While the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the admission during questioning on Capitol Hill Wednesday that his personal data was in the Cambridge Analytica leak, there is something seriously wrong with the entire scheme of the internet which should be outlawed right now. Facebook, Microsoft and everyone else came up with the whole idea that they had the right to collect your personal information and sell it to advertisers to make money. You cannot even buy a computer to use as a quote screen because Microsoft wants to search that computer to see what you are looking at to sell to others. You are paying even for a Pro version of windows and it still does not allow you the block Microsoft.
In the office, we turned off our automatic updates to Windows 10 and discovered that two computers CRASHED within minutes and required reboots. That was Microsoft’s clever way of getting into your computer one way or another. If you have Windows 7 – cherish it. Never let it go.
If you are willing to pay for a product, then you should have the right to ABSOLUTE privacy. This is a very seriously wrong business model that should be outlawed. Personal data is personal. It is not there for the reading pleasure of government or Mark Zuckerberg. Congress will do nothing to protect our privacy rights because they too enjoy profiling us for political purposes. We should not allow our personal data to be collected for sale or those of our children. It is time to demand respect for our right to privacy.
Representative Ron DeSantis appears on Maria Bartiromo to discuss the referral of Andrew McCabe to federal prosecutors and the remaining characters within the FBI and DOJ who were involved in the weaponization of government for political operations.
Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) discusses the Comey memos and the ongoing Inspector General, FBI and DOJ events. A wide-ranging interview on Fox Weekend.
Jordan notes that congress has previously interviewed Comey’s chief-of-staff, Jim Rybicki, prior to his departure from the FBI. During that interview Rybicki discussed the person Comey leaked information to, Daniel Richman, and how Richman held special access authority within the FBI….. interesting.
Chairman of the House Intelligence Community Devin Nunes appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the origin of the counterintelligence operation, that began in July 2016, against the Trump campaign.
Last week the FBI releases the original “electronic communication” (EC) documents, that underpinned the origin of the FBI counterintelligence operation. The first half of this interview contains some stunning information: the raw intelligence product within the EC did not come through official intelligence channels.
Meaning, the origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation, which was specifically started by CIA Director John Brennan sharing his ‘raw intelligence product’ with the FBI, was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence -as an outcome of those relationships- to the FBI.
The questions, many of which are rhetorical against the backdrop of political motives, become: if the EC is not based on official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the ‘five-eyes’ partners, then what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created it? And why?
.
As we begin to ponder the ramifications and answers to the questions in the first half of this interview, we must remember that CIA Director John Brennan gave congressional testimony last year where he explained how he delivered the raw intelligence product itself. We spotted this issue, and Brennan’s obfuscation therein, a year ago, when Brennan first gave his testimony.
On May 23rd, 2017, Former CIA Director John Brennan gave very specific testimony to congress where he noted he provided the raw intelligence to FBI Director Comey – FULLSTOP.
Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan May 23rd, 2017, during his testimony to congress. Pay very close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video of Brennan’s testimony:
Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…
In the last paragraph of the testimony above, remember Brennan is describing the creation of the Clinton-Steele dossier and how it was used to generate a fraudulent October 21st, 2016 FISA Title-1 Surveillance Warrant against U.S. Person Carter Page. In hindsight, and against the known facts from research, we can clearly identify the need for the FISA warrant. The FBI and larger team of co-conspirators needed to have a retroactive legal basis for the political surveillance that was happening long before the warrant was issued.
That unlawful foundational FBI surveillance, which happened prior to October 2016, included the use of unauthorized FISA-702 queries of the NSA and FBI database for political opposition research by contractors. Again, much like the unofficial origin of the raw intelligence that began the July 2016 counterintelligence op, the FISA(702) abuse was simply more ‘unofficial’ use of the intelligence apparatus.
It was the FBI (Comey) and ODNI (Clapper) generating the intel reports, including the Presidents’ Daily Briefing (PDB).
The CIA provided raw intel, to start the operation, and the FBI and DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD and approved by FBI FISA warrant submissions.
The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice. Those reports, or interpretations of the report content, were leaked to the media by political operatives in the IC (and specifically FBI) throughout the deployment of the “insurance policy”.
During the time James Comey’s FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“.
John Brennan was smartly (and intentionally) positioning himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process. ODNI James Clapper while rubbing his face and scratching his head had taken the same route earlier. That would leave James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the small group within the DOJ-NSD and FBI. The CIA and DNI wanted all fingerprints to be from DOJ and FBI.
In his May 2017 testimony, Director Brennan goes on to say the main substance of those Gang of Eight briefings (2016) was the same as the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified intelligence assessments published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA (intelligence community).
That January reference was the infamous 17 agencies report, from CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), FBI (Comey) and NSA (Rogers), all who had confidence -except Rogers- according to the report, that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2016 election. The intelligence report was finished January 4, 2017, the day before the White House meeting with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. and documented by Susan Rice.
Now, a critic might think that Brennan is informing congress on one thing (Russian investigation), and Comey due to his March 20th admissions (Trump investigation), is NOT INFORMING congress on another. However, that angle is rebuked by Brennan’s own testimony that his specific intelligence product (CIA) was given to the FBI who were exclusively in charge of the “counter-intelligence investigation“.
What’s happening here in May 2017 is actually John Brennan creating his defense, and positioning James Comey as the primary person who is to blame for any outcome therein. In May 2017, deploying the “insurance policy” was still plausible – but it was becoming less likely to succeed. Reader Dan encapsulated what Brennan was trying to do nicely in this paragraph: [Note, this is from Brennan’s perspective as he attempts to exit liability]
[…] Brennan gave Comey the investigative product -which had nothing to do with the Trump team- and Comey used it to carry out Obama, Hillary, and Susan Rice’s dirty work for them. Of course Brennan was in on the whole thing and is now saving his own skin by saying ” I briefed ya’ll on everything I had with regards to Russia, anything additional that arose please talk to my buddy Comey”.
CIA Director John Brennan was making James Comey own the “Counter-Intelligence ‘Muh Russia’” claims about the Trump campaign. As a consequence, Brennan was trying to make Comey the fall-guy for a Robert Mueller investigative outcome in case everything fell apart and their deployment of the “insurance policy” failed.
Brennan knows there’s no ‘there’ there.
The entire construct of the “Russian Investigation” was the political use of manufactured intelligence, used to create an investigation in order to weaken, perhaps eliminate, President-Elect Trump or President Trump. This was their “insurance policy”.
However, there simply was no ‘there’ there because there’s no substantive evidence to support a “Trump Campaign Collusion Narrative”. Eventually, all avenues to prove the existence of something, that doesn’t exist, hit a dead end.
Knowing this was a likely outcome, in May 2017 John Brennan realized that someone has focused attention on Comey’s March 20th admission to congress that the FBI intentionally kept congress in the dark during the construct of the counter-intel narrative.
Congress was kept in the dark during this phase because the narrative can only thrive with innuendo, rumor, gossip etc. The appearance of the investigation itself was the political need; the substance was non-existent and immaterial to the creation of the narrative.
If Comey notified congress, via the Gang of Eight oversight, the counter-intel narrative would have been harder to manufacture as details would have to be consistent. That’s the benefit to keeping any oversight away while creating the politically useful narrative.
In May 2017, CIA Director John Brennan, facing the looming reality the underlying Russian ‘collusion evidence’ being non-existent, was trying to give the appearance that he briefed congress on larger Russian election interference issues. However , the trouble for Brennan is his own admission that these issues were the underlying principle for the FBI counter-intelligence investigation. Brennan specifically says he gave his intelligence product to the FBI.
Brennan was attempting to create plausible deniability for his role in a constructing a political narrative; a false narrative.
Again, May 23rd, 2017, WATCH THE RETREAT:
.
It’s not accidental this Brennan retreat is being facilitated by a member of congress John Brennan admits to briefing last year. Gang-of-Eight member, Adam Schiff.
Now keep in mind, with this interview by Chairman Devin Nunes highlighting there was no official intelligence apparatus used in the creation of the “raw intelligence” passed on by CIA Director John Brennan; and understanding the HPSCI is directing investigative inquiry toward the State Department; and knowing that President Trump has just nominated his own head of the CIA to become Secretary of State; …is it a surprise to see the political leadership of the Democrat Party attempting to block Pompeo?
In the final round of voting at the Utah Republican party convention, state Representative Mike Kennedy won 50.88% of the vote, and Mitt Romney placed second with 49.12%.
Giddy up. This forces Mitt Romney into a republican primary runoff in June for the Utah senate seat being vacated by current Senator Orrin Hatch. [Kennedy Website HERE]
(Via The Hill) […] Saturday’s defeat was a surprising turn for Romney, whose national profile far exceeds Kennedy’s and who could count on a strong donor network and the endorsement of prominent Republicans, including Hatch and President Trump.
When he made his bid official, Romney was considered a virtual lock for the GOP nomination and was not expected to face a serious primary challenger. […] Romney made headlines earlier on Saturday when he said he was not ready to endorse Trump for reelection in 2020, telling CNN he would “make that decision down the road.” (read more)
House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes discusses the ongoing challenges with getting information from DOJ and FBI.
Chairman Nunes discusses a January 2017 briefing with the HPSCI and FBI Director Comey, and how his committee was originally misled by Comey about the origin of the Clinton-Steele Dossier. If there wasn’t a nefarious intent, a willful conspiracy to mislead, then why wasn’t James Comey forthright and fulsome in his answers?
You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States. ~SD
You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States. ~SD
During a Friday night segment of Sean Hannity former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova and former federal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz debate whether the actions taken by:
….President Obama, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Crowstrike, Fusion-GPS, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, John P Carlin, Mary McCord, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker, Michael Kortan, David Laufman, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Samantha Power, Lisa Monaco, Denis McDonough, Jim Rybicki, Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele…
…in 2016, were all just accidentally working in exactly the same direction; on exactly the same processes and political approaches with intelligence use by government institutions; in accidental alignment,… or, perhaps, it was all coordinated.
You can always tell when President Trump hits upon a subject the media is desperate to avoid covering. Yesterday President Trump tweeted about the “Pakistani Mystery Man” and the transparent media avoid the story like political Ebola.
Two months ago Andrew McCarthy wrote an article in National Review discussing the email President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent to herself on inauguration day 2017. With the latest discoveries from James Comey’s admissions amid the headlines the February article by McCarthy is very prescient. {see here}
Susan Rice emailed herself to create a record surrounding a January 5th, 2017, meeting between top White House officials and senior intelligence members. It was the next day, January 6th, when FBI Director James Comey briefed President-Elect Trump on part of the Clinton-Steele dossier. With hindsight, the White House meeting (1/5/17) and the Trump Tower briefing (1/6/17) take on additional meaning.
The departing administration’s highly-politicized intelligence apparatus, Comey (FBI), Brennan (CIA) and Clapper (DNI), conspired -strategically- to weaponize false intelligence in order to create a media narrative that would damage, and hopefully eliminate, the incoming president and his administration. With full measure of context, contrast against the identifiable behavior that followed; and accepting the FBI team was working diligently on an “insurance policy” agenda; there is no other way to look at these events.
[…] Let’s think about what was going on at that moment. It had been just a few days since Obama imposed sanctions on Russia. In that connection, the Kremlin’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, had contacted Trump’s designated national-security adviser, Michael Flynn. Obama-administration leadership despised Flynn, who (a) had been fired by Obama from his post as Defense Intelligence Agency chief; (b) had become a key Trump supporter and an intense critic of Obama foreign and national-security policy; and (c) was regarded by Yates and Comey as a possible criminal suspect — on the wayward theories that Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak could smack of a corrupt quid pro quo deal to drop the sanctions and might violate the never invoked, constitutionally dubious Logan Act.
What else was happening? The Justice Department and FBI had gone to the FISA court on October 21, 2016, for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. That warrant relied largely on the Steele dossier, which alleged a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin involving (a) a cyberespionage operation against the 2016 election, (b) corrupt negotiations regarding the sanctions, and (c) the Kremlin’s possession of “kompromat” that would enable the Putin regime to blackmail President-elect Trump.
Significantly, by the time of this January 6 meeting with Trump, the 90-day surveillance period under the FISA warrant would have had just a bit over two weeks left to run — it was set to expire just as Trump was to take office. (Reporting suggests that there may also have been a FISA warrant on Paul Manafort around this time.) The Obama administration was therefore confronting a deadline if the FISA warrant was to be renewed while Obama was still in power. The officials in the meeting would need to figure out how the investigation could continue despite the fact that its central focus, Trump, was about to be sworn in as president. (read more)
McCarthy accurately predicted two-months-ago that James Comey did not brief President Trump on the full content of the Clinton-Steele Dossier. This suspicion has been confirmed as fact by the recent admissions of James Comey himself.
January 5th, 2017, an Oval Office meeting with President Obama, VP Joe Biden, James Comey (FBI), Michael Rogers (NSA), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Sally Yates (DOJ) and Susan Rice. At the conclusion of the briefing, President Obama asks Sally Yates and James Comey to remain. Together with Susan Rice, this is where the “by the book” CYA comment comes into play. As recounted by Rice: “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”
January 6th, 2017, the Trump Tower meeting with President-elect Trump, VPE Mike Pence, Mike Flynn, etc. Where James Comey asks for a private discussion with the President-elect:
June 8th, 2017 – Vice-Chairman Senator Mark Warner (D) questions Comey during Senate Intelligence Committee hearing [Transcript Source]:
♦ Mark Warner […] I know members have said and press have said that if you were — a great deal has been made whether the president — whether you were asked whether the president was the subject of any investigation. My understanding is prior to your meeting on January 6th you discussed with your leadership team whether or not you should be prepared to assure then President-Elect trump that the FBI was not investigating him personally. Now my understanding is your leadership team agreed with that. But was that a unanimous decision? was there any debate about that?
♦ James Comey: Wasn’t unanimous.One of the members of the leadership team had a view that although it was technically true we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then President-Elect trump. His concern was because we’re looking at the potential, again, that’s the subject of the investigation, coordination between the campaign and Russia because it was president trump, President-Elect trump’s campaign, this person’s view was inevitably his behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work and so he was reluctant to make the statement that I made. I disagreed. I thought it was fair to say what was literally true. There is not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump. And I decided in the moment to say it given the nature of our conversation.
One member of the FBI leadership team, a “he”, with understanding of the full scope of the counterintelligence operation, disagreed with Director Comey making an obtuse, disingenuous and highly misleading statement to President Trump that he was not under an FBI counterintelligence investigation.
Obviously there was a counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign, and by extension presidential candidate Donald Trump. However, as noted in the Susan Rice email describing the content of the January 5th, 2017, White House meeting – the intent of the outgoing administration was to keep president-elect Trump under investigation, yet not allow him to know he was under investigation. Hence the briefing on only the most “salacious and unverified content of the dossier”.
The goal of the “insurance policy” was to frame the target. Therefore the target must be played by the officials doing the framing.
However, one official within the leadership of the FBI thought it was wrong to be disingenuous with discussions and briefing for an incoming President. That one senior FBI official was a “he”.
Now who do you think that “he” was?
This same “he”:
.
The same “he” who was scheduled to testify to the House Intelligence Committee; but for some mysterious reason the request to interview “him” and four others (Page, Strzok, Ohr and Baker) were all dropped.
The same “he” who, along with the four others, remains employed.
The same “he” who, unlike the four others, has never been removed, suspended, demoted or isolated from his job; and the same “he” who remains in his position through today.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
While the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the admission during questioning on Capitol Hill Wednesday that his personal data was in the Cambridge Analytica leak, there is something seriously wrong with the entire scheme of the internet which should be outlawed right now. Facebook, Microsoft and everyone else came up with the whole idea that they had the right to collect your personal information and sell it to advertisers to make money. You cannot even buy a computer to use as a quote screen because Microsoft wants to search that computer to see what you are looking at to sell to others. You are paying even for a Pro version of windows and it still does not allow you the block Microsoft.
Centinel2012 