MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘whistleblower’

JOHN KIRIAKOU: The Press Should Not Be Shielding FBI Malfeasance – Consortiumnews

Posted by M. C. on December 2, 2019

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/27/john-kiriakou-the-press-should-not-be-shielding-fbi-malfeasance/

By John Kiriakou

The Washington Post and other media outlets last week reported that a former FBI attorney allegedly altered a document related to the FBI’s 2016 surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser.  FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz apparently concluded that the conduct “did not affect the overall validity of the surveillance application,” which was made with the secret FISA court.

The Post article, as well as articles in The New York Times, at CNN, and in other outlets, downplayed the behavior as having had “no effect” on the FBI’s surveillance of Page, ignoring the fact that tampering with a federal document is a felony.  That’s consistent with the Justice Department’s own policy of protecting their own while wrecking the lives of those who have the guts to stand up to them.

Publishing Excuses 

Look at The Washington Post’s original account of the inspector general’s findings.  The FBI attorney was just a “low-level employee” who has already “been forced out of the Bureau.”  The altered document “did not affect the overall validity of the surveillance application.”  The employee “erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application.  He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim.”

Let’s straighten a few things outs.

First, the employee was not “low-level.”  Attorneys enter the FBI at the GS-11 level.  That’s a starting salary of $69,581.  On Day One of his career, the attorney would actually be a mid-level employee.  Furthermore, “low-level employees” are not assigned to sensitive operations involving counterintelligence against a major-party presidential campaign. Hand-picked senior employees get that honor.

Second, even if the altered document didn’t affect the FISA warrant application, the statement is irrelevant.  The attorney committed a felony, plain and simple.

Third, the media says that the attorney “erroneously indicated” that he could back up the document. But that, too, was a felony.  It’s called “making a false statement” and it’s punishable by up to five years in prison.

To make matters worse, there is no indication from the Justice Department that this attorney will be prosecuted.  “He’s already resigned,” The Washington Post tells us, as if that’s supposed to make everything OK.  Why is the mainstream media shielding FBI malfeasance?  For FBI crimes?  Because the victim is the Trump campaign, and we’re not supposed to like the Trump campaign. It’s all about Russia, Russia, Russia, remember?  If the evidence doesn’t show that, you just change the evidence.

Letter from Terry Albury

We shouldn’t be surprised about this kind of behavior from the FBI or from the Justice Department writ large.  I received a letter this week from FBI whistleblower Terry Albury.  He’s the courageous former FBI agent who blew the whistle on systemic racism in the bureau.  And he received four years in prison for his trouble.  Terry wrote to tell me about an experience that he’s having identical to my own, when I was in prison after blowing the whistle on the CIA’s torture program.

Terry has less than a year left on his sentence.  He has watched over the past year as dozens of prisoners around him have been sent from their low-security prison to a minimum-security work camp.  These are prisoners who have committed violent crimes; prisoners who have attempted escape in the past; and prisoners who are incarcerated because they are recidivists.  Here’s what Terry wrote:

“On 11/13/2018, I self-surrendered to FCI Englewood in Littleton, CO.  In assigning me to a Low Security Prison (LSP), the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) placed a Management Variable (MGTV) on my case to counteract my extremely high security score of zero.  Of the variables at their disposal, I was deemed to be a ‘Greater Security Threat.’

According to institutional policy:

When the BOP believes that an offender represents a greater security risk than the assigned security level would suggest, it may apply this Management Variable and place the inmate in an institution with a higher security level.  The BOP typically applies this MGTV to offenders with lengthy prior arrest records but few convictions, nonviolent offenders who have a history of poor adjustment under probation or community supervision, offenders with a history of organized crime, offenders with significant foreign ties and/or financial resources, and offenders who have had disciplinary problems during prior incarceration.  Inmates who receive this MGTV are placed one security level higher than their score would otherwise require.

The facts of my case and background confirm that none of these parameters apply.  Furthermore, an analysis of the policy clearly demonstrates that I should never have been placed (and continue to be held) in an LSP.

Over the past year, I’ve consistently complied with all institutional rules, taken extensive BOP-sponsored educational courses, and earned the support of my case manager, unit manager, and warden who followed BOP Policy and authorized the removal of my erroneous MGTV and subsequent transfer to a Minimum Security Prison (MSP) within 500 miles of my residence (in line with Congressional guidance under the First Step Act).

In authorizing my 10/11/2019 transfer to an MSP and the removal of my MGTV, Case Manager D. Taylor specifically cited “unit team discretion outlined in PS P5100.08” which further states “when a management variable no longer applies, institution staff will remove the variable(s) accordingly.”  Program Statement 5270.09 is also clear in that “the Unit Team may recommend a greater security transfer, using their professional judgment, and in accordance with the policy on inmate security designation and custody classification.”

However, on 10/30/2019, I was informed that the DSCC’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) discounted, rejected, and overturned my legally justified transfer and MGTV removal.  Furthermore, they unilaterally assigned a new MGTV to my case (“monitoring required”) in spite of the fact that all federal prisoners are subjected to comprehensive phone, e-mail, and traditional mail monitoring at every prison around the country (minimum, low, medium, and high).

To say that I’m being held to a different institutional standard would be an understatement. Over the past year, I’ve watched prisoners transfer to MSPs with nine security points, violent backgrounds, five or more years remaining on their sentence, and histories of escape.

Yet somehow, a man with zero security points, a non-violent background, less than a year remaining on his sentence, and someone authorized to self-surrender, I was deemed to be ineligible for placement in an MSP.  And to exacerbate the issue, the entire executive staff of FCI Englewood supported my transfer and no longer believed I warranted the misguided and inappropriate MGTV of “greater security threat.”

In an effort to resolve this issue, I’ve filed a series of administrative grievances, which is on par with applying scotch tape to fill a leak in the Hoover Dam.  I have no confidence in the internal process which is why I am pursuing all available external channels to voice my concerns.”

The fix is in, not just with Terry Albury, but with the whole system.  Want to tell the press that the FBI is an inherently racist organization?  Go ahead. You’ll get years in prison.  Want to tamper with federal documents to prove a political point?  Don’t worry. The press will cover for you and the chances are that the Department of Justice won’t even bother to prosecute.

Terry Albury will be home soon, where he’ll continue the fight for transparency and honesty in government.  But the fight is a daunting one, especially when the mainstream media is one of your enemies.  It’s a fight we should all be happy to take on.

Be seeing you

Top 10 Video Game Villains

 

 

 

 

 

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

The Storms of December – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2019

Both Mr. Schiff and Col. Vindman claimed to not know the identity of the “WB?” If so, it would be logically impossible to reveal the “Whistleblower” by just naming an agency with thousands of little worker bees. Of course, he walked right into the trap set by minority member, Mr. Ratcliffe of Texas. Who doesn’t get that Col Vindman knows exactly who the “Whistleblower” is because he was the “Whistleblower’s” accomplice? And Mr. Schiff knows, too.

I am sincerely wondering how the public will process the storm of indictments coming down at the cabal of government employees who devised the RussiaGate persecution at the same time the Senate prepares to go to a trial that will humiliate and possibly annihilate the Democratic Party. No political faction in history has begged so persuasively to be put to death, or deserved it more.

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-storms-of-december/

James Howard Kunstler

Finally, you’re left with that image of Adam Schiff sitting stock straight in the big chair with pursed lips and eyes bugged out, as in a very certain species of lunacy heretofore only seen in Canis latrans of Cartoon-land when, say, he has overrun the cliff’s edge clutching an anvil to his bosom. What was he thinking when he hatched this latest quixotic chapter in the ignominious crusade to reverse the 2016 election?

That he’d never get caught? On Wednesday he witlessly did gave away the game on nationwide TV, telling the witness, heroic Col. Vindman, to not state which intel agency (of 23 !) employed the one still-unnamed person he blabbed to about the epic Phone Call to Ukraine — because it would reveal the name of the Whistleblower.” How could that be? Both Mr. Schiff and Col. Vindman claimed to not know the identity of the “WB?” If so, it would be logically impossible to reveal the “Whistleblower” by just naming an agency with thousands of little worker bees. Of course, he walked right into the trap set by minority member, Mr. Ratcliffe of Texas. Who doesn’t get that Col Vindman knows exactly who the “Whistleblower” is because he was the “Whistleblower’s” accomplice? And Mr. Schiff knows, too.

If the senate majority poohbahs were wise, they would warmly welcome a trial based on articles of impeachment, which would, of course, feature no artificial limits on the witness list, nor on questions that might be asked. The list might start with the UkraineGate “Whistleblower.” Among the many untruths uttered by Adam Schiff was the nonexistent law that gave that shadowy figure a right to anonymity. And besides, in any trial based on due process, the accused has an absolute right to face his accuser.

Oddly, a month ago Mr. Schiff was avid to stick his “Whistleblower” in the witness chair, and perhaps not with a black hood over his head. Then it was discovered that the “Whistleblower” had been consorting at least with Mr. Schiff’s staff members before blowing his fabled whistle, and that they had likely assisted in the assembly of his complaint, and in connecting him to the right lawyers in the Great Blue Okefenokee backwaters of DC lawyerdom, and, naturally, nobody from sea to shining sea over age nine who had paid attention to these antics believed that Mr. Schiff could not know who this “Whistleblower” was. Likewise, the brave Col. Vindman. Both of them deserve some time in a senate witness chair, and Mr. Schiff especially is due some sort of penalty for subjecting the country to his three years of dishonorable, seditious shenanigans — beginning with expulsion from the House and perhaps proceeding to a trial of his very own.

These UkraineGate hearings of the past two weeks raised some additional questions that have not otherwise been aired much in the public arena, chiefly, exactly how much does the US government seek to control the affairs of Ukraine? And how did we become the superintendent of this partially failed state? The parade of State Department diplomats in charge of this-and-that suggests that Ukraine is virtually an occupied territory. Do we realistically suppose that, in the natural course of things, we can shield Ukraine forever from the influence of its neighbor (and former sovereign), Russia?

It is also astounding to see media shills like Rachel Maddow still carrying on hysterically about Russia. She must have cried “Russia” twenty-seven times in the ten minutes of her act I caught on Thursday night. She’s far exceeded even the paranoid raptures of the John Birch Society a half century ago when they were screaming about communists in every broom closet of America. This incessant war-cry can’t be good for the country.

Now we’ve turned the corner into that enchanted season known as “the holidays” and a multi-dimensional showdown after three years of perfidious nonsense looms over the turkeys and silver bells and holy pageantry like a freak winter hurricane out in the dark ocean barreling landward. I am sincerely wondering how the public will process the storm of indictments coming down at the cabal of government employees who devised the RussiaGate persecution at the same time the Senate prepares to go to a trial that will humiliate and possibly annihilate the Democratic Party. No political faction in history has begged so persuasively to be put to death, or deserved it more.

Be seeing you

 

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

PATRICK LAWRENCE: The Impeachment Pantomime – Consortiumnews

Posted by M. C. on November 14, 2019

…was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella…

Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter’s days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama’s recklessly hawkish national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate Donald Trump.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/12/patrick-lawrence-the-impeachment-pantomime/

By Patrick Lawrence

Special to Consortium News

Now that “Russiagate” has failed and “Ukrainegate” neatly takes its place, many questions arise. Will the Democratic Party, this time in open collusion with the intelligence apparatus, succeed in its second attempt to depose President Donald Trump in what might fairly be called a bloodless coup? Whatever the outcome of the thus-far-farcical impeachment probe, which is to be conducted publicly as of Wednesday, did the president use his office to pressure Ukraine in behalf of his own personal and political interests? Did Trump, in his fateful telephone conversation last July 25 with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, put U.S. national security at risk, as is alleged?

All good questions. Here is another: Will Joe Biden, at present the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, get away with what is almost certain to prove his gross corruption and gross abuse of office when he carried the Ukraine portfolio while serving as vice president under Barack Obama?

Corollary line of inquiry: Will the corporate media, The New York Times in the lead, get away with self-censoring what is now irrefutable evidence of the impeachment probe’s various frauds and corruptions? Ditto in the Biden case: Can the Times and the media that faithfully follow its lead continue to disregard accumulating circumstantial evidence of Biden’s guilt as he appears to have acted in the interest of his son Hunter while the latter sat on the board of one of Ukraine’s largest privately held natural gas producers?

Innuendo & Interference 

It is not difficult to imagine that Trump presented Zelensky with his famous quid pro quo when they spoke last summer: Open an investigation into Biden père et fils and I will release $391 million in military aid and invite you to the White House. Trump seems to be no stranger to abuses of power of this sort. But the impeachment probe has swiftly run up against the same problem that sank the good ship Russiagate: It has produced no evidence. Innuendo and inference, yes. Various syllogisms, yes. But no evidence.

There is none in the transcript of the telephone exchange. Zelensky has flatly stated that there was no quid pro quo. The witnesses so far called to testify have had little to offer other than their personal opinions, even if Capitol Hill Democrats pretend these testimonies are prima facie damning. And the witnesses are to one or another degree of questionable motives: To a one, they appear to be Russophobes who favor military aid to Ukraine; to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign policy and resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump’s true offense is proposing to renovate a foreign policy framework that has been more or less untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation).

Ten days ago Real Clear Investigations suggested that the “whistleblower” whose “complaint” last August set the impeachment probe in motion was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella. And who is Eric Ciaramella? It turns out he is a young but seasoned Democratic Party apparatchik conducting his spookery on American soil.

Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter’s days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama’s recklessly hawkish national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate Donald Trump.

For good measure, Paul Sperry’s perspicacious reporting in Real Clear Investigations reveals that Ciaramella conferred with the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Democrat leading the impeachment process, a month prior to filing his “complaint” to the CIA’s inspector general…

This leaves us to reckon the price our troubled republic will pay for months of irresponsible theatrics that are more or less preordained to lead nowhere.

More questions. What damage will the Democrats have done when Ukrainegate draws to a close (assuming it does at some point)? What harm has come to U.S. political institutions, governing bodies, judiciary and media? The corporate press has been profligately careless of its already questionable credibility during the years of Russiagate and now Ukrainegate. Can anyone argue there is no lasting price to pay for this?

More urgently, what do the past three years of incessant efforts to unseat a president tell us about the power of unelected constituencies? The CIA is now openly operating on American soil in clear breach of its charter and U.S. law. There is absolutely no way this can be questioned. We must now contemplate the frightening similarities Russiagate and Ukrainegate share with the agency’s classic coup operations abroad: Commandeering the media, stirring discontent with the leadership, pumping up the opposition, waving false flags, incessant disinformation campaigns: Maybe it was fated that what America has been doing abroad the whole of the postwar era would eventually come home.

What, at last, must we conclude about the ability of any president (of any stripe) to effect authentic change when our administrative state — “deep,” if you like — opposes it?

Be seeing you

JFK-CIA

 

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

Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won’t Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on November 2, 2019

In other words, House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually testify about it (for now…).

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-suddenly-wont-testify-lawyers-break-negotiations-house-amid

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that he worked with Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative who sought dirt on President Trump from officials in Ukraine’s former government.

According to the Washington Examiner, discussions with the whistleblower – revealed by RealClearInvestigations as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, “and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first’s claims.”

Ciaramella complained that President Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in 2016.

On Thursday, a top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky testified that he saw nothing illegal about the conversation.

I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders.

Tim Morrison

And now, the partisan whistleblowers have cold feet;

“There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees. There is no further discussion ongoing between the legal team and the committees,” said the Examiner‘s source.

The whistleblower is a career CIA officer with expertise in Ukraine policy who served on the White House National Security Council during the Obama administration, when 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was “point man” for Ukraine, and during the early months of the Trump administration. –Washington Examiner

In other words, House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually testify about it (for now…).

On Thursday, the House passed a resolution establishing a framework for Trump impeachment proceedings, belatedly granting Republicans the ability to subpoena witnesses, but only if Schiff and fellow Democrats on the Intelligence Committee agree.

Mark Zaid, who along with Andrew Bakaj is an attorney for both the original whistleblower and the second whistleblower, told the Washington Examiner the legal team was willing to work with lawmakers so long as anonymity is ensured. “We remain committed to cooperating with any congressional oversight committee’s requests so long as it properly protects and ensures the anonymity of our clients,” Zaid said.

On Wednesday, Zaid and Bakaj declined to confirm or deny in a statement to the Washington Examiner that Eric Ciaramella, 33, a career CIA analyst and former Ukraine director on the NSC, was the whistleblower after a report by RealClearInvestigations. –Washington Examiner

In September, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, who lied about contacts with Ciaramella (and hired two Ciaramella associates as staffers) said that the whistleblower “would like to speak to our committee.”

Once Ciaramella’s status as a CIA officer and his links to Biden emerged, however, Schiff backtracked. On October 13 he changed his tune, saying “Our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected.”

Meanwhile, once the House impeaches Trump – which it most certainly willthe tables will turn in the Senate, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence, they’ll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they desire as we head into the 2020 US election.

Nancy Pelosi saw this coming and caved to her party anyway. There isn’t enough popcorn in the world for what’s coming.

Be seeing you
CIA Torture Program Whistleblower Speaks on – “The Sad ...

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

Killing Julian Assange: Justice Denied When Exposing Official Wrongdoing — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on November 1, 2019

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/10/31/killing-julian-assange-justice-denied-when-exposing-official-wrongdoing/

Philip Giraldi

The hideous treatment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange continues and many observers are citing his case as being symptomatic of developing “police state” tendencies in both the United States and in Europe, where rule of law is being subordinated to political expediency.

Julian Assange was the founder and editor-in-chief of the controversial news and information site WikiLeaks. As the name implies, after 2006 the site became famous, or perhaps notorious, for its publication of materials that have been leaked to it by government officials and other sources who consider the information to be of value to the public but unlikely to be accepted by the mainstream media, which has become increasingly corporatized and timid.

WikiLeaks became known to a global audience back in 2010 when it obtained from US Army enlisted soldier Bradley Manning a large quantity of classified documents relating to the various wars that the United States was fighting in Asia. Some of the material included what might be regarded as war crimes.

WikiLeaks again became front page news over the 2016 presidential election, when the website released the emails of candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta. The emails revealed how Clinton and her team collaborated with the Democratic National Committee to ensure that she would be nominated rather that Bernie Sanders. It should be noted that the material released by WikiLeaks was largely documentary and factual in nature, i.e. it was not “fake news.”

Because he is a journalist ostensibly protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, the handling of the “threat” posed by journalist Assange is inevitably somewhat different than a leak by a government official, referred to as a whistleblower. Assange has been vilified as an “enemy of the state,” likely even a Russian agent, and was initially pursued by the Swedish authorities after claims of a rape, later withdrawn, were made against him. To avoid arrest, he was given asylum by a friendly Ecuadorean government seven years ago in London. The British police had an active warrant to arrest him immediately as he had failed to make a bail hearing after he obtained asylum, which is indeed what took place when Quito revoked his protected status in April.

As it turned out, Julian Assange was not exactly alone when he was in the Ecuadorean Embassy. All of his communications, including with his lawyers, were being intercepted by a Spanish security company hired for the purpose allegedly by the CIA. There apparently was also a CIA plan to kidnap Assange. In a normal court in a normal country, the government case would have been thrown out on constitutional and legal grounds, but that was not so in this instance. The United States has persisted in its demands to obtain the extradition of Assange from Britain and London seems to be more than willing to play along. Assange is undeniably hated by the American political Establishment and even much of the media in bipartisan fashion, with the Democrats blaming him for Hillary Clinton’s loss while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has labeled him a “fraud, a coward and an enemy.” WikiLeaks itself is regarded by the White House as a “hostile non-government intelligence service.” Sending Julian Assange to prison for the rest of his life may be called justice, but it is really revenge against someone who has exposed government lies. Some American politicians have even asserted that jail is too good for Assange, insisting that he should instead be executed.

The actual charges laid out in the US indictment are for alleged conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to publish the “Iraq War Logs,” the “Afghan War Logs” and the US State Department cables. On May 23rd, the United States government further charged Assange with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which criminalizes any exposure of classified US government information anywhere in the world by anyone. Its use would create a precedent: any investigative journalist who exposes US government malfeasance could be similarly charged.

Assange is currently incarcerated in solitary confinement at high-security Belmarsh prison. It is possible that the Justice Department, after it obtains Assange through extradition, will attempt to make the case that Assange actively colluded with the Russian government, a conspiracy to “defraud the United States” to put it in legalese. Assange is unlikely to receive anything approaching a fair trial no matter what the charges are.

Assange’s prison term ended on September 22nd, but an earlier procedural hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court had already decided that a full hearing on extradition to the US would not begin until February 25th, 2020. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that Assange would not be released even though the prison term had ended, because he was a flight risk. His status in the prison system was duly changed from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition and his final hearing would be at the high security Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court rather than in a normal civil court. Belmarsh is where terrorists are routinely tried and the proceedings there permit only minimal public and media scrutiny.

Most recently, on October 21st, 2019, Assange was again in Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a “case management hearing” regarding his possible extradition to the US Judge Baraitser denied a defense team request for a three-month delay so that they could gather evidence in light of the fact that Assange had been denied access to his own papers and documents in order to prepare his defense. British government prosecutor James Lewis QC and the five US “representatives” present opposed any delay in the extradition proceedings and were supported by Judge Baraitser, denying any delay in the proceedings.

Another procedural hearing will take place on December 19th followed by the full extradition hearing in February, at which time Assange will presumably be turned over to US Marshalls for transportation to the Federal prison in Virginia to await trial. That is, of course, assuming that he lives that long as his health has visibly deteriorated and there have been claims that he has been tortured by the British authorities.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray, who knows Julian Assange well, was present when he appeared in court on the 21st. Murray was shocked by Assange’s appearance, noting that he had lost weight and looked like he had aged considerable. He was walking with a pronounced limp and when the judge asked him questions, to include his name and date of birth, he had trouble responding. Murray described him as a “shambling, incoherent wreck” and also concluded that “one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes.”

The British court was oblivious to Assange’s poor condition, with Judge Baraitser telling the clearly struggling prisoner that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. Objections to what was happening made by both Assange and his lawyers were dismissed by the Crown’s legal representatives, often after discussions with the American officials present, a process described in full by Murray, who, after describing the miscarriage of justice he had just witnessed observed that Julian Assange is being “slowly killed in public sight and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing.” He concluded that “Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?” Indeed.

Be seeing you

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

CNN’s Political Bias Exposed By Whistleblower’s Hidden Camera Footage – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2019

“It’s an Unwritten Rule That if You Are Center, Center Right, or Heaven Forbid, Full Right Republican Trump Supporter, Then You Are Not Welcome at CNN.”

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/10/18/news-cnns-political-bias-exposed-by-whistleblowers-hidden-camera-footage/

By

In Brief

  • The Facts:CNN Technician Cary Poarch went around CNN with a hidden video camera for months in order to provide the public with evidence that CNN is not at all practicing objective journalism.
  • Reflect On:What kind of media do you support? Do we get the truth when we have politically motivated media? Is it time for an evolution in media?

At CE we have long talked about political bias in mainstream media, and it has become even more prevalent since an already polarizing figure named Donald Trump took office. This isn’t about whether you support Trump or not, it’s about seeing the patterns at play. But to date, CNN and other mainstream networks have still tried to maintain the veneer of objectivity and independence in their journalism. New information coming out from Project Veritas is set to remove the last vestiges of this fantasy.

 Based on footage from a hidden camera used over the course of months by a CNN technician, it was revealed that the pro-Liberal, anti-Trump bias that proliferated in the network seemed ‘unbecoming of a news organization’ to many people who worked there. But it took one brave man, Cary Poarch, to be willing to risk his career to expose it with hard evidence.

In our latest episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, Joe Martino and I discuss the implications of Poarch’s revealing footage that will help paint a picture of an organization that is as partisan as it could get from the top down, where President Jeff Zucker clearly promotes a biased political agenda and expects the employees under him and the content they produce to fall in lock-step with that agenda. Of course, it’s not just CNN that operates this way, this can be seen across all mainstream left and right media.

Where is the Objectivity?

This is what mainstream media has become, a tool of political partisanship, not only in what they broadcast to the public but even within the organization. At CNN Poarch has observed a ‘groupthink’ Anti-Trump mentality, and this type of bias ultimately leads to mainstream outlets devolving into echo chambers because, as Poarch puts it, there is no tolerance for dissenting or even neutral views:

“It’s an Unwritten Rule That if You Are Center, Center Right, or Heaven Forbid, Full Right Republican Trump Supporter, Then You Are Not Welcome at CNN.”

Ultimately, since this echo chamber known as the Cable News Network remains one of the prominent proliferators of information in our society, we can see how they have contributed to the large schisms of left/right polarity within our society, in which people with opposing views will only know one side of the story, since it would be impossible for them to endure the extreme bias of whichever network offered views that were opposed to theirs.

And this is by design—to limit the critical thinking process and hide the injustice that is inherent in our system of governance, by having people continue to endlessly fight only between the left and right extremities. The fabric of the country is getting ripped apart when people are goaded into hating the other side simply because the media told them to hate. How are people supposed have productive and civil discussions, and ultimately make educated, informed decisions? Isn’t that what the media is supposed to assist us with?

Is it for Ratings?

There has long been an argument that media puts out stories based on the ratings war, or as in the old days based on how many newspapers they will sell. But it seems we’ve gone beyond that point in terms of bias. It seems as though ‘ratings’ is an argument that top executives make to actually try to hide their bias.

Be seeing you

?u=httpscdn-images-1.medium.commax12001*_dsY4TGQw-4mcGz9UK_McA.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1

 

 

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

Adam is Confused | The Unveiled Feminist

Posted by M. C. on October 10, 2019

Never mind that both Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sound like they  should be investigating Joe Biden, given that then-vice-president Biden himself bragged at length about threatening to withhold aid from the Ukraine government if a prosecutor who was investigating Biden’s son were not fired.

https://theunveiledfeminist.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/adam-is-confused/

Adam Schiff, the Democrat representative from California’s 28th district, is once again prey to delusions.

During Congressional testimony on Sept. 26, the frustrated screenwriter and Chair of the House Intelligence Committee performed his version of President Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, claiming without evidence that there was an attempt by the President to put mafia-like pressure on  Zelensky. But Schiff’s every word was immediately contradicted when Trump had the transcript of the conversation released to the public.

Since then, an unchastened Schiff has repeated his slander over and over again in the Democrat party’s continuing doomed attempt to overturn the 2016 election. Schiff claims to have information based on second- and third-hand stories provided by a leaker, whom the Democrats call a “whistleblower” to keep his identity from the citizenry. The leaker is thought to be a CIA employee who was spying on the White House, for reasons yet to be explained.

But for Schiff, the important point is that poor Zelensky is the hapless victim of intolerable pressure from Mr. Trump, that Trump has jeopardized American national security, violated his oath of office, and threatened “our democracy.” And let’s not forget “obstructed justice.”

And it’s deja vu all over again, except more boring, predictable and annoying.

And what, according to Schiff, was Trump’s nefarious aim? To get dirt on his possible -though unlikely -opponent in the 2020 election, former vice-president Joe Biden. Or as Mr. Schiff would say, “[he] abused the power of his office for personal gain.”

Never mind that both Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sound like they  should be investigating Joe Biden, given that then-vice-president Biden himself bragged at length about threatening to withhold aid from the Ukraine government if a prosecutor who was investigating Biden’s son were not fired. And never mind that other sources had already wondered in print  about Hunter Biden being a threat to his father’s presidential prospects.

If Schiff’s and Pelosi’s true purpose was to get Joe Biden out of the race, they couldn’t have hit on a better plan.

This morning Schiff inflicted yet another addled and sanctimonious lecture on the American people. During a press conference following Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s no-show for a deposition before Congress, Schiff insisted again and again that the Congress “is a co-equal branch of government.”

Speaking to reporters, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and Democrats’ point man on the impeachment inquiry, called the administration’s efforts to block Sondland’s deposition “further acts of obstruction of a coequal branch of government.”

But the House is not a co-equal branch of government. It is one of two parts of the legislative branch of government. If the House is co-equal to anything, that thing is the Senate, which many consider the upper chamber of the legislative branch. The House has 435 voting members, each representing one district. And at the moment, it is the only part of the government that is under Democrat control, with 235 Democrat seats versus 197 Republicans (and 1 Independent and 2 recently resigned vacancies.)

You’d think a big-shot Committee Chair would know that.

Be seeing you

BREAKING– It Was All a Lie!… Ukrainian Government Did Not ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on Adam is Confused | The Unveiled Feminist

A Hard Rain – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on October 8, 2019

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/a-hard-rain/

by James Howard Kunstler

A lot of readers (some of them former readers now) have been angrily twanging me by email for writing about the three-year Resistance effort to un-do the 2016 election. I did not vote for Mr. Trump (or Mrs. Clinton) but I resent the coup mounted to overthrow him. I object to the bad faith and dishonesty of the Resistance. I object to the criminal misconduct among the federal bureaucracy, and the mendacity of its partners in the news media, and the hysteria they continue to generate — at the expense of other matters that concern our future.

The political disorder spooling out is the political expression of the long emergency that the nation faces as it finally encounters the limits to growth we were warned about decades ago. The techno-industrial phase of history is ending, and we are left only with inadequate fantasies for coming to terms with it and moving forward. The dynamic relationship between affordable energy supplies and the operations of money roils at the core of this predicament. They are undoing each other and the result will be a contraction of human activity. The big question we refuse to face is how to cope with contraction.

Beyond the ongoing orchestrated coup stands a reality-optional political Left consumed by serial hysterias, uninterested in truth, steeped in social despotism, and apparently willing to do anything to gain power. We should be very concerned with what they intend to do with that power. As they attempt to redistribute wealth, they will make the unhappy discovery that the wealth itself is subject to the wholesale contraction underway. The overvalued “assets” representing “money” hoarded by the “wealthy” will turn out to be figments of a runaway debt crisis. We have already debased the operations of banking, and the tokens that banks issue — currencies and securities — levitate over an abyss.

We already have plenty of evidence for what the Left will do to the principle of political liberty. Their shibboleths of “diversity” and “inclusion” really mean shutting down free speech and telling everybody how to think. They are less interested in “social justice” than in plain coercion, the pleasure they take in pushing people around. What’s worse is that they want to use government as the instrument for enforcing their will. I object to that not just on principle but because government itself will be subject to the same contraction affecting everything else. It simply won’t be able to compensate for all the other losses. Can we downscale its activities coherently, or will we make that journey violently, in some sort of civil war?

The Left seems to be opting for civil war. It is surely underway among branches of government and the administrative bureaucracy I call the Deep State. Barack Obama, John Brennan and others set the intel and police apparatus against Mr. Trump and the war goes on in the latest reckless campaign of “whistleblowers” who are no such thing, but rather agents provocateurs of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Democrats in congress play a dangerous game with this as they attempt to engineer a non-impeachment impeachment — that is, without a vote by the whole House. To allow that vote would be a move to allow the opposition to participate in issuing subpoenas and seeing evidence, and the Democrats are bent on to preventing that. That ploy will provoke the White House to ignore their subpoenas and demands for documents on the principle that this mode of “Impeachment” is not legitimate.

The machinations of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff in this latest “whistleblower” affair pulsate with skullduggery. Are we to suppose that they will march out one “whistleblower” after another whose identity — or very reality — will remain secret through these proceedings? This is the sort of thing you get in Spanish inquisitions and soviet show trials. Until recently, all Americans had very firm objections to kangaroo courts and star chambers where the common-law safeguards of due process are thrown out the window. If the standoff goes to the Supreme Court, we’ll surely get yet another crusade to disqualify Justice Kavanaugh.

The Democratic Party is doing everything possible to destroy the legitimacy of these institutions — starting with elections themselves. The origins of the RussiaGate hoax will demonstrate that the party itself was behind “interference” in the 2016 election, and enlisted the help of several foreign governments in doing so. That is why they are so desperate to keep the level of hysteria amped to the max. The day may be not far off when a great and chilling silence falls over this mob as they look to the sky and see the indictments raining down.

Be seeing you

Baby The Rain Must Fall movie posters at movie poster ...

 

 

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

Whistleblower accuses largest US military shipbuilder of putting ‘American lives at risk’ by falsifying tests on submarine stealth coating – Task & Purpose

Posted by M. C. on October 5, 2019

Good luck in a naval battle with tech heavy Russia and China.

https://taskandpurpose.com/lawsuit-huntington-ingalls-whistleblower

by

America’s largest military shipbuilding company has been accused of falsifying tests and certifications on stealth coatings of its submarines “that put American lives at risk,” according to a complaint filed in federal court last month.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, which spun-off from Northrop Grumman in 2011, “knowingly and/or recklessly” filed falsified records with the Navy claiming it had correctly applied a coating, called a Special Hull Treatment, to Virginia-class attack submarines which would allow the vessels to elude enemy sonar, the Sept. 26 complaint alleges.

Instead, the complaint said, Huntington Ingalls’ Newport News Shipbuilding facility in Virginia took shortcuts that allegedly “plagued” the class of submarines with problems, and then retaliated against the employee who spoke up about the issues.

Huntington Ingalls, and Northrop Grumman, are being sued for damages in excess of $100 million for allegedly misleading the federal government on a defense contract to apply the sound-dampening coating to the submarines. The Navy’s Virginia-class attack submarines are manufactured as part of a joint effort by General Dynamics’ Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls.

The complaint alleges that Northrop Grumman and Huntington Ingalls Industries violated the federal government’s False Claims Act when they “falsified testing and certifications on multi-billion dollar submarine contracts.”

The complaint goes on to note that the companies “induced the government to pay the defendants in-full for submarines with dangerous defects that put American lives at risk.”

The qui tam lawsuit – a type of suit which is brought under the False Claims Act and rewards whistleblowers in successful cases where the government recoups damages due to fraud – is being brought by Ari Lawrence on behalf of the U.S. Government. According to the complaint, Lawrence, a senior engineer at Huntington Ingalls who has worked there since 2001, has provided evidence of the alleged issues at the company’s Newport News Shipbuilding facility in Virginia.

When asked about the lawsuit, the Navy referred Task & Purpose to the Department of Justice, which declined to comment. Northrop Grumman also did not respond.

Duane Bourne, a Huntington Ingalls spokesman, told Task & Purpose that “we fully cooperated with the Department of Justice’s investigation and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.”

When pressed for comment on the findings of the investigation both Huntington Ingalls and the Department of Justice declined to elaborate.

“Newport News Shipbuilding remains committed to building the highest-quality warships for the Navy and does not tolerate any conduct that compromises our mission of delivering ships that safeguard our nation and its sailors,” Bourne told Task & Purpose.

The complaint revolves around critical submarine components that Huntington Ingalls was paid to produce; specifically the application of the Special Hull Treatment to Virginia-class attack subs.

The foam-rubber-like exterior coating is designed to absorb sound waves of active sonar so they don’t bounce back to the ship or submarine sending out the signal. It’s essentially glued onto a submarine using a special two-part adhesive coating (TPAC).

However, the complaint claims that “Huntington Ingalls had never obtained proper qualifications and certifications for the use of TPAC on the Virginia-class submarines for any applications.”

Such certifications are “critical to ensure that the personnel used to mix and apply the TPAC are properly qualified and that the procedures are performed correctly,” the complaint said.

The complaint alleges that the sound-dampening coating was improperly affixed – allegedly due to the lack of certified personnel applying the TPAC – which caused the coating to “de-bond” and slip off the submarines while underway. According to the complaint, “since the inception of the program, Virginia-class submarines have been plagued with problems with their exterior hull coating system,” including an incident in 2007 on the USS Virginia, the first submarine of its class.

A 2010 photo of the side of the USS Virginia appears to show that the Special Hull Treatment peeled off while the submarine was underway.(U.S. Navy photo)

“At that time, it was clear that there was a de-bonding problem with the exterior coating,” the complaint reads. “In fact, on the USS Virginia, and subsequently delivered Virginia-class submarines, the exterior coatings tore off submarines while underway, often in large sections up to hundreds of square feet.”

The issue has been broadly reported in recent years, including in 2017, after photos surfaced showing the USS Mississippi returning to its home port in Hawaii with large portions of its Special Hull Treatment coating missing from the sub.

That de-bonding issue was also noted in a memo from the Pentagon’s top weapon system tester, according to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report.

“The [stealth] coating on Virginia-class submarines has been a big issue in the Navy and among Navy submariners,” Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a retired submariner, told Task & Purpose.

While the stealth coating also came off on older submarines, like the Los Angeles-class fast attack subs, typically it was just a matter of a few individual tiles peeling off, Clark said.

“You’d expect that to happen,” he told Task & Purpose. “You’re driving around, the hull is expanding and contracting, the water temperature is fluctuating, so some of these tiles come loose. It was just kind of expected.”

However, because of how the stealth coating was applied to the Virginia-class submarines — in a continuous layer like paint — it tears off in irregular pieces that may remain partially adhered to the hull, he said.

“If you’re driving around and a chunk of this comes off and is kind of dangling there, that creates a lot of noise,” Clark told Task & Purpose.

And that’s a big problem since a submarine’s greatest strength is its stealth…

The 37-page complaint also claims that Huntington Ingalls’ Newport facility failed to take steps to correct its failings despite multiple complaints, and that Ari Lawrence — the engineer who brought the suit on behalf of the government — was pressured to keep quiet about the issues.

In the complaint, Lawrence claims he had his promotion blocked in addition to being marked as a security risk and having his cell-phone confiscated for four weeks. Lawrence also claimed he was reassigned from his previous duties and sent to “the ‘yard’ to work on his ‘engineering rigor,'” and in 2015, his performance ratings were reduced to the lowest rating he’d received since he began working at NNS.

Neither Lawrence or his attorneys responded to multiple requests for comment from Task & Purpose.

The full complaint can be read here.

Be seeing you

SUBMARINE SOUNDS EFFECTS, SONAR SOUND, Sonar ping, u boat ...

 

 

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

A Weak Whistleblower, a Ridiculous Impeachment | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on October 3, 2019

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-weak-whistleblower-a-ridiculous-impeachment/

By Peter Van Buren

Disregard all the dramatic accusations in and around the whistleblower’s complaint; they’re just guff. This entire impeachment brouhaha hinges on Donald Trump’s own words in the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president. Is he demanding foreign interference in the 2020 election? Or is he asking an ally to run down unethical actions by a man who might become president (here’s a 2018 letter from the Dems asking Ukraine to help them investigate Trump to compare it to)? Or is it mostly just Trump running his mouth off in a rambling, often disconnected, stream-of-consciousness phone call that means very little?

If you read Trump’s words as impeachable, you are asking to impeach on something that was talked about but never happened. Ukraine never handed over dirt on Biden. Trump never even asked Attorney General Bob Barr to contact Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani may or may not have had meetings with someone but no one is claiming that anything of substance happened in them. There is no evidence military aid was withheld in return for anything. If nothing happened, then nothing happened. You need a body on the ground for a smoking gun to matter.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice had already adjudicated the whistleblower complaint before the thing was leaked to the Washington Post. The original complaint was passed from the Intelligence Community Inspector General to the DOJ, which determined there was no crime and closed the case. Officials found that the transcript did not show that Trump had violated campaign finance laws by soliciting a thing of value, such as the investigation, from a foreign national. Even as Democrats bleat about how corrupt the DOJ is, at some point during any impeachment, they will need to make clear what evidence they have that finds crime where DOJ did not. No one is above the law, sure, but which law exactly are we talking about here?

Trump is apparently no better at cover-ups than he is at extortion. He got no dirt on Biden even as Ukraine pocketed its aid money (Ukraine, in fact, knew nothing about the aid being frozen while Trump supposedly was shaking them down), and his so-called cover-up concluded with him releasing in unprecedented fashion both the complaint and the transcript. For a cover-up to even begin, you have to have something to cover, and a phone call that led nowhere doesn’t need to be covered up. In fact, it’s on the internet right now.

But the complaint says that the transcript was moved from one secure computer server inside the White House to an even more secure server. That’s a cover-up! Not discussed is that Congress had no more access to the first server than the second. Exactly who was blocked from seeing the transcript when it was on the more secure system who would have had access to it otherwise? It seems the main person who suddenly couldn’t grab the transcript was the whistleblower. To make all this work, Democrats either have to argue for less cybersecurity or impeach for over-classification. And of course, the Obama administration also stored records of select presidential phone calls on the exact same server.

Bottom line: Trump asked the Ukrainian president to take calls from Bill Barr and Rudy Giuliani to talk about corruption, a bilateral issue since the Obama administration with or without Hunter Biden. There was no quid pro quo. Maybe a good scolding is deserved, but sloppy statesmanship is not high crimes and misdemeanors.

Something else is wrong. The whistleblower is a member of the intel community (the New York Times says CIA), but the text does not read the way government people write. It sounds instead like an op-ed, a mediocre journalist “connecting the dots,” a Maddow exclusive combining anonymous sources with dramatic conclusions…

Pity Nancy Pelosi, who tried to hold back her colleagues. Now instead of answering the needs of constituents, Democrats will instead exploit their majority in the House to hold hearings that will likely lead to a show vote that would have embarrassed Stalin. History will remember Pelosi as the mom who, after putting up with the kids’ tantrums for hours, finally gave in only a few blocks from home. She’ll regret spoiling dinner over a hefty glass of white wine, but what could she do: they just wouldn’t shut up and her nerves were shot. Have you had to listen to AOC complain from the back seat for two hours in traffic?…

Be seeing you

AOC

 

 

 

 

 

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