Obama's Deep State FBI / DOJ Investigated President Trump Because They Said He Was a Manchurian Candidate -- Who Is Investigating the Obama Deep State?

WHEN WILL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FORCE A SHOWDOWN BETWEEN AMERICA AND THE OBAMA DEEP STATE FBI / DOJ CABAL LEADERS? President Trump has faced with amazing calm almost three years of increasingly shrieking and preposterous claims that he is somehow -- the shriekers never say exactly "how" -- a pawn or willing colluder with Russian President Putin to in some way -- the shriekers never say exactly in what "way" -- to...to...to do what?? That is the problem. All the shrieking and preposterous claims and the publication of an enormous number of New York and Washington Post reports and the clamoring of the Democrat Party leadership never really say just what the President and Putin are up to -- are they plotting to take over the world and fill it with Trump Towers? Or maybe buy Syria and turn it into a sounthern resort for Russians' winter vacations?? But, one thing is clear -- President Trump has an odd way of showing his "collusion" with Russia -- huge financial sanctions on Putin's business friends and selling LNG to Europe to keep Russia from being a danerous gas pipeline monopoly. YEP. That ought to get the "collusion" off to a great start !! • • • IT'S A "COUP" AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. The Daily Caller reports that President Trump's former lawyer for the Russian probe, John Dowd, told Fox News that former FBI officials were staging a “coup” by opening a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump acted as a foreign agent of Russia. Dowd said : “This is our worst nightmare that someone with that kind of power would then decide to go after the President. I mean it’s a coup. That’s what it is, an attempted coup by Comey and his crowd. And the evidence is all over there. I take The New York Times article as an admission of their bad behavior.” • According to the New York Times report, FBI officials were concerned that Trump could be a witting or unwitting agent of the Russian government. Mueller inherited the investigation as well as a separate inquiry into whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey. Comey’s firing and Trump’s remarks shortly afterward were the catalyst for the counterintelligence investigation, the NYT reported. • President Trump responded to the report on Monday, telling White House reporters : “I never worked for Russia,” and adding that he believed Comey could be called “a bad cop, a dirty cop, and a liar.” • Dowd told Fox News that he was unaware that the FBI had opened the investigation : “Little did I know that it appears that they were all in it together. I mean Rosenstein, Comey, Mueller, McCabe, the whole crowd and they were out to get this President no matter what. I don’t think they sincerely believed anything about Russia.” • Text messages by FBI officials suggest that the FBI had considered opening an investigation into Trump himself even before Comey’s firing. The text messages between former counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page are damning -- “And we need to open the case we’ve been waiting on now while Andy [McCabe] is acting,” Strzok wrote to Page on May 9, 2017, the day that Comey was fired. Strzok also appears to have met one-on-one with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 11, 2017. In a text message to Page, Strzok said that the meeting was about “coordinating investigations.” Rosenstein wrote a memo that called for Comey’s firing -- we might now wonder if that memo was bait meant to lull President Trump into firing Comey so that the Mueller investigation could charge the President with "obstruction of justice." Rosenstein also appointed Mueller as special counsel and has overseen that investigation. BUT, Strzok, who led the FBI’s Russia investigation, appeared to doubt whether Trump or the campaign colluded with Russia. He texted Page on May 18, 2017 : “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.” • On Monday, Newsmax reported on congressional transcripts obtained by CNN, showing that FBI debated whether President Trump was backing Russia. Newsmax' Sandy Fitzgerald says : "Senior FBI officials, just after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, discussed several possibilities concerning the President and Russia, including whether he was acting in ways to benefit Russia or if he had been acting within the boundaries of executive authority, according to congressional transcripts obtained by CNN. About a half-dozen officials, talking behind closed doors to members of Congress, discussed how they had discussed a wide range of topics, the transcripts showed. On one side, they talked about the possibility that Trump could have fired Comey at Russia's orders, but the other was that he and the Kremlin did not have an improper relationship, CNN reported Monday. Former FBI general counsel James Baker told House investigators last year that the FBI officials had a 'range of things this could possibly be,' and that 'we don't know whether, you know, the worst-case scenario is possibly true or the President is totally innocent and we need to get this thing over with -- and so he can move forward with his agenda.' The FBI also opened an investigation at the time to determine if Trump had obstructed justice by firing Comey, and on Friday, the New York Times reported that part of the reason for the probe was about whether Trump's actions benefited Russia. The transcripts show new details about how the FBI launched the investigation, and the discussions that were happening inside the bureau before the internal investigation and special counsel Robert Mueller's probe, reports CNN. Meanwhile, Republicans say the comments were evidence that the FBI's top officials had been planning to investigate Trump, even before Comey was fired. Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page had already testified that the FBI launched its investigation after Comey was fired, but had already contemplated a probe." • • • PROGDEM AND DEEP STATE LEADERS WANT TO CALL TRUMP THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. But, they are afraid to do it. Legal Insurrection's William A. Jacobson on Sunday used the words. Manchurian Candidate. BUT, states Jacobson : "The people serving the Russians’ purposes are the media which weekly rolls out unproven and non-disprovable accusations of collusion, delegitimizing our political system far beyond Vladimir Putin’s wildest dreams. Two supposed bombshell reports about Trump-Russia collusion rocked the media news cycle this weekend, but as all of the other bombshells dropped by the media, there is a lot less to the reports than the hype suggests. The hype has given rise to a Manchurian Candidate accusation against Trump, that he is an agent of some sort of the Russians, with Vladimir Putin his controller. Even those in NeverTrump world who won’t invoke the “Manchurian Candidate” terminology explicitly, assert that Putin must have something over on Trump to influence him. This is not a new accusation. It was made prior to the 2016 election, and it has percolated through the Resistance and the media for over two years. This weekend the conspiracy theory gained new life from stories at The NY Times and The Washington Post." • Jacobson outlines the New York Times report, quoting the Times : "In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the President’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation." However, says Jacobson : "The article provides almost no details of the investigation or what it concluded, despite having commenced over a year-and-a-half ago. To the contrary, the Times notes : 'The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days after FBI officials opened it. That inquiry is part of Mr. Mueller’s broader examination of how Russian operatives interfered in the 2016 election and whether any Trump associates conspired with them. It is unclear whether Mr. Mueller is still pursuing the counterintelligence matter, and some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening it....No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials..." • Jacobson says there is "good reason to be very suspicious of this NYT reporting because of this sentence : 'Mr. Trump had caught the attention of FBI counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton.' Trump demonstrably did not call on the Russians 'to hack into the emails' of Hillary Clinton, which is the phrase the Times uses to describe what Trump said. In fact, Trump joked during a press conference that maybe the Russians could find the 30,000 emails Hillary deleted, as the hyperlink in the Times current article shows : 'Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,' Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. 'I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.' So the Times story shows nothing beyond political disputes that gave rise to concern, gives no details about the investigation or its conclusions, and is demonstrably biased and inaccurate in putting forth the false context of Trump allegedly calling for the Russians to hack Hillary’s emails." • Jacobson then discusses last Friday's tag-team effort with the NYT by the Washington Post, which dropped its own supposed bombshell story, with the tantalizing headline Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration. Both the original WP story and the most recent rehash after edits and additions, fail to prove the headline. Jacobson says : "The story asserts that Trump told an interpreter for a meeting in Hamburg with Putin not to share the interpreter’s notes, but admits that then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attended the meeting and gave a read-out to others in the administration. Assuming the claim about the interpreter’s notes for that Hamburg meeting is true, nothing was concealed -- unless the claim is that Tillerson also is in on the supposed Russia connivance. Jacobson goes on the talk about the WP's focus on a conversation during a banquet in Hamburg with Putin during which only Putin’s translator was present. But that conversation took place at a crowded dinner table with other world leaders, most if not all of whom spoke English, just feet away, likely able to hear much if not all of what Trump and the interpreter were saying in English. I wrote about this Hamburg dinner at the time in July 2017, Media scoop of undisclosed Trump-Putin 'meeting' at G20 falls apart, noting how WaPo had to update its initial dramatic claim that the dinner conversation was an 'undisclosed meeting' with Putin : "...It turns out the meeting wasn’t a separate meeting, but a conversation at a dinner table in the presence of numerous other leaders. WaPo then amended its story, here is a Revised Version : 'After his much-publicized, two-and-a-quarter-hour meeting early this month with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Germany, President Trump chatted informally with the Russian leader for up to an additional hour later the same day. The second meeting, undisclosed at the time, took place at a dinner for G-20 leaders, a senior administration official said. At some point during the meal, Trump left his own seat to occupy a chair next to Putin. Trump approached alone, and Putin was attended only by his official interpreter. In a statement issued Tuesday night after published reports of the conversation, the White House said that 'there was no ‘second meeting’ between President Trump and President Putin, just a brief conversation at the end of a dinner. The insinuation that the White House has tried to ‘hide’ a second meeting,' it said, 'is false, malicious and absurd.' All the leaders' circulated around the room throughout the dinner, and 'President Trump spoke with many leaders,' the statement said. 'As the dinner was concluding,' it said, Trump spoke 'briefly' with Putin, who was seated next to first lady Melania Trump. The dinner conversation with Putin was first reported Monday by Ian Bremmer, president of the New York-based Eurasia Group, in a newsletter to group clients. Bremmer said the meeting began 'halfway in' to the meal and lasted 'roughly an hour.' The senior official said it began with the dessert course, but did not comment on its length...." According to that updated WaPo report, Trump walked over to where Melania and Putin were seated, which was right next to German Chancellor Merkel and others. • You can watch the dinner conversations at < https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z2aDLl793P0 > and < https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z2aDLl793P0. • In its Friday article, the Washington Post also mentions the Trump-Putin private meeting in Helsinki, and states that the US interpreter was seen exiting with a lot of notes. But, says Jacobson, the WP "does not state that those notes are missing, or what happened to the notes other than that the administration does not want the interpreter testifying to Congress because interpreters for the President do not normally testify" : 'But Trump and Putin then met for two hours in private, accompanied only by their interpreters. Trump’s interpreter, Marina Gross, could be seen emerging from the meeting with pages of notes. Alarmed by the secrecy of Trump’s meeting with Putin, several lawmakers subsequently sought to compel Gross to testify before Congress about what she witnessed. Others argued that forcing her to do so would violate the impartial role that interpreters play in diplomacy. Gross was not forced to testify. She was identified when members of Congress sought to speak with her. The interpreter in Hamburg has not been identified." So, states Jacobson, "the Helsinki meeting does not support the headline anymore than the Hamburg meetings -- but the WP wasn't finished -- it mentions that “Trump also had a brief conversation with Putin at a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires last month” but presents no facts showing either secretiveness or deception. And the WP acknowledges that Trump allows aides to listen in on calls with Putin." • IT IS CLEAR, as Jacobson says : "So there really isn’t any there, there, to the WP story that would support the Manchurian candidate speculation sweeping the media and social media of Putin conveying instructions or otherwise running Trump as an agent through secret communications." • The hatred and desire to destroy President Trump is so virulent in the ranks of the Deep State FBI and DOJ, and in the ProgDem elites and their propagandist media that while the New York Times and Washington Post stories try to create the impression, states Jacobson, "amplified by other media and anti-Trump pundits, that Trump is illegitimate, a Manchurian candidate serving Russian masters, the allegations are not proven, and are non-disprovable because they are so vague and speculative. When reporting is both unproven and non-disprovable, there is every reason to be suspicious of the messengers." • We must point out, as does Jacobson and Legal Insurrection, that it defies credulity to believe that "our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have proof -- actual proof -- that Trump is a Manchurian candidate or otherwise compromised but have withheld that information from Congress and the public. If that is the case, then law enforcement and the intelligence community have betrayed the public interest. Or, more likely, it means there isn’t any hard proof there to begin with. At such time as there is actual proof of wrongdoing, then we can judge. But that proof, if it exists, has not been made public or even disclosed to Congress, despite two years of searching for it." • • • DEAR READERS, the ProgDem media and Democrat congressional leaders have been telling us for two years that the Russian goal was, and is, to disrupt our democratic processes, to sow discord throughout the United States and among Americans, to weaken our institutions and to delegitimize our political process. Tell us, ProgDems and Deep State -- what is newsworthy about that?? It has been, for the past century, the strategy of Soviet and Russian propaganda and disinformation efforts. If the FBI or DOJ or Mueller can prove it, then it is the Russians, NOT Donald Trump, who are the culprits. But, so far, we do not even see evidence of this, although it must be there, if the "investigators" would quit picking on the bones of a dead Trump "collusion" story -- all Donald Trump did was win an election fair and square -- and actually look at Russia's current hacking and use of people as secret implants in the US. These "investigators" could also take a serious look at Hillary Clinton's efforts to smear President Trump with the Fake Russia "collusion" story when she used her campaign law firm to pay Fusion GPS to prepare the discredited Russia Dossier. • And, the "investigators" might want to look at the ProgDem propaganda machine masquerading as the media that churns out weekly unproven and non-disprovable accusations of "collusion" that undermine America's political structures and institutions, and delegitimize elections far beyond anything Vladimir Putin’s could hope for or accomplish. Freedom of the press is meant to be fully protected -- but, is using lies and slander and libel to try to bring down a legitimate US President also protected under the First Amendment??? I think a lot of lawyers would take that case for the President.