The Post Facto Coverup

I apologize for yet another rant, though I like to call them op-eds on the current state of liberaldom. And the current state is disgusting.

I have a little familiarity with language but that fails when it comes to describing what is going on. As is my usual argument about liberalism, perception is reality — being that perception is what they live in.

I am continually amazed how far they will go to either assert that perception as fact or in denying the reality around them. Such is the liberal animal though, since it is a creature of habit and habitiat, driven by its ideology. The other chief tool is projecting on opponents their own exact faults and abuses. The failures of what they do either do not exist in their minds or are just more opportunities to obfuscate the truth.

You know the saying that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” but there isn’t enough sunshine at the equator to disinfect this corruption from the left. No, I’m not buying that excuse that both sides do it and one side didn’t create all this. We see where the corruption is rolling like a river from.

And you might say, “but you are not being objectively fair.” That’s the problem with the left, I do have a bias for good reasons and don’t pretend to be an impartial tool. And most liberals don’t have an ounce of objectivity. They pride themselves on being biased. They demand objectivity from everyone else.

So we have an investigation into Trump over Russia. But a dossier with information from Russian operatives was assembled to use against him.

Here’s the line the left uses: if Mueller is removed it creates a Constitutional crisis. But the Special Counsel investigation itself created a Constitutional crisis. We don’t have to worry about an investigation getting corrupted, it was born of corruption — what else could it be?

We’re getting to the real point, the obvious mission of the investigation. First, it was started in search of a justification. But that is not the problem now. We see what the whole thing really is: the purpose of the investigation is a cover up for what went on. It is a giant cover up operation for the mass politicization and corruption of the DOJ and FBI.

Now the whole Trump campaign that evolved into the transition of President-elect Trump has been pilfered by Mueller. It is an investigation of the whole apparatus.

Let’s be clear that this is an investigation of a campaign and the election. We have the loser colluding with government against the president — as they did during the campaign. What we had even before the investigation is government targeting a president. And it continues. There is not enough sunlight to sanitize this. We know what is going on, from warrantless searches to surveillance of a candidate/campaign, however falsely they justified it.

Then we have one more interesting thing. I complained back in the campaign about the way they treated Trump. And I was outraged by their branding him with names. Remember former CIA director, Mike Morell went to media to write an op-ed attack on Trump, using his years in intelligence as his credentials for it — to add a certification of legitimacy for his charges. He called Trump an unwitting agent of a foreign government. That was akin to treason. Obama also followed that similar track.

Update, the same Mike Morell comes out to apologize for getting it wrong saying they reacted badly. Sorry, not really! It was the half-hearted dance the liberal bastards do when their heads are in a vice. See how he morphs a feigned apology into pointing the finger of blame… but on Trump: The Hill

Michael Morell, the former Acting Director of the CIA, recently confessed that maybe it was a mistake for himself, the former chief of the CIA and NSA, Gen. Michael Hayden, and the then-Director of the CIA, John Brennan, to criticize candidate Donald Trump. He admitted that he failed to understand how Trump would interpret their campaign criticism, which is pretty damning coming from someone who briefed presidents on how foreign leaders think.

Of course, Morell didn’t cop to his behavior, saying, “So, I don’t think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn’t think about at the time … I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.” [more]

Wait, he does not apologize saying it was “not a mistake”. Mike just didn’t “think through the implications” — the implications of politicizing intelligence and calling someone a traitor. The problem is he knew exactly what he was doing then. But the new revelations of biases would taint what he did so he’s trying to duck and cover it.

He didn’t know how Trump would respond to that? I don’t know, how do you respond to be called a foreign agent of an enemy? How do you respond to government and intelligence conspiring against you? If Hillary would have won, that would be the end of it. Success. No need to ever mention it again. Don’t even pull the knife from the victim, just let him lay there. I have a special contempt for Morell after what he did. So the problem was how Trump interpreted it?

But what Morel took part in, and helped cause, was real damage. Even apologizing now would never undo any of that. In fact, they get to have it both ways — just like Clinton defenders — because they got to do their political attacks and benefited from them. Now they are still reaping all the benefits of the false attacks. Except they want to be excused for what they did.

That brings it back to the investigation. Never mind the faulty premises or the conflicted political biases, or the illegalities involved. Never mind spending a year beating on the results of the election with a sludge hammer. Never mind what the last administration did, or what the other candidate did in the process of “democracy.” Never mind the sheer corruption and bias involved across government.

Finally, never mind that this whole thing has been a cover up and a diversion from focusing on the real corruption that ran rampant for 8 years. They needed a scapegoat and a whipping post. Never mind what this cover up of corruption does to democracy. Yet they had the nerve to complain that Trump was somehow threatening or destroying democracy, “as democracy was under attack.” There is no undoing what they did, or turning back.

Right Ring | Bullright

Mike Morell’s divert and attack road show

Mike Morell, Clinton confidante, is back out on the trail. Speaking about the Russian involvement and hacks in the election, their favorite subject:

Breitbart
TEL AVIV – Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, is generating headlines for claiming that alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election amounts to “the political equivalent of 9/11.”

“It is an attack on our very democracy,” Morell said. “It’s an attack on who we are as a people. A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this 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.”

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/14/mike-morell-cited-in-russia-hacking-stories-crafted-misleading-benghazi-talking-points/

So he calls it a 9/11 even after his involvement in the memo rewriting Benghazi attack.

Benghazi black hole

Not much has changed since these clips.

Oh, “the kind of insanity we’re dealing with.”


The outrage goes on. Boehner, complicit or just complacent?

Did CIA’s Mike Morell Lie Under Oath About Changing the Benghazi Talking Points?

April 2, 2014

After former acting CIA Director Mike Morell testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he is the one who changed the Benghazi talking points, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) renewed her call for a select committee to investigate the attack. She suggested that Morell either lied to senators shortly after the attack, or lied during his testimony today.

4 Dead in Benghazi
“Should have been done long ago.”
“How can you run when you know?”

What will it take?
 

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor

Published: 15:09 EST, 22 April 201 | Daily Mail UK

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

More: Dailymail.co.UK
 

Hillary Clinton Cancels Appearance Where Benghazi Victim’s Mom, Protestors Await

April 4, 2014

Hillary Clinton was the planned keynote speaker at the 17th Annual Western Healthcare Leadership Academy in San Diego on April 11 – but she’s cancelled her visit in the midst of planned protests from San Diego locals and military families.

Protestors organized by “The Difference Matters” do not want the former U.S. Secretary of State to come because of Clinton’s role in the Benghazi scandal.

What difference, at this point, does it make?”
How can you run when you know?