Friday, December 8, 2017
Let's Talk about the Mueller Witch Hunt Being Exposed, while the Crimes of the ProgDem Culprits Are Ignored, and Trump Is Stalked by the Obama Deep State
IT'S SATURDAY. LET'S TALK. About What we know. Sounds like Watergate, but this time around Progressive Democrat pack of bloodhounds is being hounded itself -- by what we know. • • • AFTER 18 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATING TRUMP, THE EVIDENCE ALL POINTS TO A PROGDEM HATCHET JOB. So, let's just list what we know about the Hillary-Obama-Lynch-Comey-DNC-Mueller witch hunt. • • • GENERAL FLYNN WAS SET UP. Zero Hedge finally on Friday outlined the flim-flam used to trap General Flynn. Zero Hedge seems to have been alerted to the set-up when "US District Judge Rudolph Contreras abruptly recused himself Thursday night with no explanation. Contreras is an Obama appointee who also sat on the FISA court while the Trump team was under surveillance by the Obama administration. Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, was randomly assigned to take over the case after Contreras’ recusal." Zero Hedge noted that Contreras was appointed to the FISA court on May 19, 2016 -- before the warrant to surveil one-time Trump advisor Carter Page was issued “in the summer” of 2016, but it is "unknown whether or not Contreras was involved in the decision, or whether he was involved in surveillance on Michael Flynn." However, Zero Hedge says we know that "every single FISA Court judge was appointed during the Obama administration." • But, in LATE BREAKING NEWS on Friday, Conservative Tree House reported : "The mystery why US District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused from the case overseeing the prosecution of General Michael Flynn was solved Friday...Contreras is one of a small number of judges on the FISA Court. The FISA court came to center stage on Thursday during the House Judiciary Committee hearings with FBI Director Christopher Wray when Representative Jim Jordan questioned Wray whether the now discredited Fusion GPS 'Russia Dossier' had been used by the FBI under former Director James Comey as the basis to obtain NSA electronic surveillance of principals in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Although Wray declined to answer, various published reports document that FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, previously assigned with heading the FBI’s investigation into allegations the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia, was in direct contact with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS to create the now discredited 'Russia Dossier.' " Strzok is the FBI agent forced to resign from Mueller’s special counsel team after being discredited by some 10,000 messages to his lover, FBI prosecutor Lisa Page, were found to be laden with hate-Trump language. On Thursday, Fox News correspondents James Rosen and Jake Gibson reported that Bruce G. Ohr, a senior DOJ official was demoted this week amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm responsible for the Trump dossier. Conservative Tree House reported on Friday : "There is a very real possibility that Judge Contreras signed off on the FISA warrant in October 2016 that initiated the counterintelligence wiretapping and surveillance of the Trump campaign. That wiretapping and surveillance ultimately led to the questioning of Michael Flynn; the consequence of which brings Flynn to Contreras courtroom." • • • HOW FLYNN WAS SET UP IN A PERJURY TRAP. When General Flynn pleaded guilty last Friday to a false statement charge brought by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office in relation to the Trump-Russia investigation, the media was full of the "fact" that the retired Army lieutenant general and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency was fired 24 days into his role as National Security Advisor for lying about his meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and that Flynn had also admitted to lying about his dealings with Turkey as a private lobbyist. • BUT, says Zero Hedge : "The case against Flynn, however, is not so straightforward. As Robert Parry pointed out last week : 'What is arguably most disturbing about this case is that then-National Security Advisor Flynn was pushed into a perjury trap by Obama administration holdovers at the Justice Department who concocted an unorthodox legal rationale for subjecting Flynn to an FBI interrogation four days after he took office, testing Flynn’s recollection of the conversations while the FBI agents had transcripts of the calls intercepted by the National Security Agency. In other words, the Justice Department wasn’t seeking information about what Flynn said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the intelligence agencies already had that information. Instead, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts. Then, just four days into the Trump presidency, an Obama holdover, then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, primed the Flynn perjury trap by coming up with a novel legal theory that Flynn although the national security advisor-designate at the time of his late December phone calls with Kislyak was violating the 1799 Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from interfering with US foreign policy. The Logan Act, however, was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period -- and in the past 218 years, has resulted in no successful prosecution. Yates then performed mental gymnastics based on her Logan Act theory to assert that Flynn’s deviation from the transcript of the intercepts meant he might be vulnerable to Russian blackmail.' " This, as Parry points out, would require that the Russians had detected the discrepancies and would have naively assumed that the US intelligence agencies had not intercepted the conversations -- that is how US Intel would have negated any blackmail potential. Then, the Russians would have to do something so ridiculously heavy-handed as trying to blackmail Flynn, knowing he was a close advisor of President Trump and that blackmailing Flynn would poison relations with the new Trump administration. • So, WE KNOW that Michael Flynn was surveilled under a FISA warrant, then set up to fail by Sally Yates when he deviated from the transcripts of his intercepted conversations. And the judge overseeing his case, who is on the FISA court, has suddenly recused himself. • • • STRZOK WAS THE ANTI-TRUMP INVESTIGATOR OF GENERAL FLYNN. Journalist Sara Carter revealed on Hannity.com that anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok was fired from Robert Mueller’s special counsel staff. WE KNOW that Strzok was one of two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn on January 24 at the White House, according to a former intelligence official with knowledge of the interview. And, Sara Carter reports that Flynn was tricked into a formal investigation after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the retired three-star general “some agents [including Peter Strzok] were heading over (to the White House),” which Flynn thought was related to routine work the FBI had been doing -- only to realize they were sent there for him. It wasn’t until after they were already in (Flynn’s) office that he realized he was being formally interviewed. He didn’t have an attorney with him. • So, WE KNOW that when we combine the recused judge who sits on the FISA court, Sally Yates’ transcript ‘trap,’ and the fact that the FBI reportedly interviewed Flynn without an attorney present, the case against Michael Flynn looks a lot like entrapment flim-flam that will not hold up in a thorough DOJ investigation. According to Carter's source : “With the recent revelation that Strzok was removed from the Special Counsel investigation for making anti-Trump text messages it seems likely that the accuracy and veracity of Flynn’s interview as a whole should be reviewed and called into question...the most logical thing to happen would be to call the other FBI Special Agent present during Flynn’s interview before the Grand Jury to recount his version.” • • • HILLARY & CO. LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING TO EVERYBODY. President Trump attacked the FBI for 'destroying' Michael Flynn's life by prosecuting him for Russia lies and asks why 'nothing happened' to 'Crooked Hillary' in a late-night tweet. Trump also tweeted : "Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!' • Hillary performed her interview with ex-FBI head James Comey while not under oath. If she did lie in this interview, she did not break the law. • Restore American Glory reports that : "As President Trump has noted on Twitter, the idea of the Justice Department charging Michael Flynn with the crime of lying to FBI agents is undermined by the fact that at least two of Hillary Clinton’s top aides did the same thing…and went completely unpunished for their deception. Both Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin have been accused of making false statements to the FBI when they denied that they knew about the existence of their boss’s private email server, but the FBI never made any attempt to hold them accountable for their obstruction. FBI notes from the Abedin interview indicate : “Abedin did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge.” And the notes record that : “Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton’s tenure. Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time.” However, other emails have been released showing that both Mills and Abedin were well aware of Clinton’s private server when they were interviewed. Strange, then, that they would turn around and make Michael Flynn pay for the exact same crime." • Maybe not so "strange" because Peter Strzok interviewed Mills and Abedin, as well as Flynn. Strzok’s involvement in both of these high-profile cases raises serious questions as to the validity of the process, his integral role in these interviews makes it impossible to believe that justice was served. Furthermore, the disparity between the punishment coming to Flynn and the absence of punishment for Mills and Abedin -- or Hillary -- is an outrage that should, by all rights, lead to Mueller’s removal as special counsel and indictments of Mills and Abedin. • So, WE KNOW that publicly-released summaries of the interviews show that Strzok and other FBI agents conducted the interviews with Mills and Abedin, who denied knowing that Hillary was using an off-the-books private server. They lied -- to protect themselves and their friend, Hillary Clinton. They lied to cover up a crime. They lied and they should have been charged with obstructing the investigation. They were not. In fact, they weren’t even given so much as a slap on the wrist. Were the FBI and Director Comey trying to save Hillary's skin?? Sure looks like it. Flynn has been charged with the exact same crime in a spurious attempt to flip him against President Trump. It is clearly indicative of an investigation much more concerned with getting a Flynn conviction than in getting a Hillary / Abedin / Mills conviction. And, WE KNOW that Strzok was also the person who softened former FBI Director James Comey’s language about the Clinton email investigation, changing the phrase “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” Since the same anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok was central to both cases, it is a clear sign that both these investigations have been hopelessly tainted by political agendas that overrode the rule of law. • • • CLAPPER LIED WHEN IT SUITED BOSSMAN OBAMA'S PRO-HILLARY ANTI-TRUMP AGENDA. And, perhaps James Clapper was so used to lying that he had lost sight of its illegality whne under oath. Obama’s DNI head Clapper was able to commit bold perjury with no consequences at all. During 2013 testimony before a congressional inquiry under oath, Clapper was asked by Senator Ron Wyden if the NSA was collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” Clapper responded : “No, sir.” Senator Wyden asked : “It does not?” Director Clapper responded : “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.” • This under-oath testimony was proven to be a lie three months later when whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA was deliberately collecting tens of millions of Americans’ phone call records as well as browsing histories, chat logs, email usage, as well as their physical locations. Clapper, as DNI, had to know that this was occurring. He committed perjury by lying under oath, yet he has faced no consequences at all -- not even a congressional citation for contempt. • Why did Clapper lie? He needed to hide the fact that surveillance targeting people linked to the Trump administration had taken place. During a March 2017 appearance on Meet the Press, Clapper asserted : “There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the President-Elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.” This was proven to be a lie by the revelation that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had been wiretapped both before and after the election. And, Clapper partially admitted this during a September 2017 appearance on CNN when he told Don Lemon it was “conceivable” that President Trump’s conversations could have been picked up during the course of the Manafort surveillance. • Now, WE KNOW that there was, in fact, a FISA court order and it came from the FBI -- and Clapper, in his own words, claimed he "would have known about that.” And he denied it, unequivocally. Maybe he forgot all about the FISA order wiretapping Paul Manafort while he was in direct contact with Trump during his campaign and after the election. It seems that lying under oath is perfectly acceptable if you’re a member of the Deep State -- Clapper, unlike General Flynn, is enjoying the privilege of having that special distinction. When are we going to see charges against James Clapper and Susan Rice and Samantha Price and all the Obama officials who illegally spied on and unmasked American citizens? • • • MUELLER IS PART OF THE WITCH HUNT. Mueller's team in the Russia probe -- the Hack Pack -- included an agent who showed an inherent bias against Trump. It was -- you guessed it -- Peter Strzok. The New York Times reported : "The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted FBI counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump’s campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the FBI’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump." The NYT put it very favorably for Mueller, omitting the fact that Strzok was virulently anti-Trump and his emails showed it, and that his key role in tte Hillary and Flynn investigations irreparably tainted the Mueller team and its work. • Mueller tried to play a goodie-two-shoes role, issuing a statement by his office that said : “Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the special counsel’s office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation.” But, wait -- Mueller forgot to tell Congress in his required reports and waited until the NYT and the Washington Post were going to release the story of the August firing to tell Congress in December. Fox News's Laura Ingraham said : "But there’s no partisan aspect whatsoever to the Mueller probe, right?" < https://t.co/nqCG3fPRCo >. Judicial Watch said : "The Mueller investigation should be shut down." < https://t.co/WdEMLop9Nc https://t.co/g1UqCkrYFO >. • There is another egregious anti-Trump outburst emanating from the Mueller Hack Pack of anti-Trumpers. Andrew Weissman, a top prosecutor in the Obama DOJ who is now a deputy for special counsel Mueller’s Russia probe, praised outgoing Attorney General Sally Yates after she was fired in January by President Trump for refusing to defend his controversial travel ban. Weissman's email to Yates, obtained by Judicial Watch, was straightforward : “I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the new Weissmann document an “astonishing and disturbing find” : “Andrew Weisman, a key prosecutor on Robert Mueller’s team, praised Obama DOJ holdover Sally Yates after she lawlessly thwarted President Trump. How much more evidence do we need that the Mueller operation has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans?” • • • COMEY -- AGAIN??? In mid-November, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox News legal expert, asked : "Why did Comey soften the language in the Clinton probe memo?" Judge Napolitano pointed out the silliness of the Department of Justice's reaction to the revelation about the wording change made by Comey on the advice of Strzok : "The Department of Justice will soon commence an investigation to determine whether there should be an investigation (you read that nonsense correctly) of a scandal involving the Clinton Foundation and a company called Uranium One. It appears that FBI decisions made during the time that Hillary Clinton was being investigated for espionage will also be investigated to see whether there should be an investigation to determine whether she was properly investigated. (Again, you read that nonsense correctly.)" Napolitano said : "Only the government can relate nonsense with a straight face." • But, the Judge's point is rock solid : "After being confronted by irate Republican members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, who demanded to know why the investigations of these matters had been terminated, Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed that he has asked career DOJ lawyers to commence an investigation of all of the above to determine whether an independent counsel should be appointed to investigate all of the above. This is the investigation to determine whether there should be an investigation. This is also the DOJ's reluctance to do its job." • But, now that WE KNOW that Comey changed "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the DOJ job has become a lot easier. And, in addition, the Judicial Watch release of the DOJ emails showing the scramble to cover-up the real reasons for the Loretta lynch - Bill Clinotn tarmac meeting have helped enormously to clarify why Comey was ordered by Lynch to call the Hillary investigation a "matter." • As Judge Napolitano says : "Hillary and Bill Clinton, the FBI's tampering with the political process, and the use of intelligence-captured communications for political purposes....It is profoundly the duty of the DOJ -- using its investigatory arm, the FBI -- to investigate all this. Whatever Comey’s motive for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton and the DOJ’s ratification of it, the current DOJ is not bound by these erroneous decisions. The evidence in the public domain of Clinton’s espionage and bribery is more than enough to be presented to a grand jury." • • • DEAR READERS, Andrew McCarthy wrote in the National Review last week that : "The end game is the removal of Trump, either by impeachment or by publicly discrediting him and making his reelection politically impossible. Here’s what I’d be tempted to do if I were President Trump : I’d direct the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, including any Obama-administration collusion in that enterprise. I would make sure to call it a 'counterintelligence investigation,' putting no limitations on the special counsel -- just as with the investigation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been unleashed to conduct into Trump 'collusion' with Russia. That is, I would not restrict the prosecutor and investigators to digging for specified criminal violations. Or, indeed, any criminal violations. I’d just tell the special counsel, 'Have at it” -- with unbound authority to scrutinize the negotiations surrounding the eventual Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). Would I really expect the special counsel to find that Obama officials conspired with the mullahs to obtain nukes for Teheran? No...but, Hey, as the 'Trump collusion with Russia' crowd says, 'You never know.' ” McCarthy then says : "Meantime, under the guise of investigating this highly unlikely 'collusion,' I’d want the special counsel to scrutinize closely any variances between what Obama-administration officials were telling Congress and the public about the negotiations and what they were telling the Iranians; to probe any side deals the administration agreed to but failed to disclose to Congress; and to consider whether any laws or policies were violated in such matters as President Obama’s payment of a cash ransom in exchange for American hostages held by Iran. Why would I do this? Well, because I disagree with Obama-administration foreign policy, of course. Under the Mueller 'collusion' precedent, it is evidently now American practice to criminalize foreign-policy disputes under the pretext of conducting a counterintelligence investigation." • McCarthy has a solid point : "See, we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes -- which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime -- no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process. Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements. The end game of the investigation is the removal of Donald Trump from the presidency, either by impeachment (which does not require proof of a court- prosecutable crime) or by publicly discrediting Trump to such a degree that his reelection becomes politically impossible. The latter can be accomplished by projecting the appearance of a critical investigation (notwithstanding that there is no underlying crime), turning administration officials into suspects, and hopefully generating the false-statement prosecutions that help depict the administration as dishonest and icky." • Has the constitutional Republic been so badly stripped of its underpinnings of the rule of law that Andrew McCarthy's commentary seems perfectly plausible? Sadly, the answer seems to be "Yes." The deeply frightening truth about why Mueller’s investigation was authorized is that in America, it is now entirely possible to criminalize politics. The Mueller witch hunt's sordid purpose is being exposed, while the crimes of the culprits are being ignored and Trump is being stalked by the Obama Deep State. That is what WE KNOW.