Tag Archives: 2016 election

Next declassification could flip Russia collusion script, point to effort to hurt Trump, by John Solomon

What if the Russians wanted Hillary to win in 2016? From John Solomon at justthenews.com:

Former NSC official says some evidence cut against claim Russia was helping Trump.

The Trump administration is preparing one of its biggest declassifications yet in the Russia case, a super-secret document that could flip the collusion theory on its head four years after the FBI first started its investigation.

Multiple officials familiar with the planned declassification, which could happen as early as this week, told Just the News that the new evidence will raise the specter that Russian President Vladimir Putin was actually trying to hurt President Trump, not help his election in 2016, as the Obama administration claimed.

The new evidence would complement a revelation last week that the primary source for the Christopher Steele anti-Trump dossier was known to the U.S. government to be tied to Russia intelligence, raising the possibility that the Russians were undercutting the GOP nominee.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., hinted at the big revelation in a Sunday appearance on the Fox News show “Sunday Futures with Maria Bartiromo.”

“Everything Russia-Trump was looked at. You had $25 million, 60 agents. You had subpoenas, you had people’s lives turned upside down,” Graham said. “The question is, ‘Did they look at Russia coming after Trump?’ ”

Referring to last week’s revelation, Graham added: “We’ve got a Russian spy on the payroll of the Democratic Party putting together a document that details the FBI was not reliable.”

The possibility that the FBI and CIA had reason to suspect Russia was trying to hurt Trump and help rival Hillary Clinton first emerged in a Just the News article last month that revealed a House Intelligence Committee secret report accused the U.S Intelligence Community Assessment of ignoring credible evidence that the Russians tried to help Clinton in 2016.

Continue reading→

How an Internet ‘Persona’ Helped Birth Russiagate, by Ray McGovern

Guccifer 2.0 is probably a CIA cutout, meant to divert attention from what was in Hillary and the Democratic National Committee’s email. From Ray McGovern at antiwar.com:

Four years ago today, on June 15, 2016, a shadowy Internet persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” appeared out of nowhere to claim credit for hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee on behalf of WikiLeaks and implicate Russia by dropping “telltale” but synthetically produced Russian “breadcrumbs” in his metadata.

Thanks largely to the corporate media, the highly damaging story actually found in those DNC emails – namely, that the DNC had stacked the cards against Bernie Sanders in the party’s 2016 primary – was successfully obscured.

The media was the message; and the message was that Russia had used G-2.0 to hack into the DNC, interfering in the November 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.

Almost everybody still “knows” that – from the man or woman in the street to the forlorn super sleuth, Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, who actually based indictments of Russian intelligence officers on Guccifer 2.0.

Blaming Russia was a magnificent distraction from the start and quickly became the vogue.

The soil had already been cultivated for “Russiagate” by Democratic PR gems like Donald Trump “kissing up” to former KGB officer Vladimir Putin and their “bromance” (bromides that former President Barack Obama is still using). Four years ago today, “Russian meddling” was off and running – on steroids – acquiring far more faux-reality than the evanescent Guccifer 2.0 persona is likely to get.

Continue reading

The Resistance Digs Their Hole Deeper, by James Howard Kunstler

The so-called resistance is drowning in the quicksand and bullshit of their own made up stories. From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

“No, you don’t understand. It was the Russians, I tell you, the Russians!” And so, with a holiday recess for Adam Schiff’s impeachment soap opera, and news that DOJ Inspector General Horowitz will unload in early December, the media vassals of the Deep State are giving you their own turkey gristle to chew on: “The Russians did it! Yes, really, they did! Believe us!”

Perhaps The New York Times has hooked up to a direct line of Burisma’s product as they flood the darkened arena with eerie blue gaslight. Friday, they featured a story — Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts — geared to make readers think that the entire FBI FISA warrant hair-ball came down to one lowly lawyer chump named Kevin Clinesmith messing with an email. Later, Times reporter Adam Goldman, posted this howler on Twitter.

Continue reading

It’s the DNC, Stupid: Democratic Party, Not Russia, Has Delegitimized the Democratic Process, by Elizabeth Vos

The Democratic Party’s documented history of electoral skullduggery has eroded faith in the whole process. How could it not? From Elizabeth Vos at consortiumnews.com:

With the U.S. presidential cycle gearing up, Elizabeth Vos takes stock of lessons from 2016.

Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project blame for the public’s doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party’s subversion of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment’s willingness to address even one of these critical failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.

The Democratic Party’s bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel doubling down on its right to rig the race during the fraud lawsuit brought against the DNC, as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova, indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also likely impact outcomes in 2020.

Continue reading→

 

The Steele dossier was planned as Hillary’s insurance policy, by Larry O’Conner

The infamous “insurance policy” referred to in an email between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page has been misunderstood. From Larry O’Conner at washingtontimes.com:

FBI agent Peter Strzok made a reference to an "insurance policy" in a message to his paramour, signaling it was to be used not to harm Donald Trump's campaign, but rather in case he won the presidency. (Associated Press/File)

FBI agent Peter Strzok made a reference to an “insurance policy” in a message to his paramour, signaling it was to be used not to harm Donald Trump’s campaign, but rather in case he won the presidency. (Associated Press/File) more >

It’s been over a year since the highly damaging text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, were revealed to the American public. The correspondence showed two senior Justice Department officials engaged in the most petty, vitriolic political diatribes while making decisions on the most sensitive investigations of the 2016 political season.

Their hatred toward then-candidate Donald Trump as well as their contempt for his supporters gave reasonable observers every reason to question whether the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the counterintelligence investigation into alleged Russian influence in the Trump campaign (Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page played key roles in both inquiries) were handled in a fair, unbiased and judicious manner.

Their behavior was so egregious that special counsel Robert Mueller removed them from his team the moment Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz told him about the text messages. Mr. Strzok was dismissed from the FBI, and further investigations are continuing.

Despite all this, defenders of the James Comey cabal and “Russia collusion” aficionados make one strong argument that seemingly debunks the spygate scandal and outrage over the upper reaches of the Obama administration’s wide-reaching surveillance operation on the campaign of the president’s rival party.

Continue reading

Attorneys: The DNC’s Lawsuit Against Russia Undermines Their Own Defense In The DNC Fraud Lawsuit, by Elizabeth Los

It’s not generally a good legal strategy to allege one thing in a lawsuit to which you are a party, and then allege the opposite in another lawsuit. From Elizabeth Vos at disobedientmedia.com:

Disobedient Media has consistently reported on the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the disturbing, sometimes bizarre events surrounding the case. Though the suit was initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, that ruling is in the process of an appeal in the 11th Circuit appellate court.

Last week, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the suit submitted a supplemental authority letter in the case, arguing that the DNC’s suit against Russia was relevant to the DNC Fraud Lawsuit. The cited relevance was due to arguments made by DNC defense counsel that stated donors did not contribute funds based on the promise of impartiality by the DNC towards Democratic Party primary candidates.

However, as the Beck’s submission points out, the DNC appears to have contradicted their defense by arguing in their separate suit against Russia, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks that the DNC experienced a severe drop in donations in the wake of WikiLeaks’ publication of evidence that the DNC rigged the 2016 Democratic Primary. Bloomberg reports that Democrats raised half as much as Republicans in 2017: In other words, primary source evidence of the DNC’s partiality towards Hillary Clinton has resulted in a steep decline in public donations.

As reported in April by CBS News, the DNC filed its own lawsuit against the “Russian government, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, arguing that the parties conspired to influence the 2016 presidential campaign in a way that damaged the Democratic Party.” That legacy press has consistently failed to point out the irony of the DNC’s claim is a stain on the deeply marred facade of American ‘journalism.’

The latest submission by Elizabeth Beck in the DNC Fraud lawsuit appeal, pictured below, states: “The complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee (“DNC,” also known as DNC Services Corporation, and a Defendant/Appellee in the instant appeal before this Court) in the Russia Lawsuit contains allegations made by the DNC which are relevant to the case at bar.” 

To continue reading: Attorneys: The DNC’s Lawsuit Against Russia Undermines Their Own Defense In The DNC Fraud Lawsuit

Real Takeaway: The FBI Influenced the Election of a President, by Peter Van Buren

Peter Van Buren identifies the most important conclusion to emerge from Michael Horowitz’s report. From Van Buren at theamericanconservative.com:

It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI’s Clinton email investigation really means.

While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this: the FBI influenced the election of a president.

In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who previously worked on the 2012 study of “Fast and Furious”), opened his probe into the FBI’s Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the presidential campaign. Horowitz’s focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding Russiagate.

In a damning passage, the 568 page report found it “extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors… for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.” Comey’s drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. “Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem… and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment.” Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further “created public confusion and didn’t adequately address the situation.”

The report also criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts “brought discredit” to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one exchange that read, “Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Another Strzok document stated “we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least one secret message.”

To continue reading: Real Takeaway: The FBI Influenced the Election of a President

Congress Reviewing 2017 Fusion GPS Testimony After Reports Of Spy In Trump’s Campaign, by Tyler Durden

Trump looks home free in the investigation against him, and it appears that his accusers are sinking ever deeper into legal quicksand. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Congressional investigators are reviewing 2017 testimony by Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, who said that “a human source from inside the Trump organization” had “decided to pick up the phone and report something” to the FBI.

Fusion GPS is a Democrat-linked opposition research firm which produced the infamous anti-Trump “Steele Dossier,” compiled from a series of memos provided by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele and paid for in part by the Clinton campaign.

Simpson told Congressional investigators on August 22 that Steele told him the FBI had corroborated parts of his dossier with “a human source from inside the Trump organization.”

As the Daily Caller‘s Chuck Ross notes, Fusion’s allies quickly began to backpedal from Simpson’s statement, telling news outlets that there was no mole…

“Instead, he was referring to George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser whose encounter with an Australian diplomat in May 2016 was reportedly the catalyst for the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation. The diplomat, Alexander Downer, reportedly claimed that Papadopoulos discussed Russian dirt on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” –Daily Caller

That’s all out the window now

In light of last week’s bombshell that the DOJ was forced to hand over intelligence to House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes which points to a mole within the Trump campaign, both House and Senate oversight panels are taking a fresh look at Simpson’s testimony about that “human source.”

In other words – did Steele tell Simpson about the FBI’s alleged mole in the Trump campaign?

Simpson’s lawyer said in a January letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that his initial testimony was accurate.

Mr. Simpson stands by his testimony,” said Joshua Levy, Fusion’s attorney in the January 18 letter. Levy had been asked in a January 11 letter whether Simpson’s testimony about the whistleblower (and now potential mole) within the Trump campaign was a mischaracterization, as news reports claimed.

To continue reading: Congress Reviewing 2017 Fusion GPS Testimony After Reports Of Spy In Trump’s Campaign

Be Glad

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/04/14/be-glad/

Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates, by Robert Parry

People do not want “new and improved” versions of the same old thing. They’re looking for something different from politicians. From Robert Parry at consortiumnews.com:

Exclusive: Neither the Democrats nor President Trump learned the right lessons from the 2016 election, leaving the nation divided at home and bogged down in wars abroad, writes Robert Parry.

One year ago, the American electorate delivered a confused but shocking result, the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, a quirky outcome in the Electoral College that put Trump in the White House even though Clinton got three million more votes nationally. But neither party appears to have absorbed the right lessons from that surprise ending.

President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

The Democrats might have taken away from their defeat the warning that they had forgotten how to speak to the white working class, which had suffered from job losses via “free trade” and felt willfully neglected as Democrats looked toward the “browning of America.”

The choice of Clinton had compounded this problem because she came across as elitist and uncaring toward this still important voting bloc with her memorable description of half of Trump’s voters as “deplorables,” an insult that stung many lower-income whites and helped deliver Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Trump.

For more than a decade, some Democratic strategists had promoted the notion that “demography is destiny,” i.e., that the relative growth of Latino, Asian and African-American populations in comparison to whites would ensure a future Democratic majority. That prediction seemed to have been validated by Barack Obama’s winning coalition in 2008 and 2012, but it also had the predictable effect of alienating many whites who felt disrespected and resentful.

So, while the Democrats and Clinton looked to a multicultural future, Trump used his experience in reality TV to communicate with this overlooked demographic group. Trump sold himself as a populist and treated the white working class with respect. He spoke to their fears about economic decline and gave voice to their grievances. He vowed to put “America First” and pull back from foreign military adventures that often used working-class kids as cannon fodder.

But much of Trump’s message, like the real-estate mogul himself, was phony. He really didn’t have policies that would address the needs of working-class Americans. Still, his promises of a massive infrastructure plan, good health-care for all, and rejection of unfair trade deals rang the right bells with enough voters to flip some traditionally Democratic blue-collar states to Republican red.

To continue reading: Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates