“That’s not the term I would use.” This is what Christopher Wray, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation told lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee when asked if FBI agents engage in “spying” when they follow FBI policies and procedures. “Lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the FBI is engaged in an investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes, and to me, the key question is making sure that it’s done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities.”
This is odd to hear because it’s common knowledge that the FBI “spied” on radical left groups and on Martin Luther King, Jr., during the 1960s operation called “COINTELPRO.” Part of that involved wiretapping King’s conversations on the grounds that he was being controlled by the USSR and planting informants in his organization. This was revisited after 9/11 when the FBI lost court challenges to it placing informants within mosques. How placing informants in a radical mosque is less acceptable that attempting to insert informants into the inner circle of a political campaign rather like faulty logic.
What Wray is asking is that we suspend belief long enough redefine the concept of “legal” as being something that you lied to a court in order to get permission to do. The record clearly shows that the FISA application on Carter Page was fraudulent as none of the allegations made against him were proven and the only logical reason to extend the warrant on Page was to take advantage of the ability to use “two hop” surveillance, that is, the FISA warrant made it legal to intercept communications of anyone Page talked to (one hop) and anyone those people talked to (two hops).
If The Carter Page FISA Affidavits Were False Was The FBI Guilty Of Perjury?
According to Andy McCarthy, the whole effort to compromise George Papadopoulos was nothing more than a way of carrying out a political hit on President Trump(See How The George Papadopoulos Story Was Manufactured To Justify A Hoax Investigation).
If you take the role of the FBI in shopping the Steele Dossier around Washington, it is hard to see that as anything other than a tactic to try to damage Trump’s chances for election and then to hamstring him by a special counsel investigation.
While Democrats are still wringing their hands over things like private tax returns and non-existent Russian interference, that fact that they not only are ignoring the abuse of the legal system, in fact even promoting it, the rest of us are wondering just what has happened the republic that this could even have happened.
Paul Plante says
The Republic?
HUH?
What “republic?”
The republic is long since dead, and when the bullets in its head are examined forensically, more than one of them will have been put there by the political police of the FBI as this excerpt from a 27 February 2001 letter to Hon. Donald T. Kinsella, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, Northern District of New York, U.S. Department of Justice, 445 Broadway, Room 231, James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, Albany, New York 12207-2924 clearly shows, to wit:
Dear Mr. Kinsella:
In reply to your letter to me dated February 7, 2001, please find annexed hereto as Exhibit A
a copy of a statement which I submitted to the New York State Workers’ Compensation Review Board in or about June of 1990 in support of a successful claim against the Rensselaer County Department of Health for disability due to psychological harassment.
As you can see, that document describes a “campaign of terror” which was directed at me in 1988 by persons within and without Rensselaer County, and in the Town of Poesterkill, Rensselaer County who were intent on preventing me, by force, intimidation and threats, from holding the office of Associate Public Health Engineer in Rensselaer County, and from discharging the duties of Associate Public Health Engineer in Rensselaer County, and who were further intent on inducing me by like means to leave my district and place in the Rensselaer County Health District where my duties as Associate Public Health Engineer were required to be performed, and to injure me in my person and property on account of my lawful discharge of the duties of my office as Rensselaer County Health District Associate Public Health Engineer, and to injure me in my property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder and impede me in my discharge of the duties of an Associate Public Health Engineer in the State of New York.
With respect to that document and its relevance to the instant matter of your letter to me dated February 7, 2001, in or about January of 1989, some three (3) months after the events in Exhibit A had transpired, I was paid a visit at my home by Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Thomas Dauenhauer, who appeared at my home in Poestenkill, County of Rensselaer, State of New York, to inform me that I was the subject of an investigation being conducted by the Office of the United States Attorney into corruption in government in the County of Rensselaer, State of New York, and that if I had anything to say in my defense, I had best say it to him at that time.
At that time, in or about January of 1989, I recounted to Special Agent Dauenhauer all of the events detailed in Exhibit A, which events conclude on October 12, 1988, and then I filled him in on what had transpired in the matter since that time, which is as follows:
I, Paul R. Plante, N.Y.S.P.E., had been charged as a New York State licensed professional engineer by the New York State Health Commissioner in 1986 to do a complete investigation of the Environmental Health Division of the Rensselaer County Department of Health, to identify all corrupt practices then on-going in that division, and to take permanent measures through administrative procedures to end those corrupt practices.
In the course of conducting that internal audit of the Rensselaer County Department of Health Environmental Health Division between 1986 and 1988, I came upon evidence that Rensselaer County Public Health Director Kenneth Van Praag was acting in a willful manner in violation of the provisions of the New York State Public Health and Education Laws, such violations being misdemeanors and felonies.
In addition, I developed evidence of gross negligence and malfesance by the New York State Department of Health in the matter, and that pursuant to the rules governing the practice of my profession in the State of New York, I was required to take that evidence to the New York State Education Department Office of Professions.
When I attempted to do so, the State of New York and the County of Rensselaer retaliated against me.
Agent Dauenhauer then informed me that if I had any evidence to corroborate what I had told him, that that would be the time to do so.
Accordingly, in response to Special Agent Dauenhauer’s query to me concerning involvement by the Rensselaer County Republican Party or party official David Dudley in the matter, I showed Special Agent Dauenhauer an October 1988 Albany Times Union article wherein was clearly stated that the Rensselaer County Department of Health was under the control of the Rensselaer County Republican Party as of October 12, 1988.
We then listened to a public address made by Rensselaer County Executive John L. Buono on local TV Channel 13 out of Menands, New York on or about October 12, 1988 wherein County Executive Buono made mention of the sum of $80,000.
When Special Agent Dauenhauer asked me if I had direct knowledge of this $80,000, I told Special Agent Dauenhauer of a meeting on the fifth floor of the Rensselaer County Office Building in or about March of 1988, where the $80,000 was openly discussed by Buono and a group of land developers and professional engineers and surveyors doing business in Rensselaer County.
I told Special Agent Dauenhauer that it was my understanding that the money was a bounty on my head, that whoever removed me from my office as Associate Public Health Engineer in Rensselaer County would get the money, and that if Buono wanted that money, he knew what he had to do to get it.
Thereafter, in October of 1988, Buono did act by having me barred from entry into the Rensselaer County Office Building while my office and files were ransacked and destroyed.
That money also served as an incentive for the assault on my person by a back-hoe operator in or about July of 1988 detailed in Exhibit A, which assault has left me in great pain and physical distress since.
In response to a request by Special Agent Dauenhauer for any further corroboration, I provided Special Agent Dauenhauer with a copy of a transcript of a March 1, 1988 meeting between New York State Health Department officials with oversight responsibility in Rensselaer County and land developers, professional engineers and land surveyors doing business in Rensselaer County, which transcript had been handed out at the subsequent March 1988 meeting in the Rensselaer County Office Building where the $80,000 was discussed.
In the transcript of the March 1, 1988 meeting, New York State Public Health Engineer James Decker verifies on the record that on Tuesday, March 1, 1988, the New York State Department of Health was aware of the negligent practices on-going in the Rensselaer County Department of Health at the time I took office in 1986.
In the transcript of the March 1, 1988 meeting, the Rensselaer County developers can be seen negotiating with New York State Health Department Division of Environmental Protection Director Leo Hetling to allow them to return to the improper practices of 1986, and the meeting concludes with Hetling telling the developers, “We’ll look at it.”
At the subsequent March 1988 meeting in the Rensselaer County Office Building where the $80,000 was discussed, New York State Public Health Engineer James Decker was present to verify that the transcribed March 1, 1988 meeting did in fact take place, and to also verify that the New York State Department of Health would not interfere if Rensselaer County were to return to the corrupt and fraudulent practices of 1986.
Subsequent to that meeting, I came under intense pressure to issue fraudulent approvals for land subdivisions in Rensselaer County, and in October of 1988, I became disabled and unable to further perform the duties of a licensed professional engineer in the Rensselaer County Health District.
Now, I know that all of the above was made the subject of an FBI file of some two-hundred fifty (250) pages in length, including the March 1, 1988 transcript, because I provided a copy of that FBI file to the office of U.S. Attorney French just this past year in connection with this matter, and so it is I who must confess to being confused by your February 7, 2001 letter to me wherein you inform me to bring this matter back to the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, when that same agency ceased investigating this matter at the direction of the Office of the United States Attorney.
As was made clear to me by Special Agent Dauenhauer in or about May of 1989, without specific instructions to proceed from the Office of the United States Attorney, the Federal Bureau of Investigation considered this matter involving myself and the State of New York to be a dead issue.
More to the point, according to Special Agent Dauenhauer, material evidence in the form of letters as to knowledge and intent on the part of Rensselaer County officials to willfully violate the law collected from myself by Special Agent Dauenhauer as chain of custody from myself to the Office of the United States Attorney was allegedly removed from the record and destroyed by the Office of the United States Attorney at the time the FBI investigation was quashed in 1989.
So, given all of the above, which is documented in your own records, I am uncertain as to how to proceed further in this matter.
Accordingly, I am requesting as a person with a qualified disability that your office inform me as to exactly what procedure I am to follow at this time in bringing these alleged criminal matters back to the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation where in or about 1989, the Office of the United States Attorney has already quashed the matter, and relevant evidence has been removed from the record, and/or lost and destroyed.
Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter, I remain
Respectfully,
Paul R. Plante
end quotes
There is the vaunted FBI as I personally know them, but hey, that is really old news now, so moving right along, let’s go to a Wall Street Journal article entitled “The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections – Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses? by Peter Schweizer on July 31, 2016, where we have as follows:
Hillary Clinton touts her tenure as secretary of state as a time of hardheaded realism and “commercial diplomacy” that advanced American national and commercial interests.
But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record.
Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security.
end quotes
WHOA!
WOW, we can’t let that kind of **** get out, so let’s cover it up by blaming everything wrong in America on Trump, which takes us to a book review entitled “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” on May 5, 2015 by Peter Schweizer, where we have:
In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt.
Since then, they’ve earned over $230 million.
Where did the money come from?
Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs.
Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments.
In the New York Times bestseller Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.
Now, with Hillary on the verge of winning the presidential nomination, the questions it raises are more important than ever.
Schweizer reveals the Clintons’ troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy.
In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered.
Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.
end quotes
QUICK, QUICK, GET THE BROOM, AND GET THAT UNDER THE RUG!
Which brings us back around to an article in THE HILL entitled “The case for Russia collusion … against the Democrats” by John Solomon, opinion contributor, on 02/10/19, where we have as follows:
With Republicans on both House and Senate investigative committees having found no evidence of Donald Trump being guilty of Democrat-inspired allegations of Russian collusion, it is worth revisiting one anecdote that escaped significant attention during the hysteria but continues to have U.S. security implications.
As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-President Dmitri Medvedev, to create U.S. technology partnerships with Moscow’s version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo.
Clinton’s handprint was everywhere on the 2009-2010 project, the tip of a diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russian relations after years of hostility prompted by Vladimir Putin’s military action against the former Soviet republic and now U.S. ally Georgia.
A donor to the Clinton Foundation, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, led the Russian side of the effort, and several American donors to the Clinton charity got involved.
Clinton’s State Department facilitated U.S. companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley.
The collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech.
The former president’s trip secretly raised eyebrows inside his wife’s State Department, internal emails show.
That’s because he asked permission to meet Vekselberg, the head of Skolkovo, and Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear giant seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with massive U.S. uranium reserves.
Years later, intelligence documents show, both the Skolkovo and Uranium One projects raised serious security concerns.
In 2013, the U.S. military’s leading intelligence think tank in Europe sounded alarm that the Skolkovo project might be a front for economic and military espionage.
“Skolkovo is an ambitious enterprise, aiming to promote technology transfer generally, by inbound direct investment, and occasionally, through selected acquisitions.”
“As such, Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently,” EUCOM’s intelligence bulletin wrote in 2013.
“Implicit in Russia’s development of Skolkovo is a critical question — a question that Russia may be asking itself — why bother spying on foreign companies and government laboratories if they will voluntarily hand over all the expertise Russia seeks?”
A year later, the FBI went further and sent letters warning several U.S. technology companies that had become entangled with Skolkovo that they risked possible espionage.
And an agent in the bureau’s Boston office wrote an extraordinary op-ed to publicize the alarm.
Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application,” Assistant Special Agent in Charge Lucia Ziobro wrote in the Boston Business Journal.
The FBI had equal concern about Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One.
An informer named William Douglas Campbell had gotten inside the Russian nuclear giant in 2009 and gathered evidence that Rosatom’s agents in the United States were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving kickbacks, extortion and bribery.
Campbell also obtained written evidence that Putin wanted to buy Uranium One as part of a strategy to obtain monopolistic domination of the global uranium markets, including leverage over the U.S.
Campbell also warned that a major in-kind donor to the Clinton Global Initiative was simultaneously working for Rosatom while the decision for U.S. approval was pending before Hillary Clinton’s department.
Ultimately, her department and the Obama administration approved the transaction.
The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.
The intersections between the Clintons, the Democrats and Russia carried into 2016, when a major political opposition research project designed to portray GOP rival Donald Trump as compromised by Moscow was launched by Clinton’s presidential campaign and brought to the FBI.
Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS research firm was secretly hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party through their law firm, Perkins Coie.
Simpson then hired retired British intelligence operative Christopher Steele — whom the FBI learned was “desperate” to defeat Trump — to write an unverified dossier suggesting that Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the election.
Simpson, Steele and Perkins Coie all walked Trump-Russia related allegations into the FBI the summer before the election, prompting agents who openly disliked Trump to launch a counterintelligence probe of the GOP nominee shortly before Election Day.
Simpson and Steele also went to the news media to air the allegations in what senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr would later write was a “Hail Mary” effort to influence the election.
end quotes
And that story goes on and on and on, which I will get back to, but let’s jump back to a NATIONAL REVIEW article entitled “Russian Collusion, Clinton $tyle” by Deroy Murdock on March 27, 2018, to wit:
Strolling one afternoon near Manhattan’s Sixth Avenue and West 34th Street, I spotted two tourists with their faces nestled in a map.
They looked hopelessly lost.
“Can I help you?” I asked.
Thoroughly flummoxed, they pleaded, “Where’s the Empire State Building?”
I pointed straight up, one block east, and said: “It’s right there!”
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team resemble those hapless travelers.
They scour their visitors’ guide in vain for any trace of Team Trump’s alleged Russian collusion.
Meanwhile, just steps away, the Clintons’ Russian-collusion skyscraper soars into the clouds.
In fact, former Trump-campaign aide Sam Nunberg said that Team Mueller asked him if he had heard anyone in Trump Tower speak Russian.
Apparently, nyet.
Although they started sniffing around in July 2016, neither the FBI’s bloodhounds nor those of Mueller or Congress have detected a whiff of evidence that ties Trump to Russian collusion.
Indeed, the House Intelligence Committee interviewed 70 witnesses and reviewed 300,000 documents before wrapping up its Russiagate inquiry last Thursday.
As its final report states, “The Committee found no evidence that meetings between Trump associates — including Jeff Sessions — and official representatives of the Russian government — including [Moscow’s] Ambassador Kislyak — reflected collusion, coordination, or conspiracy with the Russian government.”
In contrast, Team Mueller studiously ignores something more conspicuous than the iridescent onion domes atop Red Square’s St. Basil’s Cathedral: Private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents — thanks to then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s public favors — gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million.
Donations to the Clinton Foundation were, in essence, gift-wrapped presents for the Clintons.
Hillary’s March 2009 button-pushing “Russian reset” ceremony with Moscow’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, triggered this particular bonanza.
Hillary captured its essence in March 2010 when she told former Soviet propagandist Vladimir Pozner on First Channel TV: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”
end quotes
As one continues to research this matter, one can only conclude that by Hillary Clinton and Obama strengthening Russia by giving them sophisticated American technology, they gave Russia the means to make cyber-attacks on America, which in my mind makes Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama traitors.
But my goodness, we can’t say that about them, can we, so we need to deflect the attention mover to Trump with witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt as infinitum.
And in the course of all that researching, we find that before he became the special counsel, the Mullet himself is implicated in that technology transfer to Russia to beef up their ability to spy on this country and to interfere in our internal affairs.
So the Mullet certainly does appear to have a serious conflict of interest here, at least if you are not a RABID FOAM-AT-THE-MOUTH DEMOCRAT intent on protecting Obama and Hillary Clinton by heaping a mountain of BULL**** onto Trump.
As to the Mullet, here is a link to his federal disclosure form which makes for interesting reading on this fine Sunday morning, to wit:
file:///C:/Users/prp32/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/9L1AO8AQ/f.pdf
Paul Plante says
For anyone trying to get to the disclosure form the Mullet filed to be “special counsel,” this is the link to follow:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-c404-d494-a77f-e6163c3a0001
Paul Plante says
If you scroll down the Mullet’s disclosure form to section 4, filer’s sources of income, items no. 25, 26, & 27, you will notice that the Mullet was working as a lawyer for Intel Corporation, Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc., allegedly at the time that those corporations were stuffing big bucks down the pocket of Hillary Clinton while she was Hussein Obama’s secretary of state doing deals with Russia to strengthen Russia at the expense of the United States of America.
Facebook and Apple had been invited to Russia by Hillary, which we will get further into, at the same time they were stuffing money down Hillary’s pocket.
And at the same time American intelligence was concerned about Hillary giving away the farm to harm the United States of America, which was Hillary’s to sell.
So something stinks to high heavens here with respect to this Mullet and how it was that he came to be selected to be the “special counsel.”
In fact, this whole thing stinks more and more as the days go by.
COVER-UP, anyone?
And speaking of that, in my opinion, based on my experience with the agency, when it comes to obstructing justice, which the U.S. attorney and FBI clearly participated in in my case above, they are masters at the game.
So, would I trust the FBI with my life?
No way in hell!
Because they are not trustworthy.
Plain and simple!
Paul Plante says
For those too young to remember the famous COINTELPRO, from the FBI’s own on-line FOIA files, this is what they have to say about it:
The FBI began COINTELPRO — short for Counterintelligence Program — in 1956 to disrupt the activities of the Communist Party of the United States.
In the 1960s, it was expanded to include a number of other domestic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Black Panther Party.
All COINTELPRO operations were ended in 1971.
Although limited in scope (about two-tenths of one percent of the FBI’s workload over a 15-year period), COINTELPRO was later rightfully criticized by Congress and the American people for abridging first amendment rights and for other reasons.
https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro
But hey, people, no spying!
Read the lips of FBI Director Christopher Wray – the FBI simply does not spy!
That was the CIA and Army intelligence during the VEET NAM war that was doing the ****!
All the FBI was doing was “disrupting,” which is an entirely different word altogether where “disrupt” means “interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem,” with such synonyms as throw into confusion, throw into disorder, throw into disarray, cause confusion/turmoil in, play havoc with, derange, turn upside-down, make a mess of; or drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something).
See, no spying in there, at all, just as Christopher Wray told us!
But they do intimidate witnesses who could testify or give evidence about endemic public corruption in the corrupt third-world ****hole of New York, where the FBI maintains an outpost in the state capital, that adversely impacts the public health, as was the case in tiny mHoosic Falls where children were drinking water laced with PFOA (why don’t we hear anything from AOC about that one wonders), and they do destroy evidence of endemic public corruption, but hey, that is not spying, either – it is simply garden variety obstruction of justice, and so what if some children min a small hick town in upstate New York have to drink poison in their drinking water as a result!
Who needs them!
So nothing to see here, people!
Go back home, everyone, get back down in your basements where you belong and turn on the TV and wait for the next pronouncement from Nancy Pelosi and the congressional Democrats concerning the co-equal status of the congressional Democrats with Donald Trump in the affairs of the executive branch, and all will then be right with your world!
OH!
Right, don’t forget!
BIG BROTHER IS ALWAYS WATCHING YOU!
But don’t worry!
Watching is not spying – different words altogether.
Paul Plante says
And besides COINTELPRO here, people, which was a set of practices that did not go away when the word COINTELPRO was dropped from the vocabulary, with respect to this Mullet Report, and other word we need to bring front and center, given all of the evidence of Hillary Clinton selling out America to the Russians when she was secretary of state under the Marxist Hussein Obama, whose spiritual home would be Mother Russia, is “Whitewashing!”
According to Wikipedia, to whitewash is a metaphor meaning “to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data.”
What is being glossed over here is exactly how Mother Russia came to be connected to Facebook and how it obtained the technology that then allowed its “troll farm” to be able to hack into America as it did, according to Mullet, who has not bothered to look backwards to the role Hillary played in that, perhaps out of political loyalty to Hillary, or perhaps because he was a legal counsel for Facebook, which is at the heart of the “fake news” aspected of this supposed “Russian interference” in our elections, which Hillary Clinton made possible by giving our technology to Mother Russia to “make it stronger.”
As to “whitewash,” the first known use of the term is from 1591 in England.
Whitewash is a cheap white paint or coating of chalked lime that was used to quickly give a uniform clean appearance to a wide variety of surfaces, for instance, the entire interior of a barn.
In 1800 in the United States, the word was used in a political context, when a Philadelphia Aurora editorial said that “if you do not whitewash President Adams speedily, the Democrats, like swarms of flies, will bespatter him all over, and make you both as speckled as a dirty wall, and as black as the devil.”
Today, that is what the congressional Democrats under “NANCY NO” Pelosi are trying to do to Trump, and by extension, the American people – like a swarm of flies, they are bespattering him all over to make him as speckled as a dirty wall, and as black as the devil, while making out that Hillary Clinton, THE VICTIM, here, is as pure as the driven snow, which is pure horse****, which is why the Democrats need the Mullet to gloss over the role she played here, by hanging everything on Trump.
And when it comes to a WHITEWASH job, in this case, the Democrats are using a real big brush.
And now a word from our sponsors as we pause for station identification.
Paul Plante says
And while we are on the subject of WHITEWASHES, as to the “S” word, “spying” by the FBI, the first time that came up that I have been able to find is an article from the Daily Caller entitled “EXCLUSIVE: Now It’s The Democrats Who Have A ‘Russian Problem’” by Richard Pollock on 11/09/2017 in an article which started as follows, to wit:
Suddenly it’s the Democrats who have a serious Russia problem.
Democratic fingerprints are all over a growing number of Russia-related scandals, including payments to Fusion GPS for its Russian-sourced Trump dossier, lobbying on behalf of Russia’s largest bank to lift economic sanctions, former President Barack Obama’s administration’s approval of the sale of Uranium One to Russia, and giving twenty percent of America’s uranium reserves to Moscow.
Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Grassley of Iowa have called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the mounting scandals tying Democrats to Russia.
“The bottom line is very simple, says former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova in an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“The Russian connection now is owned by the Democratic Party.”
end quotes
And POOF, people, one day, there was a fire!
And the Russian connection is now owned exclusively by Trump!
Pretty slick, right?
Getting back to that article for background review we have:
In 2016 the Hillary for America presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid an undetermined amount of funds to Fusion GPS, a political opposition research for the salacious Trump-Russia dossier.
The firm reportedly paid $168,000 to Christopher Steel, a British MI-6 agent.
If a federal court rules in favor of the House of Representatives that is seeking Fusion GPS bank records, the full amount paid to the firm for the dossier could be revealed.
The funds to Fusion GPS were secretly paid through the Perkins Coie law firm, a Democratic law firm.
Both former Obama White House counsel Robert Bauer and Marc Elias head up the “political law” section of the firm.
It was Elias who collected the funds from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC and made the secret payments to Fusion GPS.
The unverified charges were designed to embarrass and humiliate President Donald Trump.
end quotes
All of that, of course, has very effectively been shoved back under the rug by the Democrats, which brings us back to the Daily Caller and the “S” word, as follows:
Did former FBI Director James Comey and the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) use the Fusion GPS unverified information as “evidence” before a secret federal surveillance court to obtain permission to eventually spy on Trump campaign aides and later his transition team?
end quotes
And there is the word “spy” right there, long before Barr brought the word up recently, and back then there was no outcry whatsoever about the use of the word “spying” which again takes us back to the Daily Caller article as follows:
Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked FBI Director Christopher Wray on Oct. 4 if the FBI may have improperly presented any of the dossier information to a government surveillance court.
He has not received any reply.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now is seeking all Justice Department applications before the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, also called the FISA Court, to determine if any of the applicants rely on information from the dossier.
If the unsubstantiated dossier information was entered as “verifiable” information before the FISA Court, the implications are “staggering,” diGenova told TheDCNF.
That would mean the Obama administration pursued “a type of manipulation of intelligence data and false intelligence data to mislead a court,” diGenova said.
“It’s staggering in terms of its implications.”
end quotes
And again POOF – another fire!
See how the system works, people?
That is how a WHITEWASH is conducted, when conducted by experts.
Take a load off Hillary, take a load for free!
Take a load off Hillary, and you put the load right on Trump!
And now for another word from our sponsors as we pause for station identification
Paul Plante says
And as to OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE by Hussein Obama with regard to Hillary selling out America to the Russians, which puts her in the same class as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who on 19 June 1953 were executed at Sing Sing Prison in Ossining, New York, after being convicted of conspiring to pass U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviets, back we go to the Daily Caller article entitled “EXCLUSIVE: Now It’s The Democrats Who Have A ‘Russian Problem’” by Richard Pollock on 11/09/2017 as follows, to wit:
Uranium One
The public is aware the Obama administration, led in 2010 by former Secretary of State Clinton who sat on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CIFIUS), approved the sale of Uranium One to the Russians.
In a single stroke 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves were sold to Russia.
Two House committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating the circumstances surrounding the sale.
They are focused, in part, on the $145 million that Uranium One executives donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to independent investigator Peter Schweizer and author of “Clinton Cash.”
Uranium One’s owner, Frank Giustra is entirely enmeshed with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.
He personally contributed more than $25 million to the foundation, according to the foundation’s web site.
Giustra co-founded with former President Bill Clinton the “Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.”
Prior to the sale, an FBI informant showed the bureau there was widespread bribery and corruption on the Russian side of the Uranium One deal, according to The Hill.
Yet neither the FBI nor Attorney General Eric Holder notified the committee that there was corruption among the buyers.
Importantly, Holder sat on CIFIUS too, but he apparently did not notify the committee of the criminal activities the FBI informant had uncovered.
Under the Obama administration, the FBI imposed a “gag order” on the informant, preventing Congress from hearing his charges.
end quotes
Now, and this is a very important distinction here, since we are talking about the power of words to convey meaning in here, that is GOOD OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE when it was done by Obama and Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. in order to protect Hillary Clinton, who is the living embodiment of all that is pure, good holy and right about America, and that is what differentiates Obama’s GOOD OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the alleged obstruction of Trump, which is BAD OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
And once again, we pause for station identification and we will be right back after a word from our sponsors.
Paul Plante says
And staying with Hillary Clinton, who bears an uncanny physical resemblance to convicted and executed traitor Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg, selling out America to the Russians we go back in time about four (4) to an op-ed in the BOSTON BUSINESS JOURNAL entitled “FBI’s Boston office warns businesses of venture capital scams” by Lucia M. Ziobro and Vincent B. Lisi, who were both special agents in charge of the Boston division at the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, on Apr. 4, 2014, as follows:
The FBI’s Boston outpost is warning Boston-area businesses of scams involving malicious foreign venture capitalists.
In its push to educate the private sector and raise awareness about economic espionage and cyber counterintelligence, the FBI released the following op-ed to the Boston Business Journal.
Community policing in a high tech world
The FBI recently released a notification to technology companies and research facilities, which include colleges and universities in the Boston area, warning them of the possible perils of entering into joint partnerships with foreign venture capital firms from Russia.
The warning was based on the FBI’s growing concern that the purported reasons offered by the Russian partners mask their true intentions.
The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies.
end quotes
2014, people!
Hussein Obama sits the throne of America in Washington, D.C.
Eric Himpton Holder. Jr. is the United States Attorney General under Hussein Obama.
Jack “Flip-Flop” Kerry had just replaced Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
Putin was president in Russia.
And the 2016 elections and all the alleged “Russian interference” was two years in the future when the Boston outpost of the FBI was sounding this warning about the Russians, which raises the serious question of how could all this subsequent hacking have happened two years later, which takes us back to that op-ed as follows:
The FBI issues dozens of such bulletins every year to help businesses protect their intellectual property and systems from criminal threats.
In the past, such information might have been provided to the private sector, but with limited details due to of the restrictions of sharing classified information.
With the uptick of economic espionage and export control or “counterproliferation” cases prosecuted in federal courts, the FBI now has the ability to use unclassified and publicly available information to warn businesses and entrepreneurs of the possible perils of partnering with foreign investors.
With regard to Russia, the FBI offered this insight, “The offer may seem lucrative at first, but it could also mean the permanent loss of intellectual property rights and manipulation of dual-use technologies.”
Over the past decade, the FBI has increasingly shared detailed information with those in private industries in an effort to prevent and deter crimes and to prevent sensitive technology from being lost.
The change was precipitated by law enforcement’s widely accepted belief that engaging the private sector through partnerships and by sharing information about the threats facing them is an effective way to prevent and detect threats.
Since 9/11, the FBI advocates intelligence-led policing which aims to detect and deter crimes before they are committed by anticipating crime trends through sound analysis.
The FBI combines this relatively new practice with the well-accepted community policing model that relies on enlisting community groups, non–profit agencies, private businesses and neighborhood residents to work together to defeat factors commonly associated with fostering crime.
Understanding and predicting future threats rather than merely reacting to ones as they appear, while at the same time sharing information about those threats, is a more effective way to protect our national interests.
end quotes
Think about all of that for a moment, people, as you ponder the “how” of what happened subsequently with regard to the ability of the Russians to literally waltz in and take control of our 2016 presidential election to assure the victory to Trump instead of Hillary.
How did the FBI not see all of that happening in 2016, given their awareness back in 2014?
Getting back to the 2014 op-ed:
The FBI’s proactive stance is illustrated by the genesis of the warning about the Russians.
When the FBI observed a new pattern of Russian government-funded businesses increasing their footprint in Boston and Silicon Valley by seeking joint ventures with U.S. companies and academic institutions, its analysts and agents reviewed the pattern to discern the factors and motivations behind their sudden emergence.
It was determined that the partnerships were primarily promoted by the Skolkovo Foundation, founded by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in 2010.
The Foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research, development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial applications.
This analysis is supported by reports coming out of Russia itself.
The Foundation has been reported to be a critical part of Medvedev’s plan to modernize the Russian economy, decrease dependency on oil revenue, create a more diversified economy based on high-technology and innovation and to completely renovate its military technology equipment and arsenal by 2020.
According to news reports, in the fall of 2013, the Foundation signed an agreement with the Russian vehicle manufacturer Ojsc Kamaz.
Kamaz is also a Russian defense contractor who supplies the Russian military with armed and armored vehicles and was scheduled to produce more than 100 all terrain transports to the Russian strategic missile troops last year.
The agreement enabled Kamaz to establish a research and development facility in the Skolkovo ‘innovation city’ located near Moscow.
The FBI fears that Kamaz will provide Russia’s military with innovative research obtained from the Foundation’s U.S. partners.
end quotes
Skolkovo, of course, is Hillary Clinton, which relationship today is being WHITEWASHED by the Democrats, which takes us back to the op-ed as follows:
The analysis raised another area of concern regarding the Foundation’s history of corruption.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. firms from engaging in corrupt actions overseas.
In November 2013, the Russian Federation’s Accounts Chamber fined over 200 managers and senior employees at the Skolkovo Foundation after an investigation of the Foundation’s use of government funds.
The fines followed criminal charges against the Foundation’s executives for the misuse and embezzlement of $1.5 million through various schemes.
It is the intent of the FBI for the recipients of the bulletin about Skolkovo to use the information to inform their decision making process when selecting foreign investors to protect their interests which results in safeguarding our nation’s interests.
end quotes
Safeguarding our nation’s interests?
But that obviously did not happen in 2016, did it?
WHY?
No answers forthcoming.
As to all that corruption associated with Skolkovo, Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints are likely to be found there, as well, and perhaps those of the Mullet, as well.
Getting back to the FBI op-ed:
Under the FBI’s Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Program, agents work with defense contractors, firms that develop defense or export controlled products and universities that conduct sensitive research on the government’s behalf.
The threat from foreign governments is so prevalent that the FBI Boston Division, which covers one of the nation’s most concentrated areas of technology firms and research universities, has two full-time employees for Strategic Partnership outreach.
end quotes
So, okay, people – by 2014, two years before the 2016 presidential election that was taken over by the Russians to put Trump on the throne of America, instead of Hillary Clinton, who had been collaborating with the Russians to insure they had the technology that enabled them to control the 2016 presidential election in this country, the FBI was already aware of the threats from foreign governments, and especially the Russians, so how then did all those balls get dropped?
Paul Plante says
And for those of you who do not remember Ethel Rosenberg, who bears an uncanny physical resemblance to our own American paragon of virtue Hillary Rodham Clinton, she was born in New York City on September 28, 1915, and in 1931, she graduated from Seward Park High School, where she had pursued her interest in acting and singing by participating in school theatrical performances.
After graduation, Ethel began working as a secretary for the National New York Packing and Shipping Company and during this time, she became an active member of a workers’ union organizing strikes and protests and she was additionally a member of the Young Communist League, which serves to give one an idea of exactly how long this s0-called “Russian interference” in our internal political affairs has been going on.
Through her activism and engagement in the Communist Party, Ethel met Julius Rosenberg in 1936 and they were married in 1939.
Ethel’s husband Julius became involved in espionage activities for the Soviet Union by 1942, some five years before Hillary Clinton was born, and in addition to providing classified documents to the Soviet Union, he also recruited other spies, including Ethel’s brother, David Greenglass, a member of the Special Engineer Detachment at Los Alamos.
In his controversial testimony against the Rosenbergs at their trial, David Greenglass reported that his sister Ethel had typed the notes her husband passed to the Soviet Union on the American bomb project.
Both Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit espionage in 1950, when Hillary was three (3) years old.
The couple was convicted on March 29, 1951 and sentenced to death on April 5 for violating Section 2 of the 1917 Espionage Act, which prohibits providing classified information related to US national defense and security to foreign governments.
Ethel was executed, shortly after her husband, at Sing Sing Prison in Ossining, New York by the electric chair on June 19, 1953.
In summary, Ethel Rosenberg was executed for doing far less than Hillary Clinton in terms of providing classified information related to US national defense and security to Russia, and yet, Hillary got to skate, because of who Hillary is – a living embodiment of all that is good, pure, holy and right about America, so it was alright for Hillary to compromise our national security, which takes us back the op-ed in the BOSTON BUSINESS JOURNAL entitled “FBI’s Boston office warns businesses of venture capital scams” by Lucia M. Ziobro and Vincent B. Lisi, who were both special agents in charge of the Boston division at the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, on Apr. 4, 2014, where we have as follows with respect to who knew what and when they knew it, to wit:
The FBI’s effort to collaborate with industry dates to the mid-1990’s.
As it became clear criminals would increasingly exploit technology for illicit gains, the FBI initiated a pilot project called InfraGard, which was designed to engage those in the technology industry.
The pilot began in the FBI Cleveland Division in 1996 as a way to create an exchange of information about cyber investigations with local information technology experts and academia.
Sharing information about intrusions, trends and vulnerabilities with private industry was seen as a way to help secure private computer networks and harnessing industry expertise.
(The program proved so successful that it was replicated in each of the FBI’s 56 field offices and later expanded to include terrorism, criminal and counterintelligence matters.)
InfraGard is especially valuable in light of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s recent prioritization of cybersecurity over that of both terrorism and espionage.
end quotes
So, there we have some important benchmarks, people, as we try to make heads or tails out of this convoluted mess that we owe to Hillary Clinton giving Mother Russia the technology it needed to hack into our 2016 presidential election in order to sow the chaos the congressional Democrats are now using to disrupt the functioning of our national government and bring its 0perations to a halt, to the direct benefit of Putin in Russia and the Democrat National Committee – by 1996, ten years before the 2016 presidential election, the FBI was already very well aware of the threats to our nation from Russian meddling, and in 2014, two years before the 2016 presidential election, “Clappy” Clapper, affectionately known inside the Beltway as “Jimmy,” was prioritizing cybersecurity over both terrorism and espionage.
So seriously, people, with all of that in mind, ask yourself – how could what happened in 2016 have happened?
Should have been impossible, don’t you think?
And that takes us to an article in the HARVARD GAZETTE entitled “The worries over U.S. intelligence – Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says he felt compelled to speak out about President Trump and the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.” by Christina Pazzanese, Harvard Staff Writer, on June 22, 2018, where we had as follows:
Politics can create strange bedfellows, and political scandals can create unexpected celebrities.
After a 55-year career deep inside U.S. intelligence, James Clapper has recently found something akin to notoriety, first as co-author of the famous Oct. 7, 2016, declaration that Russia was trying to tip the scales of the 2016 presidential election, and now as one of a handful of top former intelligence officials who have taken their criticisms of President Trump and concerns over a possible conspiracy with Russia to the public.
end quotes
WHY DIDN’T “CLAPPY” KNOW THAT WAS COMING?
To date, no answers forthcoming, which takes us back to the FBI op-ed as follows:
Building on the success of InfraGard, the FBI has initiated other partnerships.
Under the FBI’s Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Program, agents work with defense contractors, firms that develop defense or export controlled products and universities that conduct sensitive research on the government’s behalf.
The threat from foreign governments is so prevalent that the FBI Boston Division, which covers one of the nation’s most concentrated areas of technology firms and research universities, has two full-time employees for Strategic Partnership outreach.
Their sole responsibility is to warn companies about the risks of foreign businesses and insiders or cyber hackers seeking to steal their proprietary products.
FBI Director Comey recently spoke at the RSA Cyber Security Conference and remarked about how important it was for the FBI to protect the private sector’s proprietary information and customer data.
“We must share as much information as we can, as quickly as possible, so that companies can minimize any breach.”
“And we must continue to build strong relationships.”
Director Comey encouraged companies to use the FBI’s malware database.
This information sharing assists the FBI in its investigations of high level, state sponsored intrusions into the private sector companies seeking proprietary information.
end quotes
And there is another famous “Jimmy” coming on the scene two full years before the 2016 presidential election, and it is quite obvious that this “Jimmy,” he being the Director of the FBI, was also aware of the threats to this country two full years before they happened.
So how then were the Russians able to pull of their dirty tricks, people?
And while all of that was going on, where was the Mullet?
Paul Plante says
With respect to the question of where was the Mullet when all of this “stuff” was going down, much of which we will never know, such as when he was legal counsel for Facebook, and what legal advice he gave them, and why, what is important here is that on May 16, 2017, Mueller interviewed with Trump to again serve as the Director of the FBI but was not hired.
The next day, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
So one day, the Mullet is being considered for the job of head of the FBI and the next, there he is investigating Trump, which was the subject of a CNN article entitled “Trump interviewed Mueller for FBI job day before he was tapped for special counsel” by Dan Merica on June 13, 2017, as follows:
Washington (CNN) – President Donald Trump interviewed Robert Mueller as a potential replacement for fired FBI Director James Comey the day before the former FBI director was named special counsel, a White House official said Tuesday.
The official, who would not detail what the two discussed during the interview, said it took place on May 16.
If Mueller knew he was going to be named special counsel, it is unlikely he divulged that information to Trump.
CNN has reported at the time that the White House was given only a brief heads up that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was naming Mueller to oversee Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential collusion from Trump’s campaign associates.
end quotes
So, keep track of that date, people, May 16, 2017, as we jump to a QUARTZ article entitled “The disturbing timeline of events surrounding the first Trump-Putin meeting” by Luiz Romero on January 15, 2019 for some needed context, as follows:
The New York Times said on Friday (Jan. 11) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an inquiry in May 2017 to determine whether Trump was actively working for Russia.
end quotes
So, in May of 2017, by whatever word you want to call it, the FBI was indeed spying on Trump to see if he was actively working for Russia, which then takes us to an article in THE HILL entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, five months after the Mullet had been appointed special counsel and five months after the FBI began spying on Trump, where we have the essence of a slick whitewash and cover-up, as follows:
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
end quotes
And for the record, the Mullet, Robert Swan Mueller III, born August 7, 1944, an American lawyer and government official, served as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2001 to 2013, so during that time that FBI Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show and also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, the Mullet was in charge of those investigations, which means the Mullet came on board as the special prosecutor of Trump knowing that the Clintons were the ones in bed with dirty Russians, which was the subject of the famous Trump Tower meeting in 2016.
And here, we need to jump back forward in time to a damning article published by the highly partisan NBC NEWS entitled “Frank Figliuzzi AG Barr’s FBI investigation, President Trump and the threat from within – By perpetuating Trump’s falsehoods about the FBI and Mueller’s report, Barr has become the kind of threat capable of doing severe harm.” by Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and NBC News/MSNBC analyst on May 18, 2019, where we are treated to the following misdirection, to wit:
On Monday, Attorney General William Barr, acting more like defense counsel for a cornered president than the nation’s top law enforcement official, ordered a U.S. Attorney review the FBI’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation into alleged ties between Trump associates and Russia in 2016.
end quotes
If you get the impression from his opening line that here is a dude running scared, believe me, you are not alone.
Getting back to his screed, we have:
This action, coupled with Barr’s previous reckless conduct, unwittingly promotes the interests of America’s enemies as Barr perpetuates dangerous conspiracy theories about secret Washington cabals and FBI corruption.
end quotes
Yeah, right, dude!
MEMO TO FIGLIUZZI: we were already there, dude, long before Barr came on the scene, especially with regard to FBI corruption, which is very well spelled out in “Black Mass: Whitey Bulger, the FBI, and a Devil’s Deal” by Dick Lehr and Gerard O’Neill back in 2012, so quit your whining about Barr because you are barking up the wrong tree.
And getting back to his bizarre screed:
Often external forces are aided by both witting and unwitting parties inside our borders and even within our government.
end quotes
And there he is talking directly about Hillary and Bill Clinton, which takes us back to 17 October 2017 and The Hill article for more of that story, as follows:
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
end quotes
So, when we wonder about where the Mullet was when all this hinky **** between the Clintons and the Russians was going down, there he was as head of the FBI, helping the Obama administration and the Clintons to keep the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
So, does the Mullet have some kind of serious conflict of interest here, like he is protecting his own past actions in protecting Hillary Clinton?
And now, we pause for station identification, which gives you time to run to the kitchen for a beer and ham sandwich, and when you return, we will be right back after a word from our sponsors.
Paul Plante says
And to make some sense out of this intentionally convoluted mess the congressional Democrats have handed us in a bid to so discredit Trump that a Democrat will be able to win the White House in 2020, we need to jump forward to an article in the New York Times entitled “Frustrated House Democrats Pin Their Hopes on Mueller” by Glenn Thrush and Nicholas Fandos on 16 May 2019, where we had “House Democrats, frustrated by President Trump’s efforts to stonewall their investigations and eager to stoke public anger about the president’s behavior, are pinning their diminishing hopes on Robert S. Mueller III yet again,” and a Fox News article entitled “AG Barr details his hunt for the truth on what really went on with the Russia probe” by Liam Quinn on 18 May 2019, where was stated “It’s the question that has dominated politics for more than two years — what exactly happened with counterintelligence activities conducted during the 2016 election and the Russia probe,” but first, I want to drop back in time to January 27, 1830, and a speech Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts was making to the Unites States Senate, where he said as follows with respect to the role the press plays in our national politics, as it has once again done in this case, to wit:
Sir, this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late Administration, is not original with the honorable member.
It did not spring up in the Senate.
Whether as a fact, as an argument, or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed.
He adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower present condition.
It is one of the thousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during an excited political canvass.
It was a charge, of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which was, in itself, wholly impossible to be true.
No man of common information ever believed a syllable of it.
Yet it was of that class of falsehoods, which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of detraction and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already far misled, and of further fanning passion, already kindling into flame.
Doubtless, it served in its day, and, in greater or less degree, the end designed by it.
Having done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnies.
It is the very cast-off slough of a polluted and shameless press.
Incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and despised.
end quotes
A polluted and shameless press in 1830, and in 2019, it remains the same, which takes us a a press release from the venerable Federal Bureau of Investigation entitled “C. Frank Figliuzzi Appointed as Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division,” where we have as follows with respect to any role this Mr. Figliuzzi of MSNBC might have played with respect to any investigations of the Clintons when Robert Swan Mueller III, born August 7, 1944, an American lawyer and government official, was serving as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2001 to 2013, to wit:
Washington, D.C.
February 07, 2011
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
Director Robert S. Mueller, III has named Connecticut native C. Frank Figliuzzi assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.
Mr. Figliuzzi has been the division’s deputy assistant director since November 2010.
“Frank is a seasoned investigator and an experienced manager, and he knows the threats the FBI and our country face.”
“He’s well-suited to lead our Counterintelligence Division and keep our nation safe from those individuals and groups that would do it harm,” said Director Mueller.
end quotes
So, quite clearly, and for what it is worth, long before Trump came on the scene, the Mullet and Mr. Figliuzzi of MSNBC were not only well aware of each other’s existence, but to the Mullet, Mr. Figliuzzi was someone on whom to heap praise.
Getting back to that FBI press release, we have:
Mr. Figliuzzi was appointed an FBI special agent in August 1987 and assigned to the Atlanta Division, where he worked terrorism and foreign counterintelligence investigations.
In 1992, he was promoted to the National Security Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., with responsibility for oversight of economic espionage matters.
In 1995, Mr. Figliuzzi was named supervisory senior resident agent of the Palo Alto Resident Agency in the FBI’s San Francisco Division.
His office, near Silicon Valley, led the FBI in investigations of foreign-sponsored thefts of trade secrets.
In 1997, Mr. Figliuzzi was tasked to lead one of the FBI’s first squads exclusively devoted to crimes against children.
In 1998, Mr. Figliuzzi was promoted to unit chief in the Office of Professional Responsibility at FBI Headquarters.
He adjudicated allegations of serious misconduct against FBI personnel.
In 1999, Mr. Figliuzzi was appointed assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Miami Division, where he led the white-collar crime branch and its successful investigations of public corruption and corporate fraud.
Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Mr. Figliuzzi was selected to head FBI Miami’s new counterterrorism branch.
He led the South Florida Joint Terrorism Task Force and was on-scene commander following the anthrax murder in Boca Raton, Florida.
In August 2004, Mr. Figliuzzi was promoted to inspector and led teams that assessed FBI operations around the world.
In December 2005, Mr. Figliuzzi became the FBI’s chief inspector.
He then served as the special agent in charge of the Cleveland Division from 2006 to 2010.
Mr. Figliuzzi has a Juris Doctor with honors from the University of Connecticut School of Law, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature from Fairfield University.
He is a graduate of the John F. Kennedy School of Government’s program for senior executives in national and international security at Harvard University.
end quotes
And as a benchmark, Hussein Obama was inaugurated on 20 January 2009, which takes us back to the New York Times article, as follows:
They (congressional Democrats) had a plan: dramatize the special counsel’s damning but dense report on national television in their committees, animating his prose with vivid testimony from witnesses who would discuss Mr. Mueller’s findings on Russia’s election interference and Mr. Trump’s possible obstruction of justice.
end quotes
Yes, indeed, people, the Democrats very much have a plan, and Bob Mueller, aka the Mullet, who appears to have helped Hussein Obama obstruct justice with respect to Hillary Clinton when Obama was president and the Mullet was FBI Director and Hillary was Secretary of State, is very much a part of it.
As to the relationship between Hussein Obama and the Mullet, we have a Los Angeles Times story from 2011 to refer to entitled “Obama wants FBI’s Robert Mueller to stay on 2 extra years” by Michael Muskal on 12 May 2011, as follows:
President Obama will ask Congress to allow Robert Mueller to stay on as FBI director for two more years, the White House announced Thursday.
President Obama praised Mueller’s tenure, saying he has set “the gold standard” for leading the bureau.
“Given the ongoing threats facing the United States, as well as the leadership transitions at other agencies like the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, I believe continuity and stability at the FBI is critical at this time,” Obama said in a statement released by the White House.
end quotes
Ah, yes, continuity and stability at the FBI!
And why not?
Under the Mullet’s rule at the FBI, Hillary and Bill Clinton have been kept safe, and Obama wanted to keep it that way – hence the 2 year extension, which takes us back to that story, as follows:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he was open to the extension but wanted to look at the issue.
Grassley is the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FBI.
“This is an unusual step by the president, and is somewhat of a risky precedent to set,” Grassley stated.
“Thirty-five years ago, Congress limited the FBI director’s term to one 10-year appointment as an important safeguard against improper political influence and abuses of the past.”
end quotes
And there is a very important statement right there, people, as we consider obstruction of justice by the Obama administration here, obstruction of justice that Mueller as head of the FBI would clearly have to have been aware of, given that during the time Mueller was Director FBI Federal agents had used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and had also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow.
Paul Plante says
And today, the now-famous Mullet Report is the very cast-off slough of a polluted and shameless press, and incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and despised, and is that ever causing the Democrats fits, which takes us back to the New York Times article entitled “Frustrated House Democrats Pin Their Hopes on Mueller” by Glenn Thrush and Nicholas Fandos on 16 May 2019, which continues as follows with respect to the need the Democrats have for Bob Mueller, Obama’s loyal and faithful FBI head who was praised by Hussein Obama, protector of Hillary Clinton, who was handpicked by Hussein to carry on Hussein’s legacy, for running the FBI the way Obama as president wanted it ran – President Obama praised Mueller’s tenure, saying he has set “the gold standard” for leading the bureau – to help them take down Trump so as to get a Democrat in the White House in 2020, to wit:
Mr. Mueller, who was invited to testify by the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees a month ago, has not agreed to do so.
His absence has left a disappointed House majority with little option but to stage political theatrics like Thursday’s 12-hour reading of the entire unredacted Mueller report in a hideaway Capitol committee room before a few reporters, a guest appearance by the liberal activist actor John Cusack and the unblinking eye of a C-Span camera.
end quotes
Yes, people that is what this is really all about, what the New York Times is telling us right there – the totally worthless House Democrats are wasting our time and our governmental resources staging political theatrics, and they need Bob Mueller to be one of their pet clowns in that campy production they have been putting on since taking control of the House and putting the dried-out husk Democrat San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi back in charge as SHRIEKER of the House, which takes us back to the NYT article as follows:
“We cannot count on anyone but Mueller to tell us what he was thinking, and it should not be filtered through anyone else — seeing is believing, hearing is believing,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, adding that a “sterile report” was no substitute for either Mr. Mueller or Mr. McGahn.
end quotes
But of course, that is horse****, and coming from the smarmy little Burbank, California Democrat congressman Adam Schiff, that is exactly what we would expect to hear from him – BULL****, because fact of the matter is that the Mullet, while author of the report, was also an employee of the Justice Department, an executive branch office, and he worked for the Attorney general, not the House of Representatives.
But still Adam Schiff is dead on the money when he tells us that we, the American people need to know what Bob Mueller was thinking when he was writing his now-famous report so as to give the Democrats he is loyal to the ammunition they need to try and hang Trump in the court of public opinion, which takes us to the Fox News article “AG Barr details his hunt for the truth on what really went on with the Russia probe” by Liam Quinn on 18 May 2019, where we have the other side of the equation, as follows:
It’s the question that has dominated politics for more than two years — what exactly happened with counterintelligence activities conducted during the 2016 election and the Russia probe.
Now, in his first interview since joining the Trump administration, Attorney General Bill Barr detailed how he plans to get to the bottom of the origins of the probe, his thoughts on James Comey, Robert Mueller and other issues related to the special counsel’s investigation.
Barr also said the country must know “exactly what happened” with counterintelligence activities conducted during the 2016 election — and he is determined to get to the bottom of the case.
In pointed terms, he fired back at Democrats who have castigated him over his handling of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report — calling Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s charge that he lied to Congress “laughable” and dismissing an attempt to hold him in contempt of Congress.
“That’s part of the usual … political circus that’s being played out.”
“It doesn’t surprise me,” he said.
And the nation’s top law enforcement official provided new details about the recently announced probe into the origins of the Russia investigation, defending his decision to pursue it and stressing that many of the answers he’s gotten so far have been “inadequate.”
While the decision to look back at the origins of the investigation has prompted harsh criticism from Democrats who previously have accused him of acting as the president’s lawyer, Barr argued there’s much yet to learn.
“I think there’s a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened,” he said.
“The fact of the matter is Bob Mueller did not look at the government’s activities.”
“He was looking at whether or not the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russians.”
“But he was not going back and looking at the counterintelligence program.”
end quotes
And of course, that is one of the subjects we, the American people would like to hear Mueller grilled about – why did Mueller create a false context here?
And that brings us back in time to when the Mullet was Hussein Obama’s loyal FBI head, and the article in THE HILL entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, five months after the Mullet had been appointed special counsel and five months after the FBI began spying on Trump, where we continue to learn about what the Mullet would have known about Russia, the Clintons and organized crime when he was Obama’s loyal FBI head, as follows:
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.
When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened … on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
end quotes
Which is a ridiculous and asinine statement because as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which committee, according to the Congressional Research Service, is an interagency committee that serves the President in overseeing the national security implications of foreign investment in the economy.
It reviews foreign investment transactions to determine if:
(1) they threaten to impair the national security;
(2) the foreign investor is controlled by a foreign government; or
(3) the transaction could affect homeland security or would result in control of any critical infrastructure that could impair the national security.
The President has the authority to block proposed or pending foreign investment transactions that threaten to impair the national security.
The Committee consists of nine members, including the Secretary of the Treasury, who serves as chair, the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Energy; the Attorney General; the United States Trade Representative; and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Secretary of Labor and the Director of National Intelligence serve as ex officio members of the Committee.
Executive Order 13456 (January 2008) added five White House representatives, including the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
The President can also appoint other Executive officers to serve on the Committee on a case-by-case basis.
end quotes
With respect to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), in that same year, 2010, while Bob Mueller was head of Hussein Obama’s FBI, according to p.50 of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” we were told as follows, to wit:
Clinton Cash p. 50
In early 2010 Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, appeared before a congressional committee and warned about the perils of doing business with state-owned entities in Russia, stating that “criminally-linked oligarchs will enhance the ability of state or state-allied actors to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum, and precious metal markets.”
He didn’t name specific Russian entities involved, but referred to the problem as “a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among governments, organized crime, intelligence services and big business figures.”
He indicated that the United States needed to address the Russian instances of “bribery, fraud, violence and corrupt alliances with state actors to gain the upper hand against legitimate businesses.”
end quotes
For those who count, that was six (6) years before the famous Trump Tower meeting which was intended to bring the Trump campaign up to date on all the dirty business Hillary had been doing with Russian organized crime and Putin, so there is what Congress knew and when they knew it, along with the FBI and Hussein Obama.
So why is none of this background included in the Mullet Report?
What was the Mullet thinking when he left all this stuff out?
That he is still being loyal to Obama and the Clintons?
That he is still worthy of their trust?
And now for a word from our sponsors as we take a necessary pause for station identification.
Paul Plante says
To boil all of that above verbiage down into a TWEET, what the smarmy little twerp Democrat congressman from sunny Burbank, California, home of Rowan&Martin’s Laugh-In presenting Adam Schiff and the congressional Democrats want Bob Mueller to do is to come before the congressional Democrats in the legislative branch of our federal government as an executive branch employee to talk smack and tell tales out of school and be a tattle tale to the congressional Democrats about his boss in the executive branch, who happens to be the attorney general confirmed by the United States senate, as a part of the congressional Democrats’ bizarre and surreal campy political circus that’s being played out here, to the disgust of the nation that is past being sick and tired with this whole charade now that the famous Mullet Report has been issued, and has been turned into a theatrical prop by the congressional Democrats as we were told by the New York Times in the article entitled “Frustrated House Democrats Pin Their Hopes on Mueller” by Glenn Thrush and Nicholas Fandos on 16 May 2019, to wit:
Mr. Mueller, who was invited to testify by the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees a month ago, has not agreed to do so.
His absence has left a disappointed House majority with little option but to stage political theatrics like Thursday’s 12-hour reading of the entire unredacted Mueller report in a hideaway Capitol committee room before a few reporters, a guest appearance by the liberal activist actor John Cusack and the unblinking eye of a C-Span camera.
end quotes
Which if it hadn’t of been reported on by the New York Times, nobody would have known it happened, because outside of the congressional Democrats, nobody really cares about the Mullet Report, or the Mullet himself, for that matter, or his opinions, which takes us back to the NYT for a burst of pure hog**** from Democrat “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, aka “The Nads,” as follows:
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Mr. Mueller was the only person who could clear up certain ambiguities about the report.
Only Mr. Mueller, he said, could tell the American people “if he agrees with the fact that if he were not president, he would have been indicted” for the instances of obstruction identified in the report.
end quotes
And what partisan political horse**** that is, people, besides being just plain stupid, but then, “Jumping Jerry” Nadler is a lawyer with a JD from Fordham University School of Law, so “stupid” is something to be expected from him, because what the Mullet thinks about anything now that his report is written is really not relevant to anything, anymore.
Just more showbidness from the congressional Democrats going into the 2020 preside ntial campaign season which takes us back to the NYT as follows:
Over the past week, aides with the House Judiciary Committee have been negotiating with aides to Mr. Mueller to get the special counsel, who remains an employee of the Justice Department, to testify.
Those talks grind on over the format and the length of his appearance, according to two people close to the deliberations.
It is not clear if he would appear alone or with key aides who helped draft the report, they said.
Some committee Democrats have expressed the opinion that two top Mueller aides, Aaron M. Zebley and Andrew Weissmann, would feel less constrained about criticizing the president than Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Schiff’s staff has also been talking to Mr. Mueller’s office, and the congressman expressed optimism that a deal could be struck.
“I think we’ll get there,” he said.
end quotes
Ah, yes, a deal!
The smarmy little twerp Adam Schiff, the cunning congressman from sunny Burbank, California and the Mullet are close to “deal,” similar to the one the lying ex-lawyer Michael Cohen got on 27 February 2019 before the congressional inquisition panel headed by Elijah “BULL” Cummings, a hard-hitting Democrat from Baltimore’s Inner City, who knows how to play rough and hit below the belt to gain a point or two.
And that takes us back to the NYT and the congressional Democrats running scared, as follows:
Democrats’ big fear — expressed during interviews with two dozen lawmakers over the past week — is that public interest in the Mueller report is ebbing.
Any appearance by Mr. Mueller, however noncommittal or boring it turns out to be, is one of the only means to snap the issue of Mr. Trump’s actions back to center stage, they said, along with testimony from someone like Mr. McGahn.
end quotes
Yes, people – the congressional Democrats are running scared and getting more and more desperate by the day precisely because not only is public interest in the Mueller report ebbing, but it is largely gone, and thus, having staked their party’s platform on getting Trump by any means possible, the Democrats are in a panic, because their efforts to get Trump by any means are failing, which again takes us back to the NYT, to wit:
Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and a close ally of Mr. Trump, said Democrats were living in a fantasyland to think that there were still minds to be changed about Mr. Trump or that Mr. Mueller, put under cross-examination by Republicans, would be able to do it.
“The fact that the Democrats are reading the Mueller report in the Rules Room and the only people who are covering it are Hill reporters would indicate that there is a disconnect between Washington, D.C., and Main Street America,” he said.
end quotes
And talk about uncovering an essential existential truth in this convoluted mess, there it is right there, to wit: there is a disconnect between Washington, D.C., and Main Street America.
There is the reality that we, the American people live in, and then there is LA-LA LAND, where the Democrats live, and for an example of that, back to the NYT we must go, to wit:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, eager to find any new leverage to fight back against the White House, suggested on Thursday that House Democrats could always open an impeachment inquiry to obtain documents and testimony from stonewalling Trump administration officials — a sharp response to the White House’s blanket claim that House requests served no “legitimate” legislative purpose.
“The courts would respect it if you said we need this information to carry out our oversight responsibilities — and among them is impeachment,” Ms. Pelosi said during her weekly news conference at the Capitol.
“It doesn’t mean you’re going on an impeachment path, but it means if you had the information you might,” Ms. Pelosi said.
“It’s about impeachment as a purpose.”
“Some of our folks are a little bit: ‘Why aren’t we impeaching the president?'”
“‘Why aren’t we impeaching him?’” she said during a meeting of her caucus on Wednesday, according to a Democratic official in the room.
“They get a little down, ‘Why aren’t we impeaching the president?’”
end quotes
Impeachment as a purpose, Nancy?
As opposed to impeachment without a purpose?
But isn’t impeachment always supposed to have a purpose?
According to the Annotations to Article II of the United States Constitution, Section 4. Impeachment, we have:
Few provisions of the Constitution were adopted from English practice to the degree the section on impeachment was.
In England, impeachment was a device to remove from office one who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown.
It was a device that figured in the plans proposed to the Convention from the first, and the arguments went to such questions as what body was to try impeachments and what grounds were to be stated as warranting impeachment.
The attention of the Framers was for the most part fixed on the President and his removal, and the results of this narrow frame of reference are reflected in the questions unresolved by the language of the Constitution.
Persons Subject to Impeachment
During the debate in the First Congress on the ”removal” controversy, it was contended by some members that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the Government from his post, but Madison and others contended that this position was destructive of sound governmental practice, and the view did not prevail.
Impeachment, said Madison, was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him ”even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.”
Impeachable Offenses
The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice.
The framers early adopted, on June 2, a provision that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ”of malpractice or neglect of duty.”
The Committee of Detail reported as grounds ”Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”
And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to ”Treason, or bribery.”
On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ”or maladministration” following ”bribery.”
Upon Madison’s objection that ”[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested ”other high crimes and misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.
The phrase in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388.
Treason is defined in the Constitution; bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute.
High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.
In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ”high misdemeanor” to be quite limited in meaning, but debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.
And in the First Congress’ ”removal” debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.
Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior.
While conclusions may be drawn from the conflicting statement, it must always be recognized that a respectable case may be made for either view.
Practice over the years, however, insofar as the Senate deems itself bound by the actions of previous Senates, would appear to limit the grounds of conviction to indictable criminal offenses for all officers, with the possible exception of judges.
The Johnson Impeachment.
President Johnson was impeached by the House on the ground that he had violated the ”Tenure of Office” Act by dismissing a Cabinet chief.
The theory of the proponents of impeachment was succinctly put by Representative Butler, one of the managers of the impeachment in the Senate trial.
”An impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives or for an improper purpose.”
Former Justice Benjamin Curtis controverted this argument, saying: ”My first position is, that when the Constitution speaks of ‘treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,’ it refers to, and includes only, high criminal offences against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done, and I say that this is plainly to be inferred from each and every provision of the Constitution on the subject of impeachment.”
The President’s acquittal by a single vote was no doubt not the result of a choice between the two theories, but the result may be said to have placed a gloss on the impeachment language approximating the theory of the defense.
end quotes
So, yes, people, impeachment with a purpose!
It is what the United States Constitution demands, afterall.
And now, once again, it is time to take a pause for a station break, but we;ll be right back after a word from our sponsors.
Paul Plante says
And getting back to the original existential question posed in here by the author of the original post, did the FBI spy on Trump, due to a literal tsunami of the most incredible toxic horse****, pig****, hog****, and bull**** being spewed at us on a daily basis now by SHRIEKER of the House San Francisco, California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who I believe, based on her mindless ravings about the Attorney General being a criminal, and some kind of cover-up of God alone knows what by Trump, which alleged cover-up might actually be a lot worse than what Trump is supposed to be covering up, although nobody outside of Nancy Pelosi knows what that might be, is plumb gone loco as that poignant saying goes, that question has been very effectively buried under such a pile of **** from barmy Nancy Pelosi and her pack of raving, foam-at-the-mouth, beat-at-their-chests-with-their-fists Democrats that in our lifetimes, that question will likely never again see the light of day, and will be forgotten, as it essentially is right now.
But let’s do a quick review here, to maintain context in the face of this barrage of Democrat bull**** intended to bring down our Constitutional frame of government by putting the house Democrats in charge of the executive branch as we can clearly see happening in this ABC News article entitled “Under mounting pressure from Dems, Pelosi to hold closed-door impeachment meeting” on 22 May 2019, where we have as follows to how the house Democrats see the office of the executive as nothing more than their dog to call to heel, to wit:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, facing a revolt from members of her caucus, has been compelled to hold an closed-door meeting Wednesday morning to deal with new pressure to go forward with an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
Pelosi and her top lieutenants, in their rebuttal to Democrats now pushing for impeachment, have said that the majority has not exhausted all of their options to force the administration to heel.
end quote
Force the administration to heel, people!
Think about it – where does the United States Constitution give Nancy Pelosi and her raving pack of howling,. yammering Democrats in the House of Representatives the right to call a sitting American president to heel, like a dog would be called?
What colossal arrogance on the part of Nancy Pelosi and her snarling, yapping pack of Democrats to arrogate unto themselves such power over the executive branch of our government!
They are staging a coup, is what they are doing, which makes them traitors, plain and simple.
But, hey, we have known that for quite some time, so moving right along here to Democrat obstruction of justice which is being overlain by a new narrative of history being woven by the congressional Democrats out of thin smoke and the Mullet Report, by way of review, according to the New York Times, the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an inquiry in May 2017 to determine whether Trump was actively working for Russia.
Ten (10) months earlier, according to an NBC News article entitled “President Obama Heaps Praise on Hillary Clinton at DNC” by Alexandra Jaffe, July 28, 2016, tjen-president Hussein Obama made it incandescently clear to everyone in the world, including his attorney general and his FBI director and his intelligence people that he was very much for Hillary Clinton as his dynastic successor, and he was very much against Trump, to wit:
President Barack Obama offered an optimistic vision of the country and a strong indictment of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump Wednesday night in a speech that also cast Hillary Clinton as the best candidate to carry on his legacy and complete his unfinished business.
“America is already great.”
“America is already strong,” he said during his speech to close out the Democratic National Convention.
”And I promise you, our strength, our greatness, does not depend on Donald Trump.”
It was a speech aimed at both defending his legacy and “passing the baton” to Clinton, while unifying Democrats by acknowledging liberal followers of Sen. Bernie Sanders, the party’s presidential runner-up, were correct in their frustrations that there was more work to be done.
Obama vouched for Clinton in personal terms, telling a cheering crowd that because of his work with her as secretary of state “I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”
“Even in the middle of crisis, she listens to people, and keeps her cool, and treats everybody with respect.”
“And no matter how daunting the odds; no matter how much people try to knock her down, she never, ever quits,” he said.
In contrast, Obama challenged many of Trump’s key campaign pitches.
The GOP nominee, Obama said, is “not really a plans guy.”
“Not really a facts guy, either.”
“He calls himself a business guy, which is true, but I have to say, I know plenty of businessmen and women who’ve achieved success without leaving a trail of lawsuits, and unpaid workers, and people feeling like they got cheated.”
end quotes
And lo and behold, ten months later, the FBI was spying on Trump, and three years later roughly, in May of 2019, there is the basis of the narrative the congressional Democrats are spinning as they try desperately to cover-up Obama’s cover-up of Hillary Clinton’s dirty doings with organized crime in Russia, what Hussein Obama was saying about Trump in July of 2016, before Trump was the president and before the November 2016 election, which Obama himself was interfering with by running down Trump that way without Trump having an opportunity to defend himself against what were in essence charges against him laid there by the president of the United States of America, which is serious business, indeed, when a sitting American president singles out an American citizen for a virulent personal attack like that, which takes us to a Washington Post article entitled “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault” by Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous on 23 June 2017, for some further context, as follows:
Several officials described the post-election atmosphere at the White House as somber.
“It was like a funeral parlor,” according to one official who said that work on Russia and other subjects slowed as officials began to anticipate the damage to Obama’s policies and legacy.
end quotes
So, we are talking November 2016, here, people, roughly four months after Hussein had proclaimed Hillary as his chosen successor in office, as if Hussein was some kind of Saxon king in England rather than an American president, and that takes us to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Obama saw the 2016 loss of Hillary Clinton as a ‘personal insult’” by John Gage on 3 May 2019, as follows:
Obama found himself shocked by the election results, thinking before Nov. 8 there was “no way Americans would turn on him” and “[h]is legacy, he felt, was in safe hands.”
end quotes
So, betrayal, people!
Can you ask for more drama than that?
The American people turned on Obama, and what he have had since is Obama’s revenge on the people of America which is being waged on Obama’s behalf by Nancy Pelosi and the congressional Democrats.
So, did the FBI spy on Trump?
Paul Plante says
And staying with the original question of this thread for the moment of did Hussein Obama’s FBI spy on Trump, let’s go back for the moment to the New York Times article entitled “Frustrated House Democrats Pin Their Hopes on Mueller” by Glenn Thrush and Nicholas Fandos on 16 May 2019, where we had this overlooked morsel to chew on, to wit:
On Dec. 9, (2016) Obama ordered a comprehensive review by U.S. intelligence agencies of Russian interference in U.S. elections going back to 2008, with a plan to make some of the findings public.
end quotes
2008, of course, was when Hussein ran against John McCain, and since we never heard anything more about the Russian interference in the 2008 presidential election, we can only speculate who the Russians were backing in that election, but my money would be on Obama for that signal honor, which is probably why we never heard another word about that subject, but that is an important milestone, because in 2008, Bob Mueller was director of the FBI, so that when he was special counsel, he himself had to be aware that Russian hacking and interweference in our elections did not start in 2016 with Trump; it went back at least as far as 2008, when the Mullet was director of the FBI which then takes us back to that NYT article where we had this curious statement, to wit:
Some committee Democrats have expressed the opinion that two top Mueller aides, Aaron M. Zebley and Andrew Weissmann, would feel less constrained about criticizing the president than Mr. Mueller.
end quotes
Oh, really!
Would feel less constrained about criticizing Trump than would the Mullet?
Do tell!
Sounds like bias and prejudice to me, but of course it is – that is what got them on the team to begin with – a hope to get Trump to pay him back for stealing the election away from Hussein Obama’s chosen successor!
So who are Zebley and Weissman, then, the two top Mueller aides who would feel less constrained about criticizing the president than Mr. Mueller?
Let’s start with Aaron Zebley, whose Wikipedia page tells us was a member of the special counsel investigation previously headed by Robert Mueller and he was the former chief of staff to Mueller at the FBI.
Zebley then followed Mueller from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the law firm WilmerHale and also subsequently left when Mueller resigned to become the special counsel, along with James L. Quarles III.
According to a VOX article entitled “Meet the all-star legal team who may take down Trump -Special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team is full of pros. Trump’s team makes typos” by Rebecca Tan and Alex Ward on Aug 2, 2017, 11:52am EDT, Aaron Zebley was referred to as the cybersecurity expert on the Mullet’s Fantastic, Fantabulous All-Star Dream Team as follows:
Aaron Zebley has spent most of his career working in national security, but has more recently focused on cybersecurity.
When he was hired at WilmerHale in 2014, the firm’s co-managing partner, Robert Novick, said in a statement that the longtime FBI staffer would boost WilmerHale’s cybersecurity expertise.
Zebley worked as a special agent in the FBI’s counterterrorism division for seven years.
He went on to become the FBI’s chief of staff and, later, a senior counselor in the National Security Division of the Justice Department.
end quotes
According to the WilmerHale press release entitled “Former FBI Chief of Staff Aaron Zebley to Join WilmerHale” on March 31, 2014, we have:
WilmerHale is pleased to announce that Aaron Zebley is joining the firm today as a partner.
Zebley, who has been both an FBI Special Agent and an Assistant United States Attorney, served as Chief of Staff to Robert S. Mueller III, the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Zebley has most recently been Senior Counselor in the National Security Division at the Department of Justice.
Prior to his role as Chief of Staff to former FBI Director Mueller, Zebley was a Special Agent of the FBI in the Counterterrorism Division for seven years.
In between his two tours at the FBI, Zebley served as an Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) in the National Security and Terrorism Unit in Alexandria, Virginia.
During his tenure as an AUSA, he investigated and prosecuted crimes related to national security, terrorism, and violent crime.
“Aaron’s experience at the Bureau, Main Justice and the US Attorney’s Office will add to our internal investigations, crisis management and cybersecurity capabilities,” said Robert Novick, co-managing partner of WilmerHale.
“He will provide immeasurable value in areas where we are already strong and growing.”
“Building a practice in an environment with well-established investigations and cybersecurity groups was critical in my decision to join WilmerHale,” said Zebley.
“There are great opportunities here for me to successfully bridge my background with the practice areas that I know best.”
Zebley earned his law degree in 1996 from the University of Virginia School of Law where he served as the Executive Editor of the Virginia Environmental Law Journal.
He received his undergraduate degree from the College of William & Mary, Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude in 1992.
end quotes
Getting back to Zebley’s Wikipedia page, we have this interesting tidbit to consider, to wit:
While in private practice at WilmerHale, Zebley was an expert in cybersecurity and represented a wide range of clients, including Justin Cooper, a former aide to Hillary Clinton, and the National Football League.
end quotes
And WHOA, people, stop right there!
While at WilmerHale, the Mullet’s former chief of staff at the vaunted FBI represented Justin Cooper, a former aide to Hillary Clinton?
And then, he left WilmerHale with the Mullet to go hang Trump?
So who then is Justin Cooper?
According to his Wikipedia page, Justin Cooper was an adviser to Bill Clinton, former President of the United States, and Cooper first worked within the Office of Science and Technology before later becoming an aide for former President of the United States Bill Clinton.
After “Bubba” Clinton left the White House, he asked Cooper, along with Doug Band, to move to New York to play a critical role in his post-presidential activities, and there Cooper served as senior aide and advisor to President Clinton, becoming a critical member of Clinton’s post-presidency cadre of advisors.
According to Wikipedia, and not surprisngly, Cooper also had a close working relationship with Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State.
And now we come to what is both interesting and relevant, to wit:
Clinton private server
Cooper was one of the key persons that help administer Hillary’s private email server.
Hillary’s private server as been part of an ongoing Federal investigation.
The internet domain, clintonemail.com, was registered to Cooper, not the Clintons, while she was secretary of state.
The domain was registered by Cooper before Hillary became secretary of state on January 21, 2009.
Hillary used the email, hdr22@clintonemail.com, on her private server while secretary of state, rather than use a dot gov account for all of her secretary of state work.
Cooper had no US security clearance or expertise in computer security.
end quotes
So, people, does something stink to high heaven here?
And now for a word from our sponsors as we pause for station identification.
Paul Plante says
In continuing to construct our time line in here with regard to the FBI spying on Trump, although they like to use other words for it, and as we pause to consider the make-up of the Mullet’s Fantastic, Fantabulous All-Star Dream Team being staffed with people like Aaron M. Zebley and Andrew Weissmann who according to the New York Times would feel less constrained about criticizing the president than Mr. Mueller, and why it was intentionally staffed with people with a decided bias against Trump like Aaron M. Zebley and Andrew Weissmann, let’s go back to the New York Times article entitled “Frustrated House Democrats Pin Their Hopes on Mueller” by Glenn Thrush and Nicholas Fandos on 16 May 2019, and this particular sentence, to wit:
On Dec. 9, (2016) Obama ordered a comprehensive review by U.S. intelligence agencies of Russian interference in U.S. elections going back to 2008, with a plan to make some of the findings public.
end quotes
We now know that that never happened, likely because Obama did not want dirt on himself being dug up along with more dirt on Hillary, but why didn’t it happen, and why did we end up with the Mullet investigation, which was pure political theater, instead?
And for that answer, we need to go back to that NYT article for the following, to wit:
As Election Day (2016) approached, proponents of taking action against Russia made final, futile appeals to Obama’s top aides: McDonough, Rice and Haines.
end quotes
So, let’s refresh ourselves here, people – it’s November of 2016, the elections are about to be held and Team Obama and all his so-called intelligence dudes not only know the Russians were nibbling around the edges of the 2016 election, but had been doing so since at least 2008, when they got Obama into the White House to keep Sarah Palin out.
So why all the drama there with these appeals to Obama’s top aides around election day 2016, they being Denis Richard McDonough (born December 2, 1969), the 26th White House Chief of Staff, succeeding Jack Lew at the start of U.S. President Barack Obama’s second term, who graduated from Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service with an MSFS degree in 1996; Susan Elizabeth Rice (born November 17, 1964), who attended Stanford University where she received a Truman Scholarship and graduated with a BA in history in 1986, and awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, attended New College, Oxford, where she earned an MPhil in 1988 and a DPhil in 1990, an American public official who served as the 24th U.S. National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017 and had a poor relationship with State Department veteran Richard Holbrooke, whom she considered to be meddling on her turf and who in return had viewed her as incompetent; and Avril Danica Haines (born August 29, 1969), an American lawyer with a Juris Doctor from Georgetown in 2001, who served as the White House Deputy National Security Advisor, serving in Barack Obama’s administration, who had previously served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and prior to that, had served as Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs in the Office of White House Counsel and whose term as CIA Deputy Director coincided with the global surveillance disclosures, the CIA hacking into the computers of U.S. Senate employees, and the release of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, and who on December 18, 2014, two years before all that frantic activity in Obama’s White House, President Obama announced that he would appoint Haines to replace Tony Blinken as White House Deputy National Security Advisor.
For that answer, we have to go back to the NYT, where we have as follows:
Because their offices were part of a suite of spaces in the West Wing, securing their support on any national security issue came to be known as “moving the suite.”
One of the last to try before the election was Kerry.
In October (2016), Kerry’s top aides had produced an “action memo” that included a package of retaliatory measures, including economic sanctions.
Knowing the White House was not willing to act before the election, the plan called for the measures to be announced almost immediately after votes had been securely cast and counted.
end quotes
Now, there is a very curious statement there, that Hussein Obama was not willing to act before the 2016 election, despite knowing what the Russians were up to, which brings us back to the NYT as follows:
Kerry signed the memo and urged the White House to convene a principals’ meeting to discuss the plan, officials said.
“The response was basically, ‘Not now,'” one official said.
Election Day arrived without penalty for Moscow.
Despite the dire warnings, there were no meltdowns in the United States voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or manipulation of vote counts.
The outcome itself, however, was a shock.
Suddenly, Obama faced a successor who had praised WikiLeaks and prodded Moscow to steal even more Clinton emails, while dismissing the idea that Russia was any more responsible for the election assault than “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”
“The White House was mortified and shocked,” said a former administration official.
“From national security people there was a sense of immediate introspection, of, ‘Wow, did we mishandle this.'”
end quotes
So, there we can see the animus of the Obama towards Trump building towards the now-famous Mullet investigation, which again takes us back to this interesting bit from the NYT article, as follows:
After his failed pre-election bid, Kerry returned with a fallback proposal, calling for the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference and make recommendations on how to protect future elections.
end quotes
Now, stop right there and consider that, people – in November of 2016, John Kerry wanted the equivalent of the Mullet Commission, but there is no mention in there of investigating Trump.
So what is up with that?
Getting back to the NYT:
The panel would be modeled on the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, producing a definitive report and making recommendations that led to the overhaul of U.S. intelligence agencies.
end quotes
And again, people, there is a statement that bears scrutiny, when we consider how it morphed over into the Mullet Commission investigating Trump, instead, which again takes us back to the NYT, to wit:
“The idea was that if you think doing something aggressive is too inflammatory, then we shouldn’t have a problem getting to the truth about what happened,” said an administration official familiar with the Kerry plan.
Supporters’ confidence was buoyed when McDonough signaled that he planned to “tabledrop” the proposal at the next NSC meeting, one that would be chaired by Obama.
To some, the “tabledrop” term has a tactical connotation beyond the obvious.
It is sometimes used as a means of securing approval of an idea by introducing it before opponents have a chance to form counterarguments.
“We thought this was a good sign,” a former State Department official said.
But as soon as McDonough introduced the proposal for a commission, he began criticizing it, arguing that it would be perceived as partisan and almost certainly blocked by Congress.
Obama then echoed McDonough’s critique, effectively killing any chance that a Russia commission would be formed.
McDonough declined to comment on the principals’ committee meeting on the commission or any other sensitive matters but acknowledged that he opposed the idea, in part because he believed it would be premature to do so before U.S. intelligence agencies and Congress had conducted their investigations.
end quotes
So, okay, people, with that as background, let’s jump to another New York Times article, this one entitled “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt” by Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo on Dec. 30, 2017, where we have as follows, to wit:
WASHINGTON — During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
end quotes
So, May 2016, roughly six months before the 2016 presidential election and UH-OH, the Russians have dirt on Hillary Clinton, and that by the truckload as we are informed by author Peter Schweizer in “Clinton Cash,” copyright 2015, the year before a drunken Papadopulos made what the New York Times calls a “startling revelation” to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton, but it wasn’t a startling revelation at all, since it really was old news by that point in time.
So why is the New York Times on December 30, 2017 calling the old news about dirt on Hillary a “startling revelation,” which is pure political hype?
Let’s go back to the NYT and see where they are taking that narrative, as follows:
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear.
But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.
The information that Mr. Papadopoulos gave to the Australians answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year: What so alarmed American officials to provoke the F.B.I. to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?
It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign.
Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.
end quotes
And in light of all that was known about Hillary’s dealing with the Russians by that point in time, that claim is pure hogwash, which takes us back to that article as follows:
The F.B.I. investigation, which was taken over seven months ago by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has cast a shadow over Mr. Trump’s first year in office — even as he and his aides repeatedly played down the Russian efforts and falsely denied campaign contacts with Russians.
F.B.I. officials disagreed in 2016 about how aggressively and publicly to pursue the Russia inquiry before the election.
But there was little debate about what seemed to be afoot.
John O. Brennan, who retired this year after four years as C.I.A. director, told Congress in May that he had been concerned about multiple contacts between Russian officials and Trump advisers.
Russia, he said, had tried to “suborn” members of the Trump campaign.
end quotes
n light of all the dealing Hillary Clinton had with the Russians, however, while secretary of state, where she essentially sold out the United States of America to in her own words, “make Russia stronger,” i,e. Make Russia Great Again (MRGA), that comment is laughable.
Getting back to that NYT article:
In late April (2016), at a London hotel, Mr. Mifsud told Mr. Papadopoulos that he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had “dirt” on Mrs. Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” according to court documents.
Although Russian hackers had been mining data from the Democratic National Committee’s computers for months, that information was not yet public.
Even the committee itself did not know.
Whether Mr. Papadopoulos shared that information with anyone else in the campaign is one of many unanswered questions.
Not long after, however, he opened up to Mr. Downer, the Australian diplomat, about his contacts with the Russians.
It is unclear whether Mr. Downer was fishing for that information that night in May 2016.
The meeting at the bar came about because of a series of connections, beginning with an Israeli Embassy official who introduced Mr. Papadopoulos to another Australian diplomat in London.
It is also not clear why, after getting the information in May, the Australian government waited two months to pass it to the F.B.I.
In a statement, the Australian Embassy in Washington declined to provide details about the meeting or confirm that it occurred.
“As a matter of principle and practice, the Australian government does not comment on matters relevant to active investigations,” the statement said.
The F.B.I. declined to comment.
Once the information Mr. Papadopoulos had disclosed to the Australian diplomat reached the F.B.I., the bureau opened an investigation that became one of its most closely guarded secrets.
Senior agents did not discuss it at the daily morning briefing, a classified setting where officials normally speak freely about highly sensitive operations.
Besides the information from the Australians, the investigation was also propelled by intelligence from other friendly governments, including the British and Dutch.
A trip to Moscow by another adviser, Carter Page, also raised concerns at the F.B.I.
With so many strands coming in — about Mr. Papadopoulos, Mr. Page, the hackers and more — F.B.I. agents debated how aggressively to investigate the campaign’s Russia ties, according to current and former officials familiar with the debate.
Issuing subpoenas or questioning people, for example, could cause the investigation to burst into public view in the final months of a presidential campaign.
It could also tip off the Russian government, which might try to cover its tracks.
Some officials argued against taking such disruptive steps, especially since the F.B.I. would not be able to unravel the case before the election.
Others believed that the possibility of a compromised presidential campaign was so serious that it warranted the most thorough, aggressive tactics.
Even if the odds against a Trump presidency were long, these agents argued, it was prudent to take every precaution.
That included questioning Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was compiling the dossier alleging a far-ranging Russian conspiracy to elect Mr. Trump.
A team of F.B.I. agents traveled to Europe to interview Mr. Steele in early October 2016.
Mr. Steele had shown some of his findings to an F.B.I. agent in Rome three months earlier, but that information was not part of the justification to start an counterintelligence inquiry, American officials said.
Ultimately, the F.B.I. and Justice Department decided to keep the investigation quiet, a decision that Democrats in particular have criticized.
end quotes
And again, people, another very curious statement there, about the FBI and Justice Department under Obama deciding to keep that investigation quiet.
WHY?
And that answer would have to be self-protection, quite obviously!
Which takes us to Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which was the code name for the covert counterintelligence investigation (spying) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government’s interference in the 2016 United States elections.
And now we must take a break for station identification and after a word from our sponsors, we will be right back, so don’t touch that dial to change the station.
Paul Plante says
So, we can see that what is really needed here is a citizen grand jury, and were I the chairman, the very first witnesses I would call would be the two top Mueller aides, Aaron M. Zebley and Andrew Weissmann, and the question I would pose to each of them is in their opinion, why would the New York Times print an article entitled “Frustrated House Democrats Pin Their Hopes on Mueller” by Glenn Thrush and Nicholas Fandos on 16 May 2019, stating therein that some committee Democrats have expressed the opinion that Aaron M. Zebley and Andrew Weissmann, would feel less constrained about criticizing the president than Mr. Mueller.
Why would some committee Democrats be saying that about them, do they think?
How did they give some committee Democrats an idea that they would be less constrained about criticizing Trump than the Mullet would be?
Or are the committee Democrats simply talking through their hats, as they are so prone to do?
And as to this New York Times article one entitled “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt” by Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo on Dec. 30, 2017, where we were told that during a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton, let’s go back to the article in THE HILL entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, roughly ten weeks or so before the NYT article on how the Russia inquiry began, to see what the now-covered-back-over dirt on Hillary really was, and who knew about it, and when, to wit:
In 2011, the (Obama) administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp.
Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns.”
“And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
end quotes
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, people, but because it was obstruction of justice by Obama to protect Hillary Clinton, who is the darling of all America and a good chunk of the world, as well, especially in Russia, it was the good type of obstruction of justice which is necessary to keep the government in the United States of America functioning as it should, and thus, it was alright, especially as Obama controlled the Department of Justice and through them the FBI, and could thus make his obstruction of justice be overlooked and disregarded.
Getting back to The Hill:
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
end quotes
WHOA!
Wait a minute here, people, how did that get out!
QUICK!
GET THE WHITEWASH AND GET THAT COVERED OVER!
Okay, folks, everybody go back home, nothing to see here, so don’t bother looking or you might be sorry, which of course, takes us right back the The Hill as follows:
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved.
Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment.
The Justice Department also didn’t comment.
end quotes
SHHHHHHH!
THE HUSH IS ON!
And anyway, it was Trump who has to be guilty, not Hillary, or the narrative just does not work right, which again takes us back to The Hill, to wit:
Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries.
In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.
Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.
His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI.
The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.
In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.
“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.
“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.
The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.
end quotes
HUH?
Rod Rosenstein?
And Andrew McCabe?
WTF?
Talk about the stink of a corrupt cover-up by the Obama administration and the Justice Department and the FBI to protect Hillary Clinton getting stronger and stronger here, that takes the cake, which again takes us back to The Hill for more as follows, to wit:
Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle.
McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.
The probe is not focused on McAuliffe’s conduct but rather on whether McCabe’s attendance violated the Hatch Act or other FBI conflict rules.
The connections to the current Russia case are many.
The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director.
And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.
end quotes
So there we have two more of the key players in this Hillary Clinton Cover-Up Saga coming onto the stage to take a bow – the Mullet himself, and Jimmy Comey!
As to what they knew and when they knew it, back to The Hill we go:
Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles.
A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.
The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.
One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.
Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap.
But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged.
The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day.
The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.
By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014.
And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.
The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.
The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.
On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.
Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.
“I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.
Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.
“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said.
“The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”
end quotes
Yes, they most certainly are!
And now we pause for station identification and a word from our sponsors!
Paul Plante says
At one time in America, before TWEETING on TWITTER decimated the concept of meaning as expressed by the English language, reducing conversation to grunts and squeals and chittering noises, there used to be an expression, “TO PAPER SOMETHING OVER,” which the Cambridge Dictionary defines as “to hide an unpleasant situation, especially a problem, in order to make people believe that it does not exist or is not serious,” as in “The Democrats are trying to paper over Hillary Clinton’s hinky dealing with the Russians,” and that is exactly what we are seeing here, people with this New York Times article entitled “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt” by Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo on Dec. 30, 2017 coming out ten weeks later to paper over the article in THE HILL entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, and do a “SNATCH-BACK” of the narrative to take to focus off of Hillary, who was to be protected at all costs, and to put the focus firmly on Trump.
What is interesting, looking back at that period of time, news-wise, as we can do thanks to the miracle of the internet given to us to prove his love for us by Al Gore https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_livyjr_files/the-daily-news-volume-ii-t6-s12620.html
is that on 10/17/17, there was no mention of Trump or Russia or Hillary Clinton outside of that article in The Hill about Hillary’s many Russian connections.
The Hill was the only publication to cover that story that I can find.
No mention of it in the Washington Post or The New York Times, which ten weeks later did the “PAPER OVER” with the lame and stupid story about Papadopolous getting blotto drunk with the Australian dude and blurting out nonsense and drivel about the Russians having dirt on Hillary, as if it were some kind of state secret, as opposed to something the Obama administration wanted to be kept secret.
On 16 October 2017, THE TELEGRAPH did have an article about Trump and Hillary entitled “Donald Trump urges former rival Hillary Clinton to run for US presidency again in 2020” by Agence France-Presse which went as follows, to wit:
US President Donald Trump on Monday suggested he would beat former rival Hillary Clinton in a 2020 rematch, encouraging the Democrat to try her luck against him in the next presidential campaign.
“I hope Hillary runs,” he said during a press conference.
“Hillary, please run again!”
“Go ahead.”
The Republican leader also suggested that Clinton’s words of support to protesting professional athletes – who in recent weeks have drawn the president’s ire by kneeling during the national anthem before sporting events, a statement against racial injustice – was one example of why she lost the 2016 race.
“Honestly, it’s that thinking and that is the reason she lost the election,” Trump said, after dubbing Clinton’s position on the issue “wrong.”
end quotes
So, points to Trump there by my way of keeping score as a loyal American citizen – right on across the board, Hillary Clinton was just wrong for America, and so Divine Providence kept her out of the White House, which greatly upset and angered Hussein Obama, who then cranked up his formidable retaliation machine, the results of which can be seen in the New York Times article entitled “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt” by Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo on Dec. 30, 2017, where the narrative we still have today in the media was born.
Scanning along the news track back in 2017, we then come to an NPR article entitled “‘Our Democracy Is At Stake,’ Obama Says Of Virginia Race For Governor” by Jessica Taylor on October 19, 2017 where we can see the outraged Hussein boosting the anti-Trump rhetoric that still fuels the visceral mindless anger at Trump that motivates the Democrats to this day, to wit:
Former President Obama returned to the campaign trail for the first time since leaving office Thursday campaigning for the Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia.
He put the Virginia race, where he was campaigning for Ralph Northam, in the starkest terms.
“We need you to take this seriously, because our democracy is at stake,” Obama told a crowd of 7,500 at a packed convention center, “and it’s at stake right here in Virginia.”
At the Richmond, Va., rally – with 2008 and 2012-like chants of “yes, we can” – Obama never directly mentioned President Trump by name or, for that matter, Northam’s opponent, GOP nominee Ed Gillespie.
But it was clear he was taking aim at how Trump has presented himself in public life and how Gillespie has campaigned.
“Folks don’t feel good right now about what they see,” Obama said.
“They don’t feel as if our public life reflects our best.”
“Instead of our politics reflecting our values, we’ve got politics infecting our communities.”
“Instead of looking for ways to work together and get things done in a practical way, we’ve got folks who are deliberately trying to make folks angry, to demonize folks who have different ideas to get the base all riled up because it provides a short-term tactical advantage.”
end quotes
That, of course, after Obama’s chosen successor, the woman scorned, Hillary Clinton, had deliberately tried to make folks angry by demonizing as a “Basket of Deplorables” folks who had different ideas than she did to get her base all riled up because it provided Hillary Clinton a short-term tactical advantage.
So, in October of 2017, there we have Obama stoking the anti-Trump fire, without a single word being uttered by Hussein Obama about that article in The Hill entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17.
WHY HIS SILENCE?
And not at all surprisingly, right after that, given its obvious biases and prejudices, instead of following up on that article in The Hill, instead, the New York Times came out with a pro-Obama/anti-Trump piece entitled “Obama Returns to Campaign Trail to Rally Black Voters” by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns on 19 October 2017, where we had more papering over, or whitewashing of Hillary Clinton’s hinky dealing with the Russians, as follows:
DUMFRIES, Va. – President Barack Obama will hit the campaign trail on Thursday for the first time since leaving office, trying to rally black voters behind candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey amid warnings that they may not come out in force on an Election Day that is just three weeks away.
Mr. Obama’s appearances on behalf of Virginia’s lieutenant governor, Ralph S. Northam, in Richmond and the financier Philip D. Murphy in Newark – two white candidates in predominantly black cities – come as Democrats struggle to inspire African-Americans to vote this year.
In 2017, antipathy for President Trump could be a new motivation, but Mr. Trump is not on the ballot either.
Elected Democrats in Virginia suggest the anger toward Mr. Trump will ultimately translate into votes.
end quotes
Yes, the Democrat “GET TRUMP BY ANY MEANS AT ANY COST” campaign was well in swing by October 2017, as all the considerable dirt on Hillary and the Russians was being skillfully and carefully swept back under the rug by Team Obama.
And mention of Hillary brings us then to an article in THE HILL entitled “Clinton: I ‘really tried to get out of going’ to Trump’s inauguration” by Brandon Carter on 20 October 2017, a little more than a month after its previous story on 10/17/2017 entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann, where we now have as follows from The Hill, as it too now seems to be spinning the narrative away from Hillary’s dirty dealings with the Russians, to wit:
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that she tried to get out of attending President Trump’s inauguration in January.
“I really tried to get out of going,” Clinton said in an appearance on BBC One’s “The Graham Norton Show.”
“We thought ‘OK, maybe others aren’t going.’ ”
“We called the Bushes, and the elder Bushes were in the hospital, which I think was legitimate,” she joked.
“And so then, we called the younger Bushes and they said ‘yeah, we’re going.'”
“We called the Carters, and they said ‘yeah, we’re going,’ so Bill and I looked at each other and we said, ‘We gotta go.’ ”
Clinton also said she wanted Trump to “rise to the occasion of being our president” during his inaugural address, but said “that didn’t happen” because of Trump’s “dark, divisive speech.”
The former Democratic presidential nominee has called Trump’s inaugural address a “cry from the white nationalist gut.”
end quotes
Which, of course, takes us back to Hussein Obama telling us just before that. “instead of looking for ways to work together and get things done in a practical way, we’ve got folks like Hillary Rodham Clinton who are deliberately trying to make folks angry, to demonize folks who have different ideas to get her base all riled up because it provides her a short-term tactical advantage.
Which then takes us to another article in THE HILL entitled “FBI watched, then acted as Russian spy moved closer to Hillary Clinton” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 22 October 2017 where we have more Russia background to consider, as follows:
As Hillary Clinton was beginning her job as President Obama’s chief diplomat, federal agents observed as multiple arms of Vladimir Putin’s machine unleashed an influence campaign designed to win access to the new secretary of State, her husband Bill Clinton and members of their inner circle, according to interviews and once-sealed FBI records.
Some of the activities FBI agents gathered evidence about in 2009 and 2010 were covert and illegal.
end quotes
WHOA!
Hold it, people, stop right there!
Think about it, people, in 2009 and 2010, the Mullet, the special prosecutor of Trump, was the head of the FBI, so clearly, when the Mullet became special prosecutor of Trump, he clearly knew that long before Trump came on the scene, the Russians were in the process of co-opting Hillary Clinton as a Russian agent, so why did we see nothing of that activity discussed in his now-famous Mullet Report that the rabid foam-at-the-mouth Democrats are using to accuse Trump of all people of obstructing justice, when Trump had nothing to do with burying that dirt on Hillary – that was Obama, the Mullet and the FBI!
And there we will take a pause for station identification, and after a word from our sponsors we will be right back with more on that story to follow, so please, stay tuned.
Paul Plante says
And what a convoluted web has been woven here, people, by the Democrats with the aid and assistance of the New York Times, which in 2018 had a story entitled “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation” by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos on May 16, 2018, where we were regaled with state secrets by the New York Times as follows:
WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.
end quotes
As an aside, I always have to wonder how it is that the New York Times knows about this top secret stuff, when this stuff they know about is so very top-secret that even the people involved can’t know anything about it lest the secret get out, because, you know, who can keep a secret.
Anyway, getting back to the earth-shaking top secret revelations in that article, we have:
Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.
end quotes
Except the “advisor” really didn’t know about anything in advance, only after it had already happened, and here is what the New York Times had told us five months earlier in the article entitled “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt” by Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo on Dec. 30, 2017, to wit:
WASHINGTON — During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear.
But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.
end quotes
It is interesting to see how that story has evolved in the New York Times, which brings us back to the May 2018 article as follows:
After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.
end quotes
And isn’t this cloak-and-dagger spy stuff positively thrilling?
The Democrats in Congress think it is, anyway, which takes us back to the NYT story as follows:
The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened.
Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation.
But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.
The name, a reference to the Rolling Stones lyric “I was born in a crossfire hurricane,” was an apt prediction of a political storm that continues to tear shingles off the bureau.
Days after they closed their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, agents began scrutinizing the campaign of her Republican rival.
The two cases have become inextricably linked in one of the most consequential periods in the history of the F.B.I.
end quotes
And there is more WHITEWASH and PAPERING over by the New York Times as it struggles to get the narrative off of Hillary Clinton’s hinky deals with the Russians while she was Hussein Obama’s secretary of state selling out our national security to enrich “Bubba” Clinton, a good old “Aw-shucks” dude with an eye for the ladies if there ever was on, and Hillary, of course, which takes us back to the article in The Hill entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, for the dirt the Russians had on Hillary, to wit:
A female Russian spy posing as an American accountant, for instance, used a false identity to burrow her way into the employ of a major Democratic donor in hopes of gaining intelligence on Hillary Clinton’s department, records show.
The spy was arrested and deported as she moved closer to getting inside the secretary’s department, agents said.
Other activities were perfectly legal and sitting in plain view, such as when a subsidiary of Russia’s state-controlled nuclear energy company hired a Washington firm to lobby the Obama administration.
At the time it was hired, the firm was providing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in pro bono support to Bill Clinton’s global charitable initiative, and it legally helped the Russian company secure federal decisions that led to billions in new U.S. commercial nuclear business, records show.
Agents were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer of 2010.
The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country’s version of Silicon Valley, agents said.
There is no evidence in any of the public records that the FBI believed that the Clintons or anyone close to them did anything illegal.
But there’s definitive evidence the Russians were seeking their influence with a specific eye on the State Department.
end quotes
Now, seriously, people, given the special political rock star status of Hillary Clinton, who is the living embodiment of all that is pure, holy, proper and good and right about America, and the fact that she was Hussein Obama’s anointed successor to carry on his legacy, and given that Hussein Obama controlled the Justice Department, and the FBI, would we really expect the FBI to have evidence that Hillary Clinton would even think of doing something illegal, let alone actually do it?
So, of course there is no evidence, nothing to see here, folks, everybody go back inside!
Which admonition takes us back to The Hill as follows, to wit:
“There is not one shred of doubt from the evidence that we had that the Russians had set their sights on Hillary Clinton’s circle, because she was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset strategy and the assumed successor to Obama as president,” said a source familiar with the FBI’s evidence at the time, speaking only on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.
That source pointed to an October 2009 communication intercepted by the FBI in which Russian handlers instructed two of their spies specifically to gather nonpublic information on the State Department.
“Send more info on current international affairs vital for R., highlight US approach,” part of the message to the spies read, using the country’s first initial to refer to Russia.
“… Try to single out tidbits unknown publicly but revealed in private by sources closer to State department, government, major think tanks.”
The Clintons, by that time, had set up several new vehicles that included a multimillion dollar speech-making business, the family foundation and a global charitable initiative, all which proved attractive to the Russians as Hillary Clinton took over State.
end quotes
But, people keep in mind that in the case of Hillary Clinton, all this conduct and contact with Russia is quite alright, even if it does jeopardize our national security, which takes us back to The Hill where we run into an old acquaintance named Frank Figliuzzi from MSNBC, as follows:
“In the end, some of this just comes down to what it always does in Washington: donations, lobbying, contracts and influence – even for Russia,” said Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence.
end quotes
Ah, okay, Frank, yeah, yeah, we see what you are saying here – by Washington, D.C. standards, what Hillary was doing was bidness as usual, which takes us to a damning article published by the highly partisan NBC NEWS entitled “Frank Figliuzzi AG Barr’s FBI investigation, President Trump and the threat from within – By perpetuating Trump’s falsehoods about the FBI and Mueller’s report, Barr has become the kind of threat capable of doing severe harm.” by Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and NBC News/MSNBC analyst on May 18, 2019, where we were treated to the following misdirection, to wit:
On Monday, Attorney General William Barr, acting more like defense counsel for a cornered president than the nation’s top law enforcement official, ordered a U.S. Attorney review the FBI’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation into alleged ties between Trump associates and Russia in 2016.
This action, coupled with Barr’s previous reckless conduct, unwittingly promotes the interests of America’s enemies as Barr perpetuates dangerous conspiracy theories about secret Washington cabals and FBI corruption.
end quotes
WOW, people, how very dramtic, isn’t it?
I bet John Grisham wishes he could write lines as good as these, which takes us back to The Hill and Frank Figliuzzi, who was a favorite of the Mullet when the Mullet was head of the FBI, where we have more drama to digest, to wit:
The sleeper ring
Figliuzzi supervised the post-arrest declassification and release of records from a 10-year operation that unmasked a major Russian spy ring in 2010.
It was one of the most important U.S. counterintelligence victories against Russia in history, and famous for nabbing the glamorous spy-turned-model Anna Chapman.
While Chapman dominated the headlines surrounding that spy ring, another Russian woman posing as a mundane New Jersey accountant named Cynthia Murphy was closing in on accessing Secretary Clinton’s department, according to records and interviews.
For most of the 10 years, the ring of Russian spies that included Chapman and Murray acted as sleepers, spending a “great deal of time collecting information and passing it on” to their handlers inside Russia’s SVR spy agency, FBI records state.
Murphy, living with her husband and kids in the New Jersey suburbs of New York City, reported a major breakthrough in February 2009 in an electronic message sent to her handlers: she had scored access to a major Democrat, FBI records state.
“Murphy had several work-related personal meetings with [a prominent New York-based financier, name omitted] and was assigned his account,” one FBI record from the case read.
“The message accurately described the financier as ‘prominent in politics,’ ‘an active fund-raiser’ for [a major political party, name omitted] and a ‘personal friend’ of [a current Cabinet official, name redacted].”
Multiple current and former officials confirmed to The Hill that the Cabinet officer was Hillary Clinton, the fundraiser was New York financier Alan Patricof and the political party was the Democratic National Committee.
end quotes
Now, I am not a Republican, nor did I vote for Trump, nor would I vote for Trump, but I seriously have to wonder how what the Trump team is accused of doing by the Democrats is any different or as serious to our national defense that what Hillary was actually doing, right under he nose of Obama’s FBI, which takes us back to The Hill for just a bit more before we once again take a break for station identification, to wit:
None of the Americans were ever suspected of illegalities, but the episode made clear the Russian spies were stepping up their operations against the new administration after years of working in a “sleeper” capacity, officials said.
Patricof did not return a call to his office Friday seeking comment.
But in 2010 he told The Washington Post after the spy case broke he believed he had been a victim of the spy ring, saying Murphy had worked for him but that he only talked accounting and not government or politics with her.
“It’s just staggering,” he told the Post about the idea of being targeted by Russia.
“It’s off the charts.”
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill declined Saturday to say if the secretary was ever alerted or briefed to the Russian spy effort, instead suggesting that any focus on the spy case was a partisan effort to distract from the controversy around Moscow and President Trump.
“Nothing has changed since the last time this was addressed, including the right’s transparent attempts to distract from their own Russia problems, which are real and a grave threat to our national security,” he wrote in an email to The Hill.
end quotes
Which pretty much sums up how we got to where we are right now, with this Hillary Clinton WHITEWASH going on in the media as they try and try and try to get the noose around the neck of Trump to hang him high.
Nothing to see here, people, everybody go back home!
Hillary is not guilty of anything and never was -end of story.
Paul Plante says
Note that in the New York Times article entitled “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt” by Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo on Dec. 30, 2017, we were told the Trump investigation by the FBI began in July of 2016, to wit:
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.
end quotes
Then, a bit less than five months later, the same New York Times, in the story entitled “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation” by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos on May 16, 2018, had the Trump investigation beginning not in July, as was earlier reported, but now August of 2016, to wit:
WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.
Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.
The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened.
end quotes
But, hey, people, we are talking about the New York Times here, so do actual facts really matter here?
Isn’t it about the narrative that really is important?
And of course it is, which takes us back to the article in The Hill entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, for what MSNBC talking head Frank Figliuzzi knew about the considerable pile of dirt the Russians had on Hillary, before he became an anti=Trump talking head on MSNBC, to wit:
Back in 2010, when the spy story broke, Hillary Clinton’s office issued a statement that there was “no reason to think the Secretary was a target of this spy ring.”
Court documents and agents who worked the case suggest otherwise, saying the Russians were specifically targeting her department and any intelligence they could get on the new administration’s emerging foreign policy.
end quotes
Now, fast-forward in time to 27 February 2019, and the “Lying Brian” Williams Show on MSNBC following the appearance of the bumbling, lying scumbag ex-lawyer and convicted felon now doing federal time Michael Cohen before the congressional committee of presidential inquisition of Democrat congressman from Inner City Baltimore Elijah “The Bull” Cummings, where we had this same Frank Figliuzzi commenting as follows, to wit:
FIGLIUZZI: Well, let’s do the last one first, which is this issue of how you interpret Don Jr. leaning over saying that the meeting is set.
Barbara mentioned earlier how important it is that whatever Cohen provides is pieced together with other parts of the puzzle and what I’d like to remind people of is that Mueller has much of that puzzle in place and much of that comes in the form of classified intelligence, grand jury material, human sources of information, technical sources of information and the entire panoply of techniques from the U.S. intelligence agencies and allies.
So, what does that mean?
It means that, you know, you can put people in times and places.
You’ve interviewed dozens and dozens of people.
You’ve checked video surveillance of building CCTV and security cameras.
And if this piece of the puzzle fits into a timing of a theory that Trump knew about the meeting and knew its purpose then this has been extremely helpful.
Now, on the collusion side it makes sense to me that Cohen would not have been in that circle or would not have been someone who was privy to truly getting inside Trump`s head and determining whether he knew that Russia was helping.
I think that’s another form of communication he’s having with other people.
And whether or not WikiLeaks – whether he understood that WikiLeaks was getting their material from a Russian hack and was merely being utilized to disseminate that stolen material, we don`t know yet but I’m increasingly convinced that investigators do and we’ll soon find out what that truth is.
end quotes
But, Frank, dude, you knew the truth back in 2010, and the truth then was about Hillary Clinton and the Russians, not Trump, so dude, besides the fact that you are now getting a paycheck from MSNBC to aid and assist them with their spin on this narrative, between then and now, what changed?
And then we have the same Frank Figliuzzi in the damning article published by the highly partisan NBC NEWS entitled “Frank Figliuzzi AG Barr’s FBI investigation, President Trump and the threat from within – By perpetuating Trump’s falsehoods about the FBI and Mueller’s report, Barr has become the kind of threat capable of doing severe harm.” by Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and NBC News/MSNBC analyst on May 18, 2019, as follows:
Counterintelligence professionals often refer to their mission as “the three D’s:” detect, deter and defeat the efforts of foreign intelligence services targeting the United States.
Per Executive Order 12333, our government’s lead counterintelligence agency is the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The counterintelligence program is the second most important priority for the FBI, just after preventing the next terror attack.
FBI agents assigned to this work are hunters at heart.
They seek and find those whose efforts would weaken our nation, make us more vulnerable to attack, undermine the rule of law and wreak havoc with our democracy.
end quotes
And right there, with that last sentence or statement about those whose efforts weaken our nation and make us more vulnerable to attack while undermining the rule of law and wreaking havoc with our democracy, he is describing Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state under Hussein Obama, which takes us back to his NBC News screed against Barr, as follows:
When an adversary is aided in its cause by a fortuitous insider who required no energy or resources to cajole or coerce, the enemy views such serendipity as a gift.
end quotes
And again, right there, who he is talking about is Hillary Clinton as Hussein Obama’s secretary of state!
So where is Figliuzzi, formerly of the FBI, going to spin that narrative off to?
Let’s go back to NBC News, where we have as follows:
When that insider happens to be the attorney general of the United States, that gift is priceless.
end quotes
HUH?
The attorney general?
WTF is he on about?
Oh, he must mean either Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., Hussein Obama’s loyal attorney general who acted more like Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer that he did the “people’s lawyer,” or maybe Loretta Lynch, but let’s go back to the screed to see what kind of a ride he is taking us on here, to wit:
As we all have learned, the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, acting on classified data, allied intelligence, human sources and conduct occurring in plain view, opened a counterintelligence investigation to explore Russia’s attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The FBI inquiry also included connections between the Trump campaign and known or suspected Russian government affiliated individuals.
Those connections are detailed in over 100 pages of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.
Mueller’s inquiry was predicated by the FBI’s initial Russia investigation.
end quotes
And that takes us back to either July or August of 2016, and the report of all the dirt on Hillary that has subsequently been very professionally buried, which takes us back to Figliuzzi’s spin in the NBC News piece, to wit:
Now, President Donald Trump and Barr seek to undermine Mueller’s findings by fueling doubt about the FBI’s decision to open the initial Russian case that led to a special counsel appointment.
end quotes
Frank, dude, wake up here, get your head out of your ***, and listen up: we, the American people, do not need Trump, nor do we need Barr, to have serious doubts about the FBI’s decision to open the initial Russian case that led to a special counsel appointment.
As you can see from all of the above, we have gotten there all on our own, which again takes us back to the Figliuzzi NBC News screed against Barr as follows!
Barr instructed John Durham, a veteran and respected prosecutor and current U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, to examine the predication for the FBI’s Russia case.
Choosing to use a hand-picked direct subordinate instead of simply tapping the more independent Department of Justice inspector general is suspicious on its own.
When added to Barr’s other partisan conduct over the past few weeks, his decision is one more blow to a Justice Department and FBI that must function as independent, apolitical champions of the truth.
end quotes
HUH all over again, people!
One more blow to a Justice Department and FBI that must function as independent, apolitical champions of the truth?
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!
That, people is quite rich!
Personally, I’m waiting for the day when the Justice Department and FBI function as independent, apolitical champions of the truth, and the chances of having that happen under Barr are a hell of a lot better than they were under Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., Jimmy Comey, Andrew McCabe and Loretta Lynch and Rosenstein.
And again, back to the Figliuzzi screed courtesy of NBC we go:
Barr has already etched his legacy as a politically motivated AG.
end quotes
Oh, really, dude?
And Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. wasn’t?
Or Loretta Lynch?
And how does Figliuzzi come to that conclusion about Barr?
Let’s go back to NBC News and see:
He (Barr) issued a misleading summary of the special counsel’s findings, unilaterally proclaimed there was “no collusion” between the campaign and Russia although Mueller limited his search to only criminal conspiracy and decided that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice despite Mueller specifically stating that the president could not be exonerated and had committed 10 acts that could constitute obstruction.
Barr also chose to refer to lawful investigation of Russia’s influence in our presidential campaign as “spying,” knowing full well that the word implied illegal acts as alleged by his seeming client, President Donald Trump.
Barr occupies the cabinet position arguably most critical to preserving our unique form of government.
More than any of his administration colleagues, the attorney general must be apolitical, independent and loyal only to the Constitution.
The role is rightly described as “the people’s lawyer” because we count on the AG to uphold the rule of law so that the least among us may receive justice.
But instead, our current attorney general would have us believe the myth that some kind of deep state resides within the corridors of our most trusted institutions, a conspiracy theory the president’s supporters have repeatedly echoed.
Despite ongoing related investigations by a capable DOJ inspector general, Barr wants us to believe, as does his boss, that our system is broken and that the only fix lies outside the practices and policies that served our democracy for centuries.
We don’t know if Barr’s decisions are malicious, self-serving or simply ignorant.
But by perpetuating the president’s falsehoods and eroding Americans’ trust in our institutions, Barr has become the kind of threat capable of doing severe harm; he has become a threat from within.
– C. Frank Figliuzzi is the former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and a previous chief inspector of the FBI. He is now the COO for ETS Risk Management, Inc. and an analyst for NBC News/MSNBC.
end quotes
And wow, people, right now I am so absolutely scared pretty much right out of my wits here by that statement from Figliuzzi that Barr has become the kind of threat capable of doing severe harm; he has become a threat from within, that I am going to run real quick down into my basement and hide behind something real substantial before the Russians come to overrun us and make us all COMMIES, but after station identification and a pause for a commercial break, I will be over my abject fear and will be right back!
Paul Plante says
And seriously, people, in the light of this New York Times story entitled “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation” by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos a year ago now on May 16, 2018, who can possibly take this MSNBC talking head Frank Figliuzzi seriously when he comes forth with his absurd premises in his damning op-ed published by the highly partisan NBC NEWS entitled “Frank Figliuzzi AG Barr’s FBI investigation, President Trump and the threat from within – By perpetuating Trump’s falsehoods about the FBI and Mueller’s report, Barr has become the kind of threat capable of doing severe harm.” by Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and NBC News/MSNBC analyst on May 18, 2019, that President Donald Trump and Barr seek to undermine Mueller’s findings by fueling doubt about the FBI’s decision to open the initial Russian case that led to a special counsel appointment, especially as Wikipedia has a page on the highly top secret and very much compartmentalized FBI OPERATION CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, where we, the common people of America without any kind of security clearances are regaled with this super-secret FBI spy ****, as follows. to wit:
From late July to November 2016, a joint effort between the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Security Agency (NSA) examined evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 United States presidential election.
The FBI’s team enjoyed a large degree of autonomy within the broader interagency probe.
The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was officially opened on July 31, 2016, initially due to information on Trump campaign member George Papadopoulos’ early knowledge of Russians having damaging material on Donald Trump’s rival candidate Hillary Clinton.
The FBI’s work was taken over on May 17, 2017, by the Special Counsel investigation of 2017–2019, which eventually resulted in the Mueller Report.
Mueller concluded that Russian interference occurred in a “sweeping and systematic fashion” and that there were substantial links with the Trump campaign, but that the evidence available to investigators did not establish that the Trump campaign had “conspired or coordinated” with the Russian government.
end quotes
So when we go back to the Figliuzzi screed on May 18, 2019 where he says Barr instructed John Durham, a veteran and respected prosecutor and current U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, to examine the predication for the FBI’s Russia case, all Durham has to do is what the rest of us have done, which is to simply read the New York Times and Wikipedia, and like us, he will then know everything there is to know about it, which is and has been PUBLIC INFORMATION for some time, so when Figliuzzi whines and snivels in his May 18, 2019 NBC screed that choosing to use a hand-picked direct subordinate instead of simply tapping the more independent Department of Justice inspector general is suspicious on its own, he is talking like a fool, plain and simple.
Does Figliuzzi think or feel that the Department of Justice inspector general can read and decipher a New York Times article and a Wikipedia article on Operation Crossfire Hurricane better than can a hand-picked direct subordinate?
But that is just stupid and dumb, given the Department of Justice or FBI janitorial staff could read and decipher the New York Times article as well as any of them, so what kind of bull**** is this Figliuzzi trying to peddle here, especially when he comes back in his screed and says, “when added to Barr’s other partisan conduct over the past few weeks, his decision is one more blow to a Justice Department and FBI that must function as independent, apolitical champions of the truth.”
Given that the New York Times blew the whistle on Operation Crossfire Hurricane a year ago on May 16, 2018, and given that Wikipedia has a page on the subject, nothing Barr has done or said in the last couple of weeks in any way, shape or manner is any kind of blow to a Justice Department and FBI that must function as independent, apolitical champions of the truth, especially as neither the Justice Department nor the FBI are considered to be either independent or apolitical, nor are they deemed to be “champions of the truth,” which takes us back to the Figliuzzi screed as follows for this gem, to wit:
Barr also chose to refer to lawful investigation of Russia’s influence in our presidential campaign as “spying,” knowing full well that the word implied illegal acts as alleged by his seeming client, President Donald Trump.
end quotes
Partisan much there, Frank?
You don’t think much of the Attorney General, do you?
As to the FBI spying on the Trump team before the 2016 presidential election, this is what Wikipedia tells us about its origins, to wit, and please, people, this **** is so top secret that there is a secret classification on just how secret it is, so don’t be telling people about this top secret FBI ****, which is as follows:
Origins
After working on the Ben Carson campaign as a foreign policy adviser, until Carson left the presidential race in January 2016, George Papadopoulos accepted a job offer at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP).
Within this work, he was invited on March 12 to meet Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud on the Link Campus University in Rome.
Soon thereafter Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign – Trump annouced him as a foreign policy adviser on March 21.
Mifsud took more interest in Papadopoulos, and met him in London on March 24 with a Russian woman posing as “Putin’s niece”.
Mifsud travelled to Moscow in April 2016, and upon his return he told Papadopoulos that Russian government officials were in possession of “thousands of emails” that could be politically damaging to Hillary Clinton.
On May 6, Papadopoulos met Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to Britain in a London bar, and told him about the Clinton emails over drinks.
After WikiLeaks released hacked DNC emails on July 22, the Australian government on July 26 advised American authorities of the encounter between Downer and Papadopoulos, which spurred the FBI into launching the Crossfire Hurricane investigation on July 31.
end quotes
So as I said before, HUH all over again, people!
One more blow to a Justice Department and FBI that must function as independent, apolitical champions of the truth?
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!
That, people is quite rich!
MEMO TO MSNBC TALKING HEAD FRANK FIGLIUZZI:
The news is out, dude, all over town
The FBI has been seen, a-runnin’ ’round
And you can read all about it in the New York Times!
And now for a word from our sponsors as we pause for station identification.