With Joe Biden's campaign
desperately trying to make up for coming in a distant fourth place in
Iowa, he's resorted to attacking Pete Buttigieg in a new campaign ad,
mocking his small-town executive experience compared to the former vice
president being Barack Obama's number two. "Barack Obama called Joe
Biden 'the best vice president America has ever had.' but Pete Buttigieg
doesn't think much of the vice president's record," says the Biden ad.
Biden defended his ad on Saturday. "When you get attacked, you've got to respond," he told reporters in Manchester, New Hampshire. "This guy's not a Barack Obama," Biden added.
Appearing
on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, Mayor Pete was asked to respond
to the ad, and Biden's jab that Buttigieg is "not a Barack Obama."
"Well,
he's right," Buttigieg said. "I'm not. And neither is he. Neither is
any of us running for president. And this isn't 2008; it's 2020."
What
Buttigieg should have also said was that he brings to the table more
executive experience than Barack Obama had in 2008—which is undeniably
true. Barack Obama was a relatively unaccomplished U.S. senator before
deciding he was good enough to run for president. Obviously, Obama's
lack of experience turned out to be disastrous for the country,
but Buttigieg can still effectively deflect questions of experience
because the Democratic Party has proven that they really don't care
about experience. If they did, they would have chosen Biden over Obama
in 2008. But they didn't.
The Democratic Party gave up the right to talk about experience when they nominated Barack Obama.
Medal of Honor recipient MSG Leroy Petry defended President Donald
Trump’s decision to fire LTC Alexander Vindman, saying that Vindman had
shown he couldn’t be trusted.
Petry made an appearance on Sunday morning’s “Fox & Friends” and responded to the news that Vindman had been fired from his post on the National Security Council and escorted from the White House.
“I respect Donald Trump’s actions on escorting him out of the White
House because he, as a team player, he should have brought it up through
the chain of command and then blown the whistle if it didn’t get
approved,” Petry began. “So, exactly my insight is, I would fired him
too, I can’t trust you on my team, if you can’t bring me things you
don’t agree with.”
Petry went on to address the fact that House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and numerous others — including Vice President Joe
Biden on the New Hampshire debate stage — had lauded Vindman as a hero.
“I
think this,” Petry said. “I respect his service, I understand he is
Purple Heart recipient. Being a Purple Heart recipient doesn’t make
somebody a hero. I’m sorry.”
“I appreciate your candor,” host Pete Hegseth,
also an Army veteran, jumped in. “Wearing the uniform doesn’t make you
immune from criticism especially on the National Security Council, it
has now been identified you’re probably a part of leaking, certainly a
part of concerted effort to hurt the president.”
Hegseth
then pointed out what many have in the president’s defense: that every
member of the National Security Council serves “at the pleasure of the
president” and can be reassigned for any reason the White House chooses.
Petry went on to explain that Vindman,
according to friends who had been with the lieutenant colonel in Ranger
School, had referred to him as a “chow thief” and had not thought
highly of him even then. “In ranger school, [they] said he couldn’t be
trusted. They tried peering him out. They said, ‘Well, I guess it hasn’t
changed much.’ Usually folks that try to make a big statue of
something, what we call spotlighters in the military, trying to
highlight themselves as a hero or doing something great. and you could
do something great just doing your job.”
Hegseth jumped back in
then to “translate” some of the military jargon Petry had used to
describe Vindman, saying, “Chow thief, meaning that when there is
limited food, you’re taking some so you can have some and your buddies
don’t. Spotlight ranger is someone who, when the spotlight is on, you do
a great job when spotlight is off, you’re not necessarily helping your
buddies. And peered out means your fellow peers are voting against you
to graduate from that particular school.”
For the past three years, President Donald J. Trump has been under continuous and savage attack from the Democrat Party, its fellow travelers the mainstream media and more than a few RINO enablers and even one or two flat out traitors. Yet he remains unbowed, undefeated and unrelenting in achieving his objectives. As I noted previously, President Trump continues to rack up his list of campaign promises kept. Yesterday however, something changed. If you thought Donald Trump the counterpuncher was bad, well folks, now that he has been acquitted of the baseless charges spawned by Democrat fevered imagination, the gloves have now come off and the retribution will (and should be!) swift and painful.
At Thursday’s Annual Prayer Breakfast, The President served notice that he was loathe to adopt the Bushes, père et fils policy of turning the other cheek in hope that the Leftists would cut them a break. The Democrat Party just looks at that as weakness. President Trump learned that lesson long ago. The President remarked,
“I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong,”
In an obvious if indirect shot at Senator Mitt Romney’s cowardly and disloyal guilty vote…
“Nor do I like people who say, ‘I pray for you’ when you know that is not so….”
That was a veiled shot at Speaker Pelosi who once claimed that as a good Catholic, she prayed for President Trump every day…two lies for the price of one. It was all the more enjoyable to see that Madam Speaker was within three feet of The President when he made these remarks. Her facial gyrations were a frightening sight to behold.
Later, at the White House, during his press briefing about the Impeachment results, President Trump let us all know how he really feels. This time he named names.
“These people are vicious. Adam Schiff is a vicious, horrible person. Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person. And she wanted to impeach a long time ago…”
President Trump is right and these people need to understand that their attempt at political regicide, murder, lynching, mutiny, soft coup or whatever you want to call it, has failed. They have left The King unwounded. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
Given the ignominy of the Democrats latest defeats, I can imagine an allegorical path forward for Trump, that reminds me of the final scene in the original Godfather movie. In that scene, Michael is attending the Christening of his nephew, while around the country, all of his tormentors are being whacked.
Here’s the clip. It’s pretty gruesome. Please note, neither I nor Red State are hinting at much less advocating violence.
President Trump’s political version of that scene has been playing out in fits and starts, but has now gotten serious. Here are just three
Now four**, recent examples…with more to follow I’m sure. Imagine a movie scene parallel to The Godfather, where The People play the part of the Priest, President Trump is responding their interrogatories and in a series of scene cuts, various anti-Trumpers are being dealt with.
The People: Will you make America Great Again?
Trump: I WILL make America great again.
Scene: Cut to Utah Legislators introducing a bill to recall Senator Romney.
Trump is not and should not follow in the path of previous Republicans like the Bushes. Senator Romney will find out shortly, just how short the hang time is between being a media darling for defying President Trump, and his return to an object of Democrat scorn and derision. The President has made a great start. Please feel free to list in the comments, any other scenes you’d like to see played out as part of this film finale. (No violence please).
I’ll leave you with one final, happy warrior thought…
“A man’s greatest pleasure is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them that which they possessed, to see those whom they cherished in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.”
When a reassignment from a post is worse than incarceration your outrage is impotent.
With the announcement that Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman was going to be removed from his position on the White House Security Council there has been all manner of disgust and contempt from Democrat leaders, as well as their serfs in the press. The outrage voice calls out all the expected talking points about President Trump acting in a vindictive fashion over the ‘’brave’’ actions of a supposed ‘’hero’’. Heads on a pike type condemnation has been commonplace.
Nancy Pelosi has of course been leading this brigade of bemoaning bellyachers in this charge of unaccountable retribution by the president.
The curiosity here is twofold. The first aspect to look at is what these carping scolds are willing to overlook to deliver their impotent outrage. Vindman is an employee of the president. He not only was shown to be working against his interests but his superior routinely complained of his lack of adherence to protocol, going so far as to cut out Vindman from particular discussions out of fear of his ensuing actions. Vindman was suspected to be a source of leaks.
He confirmed this in his own testimony, when he acknowledged speaking about details of the controversial phone call to others beyond his chain of command. He admitted to talking to a person in the intel community, and when he was told not to reveal that person’s name it confirmed Vindman as the source of the whistleblower. All of these actions are not only dismissable acts but chargeable illegalities.
But how dare the president punish and fire such an individual, say the leftist authorities. However the claims of this being an example of precedent-setting vindictiveness are ignoring one hardcore truth; they are excusing away, or are oblivious of, the retribution we saw take place with Barack Obama.
This is not a case of whataboutism, because the lack of contempt for far worse actions from the prior administration exposes the canard they are trying to sell today. If Trump firing someone (more accurately, reassigning them) is so unacceptable how does this measure up to President Obama tracking down and arresting those guilty of similar acts?
At the behest of Obama, Eric holder went on a regular quest to root out and identify those who were leaking sensitive and/or classified information. For their effort the Obama administration relied upon The Espionage Act, using that statute to go after those who were leaking intel to the press. Prior to their reliance on this legislation the amount of people jailed due to EA enforcement was exactly one.
Obama arrested numerous people with this rarely employed tactic. He even voiced his intentions — ”Since I’ve been in office, my attitude has been zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks and speculation.’’ Numerous individuals saw themselves incarcerated, and even General David Petraeus and General James Cartwright became prosecuted under this statute before they pled to lesser charges.
But today we are supposed to be outraged that Trump has excused one individual whom it can be argued acted in seditious fashion. A court martial would not be a shocking result…unless you are a Democrat or mainstream journalist.
Did you love the State of the Union address? Jon Voight sure did.
And on Thursday, he praised the President and his message to the nation.
In a video posted to social media, Jon summed up the country in under 100 seconds.
Jon gave Donald Trump some pretty boss credit — he’s our best leader since Honest Abe:
“Let us continue our fight to keep our President of the United States of America in office, because he is the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln.”
It’s not something he just thought of; the Academy Award winner offered the same last May:
And with this best Commander-in-Chief, we’ll stand in the name of — here’s something you don’t hear about much from Hollywood — God:
“We will stand in the name of God. We will stand with President Trump, for he is the greatest president.”
When Mr. Voight heard Trump’s speech — which was, according to many, fantastic — he cried:
“Watching his State of the Union speech with pride and tears, I was moved by his words of wisdom.”
More praise for the Leader of the Free World:
“This is what a great man of honor takes on. And has done beyond his duties. He’s a father, a husband, a friend. He has done what God has asked for: to protect this country with open arms of love and protection for a nation that is targeted against by some of its own, along with enemies from across the world.”
Speaking of enemies of its own, Angelina Jolie’s dad ain’t too hot on that Pelosi woman:
“This Pelosi woman and her cohorts are a threat to the United States of America. … Her soul has evil intent.”
And they’re trying to destroy us:
“The Left radicals are trying — and I say trying — to bring down the United States of America with lies and barbaric behavior. This is not what God wants.”
Jon believes it’s up to conservatives to be a light:
‘We the people of the Republican Party gift our knowledge to the ignorant. That they may open the door for truth.”
Each time I see J.V. speak on politics, God, or Donald Trump, I can barely believe it. This is a Hollywood icon. This [was] Brad Pitt’s father-in-law. This is a man firmly rooted in a world which appears to overwhelmingly believe the exact opposite of him. And yet, he thrives there.
But it’s sad that that’s surprising. When we look across the landscape of entertainment, we should see diversity — of thought. And an industry tolerant of different views.
Instead, it seems there’s more of this sort of thing:
But the star of Deliverance remains undeterred. And, therefore, in summation:
“My fellow Americans, let us stand in her glory — the glory of a nation that has been restored with the greatest president, Donald Trump.”
Democrats faced a lot of mocking this week because of the debacle in Iowa when their system for determining a winner in their caucuses blew up. They still really haven’t determined a winner and with three different metrics, both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg have claimed victory.
But there was potentially a bigger problem for the Democrats other than not being able to count or funny business going on with the caucus.
That was the turnout.
Republicans were going to choose President Donald Trump. That was a foregone conclusion. So one would think that there wouldn’t be a lot of Republicans out, comparatively speaking. But instead, comparatively speaking, there were a lot who came out, exceeding turnout in similar years with an incumbent president, as my colleague Streiff reported.
So was the turnout for Democrats high because of disturbance over Trump? No.
The results appeared to be roughly comparable to the 2016 turnout which was about 170,000, as opposed to 2008, which had 240,000.
That spells trouble for them, when Republicans have high enthusiasm for Trump and they need a lot of anger and people out in order to have any chance.
Rachel Maddow acknowledged this and grilled Tom Perez about the implications for the Democrats on her show.
.@Maddow: "They didn't come out in droves in Iowa"
Tom Perez: "When you look at all of the turnout, the successes, we've had over 3 years, I'm certainly not going to sit here after one caucus and say, 'There's a problem, Houston'" pic.twitter.com/2TYl7aR3oD
“Let me tell you the concern that I’ve heard voiced about what happened in Iowa this week that is not about the process failures, but that is about the prospect of beating Donald Trump in November and it’s that the turnout was flat,” Maddow said. “In 2008, turnout in the Iowa caucuses was astronomical, broke all the records and by a lot. 2016, it came back down to earth. It appears that the turnout in Iowa this year was back down in that back-down-to-earth level.”
She continued, “When I look at the numbers broadly, big Democratic numbers in Iowa, in the Iowa caucuses tend to translate into Democrat Party wins in the general election. Are Democrats not enthusiastic enough about voting and is that what those turnout numbers mean?”
Perez tried to argue it away pointing to 2018 and that they came out for healthcare, but Maddow said that didn’t charge the turnout in Iowa. “But they didn’t come out in droves in Iowa and this was the first chance in the presidential race for Democrats to show their stuff and they didn’t turn out.”
Perez dismissed it, saying it was one caucus and they would have to see what happened in New Hampshire and elsewhere. “I’m certainly not going to sit here after one caucus and say, ‘There’s a problem, Houston'”
“Well, we’ll see in New Hampshire and elsewhere,” Perez responded. “I don’t want to extrapolate much from one race. You know, with caucuses, even though there were satellite caucuses and other opportunities, you know, the reality is it is harder for people to vote if you have a shift job, if you are there.”
He added, “Make no mistake about it. Barack Obama is a historic figure. That is an incredibly high bar. And when we benchmark everything against Barack Obama, that is an undeniably high bar.”
He tried to claim there was “energy everywhere.”
Except of course, there isn’t for these candidates. Apart from folks for Bernie, no other groups seems truly jazzed, with any numbers, about any of the other candidates. It’s really a desolate field, while Republicans are jazzed up about Trump and disturbed about impeachment, wanting to keep him in and turn the Democrats out. It’s a recipe for four more years.
Only time will tell if the Democrat insiders will be able to stop Sanders this time around. Perhaps they will, perhaps they won’t. But in either case, it is now clear that Obama succeeded in fundamentally transforming America’s two-party system. We now have an openly anti-American party and an openly pro-American party.
The outcome of 2020 is not yet settled, obviously, but these two presidential election contests taken together already tell an amazing story.
The Democrat-Republican establishment had 2016 all planned out. According to the plan, 2016 would be another Clinton-Bush election, this time Jeb(!) versus Hillary. Hillary would win of course, and politics would return to normal. The majority party Democrats would keep pushing for bigger and more unaffordable government, the minority party Republicans would continue their project of steadily losing the fight, and the establishmentarians on both sides would continue feathering their nests.
But back to normal was not to be. Obama changed the game in ways the political establishment did not quite understand. What Obama did was the American political equivalent of walking on water; he had quite openly rejected America, and yet he was rewarded with a two-term presidency! As a result, it was not clear that politics in America was ever going to return to normal—and in any case, there was no chance 2016 was going to be a return to normal.
In 2016, the Republican party leadership looked on in disbelief as their voters stuck them with a candidate who had an excellent claim not to be a Republican. Meanwhile, the Democrats had a close call; their voters very nearly stuck them with a candidate who was not and had never been a Democrat. Republican voters rejected “their” party, and Democrat voters came close to rejecting “their” party, and they might have succeeded except for behind the scenes efforts by the party professionals to rig the system.
These were astonishing developments, but we need look no further than Barack Obama for the explanation.
For more than a century before the advent of Obama, the Left had adhered to a stealth strategy. They maintained a remarkable degree of party discipline over that long period, believing stealth was necessary and that it was the secret of their phenomenal success in overthrowing the Constitution incrementally, progressively. Instead of openly rejecting the Constitution, they had carefully installed in their voters a belief in what they called “the living Constitution.” A living Constitution is, of course, no Constitution at all; it is really a dying Constitution, a Constitution in the process of being murdered by a thousand cuts.
A few years ago, Encounter Books published a book of mine on the Constitution. Since then I have had many opportunities to be spoken to about the Constitution by Democrat voters. When they hear I have written on the Constitution, they unfailingly tell me right away that the important thing to understand is that we have “a living Constitution.” In general, that is all they “know” about the Constitution and all they want to know. The more outspoken ones insist that I agree with them that the Constitution changes constantly and must change constantly because of changing circumstances.
But Obama broke with tradition. To those paying attention on the Left, he did not hide his disdain for the Constitution, for America, or even for the flag—and the Left went wild. For the Left, Obama’s success meant the galling necessity for stealth was over, that they could let it all hang out because America was ready for a leftist revolution. Many Democrat voters agreed. They were no longer willing to put up with a Democrat candidate mouthing platitudes neither they nor the candidate believed so that candidate could be elected.
Comes the hour, comes the man. Sanders was almost completely untainted by the strategy of stealth. Not only was he not a Democrat, but he had also honeymooned in the Soviet Union. In 2011, he wrote an op-ed in which he declared that the American dream is “more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Argentina” than in the United States. At the Democratic candidates’ forum in New Hampshire on Friday night, he said America is “a racist society from top to bottom.”
As for Trump, we can say of him what Lincoln said of Grant: “he fights.” Trump’s voters wanted a fighter, someone who would not be rolled by the biparty establishment.
Many Democrat voters were as eager to rally around a candidate from beyond their party as Republican voters were eager to rally around one from beyond their party. Sanders’ enthusiastic crowds are the perfect counterpoint to Trump’s crowds chanting “U.S.A., U.S.A.” The anti-Americanism of Sanders and his voters is matched by Trump and his voters’ unabashed love for America. Sanders and Trump and their voters have this in common: they reject the old agreement according to which the majority party pretends to respect the Constitution while taking it apart and the minority party somehow never manages to mount a successful defense of it. Win or lose, we are in a new game now.
Only time will tell if the Democrat insiders will be able to stop Sanders this time around. Perhaps they will, perhaps they won’t. But in either case, it is now clear that Obama succeeded in fundamentally transforming America’s two-party system. We now have an openly anti-American party and an openly pro-American party.
Obama promised to bring about a fundamental transformation of America, and in this fundamental transformation of America’s political parties, he can legitimately claim he succeeded.
It became very clear during the Club’s manipulation of the Iowa caucus that candidate Pete Buttigieg was the primary Club weapon to eliminate Bernie Sanders.
It was anonymous complaints from Team Buttigieg that scrapped the publication of the DMR final Iowa poll showing Bernie leading. It was the Team Buttigieg network that operated the mysterious “Shadow” vote-counting “APP” that stopped working; and in all of the subsequent activity it was/is clear the Club boardroom is working to elevate Buttigieg. This is why Buttigieg could confidently declare victory amid the chaos.
During last night’s ABC New Hampshire debate it was clear from the process deployed by Club member George Stephanopoulos that Buttigieg was again being elevated on behalf of the club objective, & their tool deployed rehearsed answers to rehearsed questions.
Today, CNN comes in with a narrative engineered poll. Look at the headline: “Sanders Holds Slim Lead in NH Over Rising Buttigieg; Biden and Warren Slip“…
Keep in mind CNN previously constructed the hit on Sanders using Elizabeth Warren. CNN accused Sanders of saying: “a woman can never be president”, and then used that narrative in the following debate. The hit on Bernie was manufactured by CNN in advancement of the Club effort. Just like CNN leaked the questions to Hillary Clinton in 2016 to advance the Club agenda against Bernie. This is the pattern.
Here’s the CNN Poll intended to influence the New Hampshire race:
It will be VERY interesting to keep this poll bookmarked and then review it again *AFTER* the New Hampshire results next Tuesday. This is manipulative engineering by the media.
(Politico) – The CNN/University of New Hampshire poll — which was conducted Tuesday-Friday, sandwiched between Monday’s Iowa caucuses and Friday night’s debate in Goffstown, N.H. — gives Sanders a 7-point edge over Buttigieg, 28 percent to 21 percent.
Sanders has consolidated much of his support among voters on the party’s left wing. Among those who call themselves liberals, Sanders has 49 percent, 30 points ahead of Buttigieg (19 percent) and Warren (15 percent).
But among those who consider themselves moderate or conservative, it’s Buttigieg (24 percent) who leads Biden (15 percent) and Sanders (13 percent).
Sanders, 78, is the oldest candidate in the race, but he’s the top choice among younger voters: He wins 51 percent of voters under age 35, and 32 percent of those aged 35 to 49.
The 38-year-old Buttigieg, meanwhile, is the leading candidate among primary voters 65 and older, even edging Biden among that bloc, 27 percent to 21 percent.
The poll suggests historically fickle New Hampshire voters are beginning to lock in on their preferred candidates. Roughly half, 51 percent, say they are definitely decided, compared to 19 percent who are leaning toward a candidate and 30 percent who are still trying to decide. (read more)
Elizabeth Warren is in a free-fall/collapse in the CNN poll. That type of a result would be terrible considering the New Hampshire contest in her backyard. However, the Club is running a very predictable playbook to eliminate Bernie Sanders.
The former mayor of South Bend Indiana will NOT be the DNC candidate, but he is a valuable tool toward ensuring that Sanders is stopped. If the primary continues to shake-out the way it is currently playing, CTH would anticipate seeing Buttigieg and Warren team up against Sanders in the next 10 to 20 days.
There are some similarities between Buttigieg and Warren against Bernie Sanders in 2020 as compared to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz against Donald Trump in 2016.
Joe Biden is a non-issue; CTH would anticipate his exit around the same time Warren and Buttigieg team up to eliminate Bernie (around the end of Feb). Obviously this will create a big confrontation between the limo-liberals and the grassroots Marxists.
A British Airways plane is thought to have made the fastest ever flight by a conventional airliner from New York to London.
The
Boeing 747-436 made the 3,500-mile transatlantic journey in just 4
hours and 56 minutes, helped by strong tailwinds as Storm Ciara blew in.
The
BA112 flight, which took off from John F Kennedy airport, was scheduled
to land at Heathrow at 6.25am on Sunday but arrived 102 minutes early
at 4.43am.
According to flight tracking website Flightradar24, the
plane was one minute faster than Virgin Atlantic’s flight VS4 which was
due to land around the same time.
The Virgin Airbus A350-1041 made the same flight in four hours and 57 minutes.
BA
said in a statement: “We always prioritise safety over speed records,
but our highly trained pilots made the most of the conditions to get
customers back to London well ahead of time.”
The airline regained
the subsonic record from Norwegian, whose Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner flew
from New York to London Gatwick in five hours and 13 minutes in 2018.
The
quickest transatlantic passenger flight was set by Concorde in 1996 –
which flew at more than twice the speed of sound for a journey of two
hours and 52 minutes.
During the post-debate discussion on MSNBC Chris Matthews starts to worry about the brand of ‘socialism’ now overtaking the Democrat party. The sound quality is not great, but the perspective of Matthews explains the apoplexy within the DNC. WATCH:
It’s likely MSNBC will move to get this video taken down. Alternate version below:
Bill Maher had a very bad week… Because Bill Maher is watching all of the best laid schemes by his Democrat plotters fail. Against the failed impeachment effort; which followed the failed Mueller effort; which followed the failed FBI effort; Bill Maher invites Steve Bannon back onto his HBO show to debate the state of anti-Trump politics.
Bannon draws attention to several hypocrisies including the DNC use of Michael Bloomberg to fund and advance their anti-Trump effort. The Democrats are a hot mess and a hostile takeover by Bernie Sanders looms on the horizon.
According to reports late last year U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr were spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state noted:
“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)
It is interesting that quote comes from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be mounting evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.
To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.
By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as some kind of a western intelligence operative who was tasked to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}
In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Mr. Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.
The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.
One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts, recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress…
However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts to become important.
Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok…. and Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.
In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.
Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.
It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.
Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).
Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}
All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.
International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]
Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).
Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.
All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.
The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.
We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
On Tuesday April 15th, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….
♦The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time.
♦The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.
Why the delay?
What was the DOJ waiting for?
Here’s where it gets interesting….
The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”
(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.
Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.
“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)
Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.
Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.
As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).
As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.
It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.
This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.
Now Watch This Brief Interview:
The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.
The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.
Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.
This Russian “hacking” claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus…. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.
Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual… well, then certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.
The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?
