthew 24:24-28 NASB)

As students of the real message, we must abandon things that do not contribute to the real message. That is to say that we must seek to be a slave to Christ and not to deceive to get our own way.

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. (Romans 16:17-18 NASB)

Just as we should avoid really “fake” messages around us (so that we can communicate a real message to those around us), we must be on the lookout for fake messengers.

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. (Acts 20:29-31 NASB)

On the good side, we can know the real message and the real messengers by the acts and results they produce.

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:16-20 NASB)

Most of all, we must be able to examine God’s Word and apply it to our life.

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11 NASB)

Reasons for No Trust in the FBI


James Comey, party to Obama’s crippling the FBI

The Observer Comments on How the FBI was Compromised by Democrat Rule

In light of the recent revelation that Obama lied about his knowledge of Hillary’s illegal e-mail server, one British paper has exposed the sham of justice surrounding Obama’s refusal to prosecute Hillary for the crimes committed in reference to her e-mail server.  In the 25 September 2016 edition of The Observer, the damage that Obama inflicted on the now-biased FBI (and the overall justice system) comes to the forefront.

“From the moment the EmailGate scandal went public more than a year ago, it was obvious that the Federal Bureau of Investigation never had much enthusiasm for prosecuting Hillary Clinton or her friends. Under President Obama, the FBI grew so politicized that it became impossible for the Bureau to do its job – at least where high-ranking Democrats are concerned.

As I observed in early July, when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. ‘Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,’ I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics.

Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

Worse, the FBI completely ignored the appearance of highly classified signals intelligence in Hillary’s email, including information lifted verbatim from above-Top Secret NSA reports back in 2011. This crime, representing the worst compromise of classified information in EmailGate – that the public knows of, at least – was somehow deemed so uninteresting that nobody at the FBI bothered to ask anybody on Team Clinton about it.

This stunning omission appears highly curious to anybody versed in counterintelligence matters, not least since during Obama’s presidency, the FBI has prosecuted Americans for compromising information far less classified than what Clinton and her staff exposed on Hillary ‘unclassified’ email server of bathroom infamy.

This week, however, we learned that there is actually no mystery at all here. The FBI was never able to get enough traction in its investigation of EmailGate to prosecute anybody since the Bureau had already granted immunity to key players in that scandal.

Granting immunity is a standard practice in investigations, and is sometimes unavoidable. Giving a pass to Bryan Pagliano, Hillary’s IT guru who set up her email and server, made some sense since he understands what happened here, technically speaking, and otherwise is a small fish. The wisdom of giving him a pass now seems debatable, though, since Pagliano has twice refused to testify before Congress about his part in EmailGate, blowing off subpoenas. Just this week the House Oversight Committee recommended that Pagliano be cited for contempt of Congress for his repeated no-shows. That vote was on strictly partisan lines, with not a single Democrat on the committee finding Pagliano’s ignoring of Congressional subpoenas to be worthy of censure.

Now it turns out the FBI granted immunity to much bigger fish in the Clinton political tank. Three more people got a pass from the Bureau in exchange for their cooperation: Hillary lawyer Heather Samuelson, State Department IT boss John Bental, and – by far the most consequential – Cheryl Mills, who has been a Clinton flunky-cum-factotum for decades.

Mills served as the State Department’s Chief of Staff and Counselor throughout Hillary’s tenure as our nation’s top diplomat. Granting her immunity in EmailGate, given her deep involvement in that scandal – including the destruction of tens of thousands of emails so they could not be handed over to the FBI – now seems curious, to say the least, particularly because Mills sat in on Hillary’s chat with the Bureau regarding EmailGate.

This was in fact so highly irregular that Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Oversight Committee, pronounced himself ‘absolutely stunned’ by the FBI’s granting of immunity to Cheryl Mills – which he learned of only on Friday. ‘No wonder they couldn’t prosecute a case,’ Rep. Chaffetz observed of Comey’s Bureau: ‘They were handing out immunity deals like candy.’

Not to mention that Mills has a longstanding and well-deserved reputation in Washington for helping the Clintons dodge investigation after investigation. When Bill and Hillary need a fixer to help them bury the bodies – as they say inside the Beltway – trusty Cheryl Mills has been on call for the last quarter-century.

She played a key role in the Whitewater scandal of the 1990s – and so did James Comey. Fully two decades ago, when Comey was a Senate investigator, he tried to get Mills, then deputy counsel to Bill Clinton’s White House, to hand over relevant documents. Mills went full dog-ate-my-homework, claiming that a burglar had taken the files, leading Comey to unavoidably conclude that she was obstructing his investigation. Mills’ cover-up, the Senate investigators assessed, encompassed “destruction of documents” and ‘highly improper’ behavior.

How exactly Cheryl Mills got immunity, and what its terms were, is the long-awaited ‘smoking gun’ in EmailGate, the clear indication that, despite countless man-hours expended on the year-long investigation, James Comey and his FBI never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton – or anyone – for her mishandling of classified information as secretary of state.

Why Comey decided to give Mills a get-out-of-jail-free card is something that needs proper investigation. This is raw, naked politics in all its ugly and cynical glory. Corruption is the tamest word to describe this sort of dirty backroom deal which makes average Americans despise politics and politicians altogether.

How high in this administration EmailGate went is the key question, and it’s been reopened by the latest tranche of redacted documents that the FBI released – on Friday afternoon, as usual. There are lots of tantalizing tidbits here, including the fact that early in Hillary’s term at Foggy Bottom, State Department officials were raising awkward legal questions about her highly irregular email and server arrangements.

Most intriguing, however, is the revelation that Hillary was communicating with President Obama via personal email, and he was using an alias. The alias he used with Hillary, and apparently others, was withheld by the FBI, and let it be said the fact that the president wanted to disguise his identity in unclassified email is not all that odd.

What is odd, however, is the fact that Obama previously told the media that he only learned of Hillary’s irregular email and server arrangements from ‘news reports.’ How the president failed to notice that he was emailing his top diplomat at her personal, clintonmail.com address, not a state.gov account, particularly when they were discussing official business, is something Congress may want to find out – since certainly the FBI won’t.

Indeed, when she was being interviewed by the Bureau, Hillary’s ever-faithful sidekick Huma Abedin, was asked about President Obama’s emailing to Hillary using an alias. ‘How is this not classified?’ inquired the mystified Abedin.

How indeed?

The fact that the FBI redacted the contents of that email indicates that is was classified, although it was sent to Hillary’s personal email and transited her personal server.

This, like so many aspects of EmailGate, seems destined to remain a mystery, at least for now. The State Department won’t release the full collection of Clinton’s emails until after our November 8 election. Just this week a Federal judge blasted Foggy Bottom for its slow-rolling: “The State Department needs to start cooperating to the fullest extent possible. They are not perceived to be doing that.” Nevertheless, the public won’t get to see all of Hillary’s emails until after Americans decide who the next president will be.

… “

Somehow, I don’t expect even an edited version of this to appear in the New York Times or as much as a blurb referencing a few of the central facts to appear at the end of the ABC World News Tonight.

Nonetheless, I certainly hope that the American people do the sane thing and do not elect this lawless apprentice to another lawless president.

Two Pivotal Tweets from TheFix Concerning FBI Report on Hillary’s Email


Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) of the Washington Post.

TheFix Questions the Timing of Hillary’s E-mail Erasure

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

TheFix List of 12 Things Learned

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Of all the things TheFix learned, my favorites are numbers 9 and 10:

9. The FBI found 17,448 work-related and personal emails that Clinton did not turn over to the State Department.
For me, the 17,448 work-related and personal e-mails not provided by Ms. Clinton just drives home all the different ways that Ms. Clinton has not been truthful.  Today, it is the 17,448 work-related and personal e-mails.  Before that, it was the 30 classified emails the FBI found. Earlier than that, it was Judicial Watch’s discovery that Abedin worked for both the Clinton Foundation and under the Secretary of State (Hillary) and that the two were involved in selling favors for the Clinton Foundation.  These emails and the continuous revelations show that this woman is so crooked that she could never hope to thread a needle.

10. Clinton told the FBI that she was unaware that the “C” marking on emailed documents meant they were confidential.
Considering that Hillary’s signature appears on State Department Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, this ranks on the sleeze-o-meter with Hillary’s 50+ “I don’t recall” responses to Hickman Ewing while she was disposed in the Whitewater investigation.

Possibly Relevant Bible Verses

Although I cannot see into Hillary’s heart, I often want to think that these continual revelations about Hillary’s emails are a confirmation of the following proverb from Christ.

Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops. (Luke 12:3 NASB)

Still, no person can know another person’s heart.

The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9 NASB)

Who knows, maybe these emails are thrown out by the Hillary campaign to distract us from her miserable lack of results over her Senatorial and Secretary of State career. Since we know that all people (other than Christ, the God who became man) are sinners, maybe we should focus on her compatriots to chart her most likely future path.

You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4 NASB)

Six Voices Respond to the FBI Letting Hillary Skate on Her Criminal Acts


  1. Hillary’s Banana Republic

    Through a 5 July 2016 article in the National Review, David French explains how:

    Tuesday morning, FBI Director James Comey stepped up to a podium and calmly and methodically demolished every single Hillary Clinton lie, spin, and evasion regarding her misuse of classified information. Months of deception blew up in her face. And then Comey decided to make her president of the United States.

    Rarely have 30 minutes of television so perfectly encapsulated the decline and fall of the rule of law and the extraordinary privileges enjoyed by America’s liberal elite. After listing abuse after abuse — and detailing lie after lie — Comey declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute Hillary for her obvious and manifest crimes. It’s good to be a Clinton.

    As we ponder the magnitude of Hillary’s wrongdoing, consider the facts as uncovered by the FBI investigation. Begin with the stunning and sobering reality that Clinton sent and received Secret and Top Secret information from her unclassified, unsecured e-mail account.

    Moreover, the FBI found “several thousand” of Clinton’s work-related e-mails that had not been turned over to the State Department, including e-mails that contained classified information.

    I defy any member of the military or any civilian not directly affiliated with Hillary Clinton to engage in such conduct and get away with it. The first thing that would happen is you would lose your security clearance. Next, you would lose your job. Finally, good luck escaping prosecution. Comey claims that prior FBI prosecutions included “some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

    Indeed, Clinton is still lying. As of this afternoon, her own website features a “factsheet” about the e-mail controversy that contains laughably false statements such as this: “Clinton only used her account for unclassified email.” And it still repeats the legally irrelevant and intentionally misleading claim that “no information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.”

    It would be a mistake to consider this outrage in isolation. Scandal and incompetence follow Hillary Clinton like the cloud of filth that accompanies Peanuts’ Pig-Pen. She botched the Libya intervention so thoroughly that the country is now an ISIS playpen. Her State Department left men alone to die in Benghazi, then she misled the American people to cover up her own failure. Her family foundation is a pay-to-play influence-peddling operation. And now we know that she mishandled classified information and lied to conceal her own wrongdoing.

    But rules and standards are for the little people. The FBI demolished every Clinton excuse and blew apart every Clinton lie, but soon she might well walk into rooms serenaded to the sweet sounds of “Hail to the Chief.” To paraphrase the words of Benjamin Franklin, we’ve got a banana republic, if Hillary can keep it.

  2. Erick Erickson Suggests We Take Comey at His Word

    A 6 July 2016 article in the Resurgent reveals the vapidity Erick Erickson sees in Clinton:

    Try a thought experiment. Just try it. Take James Comey, the FBI Director, at his word about Hillary Clinton. I do realize I’m asking you to take at his word the man who presides over the FBI, which interviewed the Orlando terrorist twice and concluded there was nothing wrong there either. But still, take him at his word as a thought experiment.

    I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways.

    That’s not what Hillary Clinton said. She said she had just one email server and she had one device. This directly contradicts her.

    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.…

    With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.

    That is not what Hillary Clinton said. She said she had neither received nor sent any emails that were classified or top secret. In fact, Clinton said all those emails marked classified or top secret were so marked after being sent. This is again directly contradicted by what James Comey reports.

    The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.

    Again, Hillary Clinton said she turned over all her emails. That is not supported by the evidence.

    Now consider these details from James Comey:

    There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

    None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

    Then there is this really damning bit:

    With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

    Now, again, as a thought experiment, take James Comey at his word. “[A]ny reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” But he is not recommending an indictment despite that.

    About the only thing we can conclude is that Hillary Clinton lacks mental capacity. She did all the things that no reasonable person would do, according to the FBI Director. She held a press conference and made statements that directly contradict the truth. She lied to the American people or, if we stay consistent with James Comey’s position, Hillary Clinton had no idea whatsoever what she was doing. The FBI Director is making the case that Clinton does not even meet a threshold by which a reasonable person operates. And the Democrats want this person to be President of the United States. She surrounded herself with people who knew or should have known and they did not behave as reasonable people either.

  3. Michelle Malkin Points Out How Democrats Have Killed “Equal Under the Law”

    Michelle Malkin provides the following argument on how the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment has died:

    There is a classic Latin epigram about double standards that resounds in the aftermath of the FBI’s surrender this week to the corruptocracy:

    “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.”

    Translation: “What is permissible for Jove is not permissible for an ox.”

    Jove is the Roman god Jupiter, untouchable ruler of the skies, wielder of the lightning bolt. The ox is a servile beast, sacrificial animal for elites in power, bearer of the heavy yoke.

    FBI Director James Comey told us Tuesday what many of us have already known and long suspected: Hillary Clinton serially lied about her homeland security-jeopardizing homebrew email server, and the Obama administration is letting her get away with it.

    After Comey hammered the final nail in the classified-information coffin, the enabler in chief promptly whisked Clinton out of D.C. on his taxpayer-subsidized winged chariot for a joint campaign event in North Carolina and plopped her in front of a lectern carrying the presidential seal

    This is the smug sociopath who led a treacherous State Department team that lied to the public about the deadly Benghazi, Libya, terror attacks, who lied and continues to lie about her Clinton Foundation favor-trading money machine, and who lied repeatedly about compromising U.S. secrets.

    Clinton’s campaign audaciously calls the systemic circumvention of transparency and security a “mistake” — like when Grandma butt-dials you accidentally or your toddler tweets out his “Fruit Ninja” high score on your work phone.

    Speaking of hostile actors: Last week, as Clinton’s slimy husband was yukking it up with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in advance of the Teflon prima donna’s absolution, the Obama Pentagon announced that nine Navy officers had been punished after the humiliating “capture” of American sailors in Iranian waters in January.

    For her shoddy leadership and dangerous lack of judgment, along with her utter indifference to the threat environment her evasive actions pose to America, Hillary Clinton has the backing of Barack Obama to take his place at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    One standard for Jove, another for the ox. So it was in the fallen civilization of ancient Rome. So it is in corrupted America in 2016.

  4. Reason.tv pairs Hillary’s Lies with Comey’s Proofs

  5. Representative Kevin Brady Speaks Out Against the FBI allowing Hillary to Skate

    In a 5 July article on the Eastex Advocate, Representative Brady spoke out:

    U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady issued the following statement after the Federal Bureau of Investigation laid out a detailed and convincing case against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then declined to pursue federal charges.

    “FBI Director Comey confirmed today what most Americans already knew, that this so-called investigation had a pre-determined outcome to clear Hillary Clinton no matter how damning the case against her. Mrs. Clinton wasn’t merely ‘extremely careless’ in how she dealt with our nation’s secrets, she was knowingly reckless,” Brady said. “The FBI laid out a strong and convincing rationale for an indictment, then sheepishly bowed to political pressure. No wonder the Clintons believe they are above the law, with the Obama Administration they are.”

    According to Brady’s statement, the background of the investigation was that nearly two dozen emails on the Clinton’s server were ruled as top secret and many were ruled to contain classified material. The FBI also presumed foreign intelligence has likely gained access to her personal email account. The presumptive Presidential nominee for the Democrat party met with the FBI over the weekend after her husband, former President Bill Clinton, met privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

  6. CBN Uses the expert opinion of Rachel Alexander to Fact Check Five Clinton Claims

    In the following video, Abigail Robertson interviews Rachel Alexander (senior editor with the Stream) to debunk five claims by Hillary Clinton:

    ROBERTSON: Hillary claims she handed over all work-related e-mails.  True or false?
     
    ALEXANDER: Absolutely false and it’s one more of the lies she’s told all along.  I can’t keep track of all how many lies she has told.  They found more e-mails in some of her aides’ e-mails that she had not turned over.  We don’t know how many more e-mails they found.  It could be hundreds or thousands she has not turned over.

     

    ROBERTSON: Clinton claims she never sent of received classified e-mails.
     
    ALEXANDER: That’s also a big whopper.  They went over her e-mails and some of them had been classified by various government agencies.  So she knew that they were classified.

    She is trying to get out of it by saying that she had the authority to declassify e-mails.  She had just declassified every single e-mail she ever sent (which is horribly unethical when you consider that there were Top Secret e-mails in there).
     

    ROBERTSON: She claims that she created the personal e-mail server so she could use just one device.
     
    ALEXANDER: Now that’s another big whopper.  That woman carries four different devices.  She’s got an iPhone, she’s got an iPad mini, she has an iPad, she has a blackberry.  She likes her devices and so that is not true.  She could have easily carried two separate smart phones back then.  As well as, smart phones back then, you could have two different e-mail accounts on the device.  She could have had her government e-mail on that and her personal e-mail on it.
     
    ROBERTSON: Clinton says there was no breach.
     
    ALEXANDER: We have heard of numerous hackers saying they got in. The Romanian hacker Guccifer has revealed information he could have only gotten from hacking into her server. Using her buddy, Sid Blumenthal’s e-mail, he got into her classifed e-mails that way. He (Guccifer) is now curiously dead. He appeared hanging from a rope in his cell 24 hours ago.

     

    ROBERTSON: FBI Director Comey claims that her e-mail was less secure than a Gmail account, yet Clinton claims that the personal server was more secure. Was it?
     
    ALEXANDER: She has not provided any evidence of how secure it was or provided any security measures.  When she’s been asked about it, she doesn’t respond.

    Guccifer had said it was the easiest thing in the world to hack her e-mail account.  Anybody could do it.

ISIS tweet and FBI cancels vacations on the 4th


According to the Gateway Pundit and Fox News, the FBI has cancelled all vacation for agents over the 4th of July weekend.  Fox News anchor Shepard Smith posted on Twitter about the report:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsAdditionally, the Gateway Pundit posts the following picture of an ISIS tweet:

Religious Group Presents Unpopular Message and FBI muzzles it


This is one of the banners flown by the Florida Family Assn.

According to OneNewsNow.com, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has grounded the plane that the Florida Family Association used to tow several sets of banners.  One set of banners warned possible customers to Disney World regarding the dates of “Gay Day” events (that would be attended by gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgenders).  The second set of banners proclaimed “AIG sponsors Jihad TV” in response to AIG insurance having bought significant blocks of advertising on Al Jazeera TV.  Al Jazeera (Arabic for “the Island,” a pseudonym for the Saudi Arabian peninsula) is a broadcast network based in Doha, owned primarily by the country of Qatar, and known to promulgate Islam.

David Caton, President of the Florida Family Association, told OneNewsNow that the Federal Aviation Administration grounded the plane on orders from the FBI.

“They confirmed that the FBI had in fact told them to down the plane and that this had never happened at this airport before. So we are taking this to the public now. … We’ve given the FBI 30 days to respond. They have not responded, and we decided to go ahead and make this issue public. This is an outrageous, blatant censorship of the private sector’s right to say what is right and honest.”

In the light of the fact that the Obama administration has had no qualms with using the Internal Revenue Service to silence Tea Party groups and the Justice Department’s Bill Killian to squash anti-Muslim speech, we should be on the lookout for any attempt by the Obama administration to use the Department of Agriculture to suppress free speech.

Bible Input

We can expect persecution as Christians.

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’(John 15:18-25 NIV)