it’s that elderly eccentric again

Judicial Watch President: Do We Need To Shut Down The FBI?
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Dec 14 2017

Echoing the thoughts that are undoubtedly running through the minds of many Pindos following startling revelations of an “insurance policy” crafted by FBI agents Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok to prevent a Trump presidency at all costs, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton on Fox News last night said:

Fusion GPS was a Hillary Clinton campaign vendor and the DoJ was working hand and glove with it, perhaps paying them money. The suspicion is they were paying them money. A top DoJ official’s wife was working with them.  There was no distinction between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DoJ and the FBI. Forget about the FBI investigation into Clinton and Trump being compromised by these conflicts. I think the FBI’s been compromised. Forget about shutting down Mr Mueller. Do we need to shut down the FBI because it was turned into a KGB-type operation by the Obama administration?

Trey Gowdy Absolutely Destroys Farcical Mueller Probe In Epic Monologue
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Dec 13 2017

If there is any remaining doubt in your mind that Special Counsel Mueller’s probe is anything but a farcical, politically-motivated witch hunt, then you’ll be summarily relieved of those doubts after watching the following exchange from earlier this morning between Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Presented with no further comment for your viewing pleasure…

Grassley Fires Off Scorching Letter To DOJ After Anti-Trump Texts Reveal Burner Phone, “Insurance Policy”
Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Dec 14 2017

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley fired off a letter late Wednesday to the DOJ, asking Deputy AG Rosenstein to explain several disturbing revelations contained within anti-Trump text messages sent between FBI investigators Peter Strzok and his FBI-Attorney mistress Lisa Page, both of whom were central to the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia probe, and both of whom were removed from Robert Mueller’s Special counsel when their text messages came to light. Rosenstein appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday to answer questions about Strzok, Page and Mueller’s investigation. Rosenstein stood by Robert Mueller’s investigation, telling critturs dismayed at a trove of damning text messages that he is “not aware of any impropriety” on the Special Counsel (which is stacked with anti-Trump Demagogs, who have reportedly also sent anti-Trump messages), saying:

I think it’s important that when we talk about political affiliation … the issue of bias is something different. We recognize we have employees with political opinions, and it’s our responsibility to make sure those opinions do not influence their actions, and so I believe that Director Mueller understands that and he is running that office appropriately.

Grassley raised serious concerns in his letter to the DoJ addressed to Rosenstein, as just two of over 10,000 (!?) text messages referred to an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency, and a special phone they used “when we talk about hillary because it can’t be traced.” Grassley’s letter reads:

Yesterday, the DoJ released a subset of text messages requested by the Committee. The limited release of 375 text messages between Mr Peter Strzok and Ms Lisa Page indicate a highly politicized FBI environment during both the Clinton and Russia investigations. For example, one text message from Ms Page proclaims to Mr Strzok, “God Trump is a loathsome human.” Some of these texts appear to go beyond merely expressing a private political opinion, and appear to cross the line into taking some official action to create an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency. Mr Strzok writes the following to Ms Page: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office: that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Presumably, “Andy” refers to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. So whatever was being discussed extended beyond just Page and Stzrok at least to McCabe, who was involved in supervising both investigations. Another text from Page to Strzok on Apr 2 2016, says the following: “So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about hillary because it can’t be traced, you were just venting bc you feel bad that you’re gone so much but it can’t be helped right now.” That text message occurred during Mr Strzok’s involvement in the Clinton investigation and days before he interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills on Apr 5 2016 and Apr 9 2016 respectively. Thus, the mention of “hillary” may refer to Sec Clinton and therefore could indicate that Mr Strzok and Ms Page engaged in other communications about an ongoing investigation on a different phone in an effort to prevent it from being traced. Any improper political influence or motives in the course of any FBI investigation must be brought to light and fully addressed. Former Director Comey’s claims that the FBI “doesn’t give a rip about politics” certainly are not consistent with the evidence of discussions occurring in the Deputy Director’s office around Aug 15 2016. Accordingly, please answer the following no later than Dec 27 2017:

  1. On what date did you become aware of the text messages between Mr Strzok and Ms Page and on what date were they each removed from the Special Counsel’s office?
  2. Are there any other records relating to the conversation in Andrew McCabe’s office shortly before the text described above on Aug 15 2016? If so please produce them to the Committee.
  3. Please provide all records relating to Andrew McCabe’s communications with Peter Stzrok or Lisa Page between Aug 7 2016 and Aug 23 2016.
  4. What steps have you taken to determine whether Mr Strzok, Mr Page, and Mr McCabe should face disciplinary action for their conduct?
  5. My understanding is that the Inspector General’s current investigation is limited to the handling of the Clinton email matter only. What steps have you taken to determine whether steps taken during the campaign to escalate the Russia investigation might have been a result of the political animus evidenced by these text messages rather than on the merits?
  6. Has the Dept identified the referenced “that phone” Mr Strzok and Ms Page used to discuss Sec Clinton? What steps has the Dept taken to review the records on this other phone, that allegedly “can’t be traced”? If none, please explain why.

Grassley also tweeted:

Grassley grilled Senate Demagogs last week for their unwillingness to investigate Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration, stating that the Demagogs on the committee he oversees “only want to talk about Trump.” He said:

There are two major controversies plaguing the credibility of the DoJ and the FBI right now. On the one hand the Trump Russia investigation, and then on the other hand the handling of the Clinton investigation. Any congressional oversight related to either one of these topics is not credible without also examining the other. Both cases were active during last year’s campaign. Both cases have been linked to the firing of the FBI Director. These questions go to the heart of the integrity of our federal law enforcement and justice system.

With Chuck Grassley on the warpath in the Senate, and the House Intel Committee chasing down FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, one has to wonder how long the FBI and DoJ are going to be able to maintain this farce before shutting it down, especially if in fact other members of Mueller’s team also sent anti-Trump messages, as journalist Sara Carter has claimed.

The Enemy Within: The “Intelligence Community”
Justin Raimondo,, Dec 11 2017

It was the Holy Grail of #TheResistance, the smoking gun they had been desperately searching for, solid evidence that Trump had colluded with the Russians to steal the presidency from its rightful owner: an email written and sent before WikiLeaks published the DNC material directing Trump’s attention to the data dump and even offering an “encryption key,” whatever that may be, so he could get a jump start on the news cycle. Collusion! Impeach! Gotcha! Except it wasn’t true. CNN, which initially reported the story, had the date of the email wrong: a 14 had somehow morphed into a 4. It turns out that CNN had never actually seen the email, but only had it described by “multiple sources.” CBS ran a story supposedly “confirming” the provenance of the incriminating email, and MSNBC followed suit with former LA Times national security reporter Ken Dilanian, whose reputation as a mouthpiece for the CIA is well-earned. Dilanian went on the air endorsing the story and tying it into the by now elaborate conspiracy theories that preoccupy #TheResistance. Of course it was the purest coincidence that no less than three major media outlets got the Trump email story wrong. Yes, those “multiple sources” sure were busy! It’s absurd to think that this episode is a case of simply getting it wrong. This was undoubtedly a deliberate lie planted in the media by the same rogue “intelligence community” that invented Russia-gate. It didn’t matter that the truth would eventually come out. Look at how many times the original story was tweeted and retweeted over social media, and then consider how many people don’t know it’s been debunked.

It seems like years since the Russia-gate investigation was launched, amid predictions of Trump’s imminent doom. So what have they come up with so far? Enough evidence of foreign meddling in Pindo politics to drive the Podesta Group out of business. Mike Flynn is in trouble not because of his Russia contacts but due to his lobbying on behalf of Turkey while in office. Of the many Russia-is-after-us stories that have come down the pipeline recently, a good many have been debunked. In short, Russia-gate is getting old, and going nowhere. It needed a jolt to kick it back into life again, and who cares what’s true and what isn’t? The point of circulating a lie, even a debunked one, is to normalize the inconceivable. A coup against the President? Why not? Violence directed at his supporters? Oh, it’s a moral obligation. War propagandists don’t need fact-checkers, and this is a war we’re in. We’re all living on a battlefield as the struggle for power goes on around us and our intelligence community, or at least the leadership, conducts open warfare against the President. We’ve seen the same pattern unfold abroad, as the CIA and its ancillary organizations undertook regime change operations in countries throughout the world. Remember the “color revolutions” of the Bush 43 era? Or look at what happened in Ukraine, where the elected president was driven out of office by a CIA-bought mob. They hope to replicate their Ukrainian success in Pindostan. Is it really necessary to explain why this is a deadly threat to the Constitution, the rule of law, and everything we stand for as a nation? Are we to be turned into some Third World banana republic, with coups, counter-coups and a political police answerable to no-one?

The repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which forbade the CIA from carrying out actions designed to influence US domestic opinion, was justified by officials on the grounds that these limits prevented them from doing their job. Of course, if we had known that they considered it their job to pick and choose who can be President, perhaps Smith-Mundt would still be intact. As it is now, our spooks can use government resources to push their political agenda, and rest assured they have one: they are a de facto political party as well as a welter of government agencies. Particularly frightening is the politicization of the FBI, which seems to have become a bludgeon in the hands of the President’s enemies. Their involvement with the Trump “dossier,” their refusal to hand over key documents to congressional oversight committees and their bizarre grandstanding of James Comey all point to a worrying partisanship that has somehow infiltrated law enforcement and called into question the integrity of our entire legal system. We have given these people access to our most private information. They have a “legal” mandate to invade our privacy at will. We’ve given them unlimited resources, although nobody knows how much they really spend. We’ve allowed them to roam the earth, overthrowing governments, assassinating opponents and engaging in dirty tricks that we’ll never even know about. So the question isn’t: how did they get to the point where they can conceivably pull off a coup? It’s: why didn’t this happen sooner? We are facing a mortal threat to our republic, to our liberties, and to the future of democracy in Pindostan, and it’s not coming from overseas, it’s coming from within our own government, the permanent national security bureaucracy which was never elected by anyone to anything and is now determined to impose its will on a country that voted the “wrong” way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.