Kevin Shipp is a former CIA Officer. Why should you care? I found an interview in which Shipp is confidant an indictment is in the works that implicates Crooked Hillary and others.
As a Conservative who believes the Clintons have escaped justice for decades, this welcome news. As a person that observed all elitist Dems skate away from even the most obvious crimes, I’ll believe it when I see it.
And yet Shipp’s credentials lend some hope he is correct:
Kevin Shipp is a retired CIAspook and whistleblower. He has exposed the US deep stateand charged the CIA with systematically use of unconstitutional and illegal measures to terrorise employees to prevent them from becoming whistleblowers. He has also charged that “Hillary Clinton was running and is running a global financial criminal syndicate. She was using these secret servers to conduct Clinton financial moneylaundering business.”[1]
Background
Shipp was born in Laramie, Wyoming, but his family moved to Falls Church, Virginia, where he has spent most of his subsequent life. He studied at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, where studied biology. Later he also obtained a master’s degree in forensic psycho physiology at the Department of Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment.[citation needed]
Career
“Kevin Shipp, former CIA Officer and Anti Terrorism expert, held several high level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, team leader protecting sensitive CIA assets from assassination, manager of high risk Counter Terrorism Center protective operations, lead instructor for members of allied governments, internal staff security investigator and a polygraph examiner tasked with protecting the CIA from foreign agent penetration. He is the recipient of two CIA Meritorious Unit Citations, three Exceptional Performance Awards and a Medallion for overseas covert operations. Shipp also supervised the Department of State Anti Terrorism Assistance program and managed the protective detail assigned to the president of Afghanistan following the US invasion.”[2][3]
Shipp says that what Hillary Clinton did with her charity and Uranium One while she was Secretary of State was a crime for the history books. Shipp explains, “Hillary Clinton used this to launder money in foreign banks so it wasn’t subject to U.S. laws, congressional subpoenas, or FOIA demands for the evidence. This was done to launder this money globally into the Clinton Foundation so the U.S. government could not examine it at all.”
++++++
Whistleblower and former CIA officer Kevin Shipp stated clearly that indictments are coming for Hillary Clinton and the deep state because Donald Trump cannot be bribed. In an interview with USA Watchdog‘s Greg Hunter, Shipp says this deep state espionage will eventually be exposed to the public.
During his discussion with Hunter, Shipp says that whatHillary Clinton did with her charity and Uranium Onewhile she was Secretary of State was a crime for the history books. Shipp explains, “Hillary Clinton used this to launder money in foreign banks so it wasn’t subject to U.S. laws, congressional subpoenas, or FOIA demands for the evidence. This was done to launder this money globally into the Clinton Foundation so the U.S. government could not examine it at all.”
How did Hillary Clinton get away with obvious crime with her unprotected server and the shady Uranium One deal? Shipp says, “The most bizarre thing is the people who protected her from clear felonious activity and violations of the Espionage Act. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, was protecting her and leaking things to the media and lying. You had John Brennan, Director of the CIA, protecting her by starting a false investigation (on Trump) and stirring things up with this (false/unverified) dossier. You had James Comey, Director of the FBI, protecting her. . . . Then, you’ve got Peter Strzok protecting her, and now it appears the United Kingdom GCHQ was using NSA information to target Donald Trump and protect Hillary Clinton. You have to ask yourself … READ THE REST]
“Obviously [Hillary’s] not stupid, she is diabolical,” says Shipp of Hillary Clinton’s decision to have an unsecured server as Secretary of State. “She knew darn well what she was doing…the Clinton Foundation is a global crime syndicate.”
Shipp continued saying, “we just found out recently that…at least 30,000 of her emails went to a foreign entity that was not on any of the distribution lists…they’re trying to figure out who that is now…this reeks of espionage to me.”
“The most bizarre thing is the people who protected her from clear felonious activity and violations of the Espionage Act. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, was protecting her and leaking things to the media and lying. You had John Brennan, Director of the CIA, protecting her by starting a false investigation (on Trump) and stirring things up with this (false/unverified) dossier. You had James Comey, Director of the FBI, protecting her. . . . Then, you’ve got Peter Strzok protecting her, and now it appears the United Kingdom GCHQ was using NSA information to target Donald Trump and protect Hillary Clinton. You have to ask yourself what kind of power or connections does this woman have to get all of these members of the Deep State, Shadow Government to risk their own criminal penalties to protect her and try to get her elected? That is the Shadow Government. That is the Deep State. That is what is so chilling about this whole thing. . . . This is deep. This is dark. This is as dark as it gets, and this is the biggest espionage case involving government officials in the history of this country.” -Kevin Shipp
Hunter then brings up the concerns most Americans have: no one will go to jail because the government will never implicate themselves. In response, Shipp points out that, this time, it will not be business as usual for the “Deep State and Shadow Government.” It is possible that the people involved in this massive espionage case will charges. They are going to be brought to justice because Shipp says, “indictments are coming because of Donald Trump coming into the White House from the outside. Trump cannot be bribed.”
Bravera Holdings was founded byGary DeMarandBrandon Valloraniin 2011 for the purpose of disseminating political news via a network of websites.
Tim Brown is the current editor-in-chief of FreedomOutpost.com.
FreedomOutpost was started in 2012 and has reached millions of people with political news and commentary, as well as other news from both the US and around the world.
In this Jewish World Review post, Mark Steyn relates the obvious to readers: There was indeed interference in the 2016 election cycle, BUT it was not Donald Trump colluding with Russians. Rather it was the Dems and their Deep State comrades in the Obama Administration pulling out ALL efforts to make Trump was not elected. OR if elected, to undermine President Trump so malignantly, he’d get impeached or resign.
As I think most persons paying attention now realize, the investigation into foreign interference with the 2016 election was created as a cover for domestic interference with the 2016 election.
It was run at the highest (or deepest) Deep State levels by the likes of James Clapper and John Brennan, whose frantic and hysterical Tweets are like no utterances of any CIA director in history. That also explains one of the puzzling aspects of the last year that I’ve occasionally mentioned here and on TV and radio: If you were truly interested in an “independent” Special Counsel, why would you appoint Robert Mueller? He’s a lifetime insider and the most connected man in Washington – a longtime FBI Director, and Assistant Attorney-General and acting Deputy Attorney-General at the Department of Justice.
Exactly. His most obvious defect as an “independent” counsel is, in fact, his principal value to the likes of Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein: He knows, personally, almost every one in the tight little coterie of discredited upper-echelon officials, and he has a deep institutional loyalty to bodies whose contemporary character he helped create. In other words, he’s the perfect guy to protect those institutions. As for the nominal subject of his investigation, well, he’s indicted a bunch of no-name Russian internet trolls who’ll never set foot in a US courthouse. That’s not even worth the cost of printing the complaint. Rush Limbaugh has been kind enough to quote, several times, my line that “there are no Russians in the Russia investigation”. Which is true. Yet that doesn’t mean there aren’t foreigners. And an inordinate number of them are British subjects – or, to use today’s preferred term, “Commonwealth citizens”. All the action in this case takes place not in Moscow but in southern England.
Let’s start at Cambridge University with a two-day conference called “2016’s Race to Change the World“, held on July 11th and 12th 2016 – or three weeks before the FBI supposedly began its “counterintelligence” operation against Trump, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane”. That’s from the first line of the Rolling Stones’ “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”. The song and its key signature figure in the plot of a ho-hum Cold War thriller of the same name, about a British spy trying to get info from the Russians to an [sic] heroic American woman.
Yes, really. Jonathan Pryce played “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” , and I asked him about it when I moderated a panel on acting at St Catherine’s College, Oxford with him and Patti Lupone a few years later.
If you think that’s a weird event for an Oxbridge college to host, it’s as nothing to this “Race to Change the World” beano. I do my share of international junketing, but the bill of fare for this curious symposium is so bland as to be almost generic – panels titled “Europe and America”, “2016 and the World”, “Global Challenges Facing the Next President”. Compared to the laser-like focus of a typical Cambridge confab (“A Westphalia for the Middle East?“), it’s almost as if someone were trying to create an event so anodyne and torpid no one would notice it. All that distinguished these colorless presentations was the undoubted eminence of the speakers: former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind; and Sir Richard Dearlove, former C (that’s M, for 007 fans) at MI6. The conference appears to have been put together at a couple of weeks’ notice by Steven Schrage, former “Co-Chair of the G8’s Anti-Crime and Terrorism Group” and a well-connected man on the counterterrorism cocktail circuit: Here he is introducing Mitt Romney to the director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, and here he is spending election night in the UK at a party with Scotland Yard elite counterterrorist types. Make of that what you will – it’s a somewhat odd background for the convenor of an insipid, vanilla, cookie-cutter foreign-policy seminar – but among the small number of strangely prestigious attendees at Mr Schrage’s conference were:
~Carter Page, a petroleum-industry executive and Trump campaign volunteer;
~Christopher Steele, the former head of the Russia house at MI6;
~Stefan Halper, a University of Cambridge professor with dual UK/US citizenship.
Today, Mr Page is better known as the endlessly surveilled “person of interest” whose eternally renewable FISA warrant was the FBI’s gateway into the Trump campaign; Mr Steele is a sometime FBI asset who, a week before the Cambridge conference, had approached the G-men with the now famous “dossier” that provided the pretext for the FISA application; and Professor Halper turns out to be not some tweedy academic but a man with deep connections to MI6 and the CIA, on the payroll of something at the Pentagon called the “Office of Net Assessment”, and (one of) the supposed FBI informant(s) inside the Trump circle.
Carter Page says that in the course of this two-day conference he met Professor Halper for the first time. But I was struck by this aside Mr Page made to Sara Carter:
Madeliene [sic] Albright was always trying to get me to go into public debates. I told her I was there just as a listener, just as an attendee.
Hmm. If you’ll forgive another Patti Lupone-type digression, many years ago our mutual pal Ned Sherrin decided to launch, just for a laugh, a rumor that me and Carol Thatcher (Mrs T’s daughter) were having an affair. Ned told somebody, and somebody told somebody else, and about eight months later it turned up as an item in Nigel Dempster’s highly authoritative Daily Mail gossip column, along with a rather goofy picture of me and Carol at a David Frost shindig at the Grosvenor House in Park Lane. And Ned was stunned – because he assumed the Daily Mail story was true. Because, by the time it circled back to him, he’d clean forgotten he’d started the whole business.
Oddly enough, that’s exactly how James Comey and Andrew McCabe and John Brennan work. At the FISA court, the FBI, to bolster their reliance on the Steele dossier, pointed to newspaper stories appearing to corroborate aspects of it – even though, as he subsequently testified under oath at the Old Bailey, those stories were in fact fed to those reporters by Steele himself. Nevertheless, it works like a charm on gullible FISA judges. You take one thing and you make it two things. Or even better, you take nothing and you make it a thing: Here, from yesterday’s letter by Senator Ron Johnson, are McCabe, Sally Yates and other FBI/DOJ honchos arranging for Comey to brief Trump on the Steele dossier for the sole purpose of giving CNN a news peg for leaking details about what’s in it.
It’s almost as if that’s what Madeleine Albright is doing here, isn’t it? It’s one thing to invite Carter Page to show up at some tedious yakfest at Cambridge with Halper sitting in front of him and Chris Steele sitting behind. But what if you could get Page to stand up and say something? Then you could find a friendly journo to report it and, instead of just a nobody on the fringes of the campaign, you’d have a “senior Trump advisor” sharing his thoughts on the global scene with Madam Albright and Sir Richard and Sir Malcolm and all the other bigshots, and then you could use that story three weeks later at the FISA court, to demonstrate how deep into the heart of the campaign the Russkies had penetrated.
Instead, Professor Halper has to make do with chit-chatting to Mr Page over the tea and biscuits, and planting the seeds for a friendly relationship.
Herewith a note on the academic circuit: emeritus professors and visiting fellows are popular covers with espionage agencies because there’s minimal work and extensive foreign travel, to international talking shops like the one above. If you make the mistake of being a multinational businessman and go to foreign countries to meet with other businessmen, you’ll be investigated up the wazoo. But, if you’re a professor and you go to foreign countries to meet with other professors, the world is your oyster. You also get to meet young people, who are the easiest to recruit.
Here’s another professor, and from another Commonwealth country: Malta. Joseph Mifsud is (was) a professorial fellow at the University of Stirling in Scotland, but is (was) based in London as a principal of the “London Centre of International Law Practice” and a director of the “London Academy of Diplomacy”, both of which sound fancy-schmancy but are essentially hollow entities operating from the same premises – 8, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, a tony address (next to the London School of Economics and the Royal College of Surgeons) but the “London Centre/Academy’s” fifth in three years and at which they and a handful of other endeavors are holed up in a minimally furnished back room filled by four interns round a trestle table on fifty quid a week.
Professor Mifsud also has (had) similarly undemanding academic sinecures at the “Euro-Mediterranean University” in Slovenia and “Link Campus University” in Italy. At the beginning of March 2016, a young man called George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign. On March 14th, traveling through Italy, he met with Professor Mifsud. They got together again in Britain, and at some point Papadopoulos became head of the “London Centre of International Law Practice’s” soi-disant “Centre for International Energy and Natural Resources Law & Security”, a post for which he had no obvious qualifications. Happily, like most other jobs at the “London Centre”, it didn’t require work, or showing up at the “London Centre” or even being in London.
Mifsud is said to have ties to high-ranking figures in Moscow, but there seems to be more prima facie evidence of ties to high-ranking figures in London. That’s Professor Mifsud above with my old friend Boris Johnson, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, at some Brexit event last October 19th. On October 31st Joseph Mifsud disappeared and has not been seen since. I know how he feels: The same thing happened to me twelve days after I lunched with Boris at The Spectator in early 2006. Is (was) Mifsud an FSB asset? An MI6 asset? Both? Neither? Well, there’s more circumstantial evidence of Mifsud’s ties to British intelligence, including multiple meetings with, inter alia, Claire Smith of the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee.
At any rate, back in London on April 26th 2016, Professor Mifsud told young Papadopoulos that the Russians have all this “dirt” on Hillary, “thousands of emails”. A couple of days later, a friend of George’s at the Israeli Embassy, Christian Cantor, introduced him to Erika Thompson, who worked for Alexander Downer, Canberra’s High Commissioner in the UK, at Australia House. On May 4th, Papadopoulos was quoted in The Times of London denouncing David Cameron for calling Trump “divisive, stupid and wrong“. On May 6th, Ms Thompson called Papadopoulos to say that Mr Downer wanted to meet him. On May 10th they met for drinks at the Kensington Wine Rooms. Young George claims that the High Commissioner told him to “leave David Cameron alone”. Which doesn’t sound quite right to me.
As longtime readers may recall, I have drunk with Alexander Downer and that is not something to be undertaken lightly. Somewhere in the course of the evening a pretty squiffy Papadopoulos lifted his head up from the bowl of cocktail olives and started blabbing about Russian “dirt” on Hillary.
Another digression: Mr Downer was Australia’s longest serving foreign minister and, as I used to say in those days, “my favorite foreign minister”. Since then, he has spent many years on the “advisory board” of Hakluyt, a curiously named body set up by former MI6 chaps. I’m not saying he spends his nights rappelling down the walls of presidential palaces (although I would be tickled to be proved wrong), but I don’t think I’m betraying any confidences when I say that, after tea with Alexander in Adelaide a couple of years back, whence he had just returned from some meeting with some group or other in Lisbon, I remember musing about that select circle of people who can jet around the world in the expectation that doors will open for them and some useful tidbit will drop into their laps. As for Hakluyt, its website is here: I do believe it’s the coolest thing I’ve seen since (another long me-‘n’-Carol-type story) I was given Marlon Brando’s business card, which had the words “Marlon” and “Brando” on it and nothing else.
At any rate Mr Downer relayed the information about young George to Aussie Intelligence back home. Canberra sat on the info for two months and then passed it along to the Yanks in late July, just in time for that FISA application.
And so, as July turned to August, Peter Strzok bade farewell to his “paramour” Lisa Page and flew to London for a sit-down with the High Commissioner at Australia House. When Strzok reported back to Washington, the FBI sicced the omnipresent “professor” Stefan Halper on George Papadopoulos. So the Trump aide woke up one August morning to an email from a Cambridge academic he’d never heard of, inviting him on an all-expenses-paid trip back to Britain to give a speech for $3,000. Once in London, Halper casually inquired of his new friend, “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?”
Right. As Rush put it, the day before I guest-hosted last week:
Just so: Papadopoulos was the perfect mark. And the easiest way to reel him in is to get him off his home turf. In your own neighborhood, you have your routine – your usual bars, favorite restaurants; you notice if something’s off. But, flown to London, you have no routine, no old haunts. You go where you’re invited, you’re introduced to important people – like “High Commissioners”, woshever the hell thash ish, hic – [Blog Editor: As an American I think Steyn is expressing a drunken form of “whoever the hell they is, hiccup] and you want them to think you’re important, too, so you reveal that you know all about the Russian “dirt” on Hillary.
So you got that from the Russians, right? Er, no. I got it from a Maltese guy in Italy who’s a Scottish professor and plugged in to MI6, and then I told it to an Australian bloke in London who’s also plugged in to MI6 and told me to lay off David Cameron, and then an American guy in Cambridge who’s plugged in to MI6 reminded me about it to see if I’d deny all knowledge of it, which would be suspicious, wouldn’t it..?
As I said, and as Rush likes to quote, there are no Russians in the Russia investigation. But, like that rumor about me and Carol Thatcher, you just put these things out there and a few months later they come back to you, via Canberra and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing program and suddenly it’s “independently” “corroborated” “evidence” from a respected ally and you can take it to a FISA judge.
There were two investigations into presidential candidates during the 2016 election. But, as Andrew McCarthy reminds us, these two investigations were not the same. The Clinton “matter” was a criminal investigation – because there was credible evidence that Hillary had committed criminal acts. The FBI had no such clear-cut goods on Trump. So they had to find something else:
The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.
And the advantage of a “counterintelligence investigation”, unlike a criminal investigation, is that everything in it is “classified”. So that even an obvious set-up at a Cambridge confab or Kensington wine bar is “intelligence” that has to be “protected” for “national security” reasons. It’s a brazen, audacious scheme, and unlikely to have been loosed without the approval, however discreetly stated, of the then President. Occam’s Razor suggests that the man running the operation was the CIA’s John Brennan through the “inter-agency taskforce” that met at Langley. But Brennan isn’t that reckless: Go back to Madeleine Albright urging Carter Page to speak up at a Cambridge conference; Christopher Steele leaking parts of his dossier to the newspapers; a staffer at Australia House inviting George Papadopoulos for a drink… The best way to turn nothing into something is to plant it somewhere far away and wait for it to work its way back to you:
Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
Golly, you don’t say! I wonder who “told” The Guardian that. A conference here, a speech there, a cocktail round the corner, and pretty soon you have the simulacrum of “counterintelligence” concerns from America’s closest allies:
According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.
Er, wait a minute. If it’s “so sensitive” it’s being handled “director-to-director”, why isn’t the head of GCHQ meeting with his opposite number at NSA? Why’s he meeting with Brennan?
Hey, don’t get hung up on details. It all went brilliantly – except for one tiny detail: Hillary managed to do the impossible and lose. On January 23rd 2017, three days after Trump’s inauguration, GCHQ at Cheltenham Tweeted the sad fate of Mr So Sensitive:
We’re sorry to announce that Robert Hannigan, our Director since 2014, has decided to step down as head of GCHQ.
Oh, dear. Well, enjoy your sudden retirement, old boy. Unfortunately, for Brennan and Comey and McCabe and Strzok and the others on this side of the Atlantic in the third week of January, it wasn’t quite that simple. Because, instead of protecting Hillary, they were now protecting themselves – so it was necessary to dig in and double-down on the “Russia investigation”.
Which sounds super-credible except for one small point: there was never a Russia investigation. As Andrew McCarthy sums it up:
Opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.
Which is what they did – Brennan and Clapper and Comey and McCabe. They took tools designed to combat America’s foreign enemies and used them against their own citizens and their political opposition. It was an intentional subversion of the electoral process conducted at the highest level by agencies with almost unlimited power. And, if they get away with it, they will do it again, and again and again. That’s what Brennan’s telling us on Twitter, and Clapper on “The View”:
Yeah? So what? Whatcha gonna do about it?
Good question.
________________________
Mark Steyn is an international bestselling author, a Top 41 recording artist, and a leading Canadian human rights activist. His latest book is “The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned“. (Buy it at a 57% discount by clickinghereor order in KINDLE edition at a 41% discount by clickinghere. Sales help fund JWR)
JWR is a free magazine published five days a week on the World Wide Web of interest to people of faith and those interested in learning more about contemporary Judaism from Jews who take their religion seriously.
Our inauguraleditorialis also our mission statement.
Readers, individuals wishing to submit an article on “spec,” or make a tax deductible donation and those seeking advertising rates may contact JWR byemailor by calling (718) 972-9241. Please note that all correspondence with JWR remains our property and may be used accordingly.
I just read an interesting article in in the Conservative Tribune about John Brennan the former CIA Director under the Obama Administration. I found it interesting because of the veiled threats Brennan has been directing toward President Trump’s tweets.
Today’s Gateway Pundit covered Trump’s tweet relating to the House Intelligence Committee Report issue via the GOP majority, exonerating the President from any collusion with the Russians in the 2016 election:
Just Out: House Intelligence Committee Report released. “No evidence” that the Trump Campaign “colluded, coordinated or conspired with Russia.” Clinton Campaign paid for Opposition Research obtained from Russia- Wow! A total Witch Hunt! MUST END NOW!
To which Brennan tweeted back at 10:29 AM (4/27/18):
A highly partisan, incomplete, and deeply flawed report by a broken House Committee means nothing. The Special Counsel’s work is being carried out by professional investigators—not political staffers. SC’s findings will be comprehensive & authoritative. Stay tuned, Mr. Trump….
The veiled threat: “Stay tuned, Mr. Trump”.
The Gateway Punditexplains why Brennan’s veiled threat is pathetic:
The “professional investigators” Brennan is referring to on Mueller’s team is a who’s who of corrupt and conflicted Obama and Hillary cronies. As we reported over the past year Mueller’s team consists of the following:
Rush Atkinson, an attorney on detail from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section at the Department of Justice
— Donated $200 to Clinton in 2016
Andrew Goldstein, a public corruption prosecutor on detail from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York
—Worked under Trump-basher Preet Bharara in the liberal New York southern district.
Adam Jed, an appellate attorney on detail from DOJ’s Civil Division. — Defended Obamacare at the DOJ.
James Quarles,a former partner at WilmerHale and a former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. –Former assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.
Jeannie Rhee, a former partner at WilmerHale who has served in the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ and as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. — Rhee is a Clinton Foundation Lawyer and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel under Barack Obama.
Brandon Van Grack, an attorney on detail from the Justice Department’s National Security Division. — Led a grand jury inquiry in Northern Virginia scrutinizing former Trump associate Michael Flynn’s foreign lobbying.
Aaron Zebley, a former partner at WilmerHale who has previously served with Mueller at the FBI and has served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. — Worked with Robert Mueller at the WilmerHale firm.
Zainab Ahmad, a top national security prosecutor on detail from U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York.
Michael Dreeben, an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General, described by former colleagues as one of the brightest criminal law experts of the past two generations.
Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page were thrown off of the investigation after Trump-hating text messages between the two FBI agents were discovered by the IG.
The above people are the crack Special Prosecution team Brennan tweeted about who are Crooked Hillary affiliates. Apparently, John Brennan’s CIA was an also a Crooked Hillary campaign affiliate. Indeed, it is becoming apparent that Brennan may have been a go-between Crooked Hillary and Russians perhaps facilitated by the British Intelligence agency known as Government Communications Headquarters or simply the acronym GCHQ.
Judge Andrew Napolitano had made the connection between GCHQ spying on Donald Trump and was nearly fired for it at Fox News. I have suspicion that is pure conjecture mind you, that the power of John Brennan’s leadership of the CIA had something to do with threatening Napolitano over the GCHQ spying on Trump.
The Conservative Tribune has a story on the corrupt John Brennan.
[Blog Editor: CT has an about minute-and-half video introducing article. I can’t figure out how to embed it. And Soooo, I found a Youtube video that is essentially an electronic voice reading this article outloud.}
This is definitely not the collusion case liberals are trying to make, but it’s one Americans should be thinking about.
When the lefty British newspaper The Guardian published an article earlier this month touting the role of British intelligence agencies in fomenting suspicions that the Donald Trump campaign had been aided by Russia, The Guardian editors were no doubt hoping to feed Americans doubts about the duly elected president.
But a writer for the conservative magazine American Spectatorhad an entirely different take on it — and argued it points the finger back at the kind of “Deep State” obstruction to the Trump administration that Trump supporters have been warning about since before Trump’s inauguration.
In an April 19 piece, Spectator writer George Neumayr wrote that The Guardian had unintentionally provided proof that former CIA Director John Brennan was using any weapon that came to hand to try to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton in 2016 — and keep his own job.
“John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump,” Neumayr wrote.
According to The Guardian report from April 13, the British Government Communications Headquarters (an outfit better known as “GCHQ,” devoted to gathering intelligence through electronic signals monitoring) learned in 2015 of “‘interactions’ between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents.”
GCHQ gathered more information over the next six months with the help of other countries — Western nations as well as the former Soviet republic of Estonia.
That information was passed to Brennan — then still heading the CIA — in the summer of 2016. And, according to Neumayr, Brennan wasted no time passing it on to lawmakers from both parties, probably in hopes of it leaking to the media.
“Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin),” Neumayr wrote. “But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).”
Basically, according to Neumayr, Brennan was desperate to keep his position as head of the CIA and knew a Trump victory would mean the end of the Obama-Clinton era, and a new beginning for U.S. intelligence agencies.
Now, anyone who’s followed the news since 2016 knows full well that Brennan has made no secret of his loathing for President Trump — and that Trump publicly despises the former CIA director.
Brennan’s infamous Twitter posting regarding the richly deserved firing of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is notorious for just how personal the attack on Trump was:
When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you. https://t.co/uKppoDbduj
But what Brennan apparently didn’t count on was that time would prove how right that firing was. The damning Justice Department Inspector General’s report proved that. (Ironically, the report was released on the same day that The Guardian published its paen to the work of British intelligence in undermining Trump.)
To Neumayr, The Guardian piece is just one more brick in the wall of proof that Brennan was the one who colluded with foreign powers to influence the presidential campaign of 2016. And he did it with the help of the anti-Trump American media.
“Were the media not so completely in the tank for Obama and Hillary, all of this political mischief would make for a compelling 2016 version of All the President’s Men,” Neumayr wrote near the end of his piece. “Instead, the public gets a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda about the sudden propriety of political espionage.”
Anyone who’s followed the news since 2016 knows that’s true too, and the sentence gives a nice touch of credibility to the rest.
Neumayr’s piece isn’t the collusion case liberals are hoping to make. But it’s definitely one Americans who care about the country should be thinking very hard about.
__________________________
Methinks Brennan Up to His Neck in Treason Collusion
Conservative Tribune is a platform for conservative voices talking about political and cultural news that matters.
It is an unapologetic purveyor of truth and clearly promotes the values of family, personal responsibility, limited government, and individual freedom.
Conservative Tribune is one of the largest websites in the United States and is a top 100 site according to Alexa.com.
Since joining Liftable Media in 2015 the site has doubled its reader base, with around 25 million unique American visitors every month.
Conservative Tribune consistently outperforms other digital publishers on Facebook.
Back in March I was extremely upset that Fox News had suspended (two posts: HERE & HERE) Judge Andrew Napolitano for breaking the news that British Intel organization Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was spying on President Donald Trump during his campaign run and during the Obama lame duck period prior to the Trump inauguration on January 20, 2017.
There was no surprise that Leftist MSM called the Judge’s report fake news, but many Conservative news outlets also threw the Judge under the bus just like Fox News. Fox News anchor totally discredited Andrew Napolitano the same day that the Judge was on Fox and Friends. Very disconcerting to me was the way typically Conservative RedState reported on Napolitano’s GCHQ exposé:
… Judge Andrew Napolitano is back on Fox News after reports that he was suspended temporarily because he openly promoted an internet hoax about the British intelligence community surveilling Donald Trump’s team, at the behest of former President Obama.
Susan Wright uses words like “internet hoax” and “discounted by others at Fox” which in my opinion unjustly impugns Andrew Napolitano’s reputation.
I found a couple of articles that amplify the Andrew Napolitano GCHQ exposé, yet lends a huge amount credence to the Judge’s reporting. The articles are both by the Daily Wire. The articles refer to Obama’s Administration gathering intel on Trump:
1. By gathering Intel on Trump not only from the UK, but also several other American ally foreign Intelligence services. HELLO JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO!
2. The other Daily Wire story is about then CIA Director John Brennan actively working with foreign Intelligence services to “Falsify Trump-Russia Connections”.
How does this not incriminate Barack Hussein Obama, American Intelligence service officials and probably numerable top Executive Branch officials in felonious crimes that must be tried in Court before a jury?
YES, THAT INCLUDES FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!
It is bad enough that candidate and now President Donald Trump had to run the gauntlet of the Obama administration plotting against him. It is a whole new ball game when you find out that most of the world’s intelligence agencies were feeding data to the Obama Camp. If this is true, then there is no way that President Trump or his team can ever trust any of these perpetrators.
If you are wondering why our national media has pretty much dropped the whole Trump-Is-A-Russian-Manchurian-Candidate thing, it is because the naked truth about the Obama administration’s chilling spying — something the media has covered up for months — is finally coming to light. Last week, both The Washington Post and The New York Times quietly reported that the Obama administration had “wiretapped” (their word, not mine) a Trump staffer.
The Trump-hating Guardian then dropped another bombshell, the news that pretty much every Western intelligence agency in the world was aiding and abetting the Obama administration’s unbelievable and unprecedented (Nixon only wanted to do this) abuse of power against a political opponent:
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.
Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.
Signals intelligence (SIGINT) is intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). Signals intelligence is a subset of intelligence collection management.
This next bit from the Guardian report is important because it appears to vindicate Fox News commentator Judge Napolitano, who was widely-ridiculed in the political media, and then suspended by Fox News, for reporting something very close to this back in March:
Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
The blindingly obvious point that the Guardian tries to obscure is that the combined assets of all of these agencies failed to find any evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. We know this, because the Democrats have pulled out all the stops. Both before the election, and especially after the election, they have leaked furiously to try to discredit President Trump. If there were any evidence of collusion between Trump (or even obscure, minor “advisers” like Carter Page) and Russia, there would have been nothing else in the Washington Post or the New York Times for the past five months. But they have nothing.
In other words, the whole world was spying on Trump, not just the Obama administration, and even with all of these resources the Democrats and their media got exactly squat. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing between Team Trump and Russia. There is, however, a growing pile of evidence that Team Barry needs to be investigated by Congress and the Justice Department.
Hinderaker’s second point is that everyone in the world was so sure Hillary Clinton was going to beat Trump that all of these countries believed it was safe to “curry favor with the new administration” by spying on her opponent, by offering her intelligence-oppo during the campaign that was then leaked to a MSM that was 100% complicit in this illegal behavior — because leaking intelligence is a felony.
If this is not scary enough, try to imagine what Hillary’s administration and the MSM would be doing to Donald Trump right now if he did not have the power of the presidency to defend himself. As it is, the media have been lying, smearing, and slandering him without any evidence.
The only weapon Trump has had to fight back with is his access to truth about Obama’s spying, access he would not have had had he not won the presidency.
We have already seen the terrifying lengths Hillary and Obama will go to as a means to cover up their lies, we have already seen the violence our media (especially CNN) is willing to gin up in order to protect a Narrative. There is no doubt in my mind that with the help of their media pals, had Hillary won the presidency, Trump would right now be in federal prison for a crime he did not commit.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
+++
Report: Former CIA Director Colluded With Foreign Spies to Falsify Trump-Russia Connections
There were dueling headlines this week, one from a liberal British newspaper, the other from a conservative U.S. magazine.
“British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia,” wrote The Guardian. Well, bother, that’ll put the prezzy in a bit of a spot.
But wait, there was this other headline — same story, just a different headline, from The American Spectator: “Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump.”
Well dang, now we don’t know what to think.
The Guardian painted the “facts” in dull hues:
The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election. This was in part due to US law that prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants. “They are trained not to do this,” the source stressed.
“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’
Thank God for British intelligence, or we surely would’ve missed this massive Trump-Russia collusion.
But The Spectator shined the spotlight into the dark crevasses of the story:
Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, [John] Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.
John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.
Huh. What a very different story.
What’s important from the U.S. side, of course, is what our own CIA director did.
Says The Spectator: “The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan ‘passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.’ To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the’“Gang of Eight’ about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.”
Funny, it was all right there in The Guardian report — Brennan was the center of the storm. “The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at ‘director level.’ After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.”
But The Guardian sought to play up the roles of British and European agencies.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.
But The Spectator cuts to the point far more succinctly:
Were the media not so completely in the tank for Obama and Hillary, all of this political mischief would make for a compelling 2016 version of All the President’s Men. Instead, the public gets a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda about the sudden propriety of political espionage. The headline writers at Pravda couldn’t improve on this week’s official lie, tweeted out by the Maggie Habermans: “Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dem and Republican House Aides.”
_______________
How Long will U.S. Law Ignore Obama Admin. Corruption?
Judge Andrew Napolitano said he had sources the British GCHQ was helping Obama spy on Donald Trump. The irony is Left Stream media CNN found the same info from their sources. I wonder if the Judge’s sources and CNN’s sources were the same.
There is one egregious lack of Mainstream Media (MSM) that bothers me and should bother you immensely as an American citizen. The MSM is in full cover Barack Hussein Obama’s gluteus maximus for spying on President Donald Trump before and directly after he won POTUS on November 2016. This includes a host of Crooked Hillary acolytes.
What do these Leftist Dems have in common:
“Hillary, Barack, Biden (in his own insane way), Jarett, Rice, Rhodes, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Podesta, Brazile, Mook, Palmieri, Wasserman-Schultz and other similar deviant political operatives”.
You should be astonished, rather you should be thinking – “I KNEW IT!”
I am quite gratified that one of the Leftist cover-ups has found a MSM reversal. CNN (in jest – Communist News Network) has released some information that confirms Judge Andrew Napolitano’s assertion that Obama was also using British Intelligence to spy on Trump. If you recall, Fox News actually suspended Napolitano for exposing this. The good Judge has since had his suspension lifted.
The Blaze points out the Left will claim was mere incidental Intelligence gathering. But you have to realize that is a load of horse pucky if you realize the so-called incidental gathering included Trump info. Why would British Intelligence gathering merely share incidental intel or even incidental intel that specifically looked Trump?
The answer: Obama was spying!
Here’s The Blaze reporting on the CNN revelation of Obama/British Intelligence sharing on Spygate-Trump.
[Blog Editor: I found the story originally at AllenWestRepublic.com which was only an excerpt of the The Blaze reporting on CNN’s Spygate revelation. I am the AWR opening paragraph as an intro to The Blaze.]
In an astonishing turn of events, CNN has reported that the Obama administration did, in fact, receive intelligence reports from British Intelligence concerning Trump aide’s communications with Russia. Whether or not these reports will pass the litmus test for collusion is yet to be determined. What has been determined is that the Obama administration was in fact spying on Americans.
CNN: British intelligence provided Trump-Russian intercepts to US agencies
CNN reported Thursday that their sources indicate British intelligence services provided U.S. agencies with intercepts they obtained between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government. They say it was “incidental collection,” much like the kind that was captured by U.S. agencies on Trump associates.
The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what’s known as “incidental collection,” these sources tell CNN.
The Trump administrationhad previously denied a report that they apologized to the British government for including the GCHQ in a list of agencies that former President Obama used to spy on Trump.
In March, Fox News’ Judge Napolitano claimed that he had sources telling him Obama had asked foreign intelligence services to spy on Trump.
“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI and he didn’t use the Department of Justice,” said Judge Napolitano. “He used GCHQ.”
Trump cited Napolitano’s claim as evidence that he had been surveilled by the Obama administration before the election, an accusation he fired off in a tweet that spurred a congressional investigation into the matter.
Judge Andrew Napolitano has caused quite a stir amongst the Media, the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), and officials in the U.S. government when the Judge stipulated that GCHQ surveilled the Trump campaign for the treasonous President Barack Hussein Obama. Here is the segment on Fox & Friends Tuesday March 14 morning:
Very shortly after the Judge said he had three sources, the Judge mysteriously – without comment – was removed from Fox News air time. Incidentally, if you listened to the segment, the Judge remarked that the GCHQ person who complied with Obama resigned after Trump was inaugurated. Fox’s censorship means Napolitano can neither name the three intelligence sources nor the name of the person who resigned from GCHQ. ALSO, Fox News used later-in-the-day news anchors to walk back Napolitano’s GCHQ/Obama assertion.
Fox censorship, Napolitano silence on suspension, GCHQ public denial and an U.S. apology is a set-up the typically credible Napolitano to look like a tinfoil conspiracist.
AND YET, is Judge Andrew Napolitano a discredited source on Obama surveillance of President Trump’s campaign? Since I have contended that Barack Hussein Obama was a crooked President from day one of his Administration, I am not prepared to throw the Judge under the bus as all others have seeming done.
Below are two articles that should give you pause before you consider throwing Napolitano under the bus. The first article is from today (3/22/17) from Bob Unruh and the second is from Cliff Kinkaid of AIM posted on 3/21/17.
The first is close to breaking news corroborated by Fox News. The second article pretty much elaborates the details that Judge Andrew Napolitano alluded to in his 2-minute 50-second Fox & Friends segment. In fact, there is so much detail in the second article it is a bit lengthy. You may want to come back a few times to complete and digest the information that demonstrates a Crooked Obama and a nefarious Intel community, not to mention an extremely untrustworthy Director James Comey of the FBI.
The lawyer who founded Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, Larry Klayman, has sent a letter to Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, asking him to look at a whistleblower’s evidence of “systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, again including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly.”
That spying was done, Klayman’s letter contends, by the FBI.
It’s become a major issue following President Trump’s assertion that he and Trump Tower were spied upon by the federal government, and the subsequent denials by intelligence and law-enforcement officials, including FBI Director James Comey, who famously cleared Hillary Clinton on accusations she mishandled classified information as secretary of state.
Klayman has been working with Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA and Central Intelligence Agency contractor who “left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified.”
Montgomery then “sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans.”
Explained Klayman: “Working side by side with former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who lied in congressional testimony, and former Obama Director of the CIA, the equally ethically challenged John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed ‘up close and personal’ this “Orwellian Big Brother’ intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.”
But he said the testimony has been essentially ignored.
Now, however, with the issue pending before Congress, there even are media reports that appear to substantiate the general claims that the government has been spying. The New York Times in January referenced wiretapping at Trump Tower, and just this week ABC News documented that the FBI monitored Trump Tower.
The report claimed, “But it was not placed at the behest of Barack Obama, and the target was not the Trump campaign of 2016. For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New York.”
It resulted in the indictments of more than 30 people, ABC said.
Explained the report: “The FBI investigation did not implicate Trump. But Trump Tower was under close watch. Some of the Russian mafia figures worked out of unit 63A in the iconic skyscraper – just three floors below Trump’s penthouse residence – running what prosecutors called an ‘international money-laundering, sports gambling and extortion ring.’”
Klayman, a Washington watchdog who repeatedly took on the Clinton political machine to investigate suspicion of wrongdoing, explained in his letter to Nunes, which was copied to other members of Congress, that he previously won a judgment from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon preliminarily halting the “illegal, warrantless, and massive surveillance of U.S. citiznes [sic] and lawful residents” in 2015.
As part of Nunes’ hearing on claims of government spying, he invited “anyone who has information about these topics to come forward.”
Klayman said that is exactly what Montgomery has done.
“There is a myriad of evidence, direct and circumstantial, of the illegal and unconstitutional surveillance disclosed to the FBI by Montgomery,” said Klayman, describing how his client made an on-camera interview with the agency about the misdeeds some time ago.
He said Montgomery “holds much of the roadmap to ‘draining the swamp’ of this corruption of our democracy.”
Montgomery, Klayman said, has information “that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans.”
During Montgomery’s interview with FBI General Counsel James Baker, under grants of immunity, he “laid out how persons like then businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration.”
“He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, where illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.”
But that interview, “conducted and videotaped by Special FBI Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett, occurred almost two years ago, and nothing that I know of has happened since.”
Klayman wrote that it appears to have been “buried” by Comey, possibly because “the FBI itself collaborates with the spy agencies to conduct illegal surveillance.”
He said he previously visited with a staff lawyer, Allen Souza, to inform Nunes of questions that needed to be put to Comey while under oath.
“My expressed purpose: to have Chairman Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee ask Comey, under oath, why he and his FBI have seemingly not moved forward with the Montgomery investigation while, on the other hand, the FBI director recently claimed publicly, I believe falsely, that there is ‘no evidence’ of surveillance on President Trump and those around him by the Obama administration.
“Indeed, there is,” he wrote.
He tells members of Congress that Comey needs to be grilled during a subsequent hearing, now set for March 28. He asks Nunes to respond by March 24 to let “the American people, and Mr. Montgomery … know where you and the other members of your committee stand.”
“Do you intend to get at and investigate the full truth, or as has regrettably been the case for many years in government, sweep the truth under the carpet?”
Other recipients of the letter were Reps. Adam Schiff, Mike Conaway, Peter King, Frank LoBiondo, Tom Rooney, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Michael Turner, Brad Wenstrup, Chris Stewart, Rich Crawford, Trey Gowdy, Elise Stefanik, Will Hurd, Jim Hines, Terri Sewell, Andre Carson, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Joaquin Castro and Denny Heck.
A special report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director.
[AIM CIJ Director’s Note:
UPDATE: Former NSA/CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery has told Accuracy in Media through his attorney Larry Klayman that it is entirely possible that the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was used as a back channel to collect and pass information-based on electronic surveillance of Trump associates and Donald J. Trump personally-to officials in the Obama administration. Montgomery said the procedure known as shell-game eavesdropping, in which the NSA can deny they are wiretapping, and the GCHQ can also deny that they are wiretapping, could have been used in this case. In other words, the NSA, CIA or FBI would ask the British to conduct the surveillance on behalf of the U.S. government so that U.S. officials could deny their own involvement.
Montgomery said that he has provided extensive evidence of illegal wiretapping by U.S. intelligence agencies to the FBI, but that the Bureau has failed to act on the evidence since he provided it almost two years ago.
Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News had said, “The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ – a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms – has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump’s.” [Bold Text Editor JRH] However, it may be difficult to find Obama’s personal “fingerprints” on what happened, Napolitano warned. Under these circumstances, the House Intelligence Committee should ask FBI Director James Comey about Montgomery’s evidence of illegal wiretapping and then call in Montgomery for his own personal testimony. Klayman says Montgomery can shed important light on how Trump and many other innocent people can be targeted.
Please call the office of Rep. Devin Nunes at 202-225-4121 and urge that Congress question FBI Director Comey about the Dennis Montgomery case.]
(Editor’s Note: Public hearings on this controversy are scheduled for March 20 and 28 by the House Intelligence Committee.)
Senate Intelligence Committee leaders from both parties, Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Mark Warner (D-VA), have issued a disingenuous statement[1] that “no element of the United States government” surveilled “Trump Tower.” They dishonestly evade the fact that media reporting[2] two days earlier had said that British intelligence operating at U.S. behest had likely been implicated in wiretapping Trump and Trump associates, all at the instigation of the U.S. government.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on March 16 that Fox News[2] sources have reported[3] through retired Judge Andrew Napolitano that then-President Obama had used two officials to arrange with the British NSA, called GCHQ or Government Communications Headquarters, to carry out the wiretapping of both Trump and Trump associates. (See this AIM[4]guest column.) The British now dispute this claim.
This evasive use of British spying is done in order to leave no American “fingerprints[5]” on the highly illegal operation, as the White House quoted Judge Napolitano. It is a long-standing practice under treaty-like intelligence agreements that British intelligence can use NSA facilities, and vice versa, for shell-game eavesdropping.
The trick is for the two agencies to swap places so that the NSA can deny they are wiretapping, and the GCHQ can deny that they are wiretapping. The Brits are trying to escape in between these moves of what a key expert has called the US-UK “wiretapping shell game.”
This is the first time that news sources[2] have explicitly stated that Obama personally ordered the wiretapping of Trump himself, through Obama officials going to the British, though it has been implied in the past by the suspicious lack of any circumspect denials, even when The New York Times said on January 19 and 20 that “wiretapped communications” went to the Obama White House. No one in the article said “Obama White House-but not Obama personally.”
Consider how one important person-President Trump-got the clear media message that he was indeed the target of the spying: President Trump told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson that he read this New York Times story of January 20 before he tweeted about Obama “wiretapping” him. White House spokesman Spicer quoted from this article.
President Trump told Carlson on Fox[6] on March 15 why he tweeted what he did: “Well, I’ve been reading…I think it was January 20…New York Times article where they were talking about wiretapping….I think they used that exact term.”
NEW YORK TIMES (print edition) Jan. 20, 2017, Headline:
“Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”
“found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing … [but]
“… Wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.” [Emphasis added; bracketed [ ] text added.]
And since the “wiretapped communications” had been given to the Obama “White House,” according to The New York Times[7], it naturally leads to the inference that Obama himself knew and approved of the “wiretapping” of the Trump team. Otherwise, the question would indeed be Watergate déjà vu: What did Obama know and when did he know it?
Remember, this is the same New York Times, along with other hostile media, that is attacking President Trump for making what it calls “baseless” and “unsubstantiated” claims of Obama administration wiretapping of Trump. It is its own reporting that President Trump was referring to.
The Times hypocritically suppresses its own front-page headline stories about “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” which claimed that these “wiretapped communications” reports went to the Obama White House (New York Times[7], Jan. 20, 2017).
White House spokesman Spicer forcefully made this point to the press, which viciously dodged his points to continue insisting[8] that “there’s no evidence of this” at all, repeatedly and rudely interrupting Spicer in an acrimonious confrontation.
Again, the question is: What did Obama know and when did he know it?
How the “Wiretap Shell Game” Works
Some reports claim that the Obama administration sought and/or obtained FISA Court warrants to tap phone calls and hack emails in Trump Tower.
But FISA warrants are routinely avoided by a little-known intelligence trick of using U.S.-British intelligence “reciprocity agreements” to dodge U.S. laws and vice versa. There are now direct reports[5] of this Obama-orchestrated British wiretapping of Trump, cited by the White House to back up President Trump’s statements and tweets.
The British are issuing denials[9]. But it is well-known that U.S. intelligence agencies can routinely arrange for British intelligence officers to use NSA facilities to spy on Americans, so that the U.S. agencies can claim that “they” (the U.S.) did no wiretapping or surveillance of Americans. It is a type of “plausible denial” government lie (see more on this in the appendix to this article). [Bold Text Editor JRH]
The strange involvement of an “ex” British MI6 agent, Christopher Steele, in conducting “opposition research” during a U.S. election has raised no questions in the left-wing media. It bears consideration, as it could represent in reality a British “reciprocity” covert operation on behalf of Obama’s CIA, one to fabricate discrediting disinformation about Trump, not a mere intelligence-gathering or wiretapping operation.
The exact means and exact agency by which this wiretapping, or much of it, has been done had been left unclear until now, when the claimed British connection surfaced. These types of British surveillance wiretaps are known as operations under “UKUSA” and “BRUSA” intelligence “reciprocity” agreements, which are the functional equivalent of formal treaties in the spy world.
Such “reciprocity” operations are designed to evade the laws of each country, the U.S. and the UK, by having the British spy on Americans who the Americans want spied on, and having the Americans spy on the British who the Brits want spied on. [Bold Text Editor JRH] Each side then exchanges the wiretap and other data the other side wants, thus without directly incriminating themselves. UKUSA reciprocity treaty “requests” have the force of direct orders to the other country’s intelligence agencies.
The wiretap data is exchanged under bogus traditional claims of the “extreme sensitivity” of “foreign liaison” intelligence, in order to obstruct outside oversight and thus in reality conceal surveillance of questionable legality. The UKUSA arrangements go beyond mere data searches and exchanges, by having, for example, British agents use NSA equipment and facilities on a rental lease basis to spy on the Americans that U.S. agencies want surveilled (and vice versa) so that the best equipment in the best position of access is used.
Former Justice Department Nazi-hunter John Loftus has documented how this British-U.S. “wiretap shell game” works, and pointed out how it is used to spy on political candidates in elections, and is covered up from Congress. Loftus reported:
“Over the years the British back-channel inside the NSA was used for a variety of political dirty tricks. A large number of American candidates for public office have been placed under electronic surveillance by British intelligence officers sitting at their ‘temporary listening post’ at [NSA] Fort Meade.” [Loftus[10], Secret War Against the Jews[11], 1997, p. 195]
The media have been saying that their government sources report that the CIA-NSA-FBI intercept targeting of Russians shifted to the targeting of the Trump team by September, 2016-possibly as early as June, 2016. There are reports of rejected FISA court applications in June[12] and July[13] of 2016 which would indicate that change of focus. (Incidentally, rejections by the FISA court are normally almost unheard-of.)
The BBC’s twist on the third alleged try at a FISA warrant, allegedly granted on October 15, was that it was narrowly drawn against only two Russian banks. But the BBC was at pains to assure us that they had an unnamed source who said that “three of Mr. Trump’s associates were the subject of the inquiry.”
“But it’s clear this is about Trump,” the source told the BBC[13].
New York Times Lies About Its Own Reporting
Meanwhile The New York Times[14] is doubling down on its lies, pretending it never reported that Trump or his aides had been wiretapped[7], and with supreme chutzpah claims, “It is not clear why Mr. Trump thought he was wiretapped or what led him to make the claim.” Again, look at the front-page New York Times headline.
The New York Times has been forced by confused readers to grudgingly admit[15] that President Trump’s tweets on Obama’s wiretapping actually do “echo certain aspects of The New York Times’s reporting from recent weeks.” But they try to offer up sorry excuses to explain away the glaring contradiction in their own reporting of Obama administration wiretapping of Trump and/or Trump people-and then their denials of it. The New York Times claims[16] that what they originally said was that Obama officials merely investigated past wiretap data in archives of “routine” surveillance already done, but did not wiretap into future data.
But the New York Times stated in January[7] that after past recordings of phone calls of Trump people had been checked, that the FBI “asked” the NSA to continue to “collect as much information as possible”-evidently without restraint or limitations-in what were clearly all future wiretapped calls between Russians and Trump people. It’s known as an intelligence “collection requirement.” (New York Times on January 20[7] and February 14[17]; see also the BBC[13] on January 12.)
White House spokesman Spicer, days before the Times’ excuse-making, clearly explained[16] that President Trump’s tweets on March 4 were based on open-source news media reporting of the wiretaps-thus including The New York Times-over the last few months.
In fact, the news media have been reporting[18] since at least September 23, 2016, that U.S. intelligence has been “actively monitoring” the “talks” (conversations), “wiretapping” the phone “calls,” and intercepting other communications of Trump aides or Trump himself-communications allegedly made with the Russians.
“Active monitoring” means wiretapping and surveillance of future phone calls, emails, texts, and other communications on an ongoing basis.
Not a shred of any New York Times or other reporting since September, 2016 on the “wiretapping” of Trump and/or his aides has demonstrated any concern whatsoever for Trump’s civil rights or the sanctity of the election process. No concern was expressed by the CIA, FBI, NSA or other agencies, or by the Obama White House-or by the media doing the reporting. In fact, they have been quite excited and eager about the prospect of illegal snooping on Trump.
As White House spokesman Spicer pointed out, efforts were made by Obama officials during their last days in office to lessen the protections of wiretap data in order to spread more widely any highly-sensitive wiretap data on Trump. The New York Times reported[19] on March 1 that the Obama administration’s lowering of “classification levels” of NSA data was done to “spread” the Trump wiretaps around various agencies and even foreign governments (see Obama DNI James Clapper’s orders lowering security protections of raw NSA intercept data, December. 15, 2016).
The New York Times had originally reported[20] on January 12 that this massive lowering of NSA wiretap data security was in contrast to Obama’s previous tightening of regulations in 2014, after the Snowden mass leak, to give “privacy protections to foreigners,” like they were Americans. But not for Trump.
The New York Times headline story[19] on March 1 that said Obama officials had “Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking” also admitted that officials say that alleged Trump collusion with Russia “has not been confirmed” in any of that intelligence wiretap data.
So what were they “rushing” to “preserve?” It is the purported Trump “conspiracy” with Russia that is utterly unsubstantiated and baseless. Wiretapping one’s political opponents in an election, as Obama or his minions have done, is a classic Watergate-style threat to the democratic process.
The Fake “Trump Dossier”
“As part of the inquiry,” wrote The New York Times, this “wiretapping” was done by the CIA, FBI and/or NSA to try to “investigate” the alleged Trump-Russian connections claimed in what is known as the (fake) “Trump dossier”-within a broader investigation of alleged Russian hacking and other supposed election interference (NY Times, January 20[7], February 14[17], 2017).
This “Trump dossier” is the controversial document composed by ex-British agent Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton’s still unidentified backers to do election “opposition research” against then-candidate Trump. It is riddled with absurd self-contradictions and vile allegations against President Trump.
The “dossier[21]” cannot even make up its mind, so to speak, as to whether the Russians did spend “years” passing political dirt on Hillary Clinton to Trump to help “cultivate” relationship with him-or did not in fact ever pass such info to Trump (Steele report[21], June 20, 2016). There are at least eight different origins of the hacked or leaked DNC emails claimed in the “dossier,” including that Trump hacked them, not the Russians, or that they were all just “created” or “made up.”
The one-party opposition media have managed to ignore the ridiculous contents of the bogus “Trump dossier” with its raving lunatic absurdities.
For example, thousands of Russian retirement “pensioners,” according to the “dossier,” did the hacking of the DNC emails and passed them on to Russian officials, apparently in secret meetings at (we infer) park benches and shuffleboard affairs in Miami and elsewhere (Steele reports 095 and 111[21] and Newsweek[22], November 4, 2016).
These Russian retirement pensioners living in the U.S. are “hacking…cyberoperatives” according to Newsweek, in its pre-election article[22] heavily based on Steele’s “Trump dossier,” oblivious to the patent absurdity of the claim.
You will not hear about that from the anti-Trump media, which so desperately wants the “Trump dossier” to be believed, regardless of whether any of it is true.
Appendix:
Former Justice Department Nazi-hunter, John Loftus, has explained how this US-British reciprocity scheme-or “wiretap shell game,” as he calls it-works. Loftus’ evidence of the top secret trick of US-British, NSA-GCHQ wiretapping of Americans is based on numerous NSA sources and others from many agencies stretching back decades, including censorship of this information from his and another expert’s early book manuscripts because of “classification” (Loftus[10], Secret War Against the Jews[11], 1997, pp. 188-195, 548-9).
According to Loftus this is how the illegal wiretapping “game” is played:
“… the NSA headquarters [at Fort Meade, Md.] is also the chief British espionage base in the United States. The presence of British wiretappers at the keyboards of American eavesdropping computers is a closely guarded secret….”
“The NSA is a giant vacuum cleaner. It sucks in every form of electronic information, from telephone calls to telegrams, across the United States. The presence of British personnel is essential for the American wiretappers to claim plausible deniability.
“Here’s how the game is played. The British liaison officer at [NSA Hq] Fort Meade types the [NSA-supplied] target list of ‘suspects’ into the American computer. The NSA computer sorts through its wiretaps and gives the British officer the recording of any American citizen he wants.
“Since it is technically a British target of surveillance, no American search warrant is necessary. [Loftus’ italics] The British officer then simply hands the results over to his American liaison officer. Of course, the Americans provide the same service to the British in return….”
“According to our sources, this duplicitous, reciprocal arrangement disguises the most massive, and illegal, domestic espionage apparatus in the world….
“Through this charade, the intelligence services of each country can claim that they are not targeting their own citizens. The targeting is done by an authorized foreign agent, the intelligence liaison resident in Britain or the United States” [Loftus, pp. 189-190; endnotes omitted].
Loftus describes how the courts tried to shut down some of the domestic wiretapping abuses, and how the FBI succeeded in evading the judiciary. Then the Bureau got its dream come true with the FISA law, which only applied to U.S. agencies, not the British:
“In 1978 Congress finally passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FIS) Act [or FISA], a feeble attempt to stamp out some of the worst excesses of domestic espionage…. [But FISA] was restricted only to targeting by American agencies, leaving the British liaison officer with a major loophole. The restrictive language added to the FIS Act [FISA] left unchanged the arrangement under which the British wiretapped American suspects and then passed on the information to the NSA.”
“To this day Congress does not realize that the British liaison officers at the NSA are still free to use American equipment to spy on American citizens. And, in fact, they are doing just that. Congress has been kept in the dark deliberately” [Loftus, pp. 191-2].
Naturally, such dirty-trick U.S.-British spying schemes have led to political abuses. In a comment of eerie timeliness today, with the claims of Obama directing the wiretapping of candidate Trump through British intelligence, Loftus states that:
“Over the years the British back-channel inside the NSA was used for a variety of political dirty tricks. A large number of American candidates for public office have been placed under electronic surveillance by British intelligence officers sitting at their ‘temporary listening post’ at [NSA] Fort Meade.” [Loftus, p. 195]
The views expressed in the articles published inFamilySecurityMatters.org are those of the authors. These views should not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public office. COPYRIGHT 2016 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
I received a notification from a Facebook group I am a part of informing readers that Benghazigate investigators from the House are being threatened for wanting to get to the truth.The Facebook group links to an article by Anthony Martin written on May 13, 2014. I gotta tell ya, reading the notification and that article was the first I had heard about threats.
I wasn’t surprised to hear such a thing simply because Obama and his Administration minions have been doing their darnedest to obfuscate and mislead pertaining to document evidence and preventing access to pertinent witnesses. Also scandals attached to President Clinton and his wife Hillary about people mysteriously dying or disappearing who might if questioned demonstrate harm to the Clinton agenda to transform America to a Left slanted society. An agenda by the way that President Barack Hussein Obama has moved on with an abuse of Executive authority which has questionable constitutional issues.
Scandals connected to the Obama Administration is becoming so large that if a PhD candidate could actually find a University that was not devoted to Leftist principles that person could write their dissertation on those scandals. Here is a list (not an exhaustive list) of Obama Administration Scandals that Congressional investigations were OBVIOUSLY stonewalled.
Fast and Furious: “Abstract:
“Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley recently released Part I of a three-part report titled Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation. The report contains a compelling narrative regarding this botched law enforcement operation. In particular, it exposes the lack of supervision of some terrible on-the-ground decisions—choices that had deadly consequences. Yet horrendous decision-making is only part of the story. Following the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, the implicated individuals decided to circle the wagons and, to prevent the disclosure of embarrassing and possibly criminal information, seemingly began a cover-up that persists to this day. The American public and the victims of Operation Fast and Furious deserve better.
… The report is relevant to:
oThe ongoing congressional investigation regarding Operation Fast and Furious,
oThe growing dispute with the Administration over its refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas,
oThe subsequent House vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, and
oThe court action to override President Barack Obama’s invocation of executive privilege to shield key material from the public and Congress.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, said Friday will mark one year since the committee began its probe, and the Obama administration so far has not answered even the most basic questions.
“The level of White House obstruction goes so far that they have blocked the committee from having a simple conversation with those Executive Branch employees who know the most about Solyndra’s loan guarantee,” Stearns said in a statement.
“We have exercised extraordinary restraint and patience, but unfortunately, we’ve been down this road before as the administration and its partisan allies have fought us tooth and nail every step of the way.”
The California-based Solyndra received a $535-million loan from the Department of Energy in 2009 as part of the stimulus act. But in September 2011, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and it was raided by the FBI shortly after that.
In the course of its investigation, the House Energy and Commerce Committee turned up e-mails showing that career government officials in the Energy Department and Office of Management and Budget opposed the loan, which political appointees supported.
The Obama administration has accused the committee of partisanship, and insists it has provided thousands of pages of documents already.
But Republicans on the committee say subpoenas are necessary because the White House is not cooperating.
“A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the (sic) New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
‘The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…’
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.
“The Obama administration has again been protected from a troubling scandal by the mainstream media (MSM) using the tactic of omission to simply ignore the scandal, its reality, and the negative blowback attendant to a disturbing story. As sunlight began to illuminate the scandal’s …
The underreported scandal referenced is generally identified as “Pigford.” Pigford’s germination occurred in 1997 as a lawsuit (Pigford vs. Glickman) alleging that 91 African-American farmers were unfairly denied loans by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) due to racial discrimination which prevented the complainants from farming. In 1999, the black farmers won their case.
… Since then, Eric Holder (and Obama) have been involved in overseeing and managing the Pigford “judgment fund.”
…
Pigford began innocently enough: as a lawsuit to redress a perceived wrong against a group of 91. But then the number climbed to 400….then 1,600…then…
The number of black farmers has metastasized — nay, exploded — and the aggrieved group now includes not only blacks, but Hispanics, Native Americans, and females. In fact over 90,000 people have filed claims seeking a payment under the terms of the original Pigford court ruling. That decision, now referred to as Pigford #1, was anticipated to cost approximately $120 million, including legal fees.
Pigford #2 is the appellation used to identify an expanded payment regime that funds more payments to African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and females. This regimen grew out of the fact that thousands of claimants missed the original Pigford #1 filing deadline of October 12, 1999. Interestingly, Native American potential claimants were estimated at 5,300, while plaintiff lawyers pegged the exposure at an estimated 19,000 Native Americans. The judgment fund announced by Agricultural Secretary Thomas Vilsack and Eric Holder in 2010 was expanded from just over $120 million to $1.25 billion, given the expectation of many more filers.
However, the explosion of claimants has caused payouts to reach $4.4 billion and has swelled legal fees to over $130 million. More importantly, the claim’s process created a rush to get a share of the monies allocated to the judgment fund, even if no real claim existed. Essentially, the process encouraged people to lie and spawned a cottage industry. Claimants had only to file applications for a $50,000 payment by stating that they had “thought about” applying for loans to become a farmer.
…
The combination of the racial criticism, the MSM’s silence regarding Pigford, and the quarantine on additional Pigford narratives subsequent to the NY Times‘ article have emphasized the media’s concern for the damage an ongoing discussion of Pigford could cause the president. … (Pigford: The Unexamined Obama Administration Scandal; By Jim O’Sullivan; American Thinker; 6/15/13)
NSA Spying on American:
First of all you should be aware the lower courts are struggling with the concept that NSA Spying on Americans is constitutional or unconstitutional:
“Southern District of New York Judge William Pauley III declaredin a December 27 decision that the NSA surveillance program — which draws in every American’s telephone records without a warrant or probable cause — was “legal” even though it “imperils the civil liberties of every citizen.” The decision contrasts sharply with a decisiontwo weeks ago by Washington, D.C. District Court Judge Richard Leon that termed the warrantless surveillance program unconstitutional and “almost Orwellian.”” (N.Y. Judge: NSA Spying “Imperils Civil Liberties of Every Citizen” but “Legal”; By Thomas R. Eddlem; New American; 12/27/13 18:10)
BUT – whatever you think about Eric Snowden – Patriot or Traitor – his disclosures on NSA spying is making waves all the way from Moscow. Due to the waves you need to be aware of another spy agency – Government Communication Headquarters – UK (GCHQ):
“The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is a British intelligence agency responsible for providing signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance to the British government and armed forces. Based in “The Doughnut“, in the suburbs of Cheltenham, it operates under the formal direction of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) alongside the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and Defence Intelligence (DI). GCHQ is the responsibility of the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but it is not a part of the Foreign Office and its Director ranks as a Permanent Secretary.”
… READ THE REST(Government Communications Headquarters; Wikipedia; last updated 5/19/14 21:14 – I left the intra-Wikipedia links, to read them go to the article – except “The Doughnut” link.)
Snowden has released documentation showing that the NSA and the GCHQ have been cooperating with each other on spying on Americans (& probably Brits) via their webcams. Even the Dems in the Senate are upset:
Three US senators are planning to investigate any role the National Security Agency played in its British partner’s mass collection of Yahoo webcam images.
Reacting to the Guardian’s revelation on Thursday that UK surveillance agency GCHQ swept up millions of Yahoo users’ webcam chats, senators Ron Wyden, Mark Udall and Martin Heinrich said in a joint statement that “any involvement of US agencies in the alleged activities reported today will need to be closely scrutinized”.
The senators described the interception as a “breathtaking lack of respect for privacy and civil liberties”.
…
According to documents provided to the Guardian by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the GCHQ program codenamed Optic Nerve fed screengrabs of webcam chats and associated metadata into NSA tools such as Xkeyscore.
NSA research, the documents indicate, also contributed to the creation of Optic Nerve, which attempted to use facial recognition technology to identify intelligence targets, particularly those using multiple anonymous internet IDs. (Bold text is Editor’s)
Neither NSA nor GCHQ addressed the Guardian’s questions about US access to the images themselves. …
Wyden, Udall and Heinrich are all members of the Senate intelligence committee. They said they were “extremely troubled” by Optic Nerve and planned to investigate it during the committee’s announced omnibus inquiry into the scope of US surveillance activities revealed over the nine months since the Guardian and other news outlets began reporting the Snowden disclosures.
“We are extremely troubled by today’s press report that a very large number of individuals – including law-abiding Americans – may have had private videos of themselves and their families intercepted and stored without any suspicion of wrongdoing. If this report is accurate it would show a breathtaking lack of respect for the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding citizens,” they said.
IRS Targeting Conservatives and Tea Party Organizations:
“…
Last week, the legal advocacy organization, Judicial Watch, released incriminating emails that prove the IRS abused its authority by singling out Tea Party conservatives for punitive actions. The most damaging email was sent by Lois Lerner, the now-disgraced IRS honcho who’s still refusing to testify before Congress, and it revealed that raw political motives were behind the efforts.
…
On March 30, 2012, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin wrote a letter to then-IRS Commissioner, Douglas Shulman, discussing the issue of political activity by nonprofit applicants. Levin asked if the IRS was sending out additional information requests to applicant groups.
“Some entities claiming tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations under 26 U.S.C& 501(c)(4) appear to be engaged in political activities more appropriate for political organizations claiming tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C.&527,” Sen. Levin wrote. “Because of the urgency of the issues involved in this matter, please provide the following information by April 20, 2012.”
This email is the smoking gun that proves there was political pressure behind the IRS moves. Correspondence between Senator Levin and Shulman powerfully implies that Levin wasn’t simply looking for information about the actions of the IRS. Rather, Levin seems to be guiding the IRS and calling for retaliatory processes.
Another email, sent by Lerner in April 2013, includes a description of the criteria for targeting. The list is a “BOLO” (government lingo for “be on the lookout”) directive targeting any nonprofit applicant linked to the Tea Party.
The email specifically named “organizations meeting any of the following criteria as falling within the BOLO’s reference to ‘Tea Party’ organizations: 1. ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ or ’9/12 Project’ is referenced in the case file. 2. Issues include government spending, government debt and taxes. 3. Educate the public through advocacy/legislative activities to make America a better place to live. 4. Statements in the case file that are critical of how the country is being run.”
Why anyone would be against an organization wanting to “make America a better place to live,” I’ll never understand. Either way, this is the criteria set by Lerner for IRS targeting.
In addition to the …
…
These emails rip to shreds the Obama administration’s oft-repeated lie that the targeting effort was exclusive to the Cincinnati IRS office. It’s now obvious that there was an organized, deliberate campaign to target Tea Party groups.
OK the proof is out there that IRS targeting the Tea Party and Conservatives was not the work of rogue agents at Cincinnati field office. Why hasn’t House investigations shown the same results? IT IS BECAUSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
“On May 21, 2013 the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent the IRS a Freedom of Information Act request asking for “any and all documents or records, including but not limited to electronic documents, e-mails, paper documents, photographs (electronic or hard copy), or audio files,” related to correspondence from January 1, 2009 and May 21, 2013 between thirteen different Democrat members of Congress and top IRS officials. Those officials include former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, former Commissioner Steven Miller, senior IRS official Joseph Grant and former head of tax exempt groups Lois Lerner. Members of Congress named in the request include Sen. Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Reid (D-NV), DSCC Chair Sen. Bennet (D-CO), Sen. Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Pryor (D-AR), Sen. Hagan (D-NC), Sen. Begich (D-AK), Sen. Shaheen (D-NH), Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), Sen. Franken (D-MN), Sen. Warner (D-VA), Rep. Braley and Rep. Peters (D-MI).
Since that request was received by the IRS nearly one year ago, IRS Tax Law Specialists Robert Thomas and Denise Higley have asked for more time to fulfill the request six times.
“I am responding to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated May 21, 2013, and received in our office on May 30, 2013,” Higley wrote in a letter to NRSC Attorney Megan Sowards last year. “I am unable to send the information requested by June 27, 2013, which is the 20 business day period allowed by law. I apologize for any inconvenience this delay may cause.”
Thomas and Higley have sent six letters with the same language and different dates to Sowards requesting more time to locate information in order to fulfill the FOIA request. Most recently, the IRS has asked for a deadline of August 1, 2014 to produce information.
Earlier this week Judicial Watch released documents showing Democratic Michigan Senator Carl Levin was in contact with former Deputy IRS Commissioner Steven Miller repeatedly throughout 2012 and was working with the agency on how conservative groups, specifically those working against his reelection, could be targeted through IRS rules and regulations. Last monthwe learned the staff of Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings had been in touch with the IRS about voter fraud prevention group True the Vote, despite direct denials from Cummings any contact with the IRS had ever occurred.” (EXCLUSIVE: IRS Stonewalling FOIA Request Surrounding Correspondence With Democratic Members of Congress; By Katie Pavlich; Townhall.com; 5/16/14)
Yup, I had to post the whole Pavlich article rather than excerpting it. The article was brief but packed with info of White House and Dem politicians obstructing justice.
I am going to finish with Benghazigate obstruction of investigation by the White House last because that is what got this ball rolling for me. However, the newest relevant scandal has to do with American Veterans:
Veteran Affairs (VA) Letting Vets DIE:
“WASHINGTON — If the Veterans Administration scandal is a preview of government-run health insurance, then Republicans are rapidly acquiring explosive new ammunition in their efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare.
The scandal is becoming a bigger disaster everyday. Also, more evidence is accumulating that the Obama administration was repeatedly warned about problems at the VA, going back all the way to 2008, before the president even took office.
…
The Washington Times reported Monday that the Obama administration received notice more than five years ago that VA medical facilities were reporting inaccurate waiting times and experiencing scheduling failures that threatened to deny veterans timely health care.
Veterans Affairs officials reportedly warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the wait times that its facilities were reporting were not trustworthy.
According to a memo the Times obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data; it affects quality of care by delaying – and potentially denying – deserving veterans timely care.”
The 2008 transition report referred to a VA inspector general recommendation to test the accuracy of reported waiting times, because there could be “questionable differences” between the dates shown in medical records and dates in the Veterans Health Administration’s scheduling system.
Benghazigate Obstruction Finally Leads to a House Select Committee:
“House Speaker John Boehner recently asked me to serve on the Select Committee to Investigate the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, a significant and solemn responsibility that I accepted.
This was not a decision I took lightly. The Benghazi attack was a terrible tragedy, and we still mourn the four Americans that were brutally murdered that day. Some have asked why further investigation is needed on Benghazi after multiple existing committee inquiries into the matter – including one I led.
One reason is that the Administration’s explanation for exactly what happened that day and why has been far from clear – both in the immediate aftermath and months later.
Recently we learned the White House withheld important Benghazi documents from Congressional investigators. These documents reveal a campaign-focused White House in spin control mode, and the failure to disclose them raises questions as to what else has been hidden from the public.
Such a lack of transparency is unacceptable. It is the duty of Congress to seek answers on the government’s activities on behalf of the American people, particularly when government officials attempt to obscure the truth.
Another reason this Select Committee is needed is that the multi-jurisdictional nature of the Benghazi issue makes it difficult to investigate across the existing committee structure. You may remember that during my time as chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I led the inquiry into military activities surrounding the Benghazi attack.
While we were thorough in our investigation, our jurisdiction was limited to the Department of Defense. There are many more layers to the Benghazi story, including our intelligence community, the State Department, and, of course, the White House. And, while other committees have made inquires in those areas, no group has had the authority to investigate all aspects of the Benghazi situation at the same time – until now. A select committee with broad jurisdiction will better connect all the dots and …” READ THE REST (ROBY: Why I’m Serving on the Select Committee to Investigate Benghazi; By Rep. Martha Roby; Yellow Hammer; 5/19/14)
I’m a bit behind in all this stuff now because I didn’t actually read this information until May 17. So I thought I’d look for some independent verification reports on House members being threatened for participating in a Benghazi Select Committee. So after using the old search engine I was surprised that very few legitimate sources have reported on any threats to House members. The stretch of time most active on threats seems to be between May 6 and May 8. AND all those sources point to Politico as the primary source of an “assassination” threat against Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) tagged to Chair a Benghazi Select Committee to ferret out more info from the Obama Administration. After May 8 information on something that should be considered very serious has dried up. The search engine did not bring up any other credible sources on the issue and a quick search on Politico only results in the original story from May 6.
What the heck does that mean?
It leaves me with guess work. The death threat was very credible and the police are keeping the story away from the Mainstream Media (MSM). OR the story was not credible and Politico would just forget they did one story because no other MSM is touching it. OR perhaps the worst case scenario Obama’s Administration is plugging holes a la Watergate to further stall bad press that might affect old BHO.
At any rate, the Examiner.com is the vehicle for a May 13 story by Anthony Martin who has an unnamed source that is a member of the “underground resistance” (whatever that is) again notifying readers that Republicans that join the House Benghazi Select Committee to investigate the truth are under threat of either personal harm BUT more likely of MASSIVE character assassination (a la Sarah Palin) to discredit finding and/or destroy careers.
Well we know the Dems are really good at the latter.
On Thursday, May 8, 2014, a source who described himself as a part of the “underground resistance” told this reporter that a top level government official had relayed information to a fellow patriot in the resistance movement, information that represents a dire threat to investigators of the Benghazi attacks. The threat was directed specifically to those who have been chosen for the Select Committee on Benghazi in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as reporters who are investigating the Benghazi attacks.
Although the nature of the threat was unclear, the government source was adamant that at the very least those who attempt to get at the real truth about Benghazi would “be destroyed politically.” When asked what he thought such a threat means, the source in the resistance movement stated the closer Congressional investigators such as Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., get to the uncovering the truth the more at risk they are to become targets of a well-coordinated smear campaign, complete with lies, innuendo, false charges, and character assassination, all designed to ruin their careers.
In order to be transparent concerning these reports, it is imperative that I emphasize that I do not know the person who relayed the information from the underground resistance. He would not provide his name, nor would he provide the name of the fellow patriot who talked directly to the government source. But he stated that the truth of what he had conveyed would be verified nationally on Friday, May 9, probably on conservative talk radio.
I attempt to monitor all of the nationally syndicated conservative talk radio shows, but I heard nothing about this issue on Friday. But on Sunday evenings a couple of local radio stations play episodes of talk shows that are not carried on weekdays. It was then that I hit pay dirt. I began listening to the replay of Friday’s Dennis Miller Show, which is broadcast on a local station once per week on Sunday.
Miller, of course, is the Hollywood actor turned talk show host who appears regularly on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor to discuss political issues with Bill O’Reilly. Miller has a daily talk show on the west coast that is picked up by some stations in other areas of the country.
One segment of Friday’s show dealt specifically with the Benghazi investigation as the U.S. House gears up to delve into the attacks by a Select Committee chosen to discover the facts about the attacks — facts that have been carefully hidden by the Obama administration despite several committee investigations and a lawsuit that forced it to turn over to Judicial Watch a group of emails and documents it has deliberately withheld from Congress. Even after winning the lawsuit and forcing the administration’s hand, Judicial Watch has reported that there are still thousands of documents the administration has refused to turn over despite the court order.
And then came the bombshell statement by a guest that Miller had on the show to discuss these matters. The guest stated that he believes that the American people will never know the truth about Benghazi, in spite of the Select Committee. Miller agreed. Further, the guest stated that he was convinced that those who get too close to the truth will be targets of a massive coordinated attack involving character assassination, falsehoods, bogus charges, and other dirty tricks that will have the effect of ruining the careers of those involved. The same thing, he said, would happen to reporters who get too close to the truth.
Miller agreed fully and wondered if the investigation would be worth it if it means that good men and women of integrity will have their lives destroyed. Miller’s reticence is a worthy consideration, although it should not be enough to stop an investigation. Already the collectivist cabal involving Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Podesta of George Soros’ Center for American Progress, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and many others has begun attacking anyone who wants to know the truth.
But that’s not all. These particular politicians are bankrolled by multibillionaires who not only have deep pockets but are pushing a collectivist, globalist agenda. Democrats and collectivists would love for citizens to think that only Republicans and libertarians have supporters with lots of money, such as the Koch Brothers. But the Democrats and extremists among the collectivists have even more wealthy donors who somehow remain in the shadows.
So, what is the uptake concerning this credible threat? An overriding factor is that Trey Gowdy does not scare easily. As a former U.S. prosecutor and District Attorney for the upstate of South Carolina, he has seen it all, including numerous death threats and attempts to destroy his career. But this man is no man’s fool. He is amazingly intelligent, a quick study, a bulldog who will not let go until he gets the facts, and a steadfast advocate for truth and justice.
Could Gowdy be destroyed in the process of investigating Benghazi? Anything is possible, but this is highly unlikely. The pit bulls of the collectivist cabal may have seen some pretty mean creatures in their long careers of creating political mayhem, but they have never encountered Trey Gowdy. Good luck with that one.
______________________________
Benghazi Select Committee should be Forerunner to Truth-Out Obama
Examiner.com launched in April 2008, to provide freelancers across the United States with a platform to share their knowledge and expertise through informative and entertaining content. We have an in-house editorial team that provides guidance and mentorship to the contributors. Our network has grown to over 100,000 contributors, captivating our audience with interesting, entertaining, relevant content on a variety of topics. Examiner.com is a top 100 website, reaching over 37 million unique visitors a month.*
Examiner.com is wholly owned by The Anschutz Corporation, one of the largest sports and entertainment companies in the world. Headquartered in Denver, CO, Examiner.com is guided by an executive team comprised of veterans of numerous start-ups, established media outlets and online leaders including Gannett, Disney, AOL, Yahoo! among others.
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
