MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Peter Strzok’

« Previous Entries

The FBI Has Been Lying About Seth Rich – Craig Murray

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/the-fbi-has-been-lying-about-seth-rich/

by

A persistent American lawyer has uncovered the undeniable fact that the FBI has been continuously lying, including giving false testimony in court, in response to Freedom of Information requests for its records on Seth Rich. The FBI has previously given affidavits that it has no records regarding Seth Rich.

A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich, but asked for all email correspondence between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok, who headed the investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks, and FBI attorney Lisa Page, has revealed two pages of emails which do not merely mention Seth Rich but have “Seth Rich” as their heading. The emails were provided in, to say the least, heavily redacted form.

Before I analyse these particular emails, I should make plain that they are not the major point. The major point is that the FBI claimed it had no records mentioning Seth Rich, and these have come to light in response to a different FOIA request that was not about him. What other falsely denied documents does the FBI hold about Rich, that were not fortuitously picked up by a search for correspondence between two named individuals?

To look at the documents themselves, they have to be read from the bottom up, and they consist of a series of emails between members of the Washington Field Office of the FBI (WF in the telegrams) into which Strzok was copied in, and which he ultimately forwarded on to the lawyer Lisa Page.

The opening email, at the bottom, dated 10 August 2016 at 10.32am, precisely just one month after the murder of Seth Rich, is from the media handling department of the Washington Field Office. It references Wikileaks’ offer of a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich, and that Assange seemed to imply Rich was the source of the DNC leaks. The media handlers are asking the operations side of the FBI field office for any information on the case. The unredacted part of the reply fits with the official narrative. The redacted individual officer is “not aware of any specific involvement” by the FBI in the Seth Rich case. But his next sentence is completely redacted. Why?

It appears that “adding” references a new person added in to the list. This appears to have not worked, and probably the same person (precisely same length of deleted name) then tries again, with “adding … for real” and blames the technology – “stupid Samsung”. The interesting point here is that the person added appears not to be in the FBI – a new redacted addressee does indeed appear, and unlike all the others does not have an FBI suffix after their deleted email address. So who are they?

(This section on “adding” was updated after commenters offered a better explanation than my original one. See first comments below).

The fourth email, at 1pm on Wednesday August 10, 2016, is much the most interesting. It is ostensibly also from the Washington Field Office, but it is from somebody using a different classified email system with a very different time and date format than the others. It is apparently from somebody more senior, as the reply to it is “will do”. And every single word of this instruction has been blanked. The final email, saying that “I squashed this with …..”, is from a new person again, with the shortest name. That phrase may only have meant I denied this to a journalist, or it may have been reporting an operational command given.

As the final act in this drama, Strzok then sent the whole thread on to the lawyer, which is why we now have it. Why?

It is perfectly possible to fill in the blanks with a conversation that completely fits the official narrative. The deletions could say this was a waste of time and the FBI was not looking at the Rich case. But in that case, the FBI would have been delighted to publish it unredacted. (The small numbers in the right hand margins supposedly detail the exception to the FOIA under which deletion was made. In almost every case they are one or other category of invasion of privacy).

And if it just all said “Assange is talking nonsense. Seth Rich is nothing to do with the FBI” then why would that have to be sent on by Strzok to the FBI lawyer?

It is of course fortunate that Strzok did forward this one email thread on to the lawyer, because that is the only reason we have seen it, as a result of an FOI(A) request for the correspondence between those two.

Finally, and perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue?

We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says “well if the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect”. If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not? If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their “investigation” was entirely agenda driven from the start.

In June 2016 a vast cache of the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. On 10 July 2016 an employee from the location of the leak was murdered without obvious motive, in an alleged street robbery in which nothing at all was stolen. Not to investigate the possibility of a link between the two incidents would be grossly negligent. It is worth adding that, contrary to a propaganda barrage, Bloomingdale where Rich was murdered is a very pleasant area of Washington DC and by no means a murder hotspot. It is also worth noting that not only is there no suspect in Seth Rich’s murder, there has never been any semblance of a serious effort to find the killer. Washington police appear perfectly happy simply to write this case off.

I anticipate two responses to this article in terms of irrelevant and illogical whataboutery:

Firstly, it is very often the case that family members are extremely resistant to the notion that the murder of a relative may have wider political implications. This is perfectly natural. The appalling grief of losing a loved one to murder is extraordinary; to reject the cognitive dissonance of having your political worldview shattered at the same time is very natural. In the case of David Kelly, of Seth Rich, and of Wille Macrae, we see families reacting with emotional hostility to the notion that the death raises wider questions. Occasionally the motive may be still more mixed, with the prior relationship between the family and the deceased subject to other strains (I am not referencing the Rich case here).

You do occasionally get particularly stout hearted family who take the opposite tack and are prepared to take on the authorities in the search for justice, of which Commander Robert Green, son of Hilda Murrell, is a worthy example.

(As an interesting aside, I just checked his name in the Wikipedia article on Hilda, which I discovered describes Tam Dalyell “hounding” Margaret Thatcher over the Belgrano and the fact that ship was steaming away from the Falklands when destroyed with massive loss of life as a “second conspiracy theory”, the first of course being the murder of Hilda Murrell. Wikipedia really has become a cesspool.)

We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not want the question of the death of their loved one disturbed, nobody else should bring it up. Seth Rich’s parents, David Kelly’s wife, Willie Macrae’s brother have all been deployed by the media and the powers behind them to this effect, among many other examples. This is an emotionally powerful but logically weak method of restricting enquiry.

Secondly, I do not know and I deliberately have not inquired what are the views on other subjects of either Mr Ty Clevenger, who brought his evidence and blog to my attention, or Judicial Watch, who made the FOIA request that revealed these documents. I am interested in the evidence presented both that the FBI lied, and in the documents themselves. Those who obtained the documents may, for all I know, be dedicated otter baiters or believe in stealing ice cream from children. I am referencing the evidence they have obtained in this particular case, not endorsing – or condemning – anything else in their lives or work. I really have had enough of illogical detraction by association as a way of avoiding logical argument by an absurd extension of ad hominem argument to third parties.

Be seeing you

FIB

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How out of Control Is Our Surveillance State? | Cato Institute

Posted by M. C. on December 23, 2019

Americans deserve a stronger assurance than “hope” that their Fourth Amendment rights are being respected.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-out-control-our-surveillance-state

By Julian Sanchez

This article appeared on The New York Times on December 18, 2019.
Share

The F.B.I.’s investigation of the former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, we can now say with assurance, was a train wreck. In his report, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz cataloged a damning list of egregious errors, omissions or misrepresentations in filings to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approved nearly a year’s worth of wiretaps on Mr. Page.

Many Republicans have taken this as proof that the investigation was hopelessly contaminated by anti-Trump political bias. That would be the optimistic scenario. Unfortunately, it’s probably much worse than that.

If the F.B.I. botched its applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against Mr. Page because of political bias, after all, problems of the sort Mr. Horowitz identified are most likely unique to this case. The bureau obtains about 1,500 FISA warrants each year, and an overwhelming majority have no connection to domestic politics. The solution is also similarly simple: Toss out the bad apples who acted on political motives and add a few layers of safeguards for the tiny fraction of cases that are designated “sensitive investigative matters” because they do intersect with politics.

 

That might be a reasonable response if we were confident the Page investigation represented an outlier or aberration. The chilling reality, however, is that we have no idea whether that’s the case.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, zeroed in on this point. When she asked Mr. Horowitz whether finding mistakes in a FISA application was “a fairly unusual occurrence,” he responded, “I would hope so.”

Americans deserve a stronger assurance than “hope” that their Fourth Amendment rights are being respected. The sheer quantity of serious defects in the FISA applications targeting Mr. Page — which officials consistently told Mr. Horowitz received far more review than normal, because agents understood the applications would doubtless attract controversy and scrutiny — raises an obvious and disturbing question: If they’re this sloppy with a target involved in a presidential campaign, how bad is it in ordinary cases, which the public will never learn about and which are unlikely to ever be the topic of congressional hearings?

We needn’t worry so much about that, of course, if the defects of the Page warrants were products of political animus against the Trump campaign. But the report provides very little reason to think that’s the case. The case for supposing bias is the culprit here leans heavily on the former F.B.I. agent Peter Strzok, now notorious for a voluminous history of text messages denigrating Mr. Trump and suggesting that he would not become president because “we will stop it.” But while Mr. Strzok played a supervisory role in the earliest stage of the Page investigation, it’s hard to tie him to the specific problems Mr. Horowitz identifies. As the report notes, Mr. Strzok “was not the primary or sole decision maker on any investigative step” and at one point opposed FISA monitoring of another Trump campaign staff member that case agents proposed. Moreover, the problems Mr. Horowitz documented in the initial FISA application filed under Mr. Strzok’s watch were significantly less serious than the outrageous omissions and misrepresentations to the court that occurred in the subsequent applications to renew the wiretap, after Mr. Strzok’s role in the investigation had ended.

With one significant exception — an F.B.I. lawyer responsible for improperly altering an email related to the final renewal application — Mr. Horowitz didn’t find signs of Mr. Strzok’s intense animus among others who worked on the FISA warrants. The report notes that among the huge quantity of internal communications reviewed, the inspector general identified “a small number of text messages and instant messages” in which members of the investigation team “discussed political issues and candidates,” but that these “did not raise significant questions of potential bias or improper motivation.”

If there’s an explanation for the errors Mr. Horowitz documents suggested by his reports, it’s not political bias. It’s confirmation bias.

The F.B.I.’s interest in Mr. Page — and its suspicions that he might be a Russian intelligence asset — predated his involvement in presidential politics. He had reportedly been the target of a FISA warrant in 2014 and was the focus of yet another counterintelligence investigation opened in April 2016 by the F.B.I.’s notoriously Trump-friendly New York field office, months before the bureau started an inquiry into potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia’s election interference operation. When investigators got wind of Christopher Steele’s notorious dossier, which made Mr. Page a pivotal figure in a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Mr. Trump and the Kremlin, it would have seemed like confirmation of what they already suspected.

Having adopted this theory, investigators began to exhibit classic signs of confirmation bias, readily absorbing new information that fit the model they’d built, while overlooking or explaining away facts that didn’t fit. The worst misrepresentations to the court that Mr. Horowitz uncovered are sins of omission — new information the bureau obtained as the investigation progressed that should have led it to question previous representations it had made to the court.

The many layers of review FISA applications go through — laid out in a set of rules known as the Woods Procedures — were ill equipped to detect this sort of problem, because the Woods Procedures focus on confirming that facts in the application match documents in the F.B.I.’s case file. But you can’t fact check a claim that doesn’t exist — which means the process is bad at detecting important information that has been left out. Officials who reviewed later applications also told Mr. Horowitz that they typically focused on the new information in each submission. That means assertions they’d made early on ended up effectively being taken for granted: Nobody was revisiting early assumptions to see whether they still held up in the face of new data.

If this explains why the Page investigation went increasingly off the rails, it’s an explanation that has little to do with partisan politics at its heart. But that would mean there’s little reason to think the Page investigation is special in this respect. There’s an urgent need, then, for the inspector general to do more such “deep dives” and figure out just how pervasive the problem really is.

Fortunately, the inspector general is already taking a first step in this direction, having begun a review that will “examine the F.B.I.’s compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons.” But in itself, that’s not enough: While Mr. Horowitz found violations of the Woods Procedures in the Page case, they weren’t the most serious distortions. Those occurred precisely because the Woods Procedures aren’t well calibrated to catch material facts that get left out. To do that, you’d need to do the kind of intensive and comprehensive case-by-case review conducted in the Horowitz review, not just run Woods vetting a second time to see whether the results tally.

Doing this sort of deep dive for a representative sample of FISA applications will, of course, be both expensive and extremely time consuming. But it’s well worth it to find out just how badly our surveillance state is broken.

Be seeing you

JFK-CIA

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Don’t Expect Any Truth From Washington – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on December 13, 2019

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/12/09/dont-expect-any-truth-from-washington/

Paul Craig Roberts

On November 25 I predicted that the DOJ would never rat on itself. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/11/25/washington-the-cesspool-of-the-world-will-never-rat-on-itself/

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is part of the problem, has proven me correct with his whitewash of the politically orchestrated “investigation” of President Trump for collusion with Russia to steal the US presidential election. No one in his right mind could believe such a ridiculous accusation was worthy of investigation, especially when there was not a nano-gram of evidence, as the Mueller report confirmed. Horowitz even ruled that there was no FBI political bias despite the total proof of it in FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok’s emails with DOJ lawyer Lisa Page, showing the plot against Trump:

“At the heart of GOP lawmakers’ complaints about Strzok were a series of texts from Aug. 8, 2016, between Strzok and Page, his alleged mistress, in which Strzok wrote to Page, ‘We’ll stop’ a Trump presidency. Trump is ‘not ever going to become president, right? Right?!’ Page wrote. ‘No. No he won’t,’ Strzok responded. ‘We’ll stop it.’”
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/report-fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-for-anti-trump-texts

Horowitz, obviously a person very short on integrity or intelligence, declared this blatent bias to not be bias. So we have a DOJ Inspector General giving us Newspeak, the language in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

Horowitz’s real assignment was not to investigate, but to cover up the crime, which he did by finding that the FBI made a large number of “mistakes” that the FBI director promises new controls in place to prevent in the future. Thus Horowitz did his job. He converted crimes into “mistakes.” That is the way Washington works.

Will John Durham’s criminal investigation of the Democrats, CIA, and FBI for their Russiagate hoax, an investigation that should include investigation of the complicit Presstitute Media who are without any doubt accessories to the crime, also prove me correct?

When has the United States government told the truth about anything?

President John F. Kennedy’s assassination?
Robert Kennedy’s assassination?
Martin Luther King’s assassination?
The Gulf of Tonkin?
The USS Liberty?
9/11?
Saddam Hussein’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction”?
Assad’s Use of Chemical Weapons?
Iranian nukes?
The destruction of Libya and Gaddafi?
Russian invasion of Georgia?
Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Russiagate?
Impeachgate?

It is easy to add to this list.

America is ruled by lies. Truth is completely absent. And the American population tolerates it. Rule by lies is now the American Way.

Be seeing you

?u=http1.bp.blogspot.com-VW7oJe44hnEUOoJECSaOdIAAAAAAAAFtcOBwYhJUuqKMs640cliche3.jpg&f=1

As American as…

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

You Ask a Lot of Questions for a President – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2019

Yes, the FBI was SO frantic about the DNC’s servers … that it didn’t bother examining them itself. I repeat: The FBI never touched the DNC’s servers.

https://www.takimag.com/article/22461/

by Ann Coulter

This column will explain the impeachment farce in two minutes. By the end, you will thank the media for demanding the release of Trump’s phone calls with the leaders of Ukraine and Australia.

What the phone transcripts demonstrate is that — unlike the typical Republican — Trump is not a let-bygones-be-bygones sort. He intends to find out who turned the FBI into a Hillary super PAC, using the powers of the nation’s “premiere law enforcement agency” (according to them) to take out a presidential candidate, and then a president.

The whole picture becomes clear when you have the timeline.

Instead of the FBI just admitting that it launched the Russia probe to help elect Hillary, the agency has given us a scrolling series of excuses for this partisan attack.

The FBI’s first claim was that it was merely investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email servers. As part of that effort, it was, naturally, obligated to spy on the Trump campaign.

Then we found out that the John le Carre theory of Hillary’s defeat was based exclusively on the word of a single cybersecurity firm. Yes, the FBI was SO frantic about the DNC’s servers … that it didn’t bother examining them itself. I repeat: The FBI never touched the DNC’s servers.

And who did? CrowdStrike. Who was CrowdStrike? A Ukrainian-backed cybersecurity firm.

That’s why Trump asked the Ukrainian president about CrowdStrike — the company behind the first of the FBI’s many excuses for spying on Trump.

On Jan. 10, 2017 — before Trump was even inaugurated — FBI Director James Comey breathed new life into the Russian collusion story by leaking news about the infamous Russian “dossier.”

Hurray! The media were ecstatic. For the next 10 months, we got breathless reports about how this very important, totally credible, deeply concerning dossier might force Trump out of the White House!

E.g.:

— “I remember pretty distinctly that you supported President Trump’s criticism of this dossier … Do you want to dial back that criticism now?” — CNN’s Kate Bolduan to former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, April 19, 2017

— “If the dossier is now about to be publicly defended and explained and backed up, I mean, that’s conceivably the whole ball game.” — MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Aug. 23, 2017

After carrying on about the dossier for nearly all of 2017, on Oct. 24 of that year, we finally found out who had paid for it: the Hillary Clinton campaign. (And you wonder why they don’t want to give us the whistleblower’s name.)

This rather important datum was coughed up not by the media, but only in response to a court order. Good work, “watchdog media”! Nothing gets past you guys.

Suddenly the dossier wasn’t important at all. Where did Republicans get that idea?

At this point, the FBI had to scramble to come up with an all-new explanation for why the bureau had put more than 100 agents — according to NBC News’ Ken Dilanian — on an investigation of a presidential candidate. (Luckily, the bureau had lots of time, having already vanquished international terrorism.)

Within a matter of days, on Oct. 30, the media was bristling with the news that the real reason the FBI put G-Men on the Trump campaign was: George Papadopoulos.

(Don’t stop reading! The sun is about come out and all will be clear.) Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Confirmed: Obama knew about, and was DIRECTING, the “Spygate” coup attempt against Trump from the very beginning – NaturalNews.com

Posted by M. C. on August 26, 2019

Earlier this week during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Andrew McCarthy, attorney and former federal prosecutor who specialized in national security cases, said “counterintelligence operations” which is what Spygate was, at its core, are “done for the president.”

There is a reason it is called the swamp and EVERYONE is in the muck.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08-23-obama-knew-about-and-was-directing-spygate-coup-attempt-against-trump.html

by:

Confirmed: Obama knew about, and was DIRECTING, the “Spygate” coup attempt against Trump from the very beginning

Friday, August 23, 2019 by:

Image: Confirmed: Obama knew about, and was DIRECTING, the “Spygate” coup attempt against Trump from the very beginning

(Natural News) For nearly two years as information about the coup attempt against President Donald Trump known as “Spygate” dripped out, observers long suspected that an operation of this scope – involving the Justice Department, the FBI, U.S. and foreign intelligence assets – had to have come from the very top.

That is, former President Obama, who was in the Oval Office when Spygate was hatched and began as the 2016 presidential election cycle kicked off, had to have not only known about it but approved it.

Now, the speculation is over: Of course, he did.

Earlier this week during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Andrew McCarthy, attorney and former federal prosecutor who specialized in national security cases, said “counterintelligence operations” which is what Spygate was, at its core, are “done for the president.”

That means, as The Gateway Pundit notes, they are executed specifically to inform the commander-in-chief.

“What I’m saying is not that the president sits there and directs that there be counter-intelligence investigations. What I’m saying is that unlike criminal investigations, counter intelligence investigations are done for the president,” McCarthy said.

“The only reason to do them is for the president with the information he needs to protect the United States from foreign threats. They’re not like criminal investigations in that regard. So, in principle, the information is for the president. And here we know at various junctures we have actual factual information that this investigation was well known to President Obama,” he added.

Hannity asked if the president knew about the investigation from the outset, wouldn’t he have been updated on its progress?

“Sean, if things were working properly the president should have been alerted about it and informed. It was a very important investigation,” McCarthy added.

“If they actually believed what they were telling the court that it was a possibility that Donald Trump was actually a plant of the Kremlin, it would have been derelict on their part not to keep the president informed,” he added. (Related: What did Obama know about Trump collusion hoax and when did he know it? Everything, and from the beginning.)

Assumptions have been confirmed

This isn’t the first crumb of evidence indicating that Obama was in on Spygate from the outset. In fact, previous information indicates that Obama actually orchestrated the coup attempt.

As The National Sentinel reported in May 2018, former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said during a Fox News interview that there was no way Obama would not have been kept in the loop.

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry tweeted the information: “BREAKING: Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said “I guarantee the answer is yes” to whether Obama knew Halper & others were deployed to spy on Trump campaign. Fleischer explained that no FBI director would put informants inside a presidential campaign w/o the prez authorizing it.”

Earlier that same week, President Trump pretty much said the same thing – and he should know, since he now occupies the Oval Office.

“Would he know? I would certainly hope not. But I think it’s going to be pretty obvious after awhile,” POTUS teased in response to a question from a reporter.

There’s more.

As The National Sentinel noted further, then-FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok, in a text to his lover, then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, discussed the preparation of talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama. Page said it was important to do so because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”

Also, since the spying against Team Trump was set up as a counterintelligence operation, Obama would have been updated regularly via the President’s Daily Intelligence Brief.

It’s one thing to have assumed that former President Obama was in on the Spygate scandal from the outset. But it’s another to now have had that assumption verified and confirmed.

The question is, will he ever be held accountable for his role?

Be seeing you

Bookworm Beat 5/23/2018 -- the #Spygate edition and open ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Hidden Reason The ‘Russia Collusion’ Investigation Ever Got Started – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on June 26, 2019

Montgomery claims that Brennan and Clapper used the super-surveillance system Montgomery designed to spy on Article III federal judges, including the onetime head of the FISA court Judge Reggie Walton

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/06/25/news-the-hidden-reason-the-russia-collusion-investigation-ever-got-started/

By

In Brief

  • The Facts:While many have come to conclude that Donald Trump did not collude with Russia, there may be a deeper and darker explanation as to why the Russia Collusion probe started other than powerful people having a strong dislike for Donald Trump.
  • Reflect On:Can we see the “Russia Collusion” probe as a form of “projection” of the crimes that the accusers themselves had a hand in committing?

If the investigation into whether or not Donald Trump colluded with Russia and the ensuing ‘special counsel’ headed by Robert Mueller is starting to look to you like little more than a smoke screen, you are not alone. If FBI agent Peter Strzok’s text message that ‘there’s no big there there’ seems prophetically self-incriminating, you are on the right track. And if Attorney General William Barr’s appointment of US attorney John Durham to investigate how the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election began has you anticipating that maybe, finally, the floodgates of truth are about to open wide, I would not be one to bet against you.

Nothing is guaranteed in the political arena, of course. Certainly not in terms of the public being told the truth of what is really going on in the chambers of power. Nor should we be looking to our elected leaders or their appointees for our ultimate salvation. However, for those with an ear to the ground and a sense of the rising dramatic tension in political theatre, it seems that there is nothing else left but for the truth behind the weakening veils of deception to start gushing out.

There is now an abundance of riches when it comes to evidence that there is a shadow government, a Deep State, that has long wielded the power behind the U.S. Government, and has operated in its own self-interest to the detriment of the American people and their liberties. The notion that the entire ‘Russia Collusion’ narrative was founded on the desire of this shadow government to hide its own activities from the public, and project its own crimes onto innocent people, will start to make more and more sense to an ever-widening audience in the coming months.

Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery

In a May 12th article by Mary Fanning and Alan Jones of theAmericanReport.org entitled “Comey Launched Trump Russia Investigation Day After General Exposed ‘The Hammer‘,” we learn about inventor and software designer Dennis Montgomery, a CIA/DOD/DHS/NSA/FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower.

Writer’s Note: As soon as I had written the line above I clicked on the link to the American Report article as I wanted to review it and select some quotes from it. Below is a screenshot of the message I received:

This sort of thing can no longer be considered ‘coincidence’. These technical glitches can only happen so many times before we are able to presume that this is evidence of intentional sabotage to prevent people from knowing the truth. In his radio show Operation Freedom, Dave Janda warned about this very thing–that the deep investigative articles on this site might soon be shut down by this ‘can’t provide a secure connection’ message…

The ‘Hammer’

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

FBI Failed to Document Four Clinton Witness Interviews – The Daily Sheeple

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2019

Your FIB…too busy trying to get Hillary-more important than you-Clinton elected.

https://www.thedailysheeple.com/fbi-failed-to-document-four-clinton-witness-interviews/

By

The Daily Sheeple | 

The FBI failed to document at least four interviews of witnesses in the bureau’s investigation into former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified emails, according to documents obtained by the government watchdog Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch also discovered among the 218 pages of emails between former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and his paramour former FBI Attorney Lisa Page that then FBI General Counsel James Baker had instructed “FBI officials to expedite the release of FBI investigative material to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall in August 2016. Kendall and the FBI’s top lawyer discussed specifically quickly obtaining the “302” report of the FBI/DOJ interview of Mrs. Clinton.”

These findings are significant, as they come at a crucial time when the Department of Justice under Attorney General William Barr is investigating the bureau’s handling of both the Clinton probe and the investigation into the origination of the bureau’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign alleged – now debunked – ties to Russia.

“These incredible documents show the leadership of the FBI rushed to give Hillary Clinton her FBI interview report shortly before the election,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And the documents also show the FBI failed to timely document interviews in the Clinton email ‘matter’ – further confirming the whole investigation was a joke. AG Barr can’t reopen the Clinton email investigation soon enough.”

The information obtained by Judicial Watch coincides with documents obtained by Congressional investigations. For example, Rep. John Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox New’s Maria Bartiromo Sunday that Strzok’s involvement in the Trump campaign’s defensive briefing mired in conflict.

First, Ratcliffe noted that it was Strzok who opened the official investigation into Trump’s campaign on July 31, 2016 dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane.” Ratfcliffe warned that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who has been appointed by Barr to investigate the bureau, was essentially acting as a ‘special counsel’ in the DOJ’s investigation.

“It’s interesting that 18 days later on August 17, of 2016 that the FBI and CIA conducted a counterintelligence briefing for the purpose of protecting and warning Donald Trump would put in charge for coordinating that briefing Peter Strzok – the same agent who was already investigating the Trump campaign,” Ratcliffe told Bartiromo. “The same agent who eight days before that defensive briefing to protect and warn Donald Trump sent a text message saying he was going to ‘stop him.’ Then two days before that defensive briefing sent a text message saying ‘we need an insurance policy’ against the Trump presidency.”

“So little wonder on that day of August 17, 2016 Donald Trump isn’t warned about Russian interference in his campaign and he wasn’t briefed about the Steele Dossier, wasn’t briefed about Carter Page,” Ratcliffe added…

Be seeing you

6a79c-iu

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Real Motive Behind the FBI Plan to Investigate Trump as a Russian Agent – Consortiumnews

Posted by M. C. on February 14, 2019

The FIB

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/13/the-real-motive-behind-the-fbi-plan-to-investigate-trump-as-a-russian-agent/

By Gareth Porter

The New York Times and CNN led media coverage last month of discussions among senior FBI officials in May 2017 of a possible national security investigation of President Donald Trump himself, on the premise that he may have acted as an agent of Russia.

The episode has potentially profound political fallout, because the Times and CNN stories suggested that Trump may indeed have acted like a Russian agent. The New York Times story on Jan. 11 was headlined, “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia.” CNN followed three days later with: “Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was ‘following directions’ of Russia.”

By reporting that Russia may have been able to suborn the president of the United States, these stories have added an even more extreme layer to the dominant national political narrative of a serious Russian threat to destroy U.S. democracy. An analysis of the FBI’s idea of Trump as possible Russian agent reveals, moreover, that it is based on a devious concept of “unwitting” service to Russian interests that can be traced back to former CIA director John O. Brennan.

The Proposal That Fell Apart Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Are the Investigations the Cover-Up?

Posted by M. C. on December 27, 2018

Mueller’s key role is to have nearly absolute control over what information is released to investigators or the public.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/are_the_investigations_the_coverup.html

By Bryce Buchanan

Those of us who have been paying attention know that serious crimes were committed at the highest levels of government in an attempt to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.  There was collusion between government agencies, including collusion with foreign agents, to illegally influence the 2016 Presidential election.  There is enough evidence on the table to be confident of these claims.

And those of us who care about rule of law, who want to see justice done to the criminals in this conspiracy, have been waiting for years to see that happen.  We hear that these serious matters are being investigated.  We hear that there are whistleblowers inside the government who want to come forward and expose the corruption.  We hear that there are many, many more documents which will substantiate our worst fears about one of the greatest scandals in the history of our country.

We have been assured that there are several investigations looking into the various aspect of this abuse of power.  Inspector General Michael Horowitz, prosecutor John Huber, and others are looking into the corruption.  Mueller is supposedly tasked with exposing foreign influence on the Presidential election.

But what if the ‘investigations’ are really the cover-up? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

FBI OFFICIALS DISCUSSED ‘MEDIA LEAK STRATEGY’ AHEAD OF MAJOR TRUMP-RUSSIA REVELATION

Posted by M. C. on September 12, 2018

We don’t call them the FIB for nuthin’.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/10/strzok-media-leak-text/

Chuck Ross | Reporter

  • Peter Strzok sent Lisa Page a text message about “media leak strategy” during a key point in the Trump-Russia probe.
  • Strzok sent the message just before The Washington Post published a bombshell story about the FBI obtaining surveillance warrants against Carter Page.
  • North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows says the messages raise “grave concerns” about an “apparent systemic culture of leaking” at the FBI and DOJ.

Newly released text messages show disgraced FBI official Peter Strzok asked to speak to former FBI lawyer Lisa Page about a “media leak strategy” during a crucial period of the Trump-Russia investigation in 2017.

The text messages were revealed Monday by North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows, a member of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee.

“Our review of these new documents raises grave concerns regarding an apparent systemic culture of media leaking by high-ranking officials at the FBI and DOJ related to ongoing investigations,” Meadows wrote to U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the letter, which was obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation and first reported by Sara Carter. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries