They should go on a tour together. Finally someone goes back and connects the dots from the hundreds of illegal FBI FISA-702(16)(17) searches where they were allowing ‘contractors’ to do opposition research in NSA and FBI databases. Part of the dirtying up of their opposition required the digging of dirt for use therein. Thank You Sidney Powell.
That righteous notation triggered Joe diGenova’s memory… and Laura Ingraham was left nodding her head (she was lost) as details began surfacing that only a few have yet grasped. Quite a good segment. WATCH:
.
Heads up.Big News Coming Tomorrow!
Thousands of pages of documents about to be released.
It really is stunning how politicians in Europe are so disconnected with the people. The press bashes those in Britain who are against “refugee” immigration from the Middle East as RACISTS, despite the fact that they are of all races and Islam is not a race, it is a religion. It is amazing how they throw that word around to belittle and demonize anyone who disagrees with them. Despite all the hatred they hurl at those in Britain who voted for BRXIT, the polls show that the top two issues facing the voters in Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Poland, and Lithuania just so happen to be, let’s guess, Immigration & Terrorism.
When Europeans migrated to America, there were no social programs. They did not come to get handouts, free housing, and a monthly allowance. They came to work. To get a job, they had to learn the language and merge into society. Nobody showed up demanding that everyone in America change to conform to their culture. That is what has taken place, especially in Sweden. Friends from there have remarked how they cannot freely travel in their own country. Of course, there are the horror stories such as one of a refugee raping a 10-year-old boy in a swimming pool. The rapist claimed he was justified because it was a “sexual emergency” and the conviction was overturned because he may have consented?
In Norway, 25% of all rape cases have involved the refugees. The Afghan refugee who raped a 15-year-old fled when released on bail. There was the famous incident where 2,000 girls in Germany were raped or molested on New Year’s Eve. Then the German police were ordered to remove the word “rape” from all official records of the incident. This was to protect politicians who let these people in and not the girls in Germany.
In Sweden, they gang-raped a Swedish girl and broadcast it on Facebook. If you go through the countless number of reports involving rapes throughout Europe, is it any wonder why the polls are against immigration on equal footing with terrorism? In Europe, a girl has more than 1000:1 chance of being raped by a refugee than being killed by a terrorist.
About 70% of the “refugees” are single men under 30 — not families with women and children. Here is a photo of a boat of refugees off the coast of Sicily. They are all young men — not families. That’s the “sexual emergency” because they came with no women, do not speak the language, have no skills, and are use to just taking what they want.
Some major reporting today from Paul Sperry includes very interesting details about how President Obama’s intelligence community structured their Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russian interference in the 2016 election – SEE HERE –
In essence by following-up with various people involved in the construct of the ICA, journalist Paul Sperry outlines how CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, subverted their own intelligence guidelines in assembling the intelligence report.
While much of the background parallels our prior research, there are two very interesting aspects outlined by those with direct knowledge of the construct. First, that Brennan positioned FBI Agent Peter Strzok as the contact between the CIA analysis and the information flow to FBI Director James Comey:
[…] A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.
“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source. (link)
This structure is interesting because it highlights an increasingly obvious intention of the participating group to control the content of intelligence, and the information flow therein. There are several instances which highlight the level of a strategic effort undertaken to keep James Comey out of the loop on details within the 2016 operation(s).
Their approach creates the “I don’t know” and “that was not my understanding” defense as deployed heavily by James Comey during his book tour and media interviews.
This approach also creates an unusual set of contradictions.
Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly says the work on the Clinton and Trump investigations was kept inside a very “tight group” of DOJ and FBI people; yet Comey repeatedly claims to have no knowledge of their activity when questioned about specific events.
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe keeping Director Comey in the dark on the Huma Abedin laptop issues for four weeks (Sept. 28th through October 26th) is a clear example of Comey’s ‘willful blindness’.
There are also numerous examples in the Page/Strzok text messaging or working around Comey within the FBI small group (Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Michael Kortan), as Andrew McCarthy finally realized when he sat down to read the content last weekend: “I am bleary-eyed from a weekend of reading about half of them. Even in their heavily redacted form, they are a goldmine of insight.” I digress.
A second interesting aspect revealed in Paul Sperry’s reporting is something we discussed at great length surrounding the President Obama daily briefing material (PDB):
[…] “Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from a ‘credible source,’ which is how they viewed Steele,” said the source familiar with the House investigation. “But they never corroborated his sources.” (read more)
So with another confirmation that Brennan was putting FBI Counterintelligence Investigation findings into President Obama’s PDB, let’s revisit the statements in April 2017 from President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice. As relayed in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrew Mitchell:
Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works. I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for us –on a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”
[Note, Susan Rice is describing the PDB]
“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to. Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.
And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”
The interview goes much further. There was a lot of news in that interview. There is also a tremendous amount of double-speak and self-contradiction; in some cases between sentences that follow each other.
Notice how Susan Rice contradicts herself about what the intelligence community puts into the PDB. Remember, Rice considers the PDB intel community to be very specific: James Clapper (DNI), John Brennan (CIA) and Defense Department (which would be the Pentagon and NSA Mike Rogers). And she states they would never send the President innocuous things unworthy of review.
However, right there Susan Rice is confirming the “unmasking” request(s) which can be pinned upon her, are directly related to her need to understand -on behalf of President Obama- intelligence for the President’s Daily Briefing (the PDB). This was a previous question now answered.
This is EXPLOSIVE, and here’s why.
Remember, the President’s Daily Brief under President Obama went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:
[…] But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.
By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)
Pay attention to that last part. According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to: “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”, and his speechwriter, Ben Rhodes.
Susan Rice defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”….
So under Obama’s watch Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense, via their connection to their immediate supervisor, had likely daily access to the content within the PDB. And who was an Obama Deputy Secretary of Defense?
“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill. … That’s why you had the leaking”.
CNN political pundit and journalist Chris Cillizza posts a graphic (gif) to his twitter account moments ago attacking President Trump through his remarks during the National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service earlier today.
What makes Cillizza’s tweet particularly disturbing is it depicts President Trump as viewed through a gun sight, and shows the President as an assassination target against the backdrop of being “killed in the line of duty”:
Filmed at the Emmanuel Centre in London on 21st November 2016. What is going on in the Western democracies? From Britain’s vote for Brexit, to Donald Trump’s election victory in America and the growth of populist movements across Europe, voters are expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Economic anxieties go some way to explain the phenomenon, but as with the Brexit decision, people are voting in ways that seem – at least to their critics – likely to harm their own material interests just to give the establishment a bloody nose. In this special Intelligence Squared event, renowned American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and politician Nick Clegg will examine the complex web of social, moral and political concerns that are driving the unrest. How can we explain the new illiberalism that is growing on both left and right, as authoritarian trends spread across campuses throughout the Anglosphere (the no-platforming of speakers being a typical example)? How should we understand the new ‘culture war’ emerging in Britain, America and elsewhere between the ‘globalists’ and ‘nationalists’? As deputy prime minister during the Coalition government, Clegg witnessed the upheaval in British politics from the inside. Haidt, author of the acclaimed bestseller The Righteous Mind, has long been studying the moral and cultural drives that divide people into different political camps.
Jonathan David Haidt (born October 19, 1963) is an American social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business. His academic specialization is the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. Haidt is the author of two books: The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (2006) and The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012). He is also founder of the Heterodox Academy to support viewpoint diversity in academia: https://heterodoxacademy.org/ On Nov 21, 2016 Jonathan Haidt was interviewed at the Emmanuel Centre in London about “The Rise of Populism and the Backlash Against the Elites”. I edited the following highlight video with a focus on the topic of the globalist blind-spot of the left. Full clip quoted under fair use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gZ5U…
John Solomon’s report on the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 for help to structure a narrative of Russian involvement in the Trump Campaign via Paul Manafort has multiple ramifications. (Article Here) Here’s some preliminary thoughts on the issue.
♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier. The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support. Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.
♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help. This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin. Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd. He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”
Several issues make this interesting:
#1. Was the DOJ/FBI trying to use Deripaska to frame candidate Donald Trump? Was this part of their 2016 insurance policy?
-or-
Was the FBI (Deputy Director McCabe) looking to duplicate the use of Deripaska for financing a covert FBI operation in 2016, just like Andrew McCabe did in 2009?
#2. John Solomon reports that Deripaska wanted to testify to congress last year (2017), without any immunity request, but was rebuked. Who blocked his testimony?
#3. In 2017 Oleg Deripaska was represented in the U.S. by Adam Waldman. Mr. Waldman was also representing Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier. Waldman was the liaison Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele. {Text Messages}
As you can see from the text messages (more here), the House Intelligence Committee wanted to interview Deripaska. However, based on their ongoing contact and relationship Deripaska’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, asks Senator Mark Warner for feedback.
If Deripaska was blocked from testifying to congress, it was obviously not from the HPSCI (Nunes Committee), but rather by the Senate Intel Committee, Mark Warner. Why?
#4. Why would Adam Waldman and Oleg Deripaska (personally) be reaching out to John Solomon now to share the story of the FBI conduct in 2016? Why now? There were sanctions levied against Derispaska’s business interests by the Trump administration in 2017. Does his hope to get sanctions removed/lessened lie behind a current motive?
#5. Attorney and Lobbyist Adam Waldman represented both Oleg Deripaska and Christopher Steele. This does not seem accidental. Was Deripaska part of Steele’s network? Or, more alarmingly, was Christopher Steele working for Oleg Deripaska?
Watch the first minute of this video. February 13th, 2018 Hearing:
.
Another question: Was Deripaska willing to finance or facilitate the Steele Dossier, or some aspect therein, to the extent that it dirtied-up Paul Manafort – from a distance. Yet when asked directly to participate he didn’t want personal attachment on dubious endeavors?
#6. Did Robert Mueller omit any mention of Oleg Deripaska from his 2017 Manafort indictment purposefully? Is some evidence against Manafort related to a Deripaska vendetta? Or, was Robert Mueller hoping to hide his prior professional work relationship with Deripaska?
#7. On February 9th, 2018, Senator Chuck Grassley asked Deripaska’s London Lawyer, Paul Hauser, questions about Deripaska and his connections to Christopher Steele:
Oleg Deripaska’s British lawyer, Paul Hauser, responded with the following letter:
A very lawyer-ish response. However, based on the 2017 text messages unknown at the time Grassley made the inquiry, it would appear Chairman Grassley asked the wrong lawyer:
Senator Grassley should have asked Adam Waldman who was obviously representing Deripaska’s interests in the U.S. {text message links}
♦Summary, there’s obviously a great deal that could be learned from testimony of Oleg Deripaska as to the nature of his engagements in/around 2016 and the network of known characters engaged in contact within the U.S. intelligence apparatus, both inside the U.S. and abroad.
The fact that Deripaska is openly willing to engage with journalists on this story and his involvement therein, could open a new line of inquiry about the validity and origination of the Mueller investigation.
Then again, a seemingly incurious media might find their Russian Collusion/Conspiracy narrative was built upon a fraudulent CIA/DOJ/FBI foundation…..
So…
If the usual suspects, New York Times, Washington Post and CNN, avoid the Oleg Deripaska revelations, well, we’ll have our answer.
In a very weird series of events journalist John Solomon published an article in The Hill. Despite the content directly relating to new and stunning revelations about an FBI operation in 2009; the connection to the current Russia investigation by Robert Mueller; and their use of a Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in both investigations; the Hill Editors filed the article under “opinion”.
Secondly, after the original article was published, John Solomon gained new information about the FBI contacting Oleg Deripaska in September of 2016; before the election and before the FBI gained a FISA warrant against Carter Page and the Trump Campaign. Instead of a new article, four paragraphs were inserted as an “update” to the original content. Very weird decisions. – READ ARTICLE HERE –
The discoveries and the story by Solomon carry huge ramifications; yet it appears there is an intentional effort by The Hill to bury the details. Something very sketchy is afoot.
John Solomon appeared on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show to discuss the story:
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy appears on Shannon Bream’s television show to discuss the ongoing battle between congress and the DOJ over information and evidence surrounding DOJ/FBI corruption in 2015, 2016 and 2017.
It’s a good interview to watch because McCarthy has just read a large portion of the text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok for THIS ARTICLE. As a result of reviewing the content, McCarthy is able to accurately frame his reference points and provides information that is divergent from the MSM preferred narrative. WATCH:
.
Again CTH reminds readers, despite thousands of articles written by MSM, you can count on one hand the number of journalists who have actually read through all 500+ pages (both releases) of text message communication between DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok. It’s easy to spot who has not read them because the content of their articles is disputed by the underlying facts within Page/Strzok internal messages.
The article by McCarthy referenced in the interview is very good. SEE IT HERE
As McCarthy points out, it is not likely there was a singular FBI source buried within the Trump campaign. Instead it’s more likely that particular campaign aides were targeted and dirtied-up by unofficial intelligence operators like Stefan Halper. Once those aides were given the appearance of being aligned with foreign enterprise, the FBI was then able to conduct surveillance and construct a narrative useful for their ‘insurance policy’.
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
Centinel2012 