Rand Paul: ‘Deep State Is Trying To Bring Trump Down’


“The deep state is the intelligence agencies that do not have oversight”
 

By Steve Watson
Prison Planet.com

During an appearance on The Laura Ingraham Show this week, Senator Rand Paul warned that “Absolutely, there is a deep state” and that it is actively working to “try to bring Trump down.”

“The deep state is the intelligence agencies that do not have oversight,” Paul said, adding “Only eight people in Congress know what they’re doing, and traditionally, those eight people have been a rubber stamp to let the intelligence communities do whatever they want.”

The Senator was referring to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, in addition to the chairmen and ranking members of the two intelligence committees.

“There is no skeptic among the eight people that are supposedly overseeing the intelligence community.” Paul warned.

 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Probing Mueller: What Were His Roles in Boston Mafia Murders, Uranium One, and Other FBI Scandals?


By William F. Jasper
TheNewAmerican.com


Why has Robert Mueller (shown) been shielded from questions about his role in some of the FBI’s most shameful scandals? Is it because his “Russia collusion” probe is the pointy tip of the Deep State spear aimed at President Trump?

What was Robert Mueller’s role in the infamous “partnership” between the FBI and the Boston Mafia that involved multiple murders, racketeering, extortion, witness tampering, and much more? Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a media-crafted image as “Mr. Integrity,” a straight-shooting, non-partisan, nose-to-the-grindstone, publicity-shunning public servant. The anti-Trump media projected the same kind of squeaky-clean image for former FBI Director James Comey. However, it is now public knowledge that he is a lying, leaking, partisan, political hack who grossly abused his powerful office. He should be facing criminal prosecution instead of being rewarded with a secretive (and potentially illegal) multi-million dollar book deal.

Robert Mueller’s past appears to be even more checkered than Comey’s. In her blog post for March 20, investigative reporter Sarah Carter brings up nagging questions about Robert Mueller’s troubled history that refuse to go away — because they have never been answered. Entitled, “Questions Still Surround Robert Mueller’s Boston Past,” the article deals with Mueller's involvement in what is usually referred to as “The Whitey Bulger Case” or “The FBI-Boston Mob Case,” one of the most sensational black eyes the FBI has ever suffered.

Whitey Bulger, as The New American detailed back in 1998 (“FBI Covering for Criminals”), was the murderous boss of Boston’s notorious Winter Hill Gang, also known as the “Irish Mafia.” For two decades (1975-1994) Bulger led a charmed existence, as his brutal gang carried out their crime rampage under the FBI’s protection! Time after time, Massachusetts state and local police had their elaborate, years-long investigations of Bulger foiled by FBI interference. FBI Special Agent John Connolly and John Morris, who was in charge of the FBI’s Boston Organized Crime Squad, were Bulger’s protectors and would tip him off to investigations and wiretaps by other police agencies. This corrupt FBI-Bulger relationship was dramatized in Martin Scorcese’s 2006 film, The Departed, starring Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Matt Damon. In 1994, Bulger was tipped off by his FBI handler John Connolly that investigators were closing in on him. He went on the lam and eluded capture for 16 years. He was arrested in California in 2011 and went on trial in 2013, charged with 32 counts of racketeering, including 19 murders. The jury convicted Bulger of 31 of the 32 counts, including 11 of the 19 murders. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences plus five years.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Mueller’s Investigation Flouts Justice Department Standards


By Andrew C. McCarthy
NationalReview.com

These columns have many times observed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s failure to set limits on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. To trigger the appointment of a special counsel, federal regulations require the Justice Department to identify the crimes that warrant investigation and prosecution — crimes that the Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate in the normal course; crimes that become the parameters of the special counsel’s jurisdiction.

Rosenstein, instead, put the cart before the horse: Mueller was invited to conduct a fishing expedition, a boundless quest to hunt for undiscovered crimes, rather than an investigation and prosecution of known crimes.

That deviation, it turns out, is not the half of it. With Rosenstein’s passive approval, Mueller is shredding Justice Department charging policy by alleging earth-shattering crimes, then cutting a sweetheart deal that shields the defendant from liability for those crimes and from the penalties prescribed by Congress. The special counsel, moreover, has become a legislature unto himself, promulgating the new, grandiose crime of “conspiracy against the United States” by distorting the concept of “fraud.”

Why does the special counsel need to invent an offense to get a guilty plea? Why doesn’t he demand a plea to one of the several truly egregious statutory crimes he claims have been committed?

Good questions.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Trump Is Right: The Special Counsel Should Never Have Been Appointed


President Trump is right in saying that a special counsel should never have been appointed to investigate the so-called Russian connection. There was no evidence of any crime committed by the Trump administration. But there was plenty of evidence that Russian operatives had tried to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, and perhaps other elections, in the hope of destabilizing democracy. Yet, appointing a special counsel to look for crimes, behind the closed doors of a grand jury, was precisely the wrong way to address this ongoing challenge to our democracy.

The right way would have been (and still is) to appoint a nonpartisan investigative commission, such as the one appointed following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, to conduct a broad and open investigation of the Russian involvement in our elections. This is what other democracies, such as Great Britain and Israel, do in response to systemic problems. The virtue of such a commission is precisely the nonpartisan credibility of its objective experts, who have no political stake in the outcome.

Such a commission could have informed the American public of what Russia did and how to prevent it from doing it again. It would not seek partisan benefit from its findings, the way congressional committees invariably do. Nor would it be searching for crimes in an effort to criminalize political sins, the way special counsels do to justify their existence and budget. Its only job would be to gather information and make recommendations.

The vice of a special counsel is that he is supposed to find crimes, and if he comes up empty-handed, after spending lots of taxpayer money, then he is deemed a failure. If he can’t charge the designated target — in this case, the president — he must at least charge some of those close to the target, even if it is for crimes unrelated to the special counsel’s core mandate. By indicting these low-hanging fruits, he shows that he is trying. Maybe those lesser defendants will flip and sing against higher-ups, but the problem is that the pressure to sing may cause certain defendants to “compose,” meaning make up or enhance evidence in order to get a better deal for themselves.

In this case, the appointment of a special counsel has done more harm than good. It has politicized our justice system beyond repair. The FBI deputy director has been fired for leaking and lying. His testimony appears to be in conflict with that of the former FBI director as to whether the leaks were authorized. Messages by high-ranking FBI agents suggest strong bias against Trump. A tweet by the former CIA director reveals equally strong negative views of the president. Perhaps these revelations prove nothing more than that law enforcement and national security officials are human and hold political views like everyone else.

But these views are not supposed to influence their decisions. In our age of hyperpartisanship, the public has understandably lost confidence in the ability and willingness of our leaders to separate their political views from their law enforcement decisions. This is not all attributable to the appointment of the special counsel, but the criminalization of political differences on both sides of the aisle has certainly contributed to the atmosphere of distrust in our justice system.

The public has lost faith in the leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI. They don’t trust congressional investigative committees. They don’t know whom to believe when they hear conflicting accounts. There are leaks galore followed by denials of leaks. It’s a total mess. And what do we have to show for it? Just a handful of low-level indictments based largely on alleged crimes that are either unrelated or only marginally related to Russia’s attempt to influence our presidential election in 2016.

It’s not too late to try to repair some of the damage done. Let Congress now appoint a nonpartisan commission to conduct a transparent investigation of Russia’s efforts to influence our elections. Let the special counsel suspend his investigation until the nonpartisan commission issues its report. If the report identifies crimes and criminals, there will be time enough to indict and prosecute. Right now, we need the nonpartisan truth, because we aren’t getting it from the special counsel.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Sacked by AG Jeff Sessions


 


The Washington Times

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe less than two days before his retirement from the bureau.

The firing, effective immediately, was announced late Friday night in a statement by the Department of Justice. By firing Mr. McCabe now, it puts the pension he accumulated as a 21-year FBI vet at risk, potentially costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mr. McCabe, formerly the second-highest ranking FBI official, was fired after a review by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz recommended the dismissal after an internal review.

The report, which has yet to be made public, is said to have concluded Mr. McCabe mislead investigators about his role in allowing FBI officials to speak to reporters at The Wall Street Journal about a corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation, according to published reports on Wednesday.

Although the Justice Department did not confirm if McCabe was fired for The Wall Street Journal interview, it did say he made “an unauthorized disclosure to the news media.”

The report, which has yet to be made public, is said to have concluded Mr. McCabe mislead investigators about his role in allowing FBI officials to speak to reporters at The Wall Street Journal about a corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation, according to published reports on Wednesday.

Although the Justice Department did not confirm if McCabe was fired for The Wall Street Journal interview, it did say he made “an unauthorized disclosure to the news media.”

“After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of Inspector General provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility,” the statement said.

 

 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

"My First Day As CIA Director"



Former CIA analyst and founder of 'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity' Ray McGovern, in this tongue-in-cheek article, outlines steps he would take on Day One as CIA Director to get to the bottom of Russiagate.

Via ConsortiumNews.com

Now that I have been nominated again – this time by author Paul Craig Roberts – to be CIA director, I am preparing to hit the ground running.

Last time my name was offered in nomination for the position – by The Nation publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel – I did not hold my breath waiting for a call from the White House. Her nomination came in the afterglow of my fortuitous, four-minute debate with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when I confronted him on his lies about the attack on Iraq, on May 4, 2006 on national TV. Since it was abundantly clear that Rumsfeld and I would not get along, I felt confident I had royally disqualified myself.

This time around, on the off-chance I do get the nod, I have taken the time to prepare the agenda for my first few days as CIA director.

Here’s how Day One looks so far:

Get former National Security Agency Technical Director William Binney back to CIA to join me and the “handpicked” CIA analysts who, with other “handpicked” analysts (as described by former National Intelligence Director James Clapper on May 8, 2017) from the FBI and NSA, prepared the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017. That evidence-impoverished assessment argued the case that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his minions “to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.”

When my predecessor, CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited Binney to his office on Oct. 24, 2017 to discuss cyber-attacks, he told Pompeo that he had been fed a pack of lies on “Russian hacking” and that he could prove it. Why Pompeo left that hanging is puzzling, but I believe this is the kind of low-hanging fruit we should pick pronto.

The low-calorie Jan. 6 ICA was clumsily cobbled together:

“We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence … used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.”

Binney and other highly experienced NSA alumni, as well as other members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), drawing on their intimate familiarity with how the technical systems and hacking work, have been saying for a year and a half that this CIA/FBI/NSA conclusion is a red herring, so to speak. Last summer, the results of forensic investigation enabled VIPS to apply the principles of physics and the known capacity of the internet to confirm that conclusion.

Oddly, the FBI chose not to do forensics on the so-called “Russian hack” of the Democratic National Committee computers and, by all appearances, neither did the drafters of the ICA.

Again, Binney says that the main conclusions he and his VIPS colleagues reached are based largely on principles of physics – simple ones like fluid dynamics. I want to hear what that’s all about, how that applies to the “Russian hack,” and hear what my own CIA analysts have to say about that.

I will have Binney’s clearances updated to remove any unnecessary barriers to a no-holds-barred discussion at a highly classified level. After which I shall have a transcript prepared, sanitized to protect sources and methods, and promptly released to the media.

Like Sisyphus Up the Media Mountain

At that point things are bound to get very interesting. Far too few people realize that they get a very warped view on such issues from the New York Times. And, no doubt, it would take some time, for the Times and other outlets to get used to some candor from the CIA, instead of the far more common tendentious leaks.  In any event, we will try to speak truth to the media – as well as to power.

I happen to share the view of the handful of my predecessor directors who believed we have an important secondary obligation to do what we possibly can to inform/educate the public as well as the rest of the government – especially on such volatile and contentious issues like “Russian hacking.”

What troubles me greatly is that the NYT and other mainstream print and TV media seem to be bloated with the thin gruel-cum-Kool-Aid they have been slurping at our CIA trough for a year and a half; and then treating the meager fare consumed as some sort of holy sacrament. That goes in spades for media handling of the celebrated ICA of Jan. 6, 2017 cobbled together by those “handpicked” analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA.  It is, in all candor, an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence analysis and yet, for political reasons, it has attained the status of Holy Writ.

The Paper of (Dubious) Record

I recall the banner headline spanning the top of the entire front page of the NYT on Jan. 7, 2017: “Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says;” and the electronic version headed “Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds.”  I said to myself sarcastically, “Well there you go!  That’s exactly what Mrs. Clinton – not to mention the NY Times, the Washington Post and The Establishment – have been saying for many months.”

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Mark Levin Interviews Devin Nunes (R-CA), House Intelligence Committee Chair


Mark Levin interviewed House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes on the overall FISA Court abuse and political investigation by the DOJ and FBI.  In a comprehensive interview Levin walks through a timeline of media reporting.

 

 

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted for Chris Steele?


By Robert Barnes
LawAndCrime.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign? Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian trolls claimed their social media political activity was criminal because: they were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission.

First, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal: first, he is a foreign citizen; second, he tried to influence an election, which he received payments to do (including from the FBI itself); and third, he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. Also, according to the FBI, along the way, Steele lied…a lot, while the dossier he disseminated contained its own lies based on bought-and-paid for smears from foreign sources reliant on rumors and innuendo.

Second, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make FusionGPS a criminal co-conspirator: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission.

Third, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make PerkinsCoie a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its receipt of payments from the Clinton campaign as a “legal expense.”

Fourth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make the DNC a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its payments to Steele as laundered legal expenses to a law firm.

Fifth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make the Clinton Campaign a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its funding of payments to Steele laundered through a law firm as a “legal expense.”

Don’t expect such an indictment. Mueller chose his targets because he knows they will never appear in court, never contest the charges, and cannot be arrested or extradited as Russian citizens. Mueller’s unprecedented prosecution raises three novel arguments: first, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; second, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission; and third, that mistakes on visa applications constitute “fraud” on the State Department. All appear to borrow from the now-discredited “honest services” theories Mueller’s team previously used in corporate and bribery cases, cases the Supreme Court overturned for their unconstitutional vagueness. The indictment raises serious issues under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Highly Disturbing Trend Emerges Between Florida and Other Mass Shootings

Demolishes Liberal Narrative


By Allen West

“See something, say something” – that’s what they tell us to do, but the question now becomes do they really want us to? And, when we do, they do really act upon it?

I want to take the time to articulate the real concern we should have in the aftermath of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting that tragically claimed the lives of 17 Americans, and other wounded…not to mention the trauma that many may experience for years to come.

It now appears that all of this could have been prevented. We now know that just in January there were warning signs, and information provided to the FBI. This came after the tips from a gentleman after seeing very disconcerting social media posts by one Nikolas Cruz referencing shooting up schools. What’s even more concerning is that the progressive socialist left doesn’t EVER allow facts to materialize. Instead, they immediately rush to their preconceived talking points and judgement.

The legal possession of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle by law-abiding citizens such as myself has nothing to do with what happened at Stoneman Douglas. And if we are to be adults, we need to analyze this episode, as well as others, and find trends enabling us to develop solutions to rectify this issue. However, it would seem some have no interest in conducting the meticulous mature analysis and assessments, as they prefer the insidious regurgitation of their assigned ideological rhetoric and talking points.

Besides better security for our schools, greater parental engagement and involvement, and dealing with mental illness, what I find most troubling about this shooting is why wasn’t it prevented? And this isn’t by any means a criticism of the FBI, but rather an assessment of very perplexing trends. Instances taken alone cause concern, but when aggregated cause major alarm.

Let’s consider some perplexing trends.

First, let’s look at the case of Nidal Hasan, an Islamic jihadist now serving life imprisonment in Ft. Leavenworth — where Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning should be. Hasan was assigned as a psychologist at Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC. There had been several complaints about his radical proselytizing of our Soldiers who were there to receive counseling. This was known, as well, Hasan had associations with the radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki — who by the way led prayers on Capitol Hill. Why was Nidal Hasan allowed to be transferred to Ft. Hood Texas? Why wasn’t he investigated, and subsequently separated from the U.S. Army…not to mention queried by our law enforcement agencies for his associations? Hasan referred to himself as a “soldier for Allah” and we know the rest of the story. Soldiers whom he was supposed to have been treated and coworkers say something, and said something, but their concerns were dismissed. As a result, 13 Americans lost their lives, and 31 Americans were wounded due to his actions. The issue was not gun control.

Omar Mateen had been referred to the FBI for investigation. He also resided in South Florida. There were no follow-ups and surveillance done on him. And the Islamic center he attended had some concerns as well. Mateen went under the radar and planned his nefarious action that targeted the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando…Fifty-plus Americans were killed, countless others wounded. Someone had seen something and said something, but there was no follow-up surveillance of said individual. The issue was not gun control.

Sayed Farouk and Tashfeen Malik carried out an Islamic jihadist attack at an office Christmas celebration in San Bernardino, California. California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in our Republic. But what’s more concerning is the fact that Tashfeen Malik entered the United States on something called a “fiancée visa.” Who knew, lo and behold, she provided false information on her entry application that was never checked or verified. Neighbors living near Farouk’s residence did see something, but due to our overly sensitive politically-correct fears of “Islamophobia,” those neighbors said nothing. Fourteen Americans were killed, and another 22 were wounded. The issue was not gun control.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)