Exit 2017: same as the entrance

For my last post of the year, it was a dilemma. Should I write about Hillary? She was supposed to be off stage in nowhere but she crashed into 2017 and squatted like Occupy Wall St and won’t leave, even when her supporters tire of her.

Should it be about Obama? He was supposed to be out of office yet resurfaces every time there is any blame to hand out. so he can attack Trump. I guess he did evolve from blaming Bush to blaming Trump. He’s like a terrible movie with a lousy ending. Plus we have the ghost of Obama and shadowy operations popping up everywhere.

Speaking of never ending, I could do something about Nancy Pelosi since there is endless material. She also refuses to get out even when the base demands new leaders. The left can find all kinds of reasons to terminate babies but can’t get rid of old leaders. They want to “flip states” but not leaders.

Well, then there is Trump who the left is trying everything they can to get off the stage. So the guys who can’t get their decades-old people out suddenly can’t stomach a new guy on the block who rocks their world.

Or maybe I could follow NYT lead who, for the last days of the year, did a story about George Papadopoulos. A story of a drunk popping off his mouth about Russia having Clinton emails. (which they probably couldn’t have had if she didn’t have a private server). By telling someone, it was relayed to intelligence a few months later, which started the investigation on Trump. Of course this was based on credible but anonymous sources. (wink-nod) When FBI or Mueller wants a story out, it gets out. But when Congress wants information from FBI, we get stonewalled and can’t get it.

What is wrong with that story? Start with the reason for it is to create a justification for the investigation in the first place. To divert from the dirty dossier. In turn, that should tell us where it came from and why. This is an attempt to substantiate this whole investigation. I know, blame it on the 3rd rate dunk guy, one who lied to the FBI. So the FBI fell for the old drunk guy in a bar routine. Yeah, ‘A justifying we will go!’

Others believed that the possibility of a compromised presidential campaign was so serious that it warranted the most thorough, aggressive tactics. Even if the odds against a Trump presidency were long, these agents argued, it was prudent to take every precaution.

That included questioning Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was compiling the dossier alleging a far-ranging Russian conspiracy to elect Mr. Trump. A team of F.B.I. agents traveled to Europe to interview Mr. Steele in early October 2016. Mr. Steele had shown some of his findings to an F.B.I. agent in Rome three months earlier, but that information was not part of the justification to start an counterintelligence inquiry, American officials said.

Ultimately, the F.B.I. and Justice Department decided to keep the investigation quiet, a decision that Democrats in particular have criticized. And agents did not interview Mr. Papadopoulos until late January.

They are desperate now — the closer we all look — to justify how this investigation came about and on what grounds. They certainly don’t want it justified on a dirty dossier from Russians by a campaign op-research, paid for by the DNC and campaign, while collaborating with the FBI and intelligence. The article tells us it isn’t. (whether they meant to or not) Until we find out later it was.

Last week they talked about McCain’s associate who brought the dossier back to give it to the FBI. But they had to admit the FBI already had that information in installments as Steele composed it. Oh, but now a drunk guy in a bar is the one who sparked the whole investigation. Right. To top it off, how many times already have we either been lied to or deceived? I lost count.

Well, we don’t have to believe it. This is only their latest explanation for an ill-conceived investigation that is way out of control, and likely based on political motives.

So finish off the year the way they started it, with the BS meter pegged to the max. Funny they are finally getting around to justifying this witch hunt — or desperately trying to. About a year late in even attempting that.

Happy New Years to an MSM that should be ashamed of themselves!

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

It’s a strange swamp, Master Jack

We have now reached the point where I have to say that hearings on oversight of the DOJ and Mueller’s rogue operation can be called triggering. On both sides.

Yes, I said it. Dems prove they are triggered just having hearings of Rosenstein. I have my own problems with it that cause frustration and raise my anger to new levels. But Democrats were triggered even before the hearings.

Then Democrats question the fact that we have lost trust in the FBI in particular and the DOJ in general. But not really. They only claim the service of thousands of agents is noble and that, I suppose, we should appreciate their service. That is not the point.

If the entire agency is saddled with this ‘corrupted’ leadership, what good is all that? Seems it is a hard time for FBI and big-government liberals who usually defend it. The problem is this rotting stench coming from the top of the agency diminishes their ‘professional’ service.

We are in strange times. What better illustration of the times than this.

Crazy is Democrats using basic anti-discrimination policy to defend blatant political discrimination and bias within a government agency. They seem to want to give a pass to the political bias that has been exposed in DOJ and the investigations of Trump and Hillary. But the bias only goes one way.

So if anti-discrimination policy can now be used for the very reason to be biased and discriminate, we are in a strange place. But they did almost the same thing with Lois Lerner and the IRS. Radicals and Deep State bureaucrats don’t just wear their biases on their sleeve for all to see, but now they want to use political bias as the justification.

Being triggered like Dems are, especially at the loss of the election and Trump’s victory, they are expected to use the full weight of their bias against the president and his administration. In short, that is what they are there for and what their bias is for. Then they use the bias for what they did as the defense for what they did. Political motives rule.

In that light, I guess hearings about such topics and agenda could be triggering. The culture of bias at the top taints all else, because it is meant to. So don’t worry about Mueller’s investigation being corrupted, it was created by and a byproduct of political corruption.

Right Ring | Bullright

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)

Comey, Comey… Mueller’s homie

Is there a nutjob in the house?

The People’s Pundit Daily

Comey and the Clinton Email Case: The Untold Inside Story

May 11, 2017

Mr. Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump Tuesday on recommendations from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, claimed the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information was “unanimous.”

However, multiple sources not only told PPD the decision wasn’t unanimous, but also that the former director undercut their investigation from start to finish.

“Comey was never an investigator or agent. Special agents are trained and were insulted that Comey included them in his artificial ‘we,’” one agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity said. “To suggest all agreed there was not enough to prosecute, was misleading. It’s false. Trained investigators agreed that there was more than enough. He stood in the way.

The story told to PPD must be retold in the proper context…./

See https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2017/05/11/fbi-james-comey-clinton-email-case-untold-inside-story/

Context is everything. Interesting also that Comey and Mueller are best of friends and it is unanimously praised. That’s like David Axelrod being independent about Obama.

Normally, that is what you’d call a Huge Conflict of Interest. Yet even among the 535 members of the cesspool in DC, no one finds this fraternal friendship problematic and praised the selection of an unbiased “Special Counsel.”

Even in the media, no one seems to find it troubling. Instead, they celebrate the fact that the two good friends go way back, personally and professionally. Cosa Nostra comes to mind. Maybe we ought to subpoena all the correspondence — writings and otherwise — between the two?