Russia Probe Non-Statement: Swamp Update

In probably a desperate act of relevancy, the Senate Intelligence committee announced Wednesday it would hold a press conference on the Russian inquiry into the 2016 election.


‘No evidence, but we’re still looking, looking, looking. We’ve got lots of doors — ones not closed or locked by Special counsel anyway — and we continue to search.’ But they cannot give up the ghost of the 2016 election witch hunt. ‘But we’re “expanding” it’.

There was no new information and virtually no answers. Why they even had to hold it, I don’t know? On the day and time Trump went to Las Vegas to visit victims, they had to hold a press conference. I once had a little respect for Sen Burr, but that is long gone. What a putz he turned out to be.

So they made news for not making any news, except to verify that they allow the Mueller witch hunt investigation to hold our government hostage. I’d like to know where in the Constitution that a special counsel is to control Congress?

The only big question answered was whether they would release questionable Russia Facebook ads? The answer was: “we don’t release documents provided to our committee.” They could have just issued a statement. Maybe they could remind leftville media that the electorate determines election results, not ads. Media doesn’t know.

All I know is that this is not the government we elected. We’d like that government returned to us ASAP.

They should have called this as a Swamp Update or an “Update from the Swamp.”

Advertisements

Big Picture, Big Story

After Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation comes this second installment.

I think this is a big story. And I think Trump was right that it is a big story, bigger than people know. Home run, we got us a story here.

Obama NSC Adviser Admits Seeking Trump Aides Identities in Intel Reports

Rice denies engaging in improper political spying
BY: Bill Gertz | September 19, 2017 | Washington Free Beacon

Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a House committee this month she requested the identities of Trump transition aides that were hidden in sensitive intelligence reports to protect Americans’ privacy rights.

Rice testified before a closed session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Sept. 6 that she asked U.S. intelligence agencies for the names of Trump advisers to be unmasked in transcripts of communications intercepts.

Rice asked for names to be unmasked in a transcript of an electronic intercept involving a meeting between three senior Trump aides and a United Arab Emirates official who had traveled to the United States for an informal visit.

The three officials included candidate Donald Trump’s national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn; presidential campaign chief executive Steve Bannon; and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, according to CNN, which first reported on Rice’s closed-door testimony.

Details of Rice’s testimony on the unmasking of Trump aides were made public Sept. 14, quoting unidentified government sources, and included comments from members of Congress who did not dispute the closed-door testimony.

Rice’s disclosures before the intelligence panel appear to contradict earlier statements she made asserting that she had no knowledge of the unmasking of Americans, the process of identifying the names of Americans who are protected by privacy laws and who are incidentally spied on during sensitive foreign electronic intelligence operations. …/

“I think the Susan Rice thing is a massive story. I think it’s a massive, massive story. All over the world,” Trump said, adding cryptically, “it’s a bigger story than you know.”

Rice’s testimony before the House committee is part of a committee investigation into allegations of improper intelligence gathering by the Obama administration, as well as Russian influence operations targeting the 2016 election.

“We know the unmasking investigation is moving forward, and that the intel committee has amassed a lot of information about it,” said one congressional official. “It seems like you had Obama officials doing this and thinking they wouldn’t get caught.”

Read: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-nsc-adviser-admits-seeking-trump-aides-identities-intel-reports/

Maybe we knew or heard most of that before. The difference is context. No, it isn’t in the reporting or events. It seems the momentum has changed. Now, with Rice’s testimony, it is hard to overlook the obvious: that there was some surveillance at Trump Tower and that the names were suspiciously unmasked around the events of the campaign. So there was a meeting with a Saudi prince, which supposedly tripped Rice’s trigger to have to know everyone who was there. Or that is her excuse. Why? Your guess.

They only know everyone that was there, who is masked, because of surveillance. It is so blatantly political you cannot deny it, even if you wanted to. Then Rice refuses to say why she needed to know, saying it would involve classified information. If this is not worthy of investigation — why they were worried about all this — then what is worthy to know?

And now the people know too. See what changed was we were not supposed to get caught up in the how or why they got the information. We were just supposed to hear it trickled out from the Obama perspective, unquestioned. We were supposed to concentrate on their intentional outcome — not the means to it. Get it?

That makes all this smell more like the set up that it is. My explanation:

Maybe this investigation was loosely planned or not? At the least, the information was supposed to come out, somehow, at some point, to make Trump look bad. But it was to be by slight of hand, then passed right through so we couldn’t really question where it came from or how. Then we would be so busy in looking at its implications on Trump, shocked, to be bothered with the questionable means and/or their motives.

This, I believe, was cooked up some time ago. Before or right after election makes little difference. It may have been the ‘just in case plan.’ (JICP) Call it an insurance policy. In fact, they could have discovered enough info on the way they thought could be useful blackmail material. Maybe not a lot, just enough to cause major discomfort, or at least keep people answering questions as a distraction or diversion. But any information found along the way could be useful. The damage is in how the information is used, not whether it is damning or not. That is the weaponizing part. The time and purpose they used it for, the goal, would be up to them. But we would not be able to track down exactly where the information came from — not for a long time with a lot of effort.

That is where there was a problem. It didn’t unfold just the way it was supposed to. When Trump shot off a tweet about being wiretapped at the Trump Tower, it was like a canon going off around the world. We didn’t know why that was such a big deal, since it was obvious to most of us that there was some type of surveillance around Trump and the Trump Tower. We knew enough already. Maybe we didn’t know how deep it went, or who was involved, but we knew it took place. It interrupted the plot. Any incoming Republican would have faced the same thing.

Their problem was Trump pulled the trigger calling it out, untimely as it was, which set off a sequence of events and reactions to his accusation. That began the ball rolling, even though they mocked and attacked him for having said it.

He was not to be so bold as make that claim. It didn’t fit their plans. Then, surely, no one was supposed to believe it anyway. So it went on for weeks, as they tried to put Trump’s charge to bed quickly and permanently. (they: Democrats, Left, media and Obamafiles) It mostly did work; they tamped it down where only people brought it up to mock Trump’s ridiculous assertion. even demanding apologies. That started to screw things up.

That was about the time we were hearing Obama was traveling the globe and kite surfing somewhere in the Caribbean. So statements came out from Ben Rhodes and others calling wiretapping preposterous. But why wouldn’t Obama and his cronies be willing to spy on Trump, especially after he won, when they had been willing to do most anything during the campaign to aid Hillary? Why stop now when it is even more critical to them?

SO their loose plans were interrupted, inconveniently. And they couldn’t put the lid back on it. Suddenly the public outrage kicked up saying ‘wait a minute, he was under some kind of surveillance.’ We already knew that much. Remember how nasty they got in denials?

Now people were questioning the means of the information, not just whether Trump did something. Ah oh. People wanted that investigated with the other. Well, that wasn’t in the script at all. Actually, that was the one thing that could not be worked into their script. It messed everything up when it looks as if there was some agenda all along against Trump. No, they wanted us to only see a Russia agenda. (just as they did during the campaign.)

Anything else was very inconvenient. Must demonize Trump. Put him down and keep him down. Delegitimize him. But do not expose their creative, political, informational techniques. It usually does come down to narrative to the left. When they can control the narrative, they are ahead. But interrupt or change their narrative, they have a problem.

This was a big shift exposing the corrupt means, machinery, behind their Russia narrative. Like in Wizard of Oz, we weren’t supposed to see that part. That changes their whole story line. We were supposed to see the what, not the how or why. It blew up their plot.

The same applies to the Mueller and company. The investigation was to justify itself. The fact that they got a special counsel established — not the how or why — was supposed to convey legitimate authority for it and perception of “must be some wrong doing” then. Democrats and media touted that it exists therefore is justified — or else it wouldn’t.

The same rules, or lack of, also applied to Manafort’s no-knock raid. “If they got that warrant then it was justified.” If FISA or any judge issued it, there were legitimate grounds. And we certainly need not know why. The process is supposed to justify itself.

The same faulty premises applied to the surveillance. If there was surveillance, then obviously it must have been (a)legal and (b) justified by its existence alone. Never mind the reason. Which, in the case of Democrats, an outgoing president, a radicalized administration and party, after a terrible election loss, is entirely questionable.

Especially if the entire basis for said investigation is due to Democrats losing the election — or Trump winning. Never mind all the shenanigans that happened repeatedly on the left.

Therefore, it makes it easy for them to say any surveillance would have to be justified — or it wouldn’t have happened. See this is the way of using the process, corrupted as it is, to justify all their misconduct. That process and their creativity using it, is not to be questioned in any way, according to Dems. ‘Trust us.’ Then, as a backdoor guardian, if anyone can explain or sell this way of thinking, it would be media — their chief ally.

Meanwhile, let’s also pretend not to have noticed what is really taking place in front of us: the complete litigation of the election and outcome of it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation

Mueller Scorches the Earth

by Andrew C. McCarthy September 23, 2017 | National Review

His pre-dawn raid was meant to intimidate Manafort, not just to collect evidence. Robert Mueller’s sprawling special-counsel investigation is playing hardball. It was not enough to get a search warrant to ransack the Virginia home of Paul Manafort, even as the former Trump campaign chairman was cooperating with congressional investigators. Mueller’s bad-asses persuaded a judge to give them permission to pick the door lock. That way, they could break into the premises in the wee hours, while Manafort and his wife were in bed sleeping. They proceeded to secure the premises — of a man they are reportedly investigating for tax and financial crimes, not gang murders and Mafia hits — by drawing their guns on the stunned couple, apparently to check their pajamas for weapons.

Mueller’s probe more resembles an empire, with 17 prosecutors retained on the public dime. So . . . what exactly is the crime of the century that requires five times the number of lawyers the Justice Department customarily assigns to crimes of the century? No one can say. The growing firm is clearly scorching the earth, scrutinizing over a decade of Manafort’s shady business dealings, determined to pluck out some white-collar felony or another that they can use to squeeze him. You are forgiven if you can recall only vaguely that supposition about Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage against the 2016 election was the actual explanation for Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. To the extent there was any explanation, that is. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, did not comply with the regulations requiring a description of the crimes Trump’s Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate, purportedly necessitating a quasi-independent special counsel.

The way it’s supposed to work, the Justice Department learns of a crime, so it assigns a prosecutor. To the contrary, this Justice Department assigned a prosecutor — make that: 17 hyper-aggressive prosecutors — and unleashed them to hunt for whatever crime they could find. …/

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451649/robert-mueller-special-counsel-investigation-manafort

 
So it is an investigation in search of a crime. More, it is an investigation seeking to justify itself — job #1. See justification of itself and its conduct is the central mission. The rest is collateral. And to do that by or using any means necessary.  Whatever it takes.

Interestingly enough, someone else has also described Mueller’s operation as building another DOJ. That gives me pause, it sure seems that way. Just what we need, another department of justice, or injustice as the case may be.

Now if it were up to me to try to explain this investigation(no one is better than McCarthy), this would only be my starting point. The how and why is another matter.

In the meantime, just imagine if they tried this on Clinton. Oops, no they never would even think of it. But there would be no major Special Counsel “investigation” anyway.

(next)

Finally someone said it

A Ban On Muslims Is An Excellent Security Option

Posted on June 20, 2017 – True Pundit

I adopted two infants from Korea and am the grandson of Italian immigrants — so why would I want to ban Muslims from immigrating to this wonderful, accepting nation? The short answer is that, “Immigration minus assimilation equals segregation and eventually invasion.” Think about it.

Let me get the obvious out of the way. Not all Muslims are terrorists, or support terrorism, but most good Muslims cannot be good Americans and still follow their beliefs.

See more at: http://truepundit.com/a-ban-on-muslims-is-an-excellent-security-option/#sthash.wkjl4Kdy.dpuf

Comey Day turns to Comey Day Down

Its billing was “must see” but its reality was seeing does not equate to belief.

I could have made a long, textual post no one would care to read, but no one could indict Comey’s credibility better than he did all by himself. Comey goes to the Senate.

There was an impeachment on Thursday in the Senate…
an impeachment of Comey’s character.

The guy displays all that is wrong with our government. He plotted by political motives all the way along, and then sought to manipulate the entire process for his self-relevant gain.

The best part is that he was fired but even that didn’t temper his manipulative scheme or enthusiasm for relevancy. He is the consummate disgruntled employee now. For Comey, going postal means getting up in the middle of the night to plot leaking information to try to take down a sitting president.

Leakers everywhere must be toasting Jim’s motivation, creativity and persistence.

Comey, as we see in living color, is not the textbook example of a man of character but a compromised man of self-serving character, swimming in a sea of politicized government of Obama. Even his adept lies were not enough to mitigate his character flaws. Emotional yes.

Okay, I’ll mention just one statement:

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it important to document.” – Comey on his memo.

Note how he refers to his “honest” emotions and Trump’s deceitful nature. But what is the nature of a teed off government bureaucrat?

He claimed the reason he just had to leak was to get a special counsel to investigate. An investigation that would ‘hopefully’ put him — and his memos — smack in the middle of. An investigation where he could apply his vast, crisis-creating chasing experience and talents, aided by a special counsel who was a long time friend. What could go wrong?

In a Twilight Zone episode, it might be described something like this:

“A man who sought to be the leading influencer of an investigation finds himself at the center of controversy in the investigation. Tables turn as he must now justify his own motives by trying to impugn the motives of everyone else. Stay tuned as best schemes sometimes do not work out just the way you plotted planned them. …
I give you: ‘The Irony of a Government Bureaucrat’.”

RightRing | Bullright – 6/11/17

Burned on intel security deal

Probably people reading here would have heard some of this info before. But it is put together in a good article from AIM’s Cliff Kincaid.

Follow the intel trail of the CIA and its latest IT expansion. Just happening to award the contract to Bezos’ company over IBM, in spite of charging 54 million more than its big-blue competitor. The swamp has expanded.

The Washington Post, Amazon, and the Intelligence Community

by Cliff Kincaid on March 13, 2017 | AIM

One of The Washington Post’s big disclosures on Sunday was a front-page story about President Donald Trump’s choice of a cemetery. It was the latest contribution from reporter David A. Fahrenthold, whose job it is to probe every aspect of the life of the new President, no matter how esoteric and trivial. On the other hand, when it comes to covering the paper’s owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and his ties to the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA), the paper is AWOL. …/

Read http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-washington-post-amazon-and-the-intelligence-community/

So, in view of all that, I’d say they need to either reopen that clouded bid or just cancel it outright and transfer the contract to IBM. I would trust them a lot more with this intel security than the Bezos startup. (and I’m not a big IBM fan) Deep State scored, bigly.

This cannot stand. We the people know when we’ve been burned, when we see it.

At the very least, where the hell are the hearings about it, the investigation, and the protest over conflict of interest? But then the company used the fact that it had this contract to further line its pockets and boost its credibility. Where’s the outrage?

I’m pretty sure there is even more filth and connections there than he touched on.

Who’s Your Prosecutor

The goring and gnashing of the establishment teeth has begun, using the special counsel, Robert Muller, to do it. It’s time for revenge.

A career guy and former FBI Director who has worked under both sides, celebrated as impeccably neutral on both sides of the isle.

Precisely, an Establishment figure both sides respect says it all. This is now their establishment guy, no doubt about it.

Beginning Of The Rest Of The Story

The first rule of the WH should be “Our WH policy is not to comment or conjecture on pending investigations.” — ‘Investigations have their course and we have ours.

2nd rule: Do not compound the injuries.

I believe all this investigatory fog is a deflection from Hillary’s and Obama’s trail of scandals. The Left has pushed all that aside. They are obsessed with no room left.

The official age of establishment cynicism has arrived.

Oh, so we went from an establishment consensus of the first unimpeachable president in history for Obama, to having the most impeachable president in history.

RightRing | Bullright

State of Deep Denial and Defiance

The Democrats want to impeach the campaign and candidacy of Donald Trump. That’s what this is all about. It’s about the campaign, stupid.

Forget the Russian hacking, the Left has stolen our election from us. You remember the one last November? And I’d like to see the investigation over that.

The Left also stole the concept: we were and are the resistance. That and Trump’s election is exactly why we see the response from the entire establishment across the spectrum, aiming its guns on Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, there is a complete shadow government combined with Deep State focused on Trump.

It’s no secret, the Democrats wanted Comey gone for what he did to Hillary alone. Trump fires him, Dems jeer and then use Comey as grounds to impeach Trump. I have to check if the earth is still orbiting the sun or has their “Mother Earth” just gone rogue?

Meanwhile, the left issued a new dictum that Republicans cannot bring Obama and his legacy of lies, scandals or Hillary into the discussion. Take Obama and Hillary off the table? How convenient this web of deceit is.

However, scrubbing Obama and Hillary creates the convenient excuse to mention Nixon in every conversation. That is when they aren’t gossiping about Russia and Putin.

A fired Comey is suddenly the center stage character in this soap opera. How’s that figure? Discredited director Comey instantly has unimpeachable credibility. Beam me up, Scotty.

All while Obama writes and edits his Memoirs from Hell. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary Clinton have get out of jail free cards from media. So Obama’s official tenure of blame has ended. A new phase of blame has begun.

RightRing | Bullright

Unnecessary Senate intelligence press conference

The Senate committee announced their ongoing investigation into all things Russia in a press conference. That comes as media and Democrats went on jihad against the Congressional intelligence committee. Certainly no coincidence. Senators Burr and Warner turned on the media charm by taking questions. (or charm offensive)

[CSPAN]We”thought that it was time for our first public update of the Senate investigation into Russian involvement in the elections,” Burr said. Let me just say that we cannot say enough what the mission of the Senate committee is: which is to look at all activities that Russia might have taken to alter or influence the 2016 elections in the United States.

In addition to that, the mission of the committee is to look at any campaign contacts from either committee with Russian government, with Russian government officials that might have in any way influenced shape or form the election process. We take that very seriously, it’s not something that can be done quickly and, when you look at our committee, it is in fact our oversight role that we function in every single day. This is just on a little larger scale.

For those that might think or have suggested that this is outside our expertise, let me remind you that the last public investigation that we did was the Senate investigation into Benghazi. We devoted tree professional staff into that investigation. It took one year and, in comparison to the public hearings that happened in the House, our report [came out] much quicker than what they were and I think are consistent with, in fact, what the House process looked like at the end.”

(Oops, for a minute there I thought he was going to say investigation into Obama. No attempt to upstage the House investigations there. Under the bus they go. )

But what did we learn? Next to nothing. They appeared to be saying “hey, look at us…. we’re the real investigating agency here.” Oh, and then they went into their dramatic prose about how big this investigation event is. Historical. Just the way we like to see an investigation formally kicked off, telling us how monumentally important their endeavor is. Then they praised their own skill and accomplishment — to contrast with the debacle media turned the Congressional investigation into.

Well, I only have one question that supersedes all others. If the Inspector Clouseau’s of the Senate are so good, proper and excellent, then what happened to their integrity and efforts over the last eight years? That is like praising Comey’s credibility — who is doing his own sequestered investigation, which he announced.

I’ll agree that, in the zero-sum game, last week’s coverage over Nunez teed up the confidence coup for the Senate to extort. Like it or not, it is a zero-sum process.

Since we are in a state of Constitutional constipation, and everything is so unprecedented serious and outrageous now, where was all that unprecedented work over the last eight years? I’m still waiting for the investigations into what was going on in the DOJ, IRS, EPA, and the State Department that approved uranium rights to Russia. Time constraints?

Do you smell what the elites in the Senate are cooking?

Now they grandstand on the duties and their self-anointed integrity. “You can trust us.” Well, then Burr went the additional yardage in saying that they would not be doing a witch hunt. So with these great investigators the right couldn’t even manage to provide a decent witch hunt, even for entertainment, in the last eight years. And what they did with/to Benghazi? Forget-about-it. Case closed.

Now we are in prime time Constitutional constipation to restore our confidence in their deliberate and orchestrated processes. (Sigh, dramatic eye-roll) The record be damned, full-speed ahead. Remember during Benghazi, the investigation was the problem. And it did not get widespread cooperation. It’s what the left and media attacked.

And if everyone stretched out Benghazi for so long — through mid-terms and into the next election cycle — how long can they stretch this out?

RightRing | Bullright

Ying and Yang on Obama vs. Trump

At this point, all reporting by mainstream media must be questioned. There is no benefit of belief. Disbelief is the instinctive reaction for much of the public.

No wonder Trump took a pass on the WH Correspondents’ Dinner. Good move.

Just over a week ago McCabe told Reince Priebus that reporting on Russia was wrong. Remember they raised questions about Priebus even asking the FBI or Comey to help correct the record about the claims.

But James Comey and the FBI said they could not or would not do anything to correct those reports. And they said they would have no comment about it.

Here is a subsequent NYT report (Feb 23) on the details

WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official said late Thursday.

The official said Priebus’ request came after the FBI told the White House it believed a New York Times report last week describing those contacts was not accurate. As of Thursday, the FBI had not stated that position publicly and there was no indication it planned to.

The New York Times reported that U.S. agencies had intercepted phone calls last year between Russian intelligence officials and members of Trump’s 2016 campaign team.

Priebus’ discussion with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sparked outrage among some Democrats, who said he was violating policies intended to limit communications between the law enforcement agency and the White House on pending investigations.

“The White House is simply not permitted to pressure the FBI to make public statements about a pending investigation of the president and his advisers,” said Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. …/

The FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report.

Forward to Trump’s accusations of Obama’s administration wiretapping the Trump Tower. The president suggests it, then they demand proof in unison. Yawn.

So they have no proof of collusion with Russia over hacking into emails, ostensibly to “influence our election.” But they go on talking about it as if it were so.

Then we have these reports on the surveillance and investigation of Trump over many months now. Yet as soon as Trump questions that it is dismissed as if there is nothing there. We know it was going on. There was an ongoing investigation, right?

For media, how can they complain that there is no wiretapping surveillance issue at the very time they don’t question the existence on the Russian claims. Now Clapper goes out to say there was no FISA warrant and no evidence of collusion, of Trump’s campaign, with the Russians. Why are we still investigating and taking the collusion as if it were established? Yet they decline to take seriously the wiretap, surveillance claims. Really?

As to Comey, he cannot correct media reports about the collusion claims. But as soon as wiretap claims were leveled, he demands DOJ correct them, then does it himself. His reason was to protect the integrity of the FBI. Again, really? He says he is “incredulous” at the accusation. Within weeks he does two completely opposite things.

Apparently he doesn’t care about the integrity of the presidency. I can’t imagine that going on under Obama. I suppose, in that case, the public would have a right to know. He did come out to make statements clearing Hillary. Now, we don’t have a reason to know that a presidential campaign or members of it were under surveillance. When is it illegal to speak to Russians or their diplomat anyway?

In NRO Andrew McCarthy states about wiretaps that:

A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) Read more

All right, how would they investigate the Russian connections (or lack thereof) without some sort of surveillance? Couple that with a former CIA chief back in August endorsing Hillary Clinton. He used his intelligence credentials to brandish this op-ed claim:

“In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

Coincidentally, that is the same definition used in a FISA court that a person is either a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

He closed with this prescient note: “My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now.”

He lent his expertise and experience as the justification for saying this about Trump and endorsing Hillary. Using that word “agent” of Russian Federation is significant. When have you ever heard a candidate called that, with no proof? All based on his professional career, so he claimed. That was a few months before the supposed wiretap.

They use the bio: “Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.”

The same Mike Morell equated the Russian hacking with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And as Breitbart reported, he now works for Philip Reines, longtime Clinton aide and loyalist. Let’s also remember that Morell was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.

The investigation report on Benghazi determined, in contradiction to Morell’s and Obama officials’ claims, “the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department” — whatever Morell claimed.

“These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then secretary of state Clinton. These allegations are false,” Morell said.

So the report directly contradicts what he said in testimony.

He recently told a reporter in December that:

“To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this [Russia hacking] is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”

Then they also injected the story about a dossier of BS that threw in all kinds of claims. That made its way into presidential briefings, of Obama and Trump, claiming it involved blackmailable info. So they back fed an unsubstantiated report (political op-research) into intelligence, with the help of McCain dropping it on FBI’s doorstep. Then it was surfaced to the top of intelligence, into the PDB.

Think, the Obama administration had wiretapped (*correction: subpoenaed phone records) James Rosen and his family’s phones. So far, many officials have said there is nothing showing proof Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. Yet nothing prevents Democrats and some in the media from saying that Russia hacked or interfered with the election, when there is no proof of either. Then insinuating that it is connected to Trump.

RightRing | Bullright