A Conspiracy Against the People

 Whatever the reason, it is beside the point now. In the eyes of millions of Middle Americans, U.S. fundamental institutions are irreparably corrupt, acting merely as instruments of coercion and control for an order that does not represent the people.

Getting to this point wasn’t easy. The regime has managed to radicalize the very people who are most patriotic about this country and most reverent of its myths, symbols, and founding documents. Middle Americans had been led to believe that if they disliked a particular order, they could simply vote for another one. That was the essence of the Trump moment—a repudiation of the status quo through a legitimate democratic process. But when the establishment attempted effectively to negate millions of votes by conspiring to unseat an elected president, it destroyed the illusion of institutional neutrality. When the establishment began demonizing Middle Americans as terrorists, it gave them the impression that they were living in an occupied country, one run by people who are not just indifferent but actually hostile to its citizenry. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said he agreed with the claim that today’s Republicans are more “nihilistic,” “dangerous,” and “contemptible” than any other extremists in the world. In a Sept. 1 speech before Independence Hall, Biden himself declared that “MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Of course, in order for it to be threatened, there must first be a functioning republic.

America today resembles the Roman Republic just before Caesar ended the farce. Trump, in retrospect, was never half the monster his enemies made him out to be. In many ways, he was too kind to political enemies and incapable of making correct distinctions between friend and foe. But by disabusing so many people of the illusions necessary for maintaining the pleasant charade of the status quo, the establishment has all but guaranteed the rise of a force in the future that will be as bad—or worse—than what they pretended Trump was.

Conspiracies in January, facts in December

 

Fascinating Bio of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell's Father

Robert Barnes' recap of the career of Robert Maxwell (Ghislaine's dad) is amazing.

Maxwell supposedly died of a heart attack while on his yacht. There is wide speculation that he was actually abducted, tortured for information, and then returned to the yacht dead.

He was connected to every western intelligence agency -- and every communist one too.

Parts of LeCarre's Russia House were lifted right from his bio.

And isn't it odd that Jeffrey Epstein seems to have been in the same business?

Trump's Secretary of Labor, Acosta, said that he was told to go easy on Epstein by the intelligence community.

MSNBC Analyst Uses Numerology To Link Trump’s Decision To Fly Flags At Half-Staff To Neo-Nazism

This was the leadership of the FBI during the Obama years.

The FBI needs a more than a thorough housecleaning, it needs its leadership committed to an institution for the criminally insane.

A former FBI assistant director used numerology on MSNBC Monday to link neo-Nazism to President Donald Trump’s decision to fly flags at half-staff to honor the victims of shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

Frank Figluizzi floated the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory during an interview with Brian Williams.

Figluizzi, an MSNBC contributor, said Trump’s decision will appeal to neo-Nazis and supporters of Adolf Hitler because of the date that the flags will return to full mast. Earlier on Monday, Aug. 5, Trump ordered flags to be lowered for three days in order to honor the 31 victims of the two mass shootings.

Figluizzi said that he was “not going to imply” that Trump deliberately timed the flag maneuvers to appeal to neo-Nazis, but then he laid out his theory to an unflinching Brian Williams.

“The president said that we will fly our flags at half mast, until August 8th. That’s 8/8. Now, I’m not going to imply that he did this deliberately, but I am using it as an example of the ignorance of the adversary that’s being demonstrated by the White House,” he said.

“The numbers 88 are very significant in neo-Nazi and white supremacy movement. Why? Because the letter ‘H’ is the eighth letter of the alphabet, and to them the numbers 88 together Stand for ‘Heil Hitler.’ So we’re going to be raising the flag back up at dusk on 8/8,” he continued.

Feel better about the FBI yet?  Where the hell is Christopher Wray and what is he doing to restore sanity to the FBI?

Ace of Spades nails it:

Batshit, bugfuck insane.

And this is the former FBI assistant director and Muller's handpicked choice to lead the Counterintelligence division.

Let it sink in that Robert Mueller appointed this nut to lead the entire counterintelligence division of the FBI AND previously thought he was well suited to run the Office of Professional Responsibility too https://t.co/o5gGymVIG1

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) August 7, 2019

If you are wondering if Mueller's performance was an act ... you are not alone.

DARK MYSTERIES OF POWER: To Explain Mueller's Poor Performance, Democrats and CNN (But I Repeat Myself) Turn to, Get This, A Conspiracy Theory That "Someone Got To Him"

Nobody told Beto O'Rourke

Time to ban the collusion conspiracy theorists

Just when you thought the media’s credibility was hanging by a thread, along comes special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report — finding no Russia collusion with Trump’s 2016 campaign, shredding all the conspiracy theories and false accusations to smithereens.

After all, it was the left-wing media and countless Democrats, including chief conspiracy theorist Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), among others, who relentlessly trafficked Russian collusion propaganda the past few years to derail the Trump administration in an attempt to remove a duly elected president from office. But now, after multiple congressional investigations and the latest 22-month Mueller probe, all of which found no evidence of collusion, the verdict is in — #RussiaGate was a hoax.

A five-alarm disinformation campaign waged by complicit Hate-Trump media, corrupt deep state officials and hysterical Democrats that misled the American people by telling us day in and day out the president, his family and former campaign associates were in cahoots with Putin to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

None of which turned out to be true, evidenced by Mueller’s report submitted on Friday to the attorney general that, after an exhaustive investigation led by an adversarial and aggressive prosecutor, didn’t recommend charging a single person in Trump’s orbit with collusion. Why? Because there was none — blowing an irreparable hole in the media’s credibility.

On Sunday a vindicated president tweeted “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

So now what?

For starters, Twitter, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley tech companies should remove all Russian collusion conspiracy theorists from their platforms.

After all, social media networks didn’t hesitate to ban Alex Jones of Infowars and others for spreading misinformation and/or conspiracy theories, so why not ban House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Schiff, Eric Swalwell, John Brennan, Beto O’ Rourke and scores of media hacks who’ve all done the same?

And what about Google? Will it continue to allow search results that yield now-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding Russian collusion and the Trump campaign? Or will they do the right thing and scrub misinformation and lies to stop the hoax from perpetuating?

Does the FBI and the DOJ need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

After the end of Apartheid, the South African government established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, South Africa (TRC), a court-like body to help heal the country and bring about a reconciliation of its people by uncovering the truth about human rights violations that had occurred during the period of apartheid.   

Its emphasis was on gathering evidence and uncovering information—from both victims and perpetrators rather than prosecuting individuals for past crimes.

Perhaps we need a TRC to allow people in the Justice Department and the FBI to come forward and admit the abuse of civil rights that occurred during the Obama Administration as officials in the FBI and the Justice Department conspired to prevent the election of Donald Trump and, following the election, to engineer a slow-motion coup against a duly elected president. 

  

It appears that naming a new FBI director, Christopher Wray has done nothing to end the cover-up that continues unabated.   

The FBI just sent 29 armed and armored agents to arrest a 66-year-old man with no criminal record for the purpose of a televised “perp walk” designed to inflame the public.   

The DOJ refuses to reveal why, on the morning of November 19th, sixteen FBI agents raided the Maryland home of a DOJ whistleblower who was in possession of Clinton Foundation and Uranium One documents implicating Robert Mueller who now heads a group aimed at removing President Trump from office.

The DOJ has empowered a two-year investigation of any links between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with the result of zero findings of collusion but the creation of process crimes created by the investigator.  

We are told that there are honest people in the FBI and DOJ who are angry about the cloud that now hovers over their departments.  If these people could come forward without fear of losing their jobs or going to prison, would that allow the truth to be revealed?  Would Truth and Reconciliation prevail, or are the battle lines now so sharply drawn between the sides that one side must destroy the other?

Is This It?: A Trump-Hater’s Guide to Mueller Skepticism

Vanity Fair starting to worry that there's no Russian conspiracy.

T.A. Frank:

We see the familiar cycle of hype, and there’s no use fighting it, but, once heart rates have slowed, the same old question remains: so what? Some of the news, such as a Guardian story that Manafort met three times with Julian Assange, seems to be based on nothing at all. But even the solid news turns out to be generally non-earth-shattering. As the journalist Aaron Maté has been pointing out, we already knew the timeline of Cohen’s Moscow efforts, because BuzzFeed had already detailed them in May, painting a picture of a bumbling duo getting high on their own supply. (As for the latest revelations, did Sater and Cohen really think a president of Russia would move into a free $50 million penthouse provided by a U.S. presidential candidate? You have to wonder if they were hitting each other on the head with bricks.) Those who hope that Mueller reveals a shambolic operation with a lot of rascals engaged in sleazy and embarrassing behavior will be happy with the fruits of his labors. But those who hope for an unveiling of indictments linking Putin and Trump in a grand conspiracy have no more reason to celebrate than they did a week or a month ago.

Certainly, Trump’s ethical standards are low, but if sleaziness were a crime then many more people from our ruling class would be in jail. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to try to find out in advance what WikiLeaks has on Hillary Clinton. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to take a meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer promising a dossier of dirt on Clinton. (Just as, it should be mentioned, it is sleazy, but not criminal, to pay a guy to go to Russia to put together a dossier of dirt on Trump. This is one reason why the Clinton campaign lied about its connection to the Steele dossier, albeit without the disadvantage of being under oath.) It is sleazy, but not criminal, to pursue a business deal while you’re running for president. Mueller has nailed people for trying to prevaricate about their sleaze, so we already have a couple of guilty pleas over perjury, with more believed to be on the way. But the purpose of the investigation was to address suspicions of underlying conspiracy—that is, a plan by Trump staffers to get Russian help on a criminal effort. Despite countless man-hours of digging, this conspiracy theory, the one that’s been paying the bills at Maddow for a couple of years now, has come no closer to being borne out.

Not to pick too many nits, but there are quite a few questions about what's sleazy and what's not.  Is it really sleazy to take meeting with people who say they have "dirt" on your political opponent?   Do you think that anyone running for public office would say "go away, I don't want to know?"  Is it really sleazy to find out what WikiLeaks has on Hillary?  Is it sleazy to run your business while also running for office?  Feel free to elaborate.

Comey’s last stand for the deep state

When even Clinton supporters like Mark Penn, who served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, begins to speak out about this witch hunt, the witch hunters will soon realize that the game is up.  Everyone who participated, including Mueller, Comey, Brennan and the other members of the Obama gang who participated on this conspiracy to overturn an election are going to need lots of lawyers.  I suspect that there will be trials that will shake the country and re-direct the political landscape.

They were among the most powerful men of the last decade. They commanded armies of armed agents, had the ability to bug and wiretap almost anyone, and had virtually unlimited budgets. They were the leadership of the FBI, the CIA and the director of national intelligence under President Obama. Each day, it becomes clearer that they are the real abusers of power in this drama.

The book by former FBI Director James Comey and the daily hyperbolic John Brennan sound bites are perhaps the final reveal of just how much hubris and vitriol they had. Comey’s book, according to reports, contains nothing new of legal consequence to Trump (while suggesting that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has something to worry about), but it unmasks the hatred that Comey had for Donald Trump from the beginning. It impeaches Comey’s fitness to have ever held high, nonpartisan office.

Whether you are a Democrat who can’t stand Trump, a Hillary Clinton supporter who feels robbed by Comey, or a Trump supporter, any use of wiretapping and vast prosecutorial machinery against our political campaigns and sitting presidents always has to be viewed skeptically and should meet the highest standards of conduct and impartiality. The post-election actions of these former officials makes suspect their actions as officials.

It was, after all, Comey who went to the president during the transition seeking a one-on-one meeting to tell him about the inflammatory dossier, but who critically omitted telling the president that the dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. These facts, he knew, if revealed at that moment in January, would have ended further inquiry. This was no effort to inform the president and douse the fires of unverified and salacious information, but one to inflame the president and spread the stories everywhere.

Unlike a murder or a robbery that has a specific trail of facts that can be investigated, Russia collusion is an allegation that could never be disproved. The accusation allowed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the entirety of the Trump campaign, every aspect of the presidential transition, and even interview 27 White House aides.

When that did not bear fruit, the special counsel could start looking at every business transaction with Russians or foreigners who knew Russians. After all, collusion could be hiding anywhere — in a speech given years ago, a condo bought a decade ago by an oligarch — so he could search for it everywhere.

The Mueller investigation bears all of the hallmarks of prosecutorial overreach: pre-dawn raids, denial of reasonable bail, threats to prosecute family members, investigations of unrelated business matters. He didn’t appropriately subpoena selected transition emails but collected every email in the entire transition without notice, prying them from holdover employees at the General Services Administration.

Scandal Questions Never Asked, Much Less Answered

Victor Davis Hanson

Sometimes the hysteria of crowds causes them to overlook the obvious. Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble anyone, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.

1) Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would we now even know of a Fusion GPS dossier? Would assorted miscreants such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, or Peter Strzok now be under a cloud of suspicion? Or would they instead have been quietly lionized by a President Clinton grateful for noble services in the shadows rendered during the campaign?

2) If Clinton had won, would we now know of any Russian-supplied smears against Donald Trump? ...

Contreras Recusal Conflict – FBI Agent Peter Strzok Friends With Flynn Judge Rudolph Contreras…

For those following the increasingly curious case against General Mike Flynn, events take another unusual turn today. Congressional investigators have shared a set of unredacted text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his cohort DOJ Attorney Lisa Page which reveal a personal friendship between Agent Strzok and Flynn’s initial presiding judge Rudolph Contreras.

Read the whole thing.

Mollie Hemingway: Diehard Conspiracy Theorists In Media and NeverTrump Can't Figure Out if Tillerson Was a Lapdog of Putin or a Dogged Opponent

Ace of Spades does a fairly good job of cutting Jonah Goldberg's nuts off.

Last night on Special Report, Jonah Goldberg insisted that the House Intelligence Committee report that there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump actually vindicated the "Washington Consensus," which he claimed only believed that Russia had interfered with the election, but did not believe anything about collusion.

Are you kidding me? Look through Mollie Hemingway's tweets from the Conspiracy Theorists -- all in the media, or formerly in the media, like Twitter activist Bill Kristol -- and try selling me on this jackass notion that the "Washington Consensus" has not been pushing the "Trump's a traitor and Manchurian Candidate in cahoots with Putin" line for sixteen long hysterical months.

But Jonah Goldberg did rise up vociferously to claim the "Washington Consensus," which must no doubt include his buddies at CNN who push this literally all day long, never really believed there was any "collusion," just interference on Russia's part but without any collusion with Trump.

It's insane. It's literally insane.

Does he literally never watch CNN? That would shock me -- I have a feeling he watches CNN a lot, in between watching MSNBC.

Mollie Hemingway comments:

Just last night I was told on national television that the general consensus in D.C. is that Russia is bad but that Trump and Russia didn't collude. That a treasonous collusion narrative isn’t even "remotely" the general consensus. Someone might want to tell... everyone in the media who has been pushing it non-stop for more than a year no matter the facts on the ground.

As the media reaction to Tillerson's nomination and firing show, we're witnessing the Unified Theory Of Russia Collusion at work. If it's true that the "general consensus" in D.C. is nothing remotely near the idea that Trump and Russia colluded to steal the 2016 election, people should stop pushing the theory. Better yet, if they buy into the theory -- as so many of our supposed media elites obviously do -- they should start to be more specific about the theory. And if they don’t, they should not nibble around the margins of the theory.

Hear, hear. Less "Just Asking Questions" about whether fire can really melt steel, and more straightforward declarative assertions about what Trump either did do or did not do.

There is a game in politics. The Truthers played this game; some politicians hoping to curry favors with the Truthers played it. Like John Kerry.

The game goes like this: While not explicitly endorsing a conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence, you sort of talk it up to maintain its viability as a political attack point. You don't say definitively you believe it -- you just say, as Patterico says today, it raises "interesting" questions.

You keep your "Clean Skin" as far as being a Conspiracy Theorist, and yet you do all you can to suggest to the conspiracy-minded that the conspiracy is All Too Real.

It's a way to speak as Yasser Arafat did, to two different audiences telling two different stories. You encourage conspiracy theorizing, while (mostly) not committing yourself to any particular version of the conspiracy theory.

Just Askin' Questions, you know.

It's one thing for politicians to do this -- they lie.

But pundits and analysts and "thinkers" and "experts" are supposed to tell you exactly what they think.

If Jonah Goldberg, for lo these many months (sixteen or thereabouts) has known that the "Washington Consensus" was actually that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia, why did he keep that on the Q.T. and the D.L.?

Why didn't he tell people?

Why did he enable a conspiracy theory he's now telling us that those In-the-Know always knew was pretty much bullshit?

It's the equivalent of a guy who never quite declares that "Bush knew" that the 9/11 attack was coming but let it happen anyway to enable the PNAC warplan but who is careful never to pour cold water on such conspiracy theories to keep #TheResistance agitated and animated.

You are paid, supposedly, for the truth, and what you know, and what you don't quite know but think to a reasonable certainty.

If Jonah Goldberg is claiming that there is no, and was no, "Washington Consensus" about the Manchurian Apprentice conspiracy theory, why has he been so shy about saying so?

And why is he not throwing cold water on the various members of the Washington Consensus -- such as Patterico, Erick Erickson, Bill Kristol, and of course various and sundry members of the legacy media -- currently spinning out new conspiracy theories about Tillerson's long-expected firing?

If you don't believe in the Conspiracy Theory, then say so firmly.

And if you do believe in it -- then say that too. Do not hide your beliefs with equivocation, evasion, and insinuation.

Where's Jonah on this? Will he ever say? Will he just talk around it without doing his basic job -- You Had One Job, you know -- of telling his readers what he really thinks?

Those pushing this theory should stop being cowards and dishonest hacks and tell us what they believe the quid was in this collusion, what was the quo, and how it was all agreed to.

And, as bonus: They should clue us in as to whether US troops killing Russian troops in Syria was done on Putin's orders.

And as another bonus: Given that the House Intelligence Committee is set to announce no evidence of any collusion -- are they now part of the conspiracy?

Or are they, the people with first-hand knowledge of witness statements and reams of classified reports the average blogger or Twitter blowhard does not possess, somehow less informed by the Washington Consensus Elites?

Was Lynch coordinating with Comey in the Clinton investigation?

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's 2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.

The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier commitment to accept Comey's recommendation — a commitment she made under the pretense that the two were not coordinating with each other.

And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.

On July 1, 2016, as the Lynch announcement became public, Page texted Strzok:

Page: And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.

It was all a fraud, a scam, to fool the American people.

DID THE FBI CONSPIRE TO STOP TRUMP? Pat Buchanan: 'One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in.

The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple one: Did he do it?

Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack the emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump?

A year-and-a-half into the investigation, and, still, no “collusion” has been found. Yet the investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.

Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.

Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?

Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation for what is going down here:

That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump’s presidency, overturn his mandate and bring him down.

Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18 months ago.

On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the evidence gathered by the FBI, “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton. Therefore, that was the course he, Comey, was recommending.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton – to discuss golf and grandkids – seconded Comey’s decision.

And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious?

What do YOU think? Did the FBI conspire to stop Trump? Sound off in today’s WND poll!

First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing.

Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been “extremely careless” with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of “gross negligence” – the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.

Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase “gross negligence” was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the “idiot” Trump.

After one meeting with “Andy” (McCabe), Strzok told Page an “insurance policy” was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.

Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers present.

One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.

Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton campaign.

For there a Russian connection has been established.

Thank President Trump for all his accomplishments during his first year in office. Send him a FREE card of your choice. Go to ThankTrump.us

Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his “dirty dossier” that was distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.

And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?

Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions through law firm Perkins Coie.

Let’s review the bidding.

The “dirty dossier,” a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy’s collusion with Kremlin agents.

In the Dec. 26 issue of the Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision “to open a counterintelligence investigation (of Trump).” And press reports “cite the document’s disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps.”

If this is true, a critical questions arises:

Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American people?

Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud. Mueller’s top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.

Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his “Get Hoffa Squad” to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King.

Is history repeating itself – with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the president of the United States?

Nearly Half of Likely Voters Think FBI Anti-Trumpers Broke the Law

Need to get that number up.

Roger Simon: Trump's Right — the FBI Is in Tatters

What're we supposed to think when it's revealed the man running the Hillary Clinton email server investigation (Peter Strzok) was a married Hillary supporter conducting an adulterous affair with a government lawyer, while dissing Donald Trump in his clandestine billet-doux text messages?

(Was he auditioning for Harvey Weinstein's next movie, assuming Weinstein is ever allowed to make a movie again or even would make one that in any way besmirched his good friend Hillary?)

As an FBI agent, Strzok's use of text messaging for such an enterprise was nothing short of moronic in this digital age, but nevertheless he was not fired but simply and quietly sent to FBI "Siberia" last summer, his activities only miraculously coming to public attention last week.

Why the secrecy? Many reasons, probably yet to be determined, but it comes down to this: the FBI, like the Mafia, practices omertà.

Sealing and transfer of Susan Rice records angers House committee investigating ‘unmasking’

House intelligence committee sources say career officials at the National Security Council are slow-walking the delivery of subpoenaed records on former National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice’s handling of classified information and the “unmasking” of Trump campaign workers — material from the Russian hacking probe that middle-level NSC managers claim was transferred to President Obama’s library and could “remain closed to the public for five years.”

One source, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, called the transfer curious and appeared to reflect an effort by former administration officials to obscure evidence on whether Ms. Rice and other top officials in the Obama White House illegally tried to identify which Trump campaign and transition aides had been caught up in the U.S. intelligence intercepts of Russian interference in the presidential race.

...

Democrats want the probes to stay tightly focused on possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump and collusion between his associates and the Kremlin. The U.S. intelligence community has unanimously concluded that the Kremlin was behind an organized cyberattack campaign to interfere in the U.S. election and undermine the candidacy of Democrat Hillary Clinton last year.

But since the Russia probes launched earlier this year, Mr. Trump and his aides have argued that the real scandal lies elsewhere. They contend that senior Obama administration officials, including Ms. Rice, inappropriately unmasked and perhaps illegally leaked to the media the names of Trump campaign officials swept up in the hacking probe, and failed to take sufficient steps to stop the hacking once it was uncovered.

Judicial Watch sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the NSC in April seeking records concerning Ms. Rice’s communications on a range of subjects.

NSC Access Management Director John Powers responded on May 23 — roughly a week before the House intelligence committee began seeking the records.

“Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library,” Mr. Powers wrote. “You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office.”

Swamp Rat James Comey

I have been told that you can't believe anything most things stuff you read on the internet.  but we also know that most of what we read in the so-called "legitimate" press is also a pack of lies.

For example, just yesterday, Liberal Saint (and former FBI Director) James Comey testified that a major story in the NY Times was a lie from end to end.

So I read the following narrative with a jaundiced eye and decided to do a little checking on my own, just to see if the basic facts, dates, times, and job descriptions was accurate.  I was really surprised to find out that it is.  The opinions are those of the author, Kevin Jackson.

So here goes:

James Comey is a poisonous snake of the highest order.

He is a deep-water Swamp Denizen who has been highly paid to deliberately provide cover for high-level corruption by the Clintons and Obama. He has been central to trying to destroy the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration from the start. He is as dirty as they come in DC.

Comey had highest-level cover (the FBI no less) and was deep into an effort to eliminate Trump. Trump had to move hard, fast, and at exactly the right time to cut the head off the snake without getting bitten by the snake or being finished by the other swamp denizens.

WikiLeaks founder: Obama admin trying to ‘delegitimize' Trump

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says there's an "obvious" reason the Obama administration has focused on Russia's alleged role in Democratic hacks leading up to Donald Trump's electoral win.

“They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House,” Assange said during an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity airing Tuesday night, according to a transcript of excerpts from the network.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president," Assange said during the interview, which was conducted at the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he has been staying.

"Our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they’re all true,” Assange continued. “But that’s not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House.”

Assange reiterated the group's denial that Russia was the source of the Democratic documents released over the summer.

“Our source is not a state party, so the answer for our interactions is no,” he said.

In December, Assange told Hannity that the documents the anti-secrecy group received looked “very much like they’re from the Russians” but said his source was not them.