↓
 
Home » Awaiting IG Horowitz’s report: was the criminal justice system perverted by the FBI?

Awaiting IG Horowitz’s report: was the criminal justice system perverted by the FBI?

The New Neo Posted on by

Attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing have said that Inspector General Horowitz’s report, due to come out next month, has concluded that the final three FISA warrants pertaining to Russiagate were obtained illegally. I don’t know how their track record of such predictions have turned out, but that would be big news if true.

In addition, there’s this story of what seems as though it may have been attempted entrapment of George Papadopoulos by the FBI in the summer of 2017:

We’ll see how this pans out, I guess.

One thing I do know is that Andrew C. McCarthy—who started writing about what became known as Russiagate back when he was not much of a Trump supporter and when he trusted Comey and Mueller and all the rest—has become what I can only describe as hopping mad [emphasis mine]:

Russiagate has always been a political narrative masquerading as a federal investigation. Its objective, plain and simple, has been twofold: first, to hamstring Donald Trump’s capacity to press the agenda on which he ran (immigration enforcement, conservative judicial nominees, deregulation, and a military build-up, along with skepticism about military interventions, free trade, and NATO); and ultimately, to render him unelectable come autumn 2020…

Access to sensitive law-enforcement information and classified intelligence is a trust. It is extended with the understanding that it won’t be politicized or used to smear people.

Abuse of this privilege mirrors the most objectionable aspect of the Mueller investigation: The abuse of the criminal-justice process — converting it into a political weapon to smear a person the government has not charged with crimes.…

…[T]he anti-Trump partisans…are perverting the criminal-justice process they claim Trump has obstructed. With the transparently eager cooperation of Mueller’s team, they intimate that the president could have been charged and would have been convicted. They suggest that, although not charged, he has not been “exonerated,” effectively imposing on him the burden to establish his innocence.

I don’t want the criminal-justice system to be the prism through which we conduct politics. But if you insist on evaluating the president’s conduct as a criminal-justice issue rather than a political impeachment issue, then he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is entitled to have the evidence discounted (indeed, it should have been concealed) unless and until he is formally charged. He is entitled to have the burden of proof imposed entirely on the government. For current and former officials who have been involved in the investigation to refrain from charging him, publicize the evidence, and then suggest he is guilty is a willful undermining of the justice process.

That is, they are doing what they accuse Trump of doing.

McCarthy has devoted his life to that criminal justice system. He previously respected it, although of course he knew it wasn’t perfect. And he previously respected the people who worked with him, such as Comey and Mueller, and the integrity of the whole. I don’t think he was extremely naive, but apparently he was somewhat naive, and he’s not happy at the undermining and perverting of a system he knows is (or should be) one of the biggest safeguards of our liberties.

All Americans ought to feel the same alarm, but unfortunately they don’t.

More from McCarthy here:

Desperate to project the illusion of cover-up in the utter absence of cover-up, Democrats proceeded against the attorney general even though (a) Barr did not owe Congress a single comma in the report because federal law calls for it to be confidential (i.e., between the prosecutor investigating the case and his supervisor, the attorney general); (b) Barr nevertheless gave Congress about 95 percent of the report; (c) congressional Democrats did not avail themselves of the opportunity to read other unredacted portions to which he gave access; (d) all of the unsavory information about President Trump – i.e., the stuff in the report that Democrats truly care about – has been disclosed; and (e) Barr only withheld grand jury information which it would be illegal to disclose – meaning: Democrats put the AG to the untenable choice of violating the law or being held in contempt.

Oh, and about that grand jury secrecy rule … it is Congress’s own law. Democrats could easily get the information by just passing a two-line amendment to federal criminal procedure rule 6(e), so that grand jury material could henceforth be disclosed to Congress in special counsel investigations. With the Trump administration trying to show it is being transparent, the Senate would surely pass such a House amendment, and the president would sign it. But Democratic legislators are not taking any legislative action (you know, their job) because they don’t really want the information. They want the issue. They are straining to create the appearance of Watergate, even as Barr has turned over an Everest of information.

You can sense McCarthy’s saying the equivalent of “It’s all so clear; why can’t I make everyone see it?”

Comments

Awaiting IG Horowitz’s report: was the criminal justice system perverted by the FBI? — 66 Comments

  1. The May 5th “Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo” had an extensive investigation of the timeline of what was done to George Papadopoulos.

    Full episode here for those who would like to see it:
    https://video.foxnews.com/playlist/longform-sunday-morning-futures-with-maria-bartiromo/

    It is a real eye-opener, and shows that Papadopoulos was contacted while he was still working of another campaign, but IMMEDIATELY AFTER calling about transferring to the Trump campaign. This was in 2015!

  2. And nothing will happen to any of these people criminally.

    About the worst thing is they will or have been forced out to start collecting their fat pensions.

    Will be happy to be surprised but I have seen nothing to make me think otherwise.

  3. “You can sense McCarthy’s saying the equivalent of “It’s all so clear; why can’t I make everyone see it?” neo

    I think the more insightful among them do see it. They just don’t care. Those simply in it for the power aside, the vast majority on the Left who do see just don’t care. They’re “getting after the devil” (Trump and all who disagree with them) and they’re willing to and are “cutting down all the laws across the land” to get to those deplorables, who they are certain are truly irredeemable.

    In their hubris, those who do see are willfully blind to what their ‘success’ would bring, the reality that Venezuela demonstrates. But as with Venezuela, they will never admit to their responsibility for the hell they’ve created and as with the common criminal, would fiercely protest being held accountable.

    And, this is because in their heart of hearts, the Left’s elite would far rather rule in hell, than serve in heaven. As they find the reality God has created, utterly intolerable.

  4. What we have here is an actual, living, breathing, “vast Left wing conspiracy.”

  6. Democrats don’t get indicted.

    They do, but you have to do something fairly crude, like have a chest freezer full of bribe money stored in your basement (Wm. “Cold Cash” Jefferson) or embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars from your campaign treasury (Jesse Jackson Jr). Wouldn’t surprise me if both these men fell afoul of factional rivals in their local area ergo….. Both were representing safe Democratic districts, so it was no loss to the Regime.

  7. So we ask, why do DeGenova/Toensing say the three latter warrants are illegal but don’t mention the first (corrupt) warrant? Doesn’t seem promising, does it?

    But then only a couple of days ago “new” information came to light in the form of the Kovalec memo, exposing State Dept. knowledge of the falsity of Steele’s dossier. This information, if unknown (stressing *if*) to the DoJIG, would require reevaluation of the first FISA warrant.

    Sen. Graham has written the IG precisely to this effect.

    If, again, if, the IG acts as Graham wishes, then perhaps the production of the “IG report” suffers a delay, albeit a delay with the potential to alter the absence of the first FISA warrant from DeGenova’s list and now necessitate its inclusion in that list — which is to say inclusion precisely as illegal.

    Different kettle of fish, no?

  9. All of us who believe in the rule of law, not men, shall be classified as “somewhat naive”, along with McCarthy, in Neo’s view, and that is because we face the fact of collective tyrannical Leftist intent with some reluctance. That reluctance is a form of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

    But evil they are and evil they will be.

  13. “Was the criminal justice system perverted?”

    Boss…you’re a lawyer.
    You know not to ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer.

    So…you’re assuming “yes,” right?

  14. Water Closet was exposed by Deep Plunger, but it is still leaking and soiling the political climate.

  15. McCarthy has reached the same conclusion most of the right identified days ago.
    (As a good prosecutor, he already knows the answer is “yes.”)

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-politics-is-front-and-center-for-russiagate-probe-and-the-farce-has-reached-new-heights

    “Much of the presidential misbehavior that prosecutors portray as possible obstruction happened after it appears they must have known Trump had not “colluded” with Russia. Why was there no interim report announcing that? Why did investigators continue to lead the country to believe that the president might be an agent?

    Democrats turned up the noise and the heat on Attorney General Barr once he announced that he would investigate the origins of the Russiagate probe. Are they trying to destroy the messenger before he can deliver the message“

  16. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/twilight-of-the-fbi.php

    It also should be noted that the FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page was renewed several times, extending by some months the period during which the FBI and the Department of Justice knew about Steele’s unreliability and continued to mislead the FISA court.

    The FBI’s spying operation on the Trump campaign was ordered at the highest levels of the Bureau. Who signed the FISA application? Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, for one–the same Andrew McCabe in whose office high-ranking agents like Peter Strzok discussed the imperative that Donald Trump not win the presidency. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for another.

    There is a real likelihood that senior FBI and DOJ heads are going to roll. Even in today’s debased legal world, perjury in a FISA application is a serious matter. Hence the Democrats’ ridiculous attacks on Attorney General William Barr, who has vowed to get to the bottom of what many think is the worst political scandal in American history.

  18. I’ll believe McCabe et al might be held accountable the moment one of them is indicted for a non-trivial offense. Not a moment sooner.

  19. Does it appear to anyone else that Trump’s demeanor has become more presidential and measured under the press of all this fake scandal? Fewer tweets, better press interaction — could it be the Democrats, in trying to make him appear unfit, have in fact made him a better public figure?

  21. Sorry. I first discussed this retainer trap on another thread.

    Nonetheless, the story linked to above is both fascinating and chilling, in its delineation of how the coup plotters wove a trap using existing laws and procedures.

  22. According to deGenova, the predicate of the first FISA warrant is still under review as well.

  23. Great, the last 3 FISA are “illegal”. McCabe (signed #2 & 3?) and Rosenstein should be indicted.
    I’m waiting.

    And we’ll soon learn the first was illegal, too.
    Then I’ll be waiting for Comey to be indicted.

    Since it’s the FISA judges job to make sure that the FBI only submits “verified” info, all the FISA judges should be impeached.
    They won’t like this — they shouldn’t – but they shouldn’t be rubber stamps for a “professional, honest” FBI. And they were, when their job was to be the LAST check to avoid this illegal FBI/ CIA spying on Americans.

    But I’m beginning to feel there IS momentum (mojo?) to get some indictments, and the Congress trying to bully Barr makes me feel it will push to be stronger in going for indictments. (Now I wonder if the Dem strategy is push him, so he over reacts, and goes for too many! But nah, 100 is probably still too few, and I doubt there will be more than a dozen in the next year.)

  25. Snow on Pine on May 12, 2019 at 8:46 am at 8:46 am said:
    Look at Sundance’s fascinating document-based dissection and analysis of just one of the FBI/Special Counsel’s attempt to entrap George Papadopoulos, this one using the supposed “retainer” payment of $10K cash I mentioned above.
    * * *
    The core of Snow’s CTH link:

    Remember, the preferred approach toward targeting Paul Manafort, Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos surrounded FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) lobbying violations. Papadopoulos has stated the special counsel threatened him with charges of acting as a unregistered agent for Israel. There’s a clear picture here.

    #1) Papadopoulos was lured to Israel and paid in Israel to give the outline of a FARA premise (ie. Papadopoulos is an agent of Israel). #2) Bringing $10,000 (or more) in cash into the U.S., without reporting, is a violation of U.S. treasury laws. Add into that aspect the FARA violation and the money can be compounded into #3) laundering charges.

    [A “laundering” charge applies if the money is illegally obtained. The FARA violation would be the *illegal* aspect making the treasury charges heavier. Note: the use of the airport baggage-check avoids the need for a search warrant.]

    Andrew Weissmann was conducting an entrapment scheme that would have ended up with three violations of law: (1) Treasury violation; (2) FARA violation; (3) Money laundering…. All it needed was Papadopoulos to carry the undeclared cash into the U.S.

    However, because Papadopoulos suspected something, and left the money in Greece with his lawyers, upon arrival at the airport the operation collapsed in reverse.
    …
    Lastly, to repeat, this entire scenario was constructed by the DOJ/FBI team operation in 2017. The members of the Special Counsel were running the entrapment operation; the FBI agents were participating in the operation. This is not *investigating* criminal conduct; this is manufacturing criminal conduct.

    I’ve seen bits and pieces of that story before, but I am still wondering: what happened to the lawyer and the cash?
    Since Papa. accepted the money, isn’t he still liable to FARA charges?
    What story did he give the lawyer?
    One of the CTH commenters makes the point that it didn’t matter to the FARA charge whether the cash (had he brought it in) was undeclared or declared. Since the FBI probably had access to his declarations, they undoubtedly thought that charge was extra gravy.

  27. The FISA court and its 11 Judges have received far too little scrutiny in all this.

    According to reports, this is a secret court—initially created in 1978, and given additional powers under the Patriot Act—that considers requests for all spectrum surveillance in which the person to be surveilled is given no notice that action is being proposed against him, with the only exculpatory evidence that is presented being that which is supposed to be presented by the government itself.

    So, practically speaking, it is all one sided, the government’s.

    One would think that, given our rights under the Constitution and to prevent abuse of them, such a secret and extraordinary court, one with such draconian and far reaching powers, would be staffed by some of the best, most learned, the fairest, the wisest, and most intelligent judges in the land, all of them judges appointed by Chief Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts.

    But is that so? *

    From what I’ve been reading, while the FISA court has had somewhere around 33,000 thousand plus requests for warrants presented to it over the course of three decades, it has only rejected around a dozen or so of them.

    Just on the face of things, does this infinitesimal rejection rate appear Kosher to you?

    Can it be possible that each and every one of those 33,000 plus requests for a FISA warrant was so perfect in form and content, so air tight in its logic, so stuffed with extraordinarily convincing and incriminating detail, that over the course of 30 years such requests were rejected only 12 or 13 times?

    I don’t think that this is possible.

    So, right off the bat, there is something fishy here.

    Then, there is the original FISA warrant request in question—the one that reportedly alleged that Carter Page was a traitor to the U.S., an agent of, and working for a foreign power—and its three renewals. **

    And since Carter Page was, at the time, working for the Trump campaign, wasn’t there the easily foreseeable and distinct possibility that such wide-spread, all spectrum, total surveillance—which–in good spy novel fashion–could have included eavesdropping on and recording all of Page’s communications of whatever type and with whatever person, bugging places where he lived and worked, agents tailing him, opening his mail, checking his bank accounts and credit activity, his travel, monitoring his computer and his Internet activity, perhaps even clandestinely slipping into his residence to search for evidence against Page, and to plant bugs and cameras, and/or surveillance programs on his computer—would, almost of necessity, have the likelihood of capturing information from the other members of the campaign that Page came into contact with, perhaps from candidate Trump’s inner circle, and perhaps even from Trump himself?

    Issuing this FISA warrant was, therefore, a grave and monumental step for the FISA court to take, one that I would imagine had no former precedent.

    But, according to what has been reported so far, the bulk of the evidence initially presented to obtain this FISA warrant consisted of the DNC/Hillary Campaign paid for “Steele Dossier” plus some bolstering newspaper/magazine accounts that—in circular fashion—were regurgitations of some of the “evidence” from the Dossier that had been fed to some favored reporters for them to publish (to serve as the bolstering information).

    If this is an accurate description of the “evidence” presented, and given it’s quality, wouldn’t you expect that the judge or judges looking at the evidence would have had some very immediate, serious, and grave questions about the veracity of this evidence, that they would want to know it’s source, and how it was verified?

    I have seen reports that one FISA judge refused to OK the warrant, but that another judge did.

    Whatever happened, are we to believe that a FISA judge or judges just generally took the government’s word for the truth of the evidence, and asked no questions in this extraordinary case?

    If that was what happened, they’ve got “a lot of splainin to do.”

    And, by the way, what were the names of all the high government officials from the DOJ and FBI (and perhaps elsewhere) that approved of and affixed their signatures to these warrant requests, alleging that all the information in them was true?

    In addition, I have seen reports that say that, in order to get each further 90 day extension of the original warrant, additional, new and compelling evidence has to be presented to justify that extension.

    What was this new “evidence,” who signed the requests, and and which Judge or Judges granted those three extensions.

    I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that the judges on the FISA court have a lot to answer for.

    * I note that one FISA judge, Judge Rudolph Contreras, according to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page their friend, and mentioned in their emails, was “recused” (whether voluntarily or involuntarily is not clear) during the time period this FISA warrant was being considered. Judge Contreras also presided over General Flynn’s plea deal, and then recused himself for the sentencing phase.

    ** I note that, to date, Carter Page—reportedly accused in the FISA warrant application of being a traitor, spy, and foreign agent—and an Annapolis graduate (top 10% of his class), holder of a couple of advanced degrees, a former Naval Lieutenant (five years active service) who has held significant positions in government and in the private sector, has not been arrested or charged with anything.

  28. Correction–Surveying a whole range of other news sources, Judge Contreras, a member of the FISA court, was only recused from the Flynn case.

    There was no mention of him having any connection to, or anything to do with the FISA court’s consideration of the Carter Page FISA request.

  29. Conservative Treehouse always has interesting information, a few of note this past week. These are about the Kavalec memoes, but their value is in having the handwritten notes and the typed report embedded for your viewing pleasure.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/09/solomon-meadows-fbi-was-notified-of-sketchy-steele-dossier-info-in-advance-of-fisa-application/

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/10/graham-sends-letters-to-horowitz-and-pompeo-fbi-backtracks-on-self-serving-redactions/

    On the final page of the report, point 3, you will see what Sundance is referring to here: “Apparently the Russian “mole” in the DNC didn’t warrant the investigative curiosity of the FBI. Instead, they took the sketchy dossier info and called Carter Page an “agent of a foreign power”…. Go figure.”

  30. https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/05/10/senate-republicans-should-ask-donald-trump-jr-at-least-one-question/

    The obvious Senate committee question for Donald Trump, Jr., therefore, would be this one: “Mr. Trump, were you ever informed that the lawyer who came to meet with you on 9 June 2016 in Trump Tower was a client of the same opposition research firm that was trying to unearth as much dirt as possible on your father, the candidate for president of the United States?”

    I’m pretty sure we know the answer. The wonder, in hindsight, is that the public dialogue has treated all this as a sort of benign curiosity for so long, instead of the strong indicator it actually is of sneaky machinations against the Trump campaign. Such is the power of a media narrative, and the convention of bowing down to it as if discussing a topic in any other terms makes us conspiracy theorists.

    The question outlined is a fair question, and a necessary question, to which Donald Trump, Jr. is one of only a handful of people who know the answer. Let’s start by getting it asked.

  31. Too long and complex to summarize, but this is the core question:
    https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/05/11/getting-fisa-authority-illegally-as-now-looks-probable-was-unnecessary-why-was-it-done/

    It is thus an indispensable question why the DOJ and FBI were so determined to formally obtain FISA authorization that they were willing to do it dishonestly if they had to. What did that authorization buy them that simply spying without the court’s signature would not have?

    Keep in mind that the purpose of the Carter Page application was counterintelligence. The intent was not to use information from the surveillance in a criminal court. Envisioning a criminal case isn’t even a reason for being obsessed with getting FISA authority.

    Moreover, given the national security/counterintelligence predicate for the surveillance, there was a great deal the FBI could already do legally, without targeted FISA authorization, using only the routine authority available under national security letters.

    Yet for some reason, they doggedly pursued the FISA authorization, even, as now alleged, to the point of misrepresenting their justifying “intelligence” and gun-decking their bona fides (the Woods procedures) to obtain it.
    …
    Individual politicians, whatever their stature, are ultimately disposable. This was something big enough to do the unnecessary for. Obtaining a FISA warrant they didn’t strictly need for defensive purposes, and reportedly using foul means to do it, was going on offense, instead of staying on defense.

    Some of our representatives – Grassley, Nunes, Jordan – seem to have been hinting at that. They’ve seen more of this than the public has. The verification of indictments and convictions is important to the rule of law, and we can’t dispense with them. But if we end up only with convictions of the individuals who were in a position to break the law, we won’t know enough to save the Republic. Congress needs to get to the bottom of it.

  32. I’m going to take a shot at answering Dyer’s question: why did the Deep State go on the offensive so early in extending the surveillance of Trump and his associates to the extreme lengths that they did, illegally, as it now appears in light of the newest revelations about Kavalec’s initial debunking of the Steele dossier.

    Many people have suggested that the collusion investigation was a sham — they were basically ignoring Steele’s claims because they knew those weren’t true — because the intent all along was to pad out the obstruction narrative; but what if it was really the reverse, and the obstruction “evidence” was compiled as a by-product of their cover for a very desperate, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to be absolutely sure that Trump had heard nothing from any Russian (or other source) about unethical, or worse, actions of the Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama. (We still don’t know what hold the Awans had on the Dems in Congress, do we?)

    In the interest of a bit of mental exercise, I suggest the following: because Trump actually did have some financial and personal ties to people or institutions in Russia, the FBI & other agencies were engaged (at a discrete level) to determine if any of Trump’s Russian contacts had, deliberately or accidentally, revealed to him the real extent of Clinton & possibly Obama collusion (through greed and ideology) with their Russian contacts (or even Iranian ones).

    There is no need to rehearse here the claims against the Democrats, but they would all be known to the major players of the Democrat Administration & Permanent Bureaucracy from the beginning. They were only revealed later, piece-meal, to the public by dragging them out of the swamp through persistent legal action and actual journalism.

    Supporting evidence comes from knowing that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton exchanged emails on her private server, and that he most likely endorsed her candidacy because she knew too much about his own unethical, if not illegal, machinations, in which she probably participated; knowing that the Clintons were profiting handsomely from actually conniving with Russian individuals and organizations (if not with Putin himself); now knowing that Page and Papadopoulos were being setup by the FBI to use as excuses for FISA in addition to the surveillance they were already running; and realizing that, win or lose, if Trump did have “kompromat” on Clinton and/or Obama, in the form of emails or other evidence that made it impossible for them to explain away or cover over their actions — which may even be more extensive than has already been revealed — they had to know exactly what it entailed and where he got it.

    I suggest that Brennan & Clapper & Comey, later Mueller & Co., had to extend and then drag out their investigation because they needed more time to inveigle anyone they could into actually colluding with “fake Russ”kompromat;” and because they couldn’t be absolutely sure they hadn’t missed something — it’s a common failing to believe that just because you haven’t found something yet doesn’t mean it isn’t there; you just have to keep looking harder.

    But they really were looking for something that wasn’t there.

  33. Just to gather up some loose tin-foil floating around:

    Let’s assume that, as Kavalec’s memo mentioned in the CTH link above, that Steele had claimed there was a Russian mole in the DNC because this was actually true, it being a pro-active placement so that any negative information coming out about the Democrats & Russia could be attributed to Russian sabotage and misinformation — and a real mole would have the benefit of keeping the Democrats under the control of the Russians in case they were tempted to renege on any agreements.

    Alternatively, it was just another bald-faced lie; that would function the same so long as the spy “couldn’t be located.”

  34. “…the core question…”

    Very true. And very interesting speculation.

    Curiously, it seems to parallel the question: Why the tarnation did Nixon (i.e., his henchmen) HAVE to break into that Watergate office? He was a shoo-in against McGovern (McGovern!!—the Democrats seem to be in a similar, if less innocent, phase…). What were they looking for? Nixon had NOTHING to worry about, electorally at least. But Nixon, alas, was a bit paranoid (of course, as the old saw goes, this doesn’t mean necessarily that no one was out to get him…)

    So why Watergate?

    Similarly here: Why Collusion-Gate?

    First of all, it must be acknowledged that Hillary was the shoo-in to be POTUS in 2016. No question (heh). Which means that NONE of any of this would have been exposed. NONE of this would have seen the light of day. NONE of us would have been any the wiser.

    So why did Obama/Clinton/Brennan/Brennan/Clapper/Lynch/Comey/McCabe/the Ohrs/Strzok et al. feel that all this was so absolutely necessary?

    Quite possibly one ought to remove Comey, McCabe, the Ohrs and Strzok from the above list—if one were to assume that they were accessories/abettors/helpers of the crime and not the initiators. (I.e., they were in the right place at the right time, PLUS they were sympathetic with the perceived necessity of this particular instance (one of many) of trampling on the Constitution and holding the Law and the American People in utter contempt—but all, it should be stressed again, for the RIGHT—i.e., MORAL—reasons.)

    Occam’s razor? Well Occam’s razor might indicate several things:
    1. That the extreme criminality of the Obama administration (along with the Clintons) meant that this was—SIMPLY—their MO. This is what had to be done…because this is what they do…and always did. (To be sure, it certainly helps to have an enthusiastically compliant—make that, cheering and hagiographic—MEDIA to make sure that all the warts are carefully airbrushed out.)

    But the above, on its own, seems unsatisfying. JUST their MO? Nothing else?

    2. And so, as indicated above, there is likely more. Much more: the collusion scheme was intended as “INSURANCE”—as a defense against any discovery (by Trump or any other candidate) of the Democrats’ own extreme criminality—throughout the Obama administration and especially the Clinton’s flirtation (actually, outright affair) with Putin. If Trump (or another) were to publicize anything on this matter, then they would be “cut off at the pass”—IOW pre-empted—by the “INSURANCE POLICY”. That is, Trump (or another) would be totally and utterly discredited by an ultra-sophisticated and untraceable (heh) campaign to tie him to “the Russian enemy” (though strangely, this particular “enemy” was embraced at the start of the Obama administration (“Reset”, anybody?) and practically throughout. (To be sure, Russian spies(!) were conveniently discovered and kicked out of the country shortly before the end of the Obama presidency.) The Clintons made deals with Russian Energy companies (IOW with Putin’s people). Biden’s family made financially remunerative deals with the Ukrainians. And of course, the Obama administration essentially allied itself with the Islamic Republic(!) of Iran.

    All of it whitewashed (that is, if it was even mentioned en passant) by the MSM….

    And so it would make sense that with this consistent and successful (thanks in large part to the MSM) record of venality, of criminality—-of AUDACITY!!—the Democratic mafia (which is what it is) would cook up severe accusations of a similar type (genre?) against Trump. Anyone who has had experience (extremely unpleasant but certainly eye-opening) with a certain type of “individual” knows that that particular “individual” will have a tendency to falsely accuse (and/or insinuate) you of things that that particular “individual” is him/herself scheming to do to you.

    Thus DEFENSE, PRE-EMPTION, (the vaunted) “INSURANCE”, does seem to be a far more satisfying rationale to #1 above. (Not forgetting for a moment the favored dictum of many: that one should embrace the power of “and”….)

    Keeping in mind that, once again, NONE of this was going to see the light of day….and even if—let’s say—it were to be exposed (or somewhat exposed), the plan would be so intricate, so complex, so convoluted—so vast!—that it would be so very simple to accuse anyone who brought up suspicions (e.g., Devin Nunes) of it as being a batty conspiracy monger with way too much imagination.

    Occam’s razor.

  36. On the question “why spy (on the political opposition)?”, Lee Smith has repeatedly pointed out that the Obama admin had used many of these same national security methods, techniques and procedures against the political opposition to the JCPOA; against congresspeople in opposition; against pro-Israeli institutions in opposition; against Israeli diplomats (and of course Netanyahu); against anti-Iranian groups in opposition; and against opponents of nuclear weapons proliferation. These were both useful tests of practice for the coming election season as well as useful for jamming through the worst foreign policy decision in living memory.

    Opposition groups would repeatedly be confronted with holding private strategy sessions only to find Ben Rhodes stealing a rhetorical march on them in the pages of the WaPo two days later, or congressional Democrats using timely procedural maneuvers to thwart their plans.

    Over and again opponents of JCPOA would be scratching their heads asking themselves: “how the hell did they know we were going to take this tack?”.

    Simple, really.

    Obama, Rice and Rhodes were reading your mail and listening to your calls.

    And taking Harry Reid’s dicta about lying about Romney’s taxes as gospel: “They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?”

  37. Conspiracies generally get everyone to believe they don’t exist, especially when they have won.

  38. The idea of a conspiracy is to murder or exploit rules for power and wealth. This is called greed or the profit motive. They are not doing this stuff merely for fun.

    Thus a conspiracy has to keep it under wraps and secret, otherwise all of the members won’t be getting theirs.

    But the American public thinks 3 people can’t keep a secret unless 2 of them are dead.

  39. If that was true, why does the FBI need witness protection agencies? Can’t they just ask people to testify against the Mob, and the Truth will come out normally speaking?

    Hah, shows how much normal Americans know about the secret under world.

  40. Why the tarnation did Nixon (i.e., his henchmen) HAVE to break into that Watergate office? He was a shoo-in against McGovern (McGovern!!—the Democrats seem to be in a similar, if less innocent, phase…). What were they looking for?

    Nixon did not order the break in. That was done by FBI COINTELPRO staff trained by Mark Felt.

    They were looking for Foreign bribery and corruption in the DNC. And they would have found it if the wiretaps had been installed.

  41. “…worst foreign policy decision in living memory….”

    Ah, but only if one had misgivings about the Fundamental Transformation (TM) of America….

  43. Nixon did not order the break in. That was done by FBI COINTELPRO staff trained by Mark Felt.

    No, it was done at the behest of Jeb Magruder and (by some accounts) John Dean. John Mitchell was fully cognizant of what Gordon Liddy’s crew were employed to do and had vetted Liddy’s operational plans. None of these people had a history of employment with the FBI or the CIA.

  44. Nixon did not order the break in. That was done by FBI COINTELPRO staff trained by Mark Felt.

    There are several theories on this.

    One is that John Dean did it to see if the DNC had any info on his new wife’s career as an “escort.”

    Another, in Pat Buchanan’s book, is that Nixon, who was given to moments of outrage and orders that he would cancel the next morning, told some idiot on the staff to do this and it was done before he could cancel the order.

  46. None of these people had a history of employment with the FBI or the CIA.

    Trum does not have a history of killing people with missiles, bombs, and hand to hand. Yet the nation he leads has plenty of specialists currently doing just that.

    You conflate upper level management strategic decisions with lower level bottom tactical deployments. They are not the same thing.

  47. What people don’t understand about the FBI is that they have already perfected the NKVD and Gestapo psychological warfare methods partially looted and lifted via Operation Paperclip.

    This is seen in the Fusion GPS sub contractors with their gang stalking anti terrorist DHS style secret police antics.

    The CIA had their own Monarch and MK ultra type programs.

    In practical effects, they specialize in getting people to do things that they shouldn’t be doing, by instigating the thought into their heads that they should commit a crime so that the FBI can later catch them in that crime. Some of this is entrapment, while others is just the FBI interviewing you and trying to catch you in a lie, by refusing to transcribe or record the interview.

    There was more than one organization the FBi totalled with COINTELPRO methods of internal subterfuge. There are also case examples such as Waco 1 and Waco 2.

    Ideally, the target will self destruct on their own, by breaking the law. Non ideally, if the target resists suggestions to do so based on their own motivations, additional pressure can be applied externally. Meanwhile, intense paranoia is an intentional effect the FBI agents use to good outcomes on the subject target.

    The white hat patriots in the FBi think that these methods are the formal orthodox rules that they have followed their entire lives in the FBI. They do not see the Black Hats in the FBi that use such methods in a completely different goal set (organized crime, mafias, secret combinations, conspiracies that keep a secret).

    The two targets, Nixon and Trum, was dealt with using the same methodology.

    1. Inculcate paranoia, motivate them to break the law, so that they can be indicted. Wiretap them to get the evidence.

    2. Failing that, use the knowledge that they have been wire tapped, to break them mentally, so that they commit enough mistakes in testimony to put themselves into legal danger zone.

    Notice that 1 is not always done directly to the subject target. Trum’s son or relative, was the one targeted as well. They are all in fact targeted, because any one of them could prove his weak point. Have the Russian agents or organization meet with DJT junior, and see what happens. Have the FBI interview 36 witnesses involved with Trum, without a recording, and then see if the FBi agents “notes” of the meeting disagrees with the public testimony.

    In Nixon’s days, wiretapping was done by COINTELPRO agents for patriotic or national security interest reasons. Reagan pardoned Felt for far worse violations based on “national security”. It is not all that hard to convince the wiretap team that they are on a legitimate security mission for the United States. People have been distracted by the get rich quick books and public outcries of the non FBI and non CIA members involved.

    What humans should keep in mind with COINTELPRO FBI methods is that the FBi is involved. What humans should keep in mind with wiretapping and NSA taps of Trum, is that the security agencies are involved.

    Trying to ignore that because the fake news media told you that it had nothing to do with anything of those because Trum’s family isn’t CIA or FBI, isn’t going to get anywhere.

  48. “Saturday Night Massacre”
    Main article: Saturday Night Massacre
    On October 20, 1973, after Cox refused to drop the subpoena, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the special prosecutor. Richardson resigned in protest rather than carry out the order. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, but Ruckelshaus also resigned rather than fire him. Nixon’s search for someone in the Justice Department willing to fire Cox ended with the Solicitor General Robert Bork. Though Bork said he believed Nixon’s order was valid and appropriate, he considered resigning to avoid being “perceived as a man who did the President’s bidding to save my job”.[52] Bork carried out the presidential order and dismissed the special prosecutor.

    These actions met considerable public criticism. Responding to the allegations of possible wrongdoing, in front of 400 Associated Press managing editors at Disney’s Contemporary Resort[53][54] on November 17, 1973, Nixon stated emphatically, “I’m not a crook.”[55][56] He needed to allow Bork to appoint a new special prosecutor; Bork chose Leon Jaworski to continue the investigation.

    Same methodology from the same tactical imprint book.

    Trum didn’t fall for the “fire the special prosecutor” thing though.

  49. E. Howard Hunt
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    E. Howard Hunt
    E. Howard Hunt (1973).jpg
    Born Everette Howard Hunt Jr.
    October 9, 1918
    Hamburg, New York, United States
    Died January 23, 2007 (aged 88)
    Miami, Florida, United States
    Burial place Hamburg, New York, United States
    Nationality American
    Alma mater Brown University
    Occupation CIA officer, author
    Spouse(s) Dorothy Louise Wetzel
    Laura E. Martin
    Children Lisa Tiffany Hunt, Kevan Spence (nee Hunt), Howard Saint John Hunt, David Hunt, Austin Hunt, Hollis Hunt
    Parent(s) Everette Howard Hunt Sr. and Ethel Jean Totterdale
    Spying career
    Allegiance United States Flag of the United States.svg
    Service United States Navy, United States Army Air Corps, OSS, CIA, President’s Special Investigations Unit (White House Plumbers)
    Operation(s) Operation PBSUCCESS
    Brigade 2506
    Watergate scandal
    Codename(s) Robert Dietrich
    Gordon Davis
    David St. John
    Edward Warren
    Edward J Hamilton
    Hugh W. Newstead
    Eduardo
    Everette Howard Hunt Jr. (October 9, 1918 – January 23, 2007), better known as E. Howard Hunt, was an American intelligence officer and published author of 73 books. From 1949 to 1970, Hunt served as an officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Along with G. Gordon Liddy, Frank Sturgis, and others, Hunt was one of the Nixon administration “plumbers”, a team of operatives charged with identifying government sources of national security information “leaks” to outside parties. Hunt and Liddy plotted the Watergate burglaries and other clandestine operations for the Nixon administration. In the ensuing Watergate scandal, Hunt was convicted of burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping, eventually serving 33 months in prison.

    People used to need COINTELPRO profiles and HVT intel profiles to get this much information, good thing we have the internet spying on em for us.

    None of these people had a history of employment with the FBI or the CIA.

    Maybe you need to do more homework than the first 3 problems in the list.

  50. http://watergate.info/burglary/burglars

    From left to right, the burglars were:

    James W. McCord (Jan 26, 1924-Jun 15, 2017 – age 93) – a security co-ordinator for the Republican National Committee and the Committee for the Re-election of the President. McCord was also a former FBI and CIA agent. He was dismissed from his RNC and CREEP positions the day after the break-in.
    Virgilio R. Gonzales (b May 18, 1926-) age 92 – a locksmith from Miami, Florida. Gonzalez was a refugee from Cuba, following Castro’s takeover.
    Frank A. Sturgis (Dec 9, 1924-Dec 4, 1993 – age 68) – another associate of Barker from Miami, he also had CIA connections and involvement in anti-Castro activities.
    Eugenio R. Martinez (b Jul 8, 1922-) age 96 – worked for Barker’s Miami real estate firm. He had CIA connections and was an anti-Castro Cuban exile. Click here to read Martinez’s account of the burglary.
    Bernard L. Barker (Mar 17, 1917-Jun 5, 2009 – age 92) – a realtor from Miami, Florida. Former Central Intelligence Agency operative. Barker was said to have been involved in the Bay of Pigs incident in 1962.
    The five men were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications.

    The burglars were indicted by a Grand Jury on September 15, as were:

    G. Gordon Liddy – from Washington, counsel to the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, a former FBI agent, former Treasury official, and former member of the White House staff. During the investigation, Liddy refused to answer questions and was fired from his job.
    E Howard Hunt Jr. – from Washington, a former White House consultant and CIA employee. Hunt was a writer of espionage novels and had worked on declassifying the Pentagon Papers.
    FBI Files
    These are 141 pages from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, released under the Freedom of Information Act, relating to the investigation of the Watergate burglary and subsequent events.

    Here’s some of the homework people should have done, if they want to compete with the Deep State or to even understand the deeper layers of this onion.

    None of them are Mormons or LDS apparently. Or perhaps that was never mentioned, but I am sure somebody Evangelical would have by now and I would have heard and I have not.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/06/deep-throat-leaked-for-reasons-of-self-interest.html

    At least they are willing to report about the inconsistencies in the Woodard Watergate narrative. But they still won’t go far enough.

    Part of intel analysis and breaking conspiracies or counter espionage, is connecting the dots. We don’t have very clear information, but we do know something to be true: the enemy is also playing the game.

  51. Liddy joined the FBI in 1957,[1] initially serving as a field agent in Indiana and Denver.[7] In Denver, on September 10, 1960, Liddy apprehended Ernest Tait, one of two persons to be a two-time Ten Most Wanted fugitive.[7] At age 29, Liddy became the youngest[8] Bureau Supervisor at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. A protege of deputy director Cartha DeLoach,[1] Liddy became part of director J. Edgar Hoover’s personal staff and became his ghostwriter.[8] Amongst his fellow agents he had a reputation for recklessness[1][9][10] and was known primarily for two incidents.[11] The first was an arrest in Kansas City, Missouri during a black bag job; he was released after calling Clarence M. Kelley, former FBI agent and chief of the Kansas City Police.[1][11] The second was running an FBI background check on his future wife before their marriage in 1957,[1][11] which Liddy later referred to as “purely a routine precautionary measure.”[12]

    The next step in breaking down the connecting points is to assess whether the relationship of Nixon, Liddy, FBI, CIA, Howard Hunt, Mark Felt, Bernstein, Woodward were somehow connected to a central figure or figures.

    The FBI and CIA recruits heavily from BYU, the military, and so forth. It’s why NASA was and still is mostly military.

    Each association should be assessed on its own merits, and crossed out or kept for further review.

    Here’s a hint, notice how two figures have personal connections to the FBI through Edgar Hoover. Then consider Edgar Hoover’s connections to COINTELPRO, and COINTELPRO’s connections to wiretapping, and wiretapping to Felt, and Felt to Watergate.

  52. In today’s modern sense, most of this work is done for you by the fake news or Trum’s tweets or bloggers like Neo here.

    Fusion GPS. Clintons. Comey. Mueller. “Straight shooters”. FBI. CIA. NSA. Deep State. Surveillance. Wiretapping. F whatever warrants.

    A lot of the work is done for you, you just have to read it, but in the good old days, we didn’t have the internet nor did we have newspapers to read to digest the (fake) news for us. We had to do the thinking and intel analysis by hand using our brains.

    Remember how that worked, America?

  54. RE: “You can sense McCarthy’s saying the equivalent of ‘It’s all so clear; why can’t I make everyone see it?'”
    Many cannot see it. Politics, especially the intense tribal flavor of politics, makes people stupid and mean. See “Smart People Are Good at Being Dumb in Politics: Moral communities impede clear thought.” in Psychology Today. Some can see it, but they are blinded by the acquisition and maintenance of power. [As Geoffrey Britain states above.] They are willing to set aside fairness for expediency.

    “If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between “for” and “against” is the minds worst disease.” — Sent ts’an

  55. Mike K on May 13, 2019 at 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm said:

    …Nixon, who was given to moments of outrage and orders that he would cancel the next morning, told some idiot on the staff to do this and it was done before he could cancel the order.
    * * *
    Interesting parallel to the Trump aides who claim that when he told them to do something that they didn’t like (or didn’t think he was serious), they just ignored him.

  56. ymarsakar on May 13, 2019 at 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm said:
    … We had to do the thinking and intel analysis by hand using our brains.
    * * *
    That generates a kind of unnerving picture….a Bosch landscape rendered by Escher, perhaps.

  57. Gordon Liddy worked for Jeb Magruder and John Mitchell. One had held management positions in a series of business concerns. The other was a lawyer specializing in municipal bond issues. Neither were associated with any police or intelligence apparat. This isn’t that difficult.

    Mitchell and Magruder had reviewed and rejected his lurid plan for campaign espionage (“Operation Gemstone”) and told him to come up with something with a smaller budget and fewer risks.

  58. “…make everyone see…”

    The two-year (campaign of) hate—the two-year long non-stop demonization of DJT and his supporters has been incredibly—extraordinarily—effective, yielding a vast harvest of poisoned fruit.

    Of poisoned minds.

    The Democratic party and their MSM accomplices, the almost entirely “Liberal” media punditocracy and the academic politburos have been saturating—bombarding, actually—all those willing to listen, hear and heed (and of these there are myriads)—with interminable, relentlessly repeated and regurgitated barrages of the Narrative, along with non-stop “evidence”—“proof”—that Trump (and his supporters) have subverted the 2016 elections (rightly won by Hillary Clinton) and have subverted—and continue to subvert—the Constitution of the US, its laws and all sense of common decency.

    Such that everything is, in fact, topsy-turvy; everything is mirror image.

    The Democrats (and never-Trumpers) may have gone headlong “through the looking-glass”; but they absolutely believe—they are firmly convinced—that it is Trump and his supporters who have been seduced into “drinking the kool-aid”; who are totally nuts, racist and reactionary, extremist, utterly dangerous. And anti-American.

    (Because—logically—why else would such people support such an evil person as Trump?)

    And those Democrats and never-Trumpers KNOW that they are good people, decent people, smart people, intelligent people, even brilliant people. And they know that they are moral people, helpful people, resourceful people, talented people. They are well-read. They travel. They teach. They heal. They are educated. They are cultured. They are, in many cases, the creme de la creme.

    And sure, many of them have their doubts—about all sorts of thing—BUT because of their manifold talents and highly developed sense of ethics, in the matter of Donald J. Trump, they know that they are RIGHT.

    And they know—equally—that their opponents are WRONG. Absolutely wrong.

    There is nothing to discuss. No other point of view to consider.

    The ideological, political and “moral” toxins, which have been spewing forth for years now—and which have been avidly absorbed—have done their baleful job.

    So that it will be practically impossible to eradicate such views and change the firmly entrenched opinions that these toxins have engendered….unless such seeming adamantine views, such impregnable ideology can, by the utter and unquestionable collapse of the Narrative, be shown to be based on—and buttressed by—sheer falsehood.

    But even then….

  59. “…KNOW that they are good people….”

    should be:
    “…KNOW that they themselves are good people….”

  61. Trey Gowdy made a very important point on Martha McCallum’s program tonight, about Attorney General Barr’s appointment of U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origin of the Russian hoax.

    His point was that, unlike the Inspector General Horowitz—who is limited in his investigation to only being able to question current Federal Government employees, and who could then only make recommendations, Durham is a whole other kettle of fish.

    Durham has a whole panoply of prosecutorial weapons at his disposal.

    Unlike Horowitz, Durham has access to grand jury information, he can also impanel a grand jury, he can subpoena evidence, he can compel testimony, and he is not limited to being able to question current Federal employees, he can also question former Federal employees, people who have retired, anyone.

    Finally, Durham can also recommend prosecution.

    Thus, if I were one of the coup plotters, right about now I would be very, very afraid, starting to look over my shoulder, and trying to find a fall guy to take the rap for whatever I did.

  63. Absolutely so.

    Trump had to prevented AT ALL COSTS from winning the election.

    Having—somehow—won the election, it had to be shown AT ALL COSTS (using continuously false accusations and never-ending innuendo) that Trump was a hack, a Russian stooge, a crazed person, a TRAITOR.

    At the same time, it had to be demonstrated shown AT ALL COSTS (using endless harassment and abuse, further false accusations and innuendo) that Trump could in no way govern effectively, that he was in no way fit to be POTUS, that he was willful, petulant and unpredictable, that he was NOT compos mentis.

    That he was an embarrassment to the USA.

    And still—somehow—this ceaseless, wicked, evil campaign did NOT succeed legally (though it proved to be extremely effective in the public square). So that now, Trump and anyone close to him must be further sabotaged by a relentless campaign of even more sordid mud slinging, lies and obstruction—endless flak—which the Democrats hope will further hogtie him while distracting the public from learning about the unfathomable dimensions of the criminality of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton so as to PROTECT AND DEFEND Obama and Clinton from coming under scrutiny for their extreme, continuous and brazen criminality.

    Mueller and his team (and the MSM) failed to derail Trump and remove him from office.

    Now it is up to a hysterically desperate US House of Representatives (with, once again, ever-loyal MSM support) to take up the fight to hogtie Trump and enfilade his administration…while laying down an effective smokescreen, protecting Obama and Hillary from ever seeing the justice they so richly deserve.

  64. “And still—somehow—this ceaseless, wicked, evil campaign did NOT succeed legally ” – Barry

    It helped — somehow — that what the Democrats were trying to prove about Trump (Russian collusion, incompetence, etc) simply is not true.

    “Sharon Attkisson speaks true: “#BigPicture is *why* govt. officials did that to Trump campaign:
    To keep secret what they’d been doing the past decade+” – sdferre

    Indeed. Most of the Rightist punditocracy have finally come around to that conclusion, and the Left already knew it.

  65. Her tweets also include:
    “#BigPicture is *why* Clinton associates would take the risk of destroying emails (and devices) that were under subpoena. It’s not just about the act of obstruction; it’s about what those emails actually said. Presumably an even bigger story.”

    I believe this is one reason why the Left went postal when candidate Trump made the joke about Russians having and releasing her 30,000 emails: they actually believe, or know, that some Russians and Chinese actors DO have those emails.

    Hence the need to find out (using FISA surveillance etc) if Trump had connections to any of those actors who would respond to his “request.”

  66. This reply to Attkisson reminds us that the Deep State is international:
    David Pondolfino
    @DavidPondolfino
    Replying to
    @SharylAttkisson
    I agree, Sharyl. I’m wondering why the Brits and Australians saw it in their interest to try and sink the Trump campaign. What were they protecting?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑