Category Archives: Investigations

What Will Weapons Inspectors Find in Syria…And Does it Matter? by Ron Paul

The US will bomb when and where it wants, regardless of whether there is or is not conclusive evidence that “justifies” the bombing. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.org:

Inspectors from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have finally arrived in Douma, Syria, to assess whether a gas attack took place earlier this month. It has taken a week for the inspectors to begin their work, as charges were thrown back and forth about who was causing the delay.

Proponents of the US and UK position that Assad used gas in Douma have argued that the Syrian and Russian governments are preventing the OPCW inspectors from doing their work. That, they claim, is all the evidence needed to demonstrate that Assad and Putin have something to hide. But it seems strange that if Syria and Russia wanted to prevent an OPCW inspection of the alleged sites they would have been the ones to request the inspection in the first place.

The dispute was solved just days ago, as the OPCW Director-General released a statement explaining that the delay was due to UN security office concerns for the safety of the inspectors.

We are told that even after the OPCW inspectors collect samples from the alleged attack sites, it will take weeks to determine whether there was any gas or other chemicals released. That means there is very little chance President Trump had “slam dunk” evidence that Assad used gas in Douma earlier this month when he decided to launch a military attack on Syria. To date, the US has presented no evidence of who was responsible or even whether an attack took place at all. Even right up to the US missile strike, Defense Secretary Mattis said he was still looking for evidence.

In a Tweet just days ago, Rep. Thomas Massie expressed frustration that in a briefing to Congress last week the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense “provided zero real evidence” that Assad carried out the attack. Either they have it and won’t share it with Congress, he wrote, or they have nothing. Either way, he added, it’s not good.

We should share Rep. Massie’s concerns.

To continue reading: What Will Weapons Inspectors Find in Syria…And Does it Matter?

Advertisements

No Official Intel Used To Launch Russia Probe According To Controversial DOJ Document: Nunes, by Tyler Durden

It looks more and more like the Russia probe was launched from documents supplied by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, and nowhere else. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

After waiting eight months for the DOJ to turn over the “electronic communication” (EC) – the document which the FBI used to launch the original counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) told Fox News that upon review – the EC reveals that no intelligence was used to launch the probe.

Nunes also touched on the fact that Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal pushed anti-Trump memos to the Obama State Department, written by Clinton “hatchet man” Cody Shearer and passed to Jonathan Winer, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department,” Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Nunes noted that no intelligence was shared with the U.S. from any of the members of the “Five Eyes” agreement – that being Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the USA.

We are not supposed to spy on each other’s citizens, and it’s worked well,” he said. “And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government. And that’s why we had to see that original communication.”

This is relevant because the FBI says that the Trump investigation was kicked off after Australian diplomat Alexander Downer told the FBI that Trump campaign associate George Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted in a London pub that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. The New York Times reported last December that “Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.”

To continue reading: No Official Intel Used To Launch Russia Probe According To Controversial DOJ Document: Nunes

WikiLeaks To Countersue Democrats; “Discovery Is Going To Be Amazing Fun”, by Tyler Durden

The DNC’s suit against Russia, Wikileaks, and the Trump organization has to be one of the stupidest legal moves in years. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

WikiLeaks has hit back against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), announcing over Twitter that they are seeking donations for a counter-suit, noting “We’ve never lost a publishing case and discovery is going to be amazing fun,” along with a link which people can use to donate to the organization.

Discovery is a pre-trial process by which one party can obtain evidence from the opposing party relevant to the case. The Trump campaign, which is also named in the DNC filing, says the lawsuit will provide an opportunity to “explore the DNC’s now-secret records.”

Hours after the Washington Post broke the news of the lawsuit, President Trump tweeted “Just heard the Campaign was sued by the Obstructionist Democrats. This can be good news in that we will now counter for the DNC server that they refused to give to the FBI,” referring to the DNC email breach. Trump also mentioned “the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Servers and Documents held by the Pakistani mystery man and Clinton Emails.”

In a statement which goes into the various items they’ll be pursuing in court, the Trump campaign said the following:

While this lawsuit is frivolous and will be dismissed, if the case goes forward, the DNC has created an opportunity for us to take aggressive discovery into their claims of ‘damages’ and uncover their acts of corruption for the American people,” 

If this lawsuit proceeds, the Trump Campaign will be prepared to leverage the discovery process and explore the DNC’s now-secret records about the actual corruption they perpetrated to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Everything will be on the table, including:

How the DNC contributed to the fake dossier, using Fusion GPS along with the Clinton Campaign as the basis for the launch of a phony investigation.

Why the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC servers in the course of their investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal.

• How the DNC conspired to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination over Bernie Sanders.

• How officials at the highest levels of the DNC colluded with the news media to influence the outcome of the DNC nomination.

• Management decisions by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Tom Perez, and John Podesta; their e-mails, personnel decisions, budgets, opposition research, and more.

To continue reading: WikiLeaks To Countersue Democrats; “Discovery Is Going To Be Amazing Fun”

One Percent Chance Comey Not a Self-Dramatizing Fruitcake, by Ann Coulter

James Comey is a worm, squiggling this way and that. Ann Coulter pins him down and dissects him. From Coulter at anncoulter.com:

There have been a lot of questions about why Trump fired James Comey, ever since he announced to NBC’s Lester Holt — incomprehensibly — that it was his decision, citing, by my count, at least a half-dozen different reasons.

On Sunday night, that question was answered. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Comey for showing the American people why he was so badly in need of firing.

Interviewed on his new book, “Living in Truth,” “The Dictates of My Conscience,” “The Politics of Truth,” “A Higher Loyalty,” it quickly became apparent that one of Comey’s favorite formulations is: I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether so-and-so sodomized a chicken. It’s possible. I don’t know.

Here he is on ABC News, accusing Trump of hiring prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed in Moscow (possibly — I don’t know):

“I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It’s possible, but I don’t know.”

And here he is on ABC accusing Trump of colluding with Russia:

“More words I never thought I’d utter about a president of the United States — but it’s possible [that he is compromised by Russia]. It is stunning, and I wish I wasn’t saying it, but it’s just — it’s the truth. … It’s possible.”

And here he is being interviewed by USA Today on Russian influence:

“I don’t know [if President Trump has been compromised by the Russians]. And these are words I never thought would come out of my mouth about an American president, but it’s possible. I’m not saying it’s likely, I don’t know, and the honest answer is it’s possible.”

None of this says anything about the president. It tells us only that Comey has a low opinion of Trump, which I already knew.

To continue reading: One Percent Chance Comey Not a Self-Dramatizing Fruitcake

Trump Territory, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

A racially tinged scandal brews in Great Britain. Across the Atlantic, the vitriol, rancor, and scurrilous invective against President Trump has reached a point that it essentially stops debate on those aspects of Trump that should be debated: his policies. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:

British media report today that Donald Trump may visit the country in late summer. (Renewed) calls for mass protests are everywhere, of course. The Metro news outlet features a picture of a pamphlet that reads No To Racism. No To Trump, that dates from an earlier occasion (Trump was supposed to come several times, but never did).

Now, good luck with those protests, it’s still a free country, in name at least. But boy oh boy, would you guys miss the point. Because as we now all know – or could-, your country is being governed by a group of people who are so racist they make even Trump’s fake tan pale in comparison. If Theresa May is still in office by the time Trump visits, you’re all a bunch of racists.

Both May and her Home Secretary Amber Rudd – and you all know they’re far from alone- look so completely deranged in reports about the Windrush scandal that you will have to get rid of them first, or else shut up about Trump because you will have no moral ground whatsoever left on which to protest his visit.

For those of you who don’t know what Windrush is about, and if you’re British you have no excuse not to know, it’s the name given to a group of people who arrived, on invitation, in Britain between the late 1940s and early 1970s, often as children, and whose legal status in the country is now put in so much doubt that some have already been deported, some are denied health care, and all live in fear. Despite having lived and worked and paid taxes all their lives.

There are many instances of people who have never left Britain for a family visit, some who can’t see their own children because they did go for that visit and weren’t allowed back in, the entire story is so appalling and disastrous it’s hard to read the various reports on it. The common denominator of all of these people? They are black.

To continue reading: Trump Territory

James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover, by Matt Taibbi

James Comey is completely tangled up in his own lies and self-serving justifications. From Matt Taibbi at rollingstone.com:

The former FBI Director’s memoir obsesses about lies, sincerity and conscience – and offers few tangible answers

FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Michael Rogers testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in Washington D.C. on March 20, 2017. Mark Peterson/Redux

The most damning passage in former FBI Director James Comey’s new book, A Higher Loyalty, regards his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation:

“It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls.”

Comey portrays the Clinton decision as a binary choice: either speak a truth that may result in Trump’s victory, or conceal key facts from the public thus making her, as he tabs the ostensible shoo-in Clinton, an “illegitimate president.”

These meanderings might carry more weight if Comey did not have a lengthy record of “concealing” far more important issues from the American public.

Comey, for instance, comes across as an opponent of torture, and in the book writes about how his wife Patrice’s exhortation – “Don’t be the torture guy” – disturbed his sleep “for many nights.” But a close look at Comey’s Bush-era record indicates he signed off on policiesthat essentially re-sanctified most forms of “enhanced interrogation.”

In the book, Comey says he was held back from doing more because the CIA didn’t tell him everything about its interrogations, leaving him with nothing to do but silently hope the torture program would “crater” under Justice Department guidelines:

“Although our internal voices screamed this was terrible stuff and was based on inflated claims of success, those voices had to stay trapped inside us,” Comey writes.

So he was able to stay quiet about torture – keeping it “trapped inside” – but couldn’t keep secret the details of an email investigation he himself doubted would lead anywhere important?

Comey is equally two-faced on the question of surveillance. He describes himself forcefully opposing the NSA’s “Stellar Wind” program, which he says went “beyond even the legally dubious.”

This is how Comey became famous the first time, trying to head off the program’s re-authorization by racing to a convalescing John Ashcroft in the much-publicized “hospital showdown.”To continue reading: James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover

Nunes, Gowdy And Goodlatte Go Nuclear After Comey Memos Released, by Tyler Durden

James Comey’s memos are certainly not a solid basis for pursuing an obstruction of justice case against President Trump. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Facing an imminent Congressional subpoena, the Department of Justice finally turned over James Comey’s now-infamous memos Thursday night – which were promptly leaked and published by AP.

We already know that Comey’s leak to the press was illegal – as the FBI’s chief FOIA officer, David Hardy, gave a sworn declaration to Judicial Watch in which he says that all seven of Comey’s memos were classified at the time they were written, and they remain classified.

Perhaps most disturbing is that James Comey’s memos do not make a compelling case for obstruction whatsoever – which Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (who Comey said “I didn’t have confidence” in), used to launch the special counsel investigation headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

In response to the Comey memos, Congressional Committee chairs Devin Nunes (R-CA), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) fired off a scathing rebuke, in which they made it abundantly clear that the Mueller investigation is a farce based on yet another example of the FBI using a flimsy document to launch a politically motivated investigation.

These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not,” begins the joint statement, which goes on to completely dress down the FBI and James Comey:

  • Former Director Comey’s memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated.
  • The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier.
  • The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation.”
  • The memos also make certain what has become increasingly clear of late: former Director Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others. He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump. It is significant former Director Comey made no effort to memorialize conversations with former Attorney General Lynch despite concerns apparently significant enough to warrant his unprecedented appropriation of the charging decision away from her and the Department of Justice in July of 2016.

To continue reading: Nunes, Gowdy And Goodlatte Go Nuclear After Comey Memos Released