Archive for william barr

ObamaGate

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on May 13, 2020 by andelino

Obama seems worried about the DOJ dropping the Flynn case, because of what the scandals will reveal about his own “corrupt and treasonous” administration.

As a new presidential election is coming up, and the last time we had one of those, we heard nothing but “Russia, Russia, Russia.” The Democrat media complex spent nearly three years of wall-to-wall coverage trying to convince you that the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia in 2016 to rig the presidential election.

Now that these allegations have been thoroughly “disproved” the journalists are determined never to revisit the subject again.

But two major events that recently occurred are forcing the “truth” back into the spotlight. One has to do with Rep. “Pencil Neck” Adam Schiff, and the other has to do with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

In 2017, Schiff and many other “radical leftists” were telling us through ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other media outlets that they had received “direct evidence” of collusion during “closed-door” congressional hearings.

Last week, Schiff finally released transcripts from these hearings. As it turns out, the testimony given under oath in 2017 tells a much different story from what Schiff and others were falsely telling the media.

James Clapper had been the director of national intelligence for President Barack Obama. In his testimony to Congress, he admitted that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Evelyn Farkas was one of President Obama’s senior defense officials. She appeared on MSNBC in March 2017 and said that information about Trump colluding with Russia existed, and she feared that the new Trump administration would destroy it. She encouraged her former co-workers to leak or spread whatever information they had throughout the intelligence community.

Three months later, however, Farkas was asked under oath what “information” on Trump-Russia collusion she was aware of. “I didn’t know anything,” she said. She just “felt” there was such intelligence out there somewhere.

After hearing all of this sworn testimony three years ago, Adam Schiff stepped in front of news cameras over and again, talking repeatedly about the “evidence” he had against Donald Trump.

Even last week, when Schiff released the transcripts, he said they “richly detail evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to invite, make use of, and cover up Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential election.”

Even when his “lies” are fully exposed, he continues to “lie.”

On the same day Schiff released the transcripts, another big development occurred. The Department of Justice moved to drop its case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

Obama’s FBI had investigated Flynn for alleged illegal ties to Russia. It was ready to close its investigation on Jan. 4, 2017, a couple of weeks before President Trump was inaugurated and Flynn became his national security advisor.

But the investigation was kept open due to the efforts of agent Peter Strzok, acting on orders from the “seventh floor.” Why did the FBI and Department of Justice keep that case open?

What is gradually being revealed in all of this is far bigger than Flynn or the attorney general or the president.

It has now emerged that the Justice Department’s lead prosecutor, Brandon Van Grack, had evidence that actually “cleared” Flynn. Yet when he told the judge that the department had turned over all the evidence to Flynn’s legal team, that “evidence” was withheld.

Why?

In the motion to dismiss charges against Flynn, the Department of Justice attached about 80 pages of exhibits. Exhibit 4 is an FBI 302 document regarding a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting led by Obama in the Oval Office with Vice President Joe Biden and the administration’s top intelligence officials: “Director Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, NSA Director Michael Rogers, National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.”

At the end of the meeting, Obama instructed everyone to leave except Yates and Comey—the two individuals who would be continuing their jobs under incoming President Trump.

According to the FBI document, President Obama himself was very well informed about Flynn’s (perfectly legal) phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. In fact, he was the one who informed Yates about it. “Obama started by saying he had ‘learned of the information about Flynn’ and his conversation with Kislyak about sanctions. At that point, Yates had no idea what the president was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation.”

Why is this significant?

A couple of weeks later, Trump took office and Flynn was appointed. But because it had an investigation open, the FBI was able to interview Flynn in his office at the White House.

What was the purpose of that interview? To set a “perjury” trap! To try to force Flynn to “resign” almost as soon as he was appointed, and to hopefully lead to a “conviction” against him and a “blow” to the new Trump administration.

And it worked.

Attorney General William Barr was blunt last week about the reason the Department of Justice is now withdrawing its case against Flynn. This was “not a legitimate counterintelligence investigation,” he said. The reason the DOJ and the FBI kept the case open was “for the express purpose of trying to … lay a perjury trap.”

Strzok kept the investigation open on orders from the “seventh floor.” That refers to the highest officials of the FBI: including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director Comey himself! Who was over Comey? Yates. And who called both Comey and Yates to the Oval Office and gave them their marching orders immediately prior to the beginning of the Trump administration? “President Barack Obama.”

More and more evidence points to this: The “deep state’s” entrapment of Michael Flynn traces back to “Barack Obama” himself!

The possibility of a sitting president using the nation’s security and intelligence power against his successor is “bombshell” news, no matter who you are or how you look at it. But what has been the media’s reaction to this major news event? Mainstream journalists and other “radical leftists” have not revisited the actual evidence (or lack thereof) against Flynn.

They have instead tried to spin the news cycle into accusations that Barr is subverting “justice” to do President Trump’s bidding.

Obama himself even weighed in over the weekend, saying it was unprecedented for someone “charged with perjury to get off scot-free.” As Prof. Jonathan Turley wrote in response, Obama got it wrong on the charge and on the lack of precedent. But judging by the mainstream news coverage, you’d never know it.

In spite of the incredible power wielded—then and now—by Obama, the deep state and the mainstream media, there are more revelations to come. But from what we are seeing already, it is clear that the “corrupt and treasonous” Obama White House administration is being exposed.

Fearing that recent revelations will reflect badly on his administration Obama has taken to providing talking points directly to his minions rather than filtering them through the usual channels ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, LAT.

That frees these channels up to carry on with the more important news while the Obamabots take to the Twitterverse to  stoke it up with the Obama directed “Orange Man Bad” meme du jour.

What were the former President’s criticisms? For one he called the current administration’s response to the pandemic “an absolute chaotic disaster.”

“And by the way, we’re seeing that internationally as well. It’s part of the reason why the response to this global crisis has been so anemic and spotty. It would have been bad even with the best of governments. It has been an absolute chaotic disaster when that mindset — of ‘what’s in it for me’ and ‘to heck with everybody else’ — when that mindset is operationalized in our government.”

Because, according to the MSM, there was never any chaotic disasters during the Obama years. And then there was this:

“This election that’s coming up on every level is so important because what we’re going to be battling is not just a particular individual or a political party. What we’re fighting against is these long term trends in which being selfish, being tribal, being divided, and seeing others as an enemy — that has become a stronger impulse in American life.”

Yes….. selfish, tribal, divided, and seeing others as an enemy? Smells like “corrupt and treasonous” Obama liberalism to me.

James Comey’s Cuban Exile

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on July 6, 2019 by andelino

James Comey tweeted from his “Paradise Hotel“ in Cuba. He better not to run out of “Yanqui” money during this glorious and “lengthy” Cuban exile.

James Comey’s “Cuban” exile is getting noticeably warmer according to Attorney General William Barr’s intend to examine carefully how and why Comey, as FBI director, decided that the bureau should investigate “two presidential campaigns” and if, in so doing, any “rules or laws” were broken.

In light of this, the “fired” former FBI director apparently has decided that photos of him on Twitter “standing” amid tall trees and in the middle of “empty” country roads, acting all “metaphysical” is no longer a sufficient strategy.

Comey has “realized”, probably too late, that he has to try to “counter”, more directly, the “narrative” being set by the unsparing attorney general whose “briefings” in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week landed in the Trump “opposition” world. Shrieking heads haven’t stopped spinning since.

And so we’ve seen Comey get real “busy” lately. First he penned a curious op-ed “How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Bill Barr” in The New York Times. Then a Times reporter, with whom Comey has “cooperated” in the past, wrote a news article exposing an early, “controversial” investigative technique against the Trump campaign in an attempt to get out front and excuse it.

Next, Comey is scheduled to be encouraged to “share” his story on a friendly cable news town hall two years after Trump “fired” him.

In the op-ed, Comey trotted out his now-familiar St. James “schtick”, freely pronouncing on the “morality” of others. He sees himself as a kind of “Pontiff-of-the-Potomac” working his beads, but comes across more like an unraveling “Captain Queeg” working his ball bearings.

Comey adjudged the president as “amoral.” He declared the attorney general to be “formidable” but “lacking inner strength” unlike — the inference is clear — Comey himself. A strategy of “insulting” the executioner right before he swings his “ax” is an odd one but, then, Comey has a long record of odd “decisions and questionable judgment.”

“Amoral leaders, referring to the president, have a way of revealing the character of those around them,” wrote Comey without a hint of “irony or self-awareness.” Those whom the former FBI director assembled around him probably “rue the day” they ever met the man. Most are now “fired or disgraced” for appalling behaviors that Comey found easy to “manipulate” to advance his decisions.

Then, just to make sure his op-ed was odd-salted to the max, Comey mused that the president “eats your soul in small bites.” OK, let’s step back for a moment: “James Comey appears to be in trouble. His strange, desperate statements and behaviors betray his nervousness and apprehension.” In a way, it’s hard to watch.

Comey will claim that “everything” he did in the FBI was by the book. But after the “investigations” by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Huber, along with Barr’s promised examination, are completed, Comey’s “mishandling” of the FBI and legal processes likely will be fully exposed.

Barr’s examination will “aggregate” information that addresses three “primary” streams.

The first will be whether the investigations into both presidential nominees and the Trump campaign were adequately, in Barr’s words, “predicated.” This means he will examine whether there was sufficient “justification” under existing guidelines for the FBI to have started an “investigation” in the first place.

The Mueller report’s “conclusions” make this a fair question for the “counterintelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign. Comey’s own pronouncement, that the Clinton email case was unprosecutable, makes it a fair question for that investigation.

The second will be whether Comey’s team obeyed long-established investigative “guidelines” while conducting the investigations and, specifically, if there was sufficient, truthful justification to lawfully conduct “electronic surveillance” of an American citizen.

The third will be an examination of whether Comey was unduly “influenced” by political agendas emanating from the Obama White House and its director of “national intelligence, CIA director and attorney general.” This, above all, is what’s causing the 360-degree “head” spins.

There are early indicators that troubling “behaviors” may have occurred in all three scenarios. Barr will want to zero in on a particular area of concern: “the use by the FBI of confidential human sources, whether its own or those offered up by the then-CIA director. “

Without diving into the weeds, it’s important to understand that FBI “counterintelligence” investigations generally proceed sequentially from what is called a “preliminary” investigation or inquiry (PI) to a full investigation (FI). To move from a PI to an FI requires substantial information — “predication” — indicating investigative targets acted as “agents of a foreign power.”

This is “problematic” for Comey in light of Mueller’s findings. There are strict guidelines governing when the FBI can “task” a confidential source or a government undercover operative to “collect” against a U.S. citizen. Normally this is “restricted” to a full investigation, and normally restricted to the United States, not overseas.

There is a sense that Comey’s team was not “checking” the boxes, did not have adequate “predication“, and may have tasked “source” before an investigation was even “officially” opened.  Barr should pull case files and dig in on this.

In addition, the cast of characters leveraged by the FBI against the Trump campaign all appear to have their genesis as CIA sources (“assets,” in agency vernacular) shared at times with the FBI. From Stefan Halper and possibly Joseph Mifsud, to Christopher Steele, to Carter Page himself, and now a mysterious “government investigator” posing as Halper’s assistant and cited in The New York Times article, legitimate questions arise as to whether Comey was manipulated into furthering a CIA political operation more than an FBI counterintelligence case.

Some in the media have suggested that the Times article was an attempt by the FBI to “justify” its early confidential source actions. But current FBI Director Christopher Wray has shown that he would like to “excise” the cancerous tumor that grew during Comey’s time and not just keep smoking. It’s hard to imagine current FBI executives trying to justify past “malfeasance.”

James Comey is right to be apprehensive. He himself ate away at the soul of the FBI, not in small bites but in dangerously large ones. It was a dinner for one, though: “His actions are not indicative of the real FBI.” The attorney general’s comprehensive examination is welcome and, if done honestly and dispassionately, it will protect future presidential candidates of both parties and redeem the valuable soul of the FBI.

%d bloggers like this: