Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Tell that to the 180,000+ families who lost love ones. ( so far) I can’t tell you how many times I was attacked on here by saying covid was much worse than the common flu. Now Trump knew that in Febru

Play it down': Trump admits to concealing the true threat of coronavirus in new Woodward book President Donald Trump admitted he knew weeks before the first confirmed US coronavirus death that

Just imagine what could be achieved in the USA If the ChiDems lose the House and The Senate and Trump retain their seats of power.  

Posted Images

63 Percent Of Voters Who Have Witnessed Violent Protests Now Back Trump

September 15, 2020

Violent protests and riots have sprung up in major cities across the country, but they could be backfiring on the politicians who are endorsing them.

As Democratic lawmakers have endorsed the protests, their violent elements are turning voters towards President Trump according to a new poll from Rassmussen Reports.

The Washington Examiner reports 63 percent of voters who have witnessed the violence in their neighborhoods and communities “strongly approve” of Trump while only 35 percent do not.

Trump has repeatedly campaigned that he is the “law and order” candidate and if the poll is any indicator, his message is getting across.

 

From the report:

Trump’s position is not only winning fans but may also be helping his overall approval rating. Rasmussen, for example, also said that Trump’s approval rating is 51% for a second day. At this stage of his presidency and reelection campaign, former President Barack Obama had a 49% approval rating.

The law and order vote is a big one. Rasmussen said that 42% of likely voters said that their communities have hosted the anti-police protests in their communities. And nearly half said those protests turned violent, making them a big issue, even to those who haven’t witnessed the violence.

According to Rasmussen Reports, a whopping 65 percent of voters claim the protests have become an important issue in the coming election. Forty-one percent of that figure described the protests as “Very Important.”

Those figures are increased in communities that have witnessed the violence first-hand.

From Rasmussen Reports:

Among those who have had violent protests in their community, even more (76%) rate them important to their vote, including 54% who say they are “Very Important.” Sixty-three percent (63%) of these voters “Strongly Approve” of the job Trump is doing versus 35% who “Strongly Disapprove.”

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham announces Comey's 'day of reckoning' before Senate, says Mueller 'declined'

Senate panel also 'negotiating' with McCabe to appear, lawmaker says.

Charles Creitz10 hours ago

Lindsey Graham announces James Comey will testify before Judiciary Committee

Sen. Lindsey Graham joins Sean Hannity with insight.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced Wednesday that former FBI Director James Comey has agreed to testify on his own volition before the panel in regard to "Crossfire Hurricane" -- the counterintelligence investigation into whether President Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election.

Graham told "Hannity" that Comey will appear September 30th without necessitating a subpoena:

"The day of reckoning is upon us when it comes to Crossfire Hurricane," he said.

"I appreciate Mr. Comey coming before the committee and he will be respectfully treated but asked hard questions. We are negotiating with [former Deputy FBI Director Andrew] McCabe; we are hoping to get him without a subpoena -- time will tell."

Graham however expressed dismay that the former special counsel behind the Russia investigation's published report, ex-FBI chief, Robert Mueller, refused to appear on his own accord.

"Mueller has declined the invitation to the committee to appear to explain his report," Graham said. "[Mueller] says he doesn't have enough time."

Host Sean Hannity asked whether Graham will accept that Mueller declined his invitation, noting recent reporting that Justice Department records showed the special counsel's team's cell phones were "wiped" during the Trump probe.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The records show at least several dozen phones were wiped of information because of forgotten passcodes, irreparable screen damage, loss of the device, intentional deletion or other reasons -- before the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) could review the devices.

Graham called that development "fishy as hell" and added he will call on the DOJ and its inspector general to look into the incidents.

"We've invited [Peter] Strzok to come -- he's selling a book," he added of the September 30 hearing. "[W]e will see if he will come without a subpoena. But I look forward to this hearing and I think it will be important to the American people."

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Study: Up To 95 Percent Of 2020 U.S. Riots Are Linked To Black Lives Matter

A report accompanying the data project, however, reads like an upscale attempt to blame the police for criminals’ decision to steal, kill, and destroy.

Contrary to corporate media narratives, up to 95 percent of this summer’s riots are linked to Black Lives Matter activism, according to data collected by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED). The data also show that nearly 6 percent — or more than 1 in 20 — of U.S. protests between May 26 and Sept. 5 involved rioting, looting, and similar violence, including 47 fatalities.

ACLED is a nonprofit organization that tracks conflict across the globe. Its U.S. project that collected the summer protest data is supported by Princeton University. The project’s spreadsheet collating tens of thousands of data points documents 12,045 incidents of U.S. civil unrest from May 26, 2020 to Sept. 5, 2020. May 26 is the day after George Floyd’s death in police custody with enough fentanyl in his system to have died of an overdose if police had never touched him.

Of the 633 incidents coded as riots, 88 percent are recorded as involving Black Lives Matter activists. Data for 51 incidents lack information about the perpetrators’ identities. BLM activists were involved in 95 percent of the riots for which there is information about the perpetrators’ affiliation.

Early estimates from insurance agencies say the cost of this summer’s rioting will set a record surpassing that of the 1992 Rodney King riots, which cost an inflation-adjusted $1.2 billion. Much of that will be paid by taxpayers in the form of overtime and hazard pay for police and EMTs, emergency room visits, destruction of public property, and more. Of course, rioters are inflicting these costs during a time governments, and the people who fund them, have fewer resources due to coronavirus shutdowns and pent-up entitlement obligations.

A look at an interactive map illustrating the data shows just how widespread the summer BLM-linked rioting has been. It has not been limited merely to anarchist strongholds such as Portland, Oregon, or locales that saw media-spotlighted violent interactions between police and suspects, but has stretched across both major and minor U.S. cities and included dozens of locales with no violent police incidents this summer.

Here are some screenshots of the map. The circle size indicates the number of riots.

map-of-west.jpg

West Coast Riot Locations

midwest.jpg

Midwest Riot Locations

southcentral.jpg

Central U.S. Riot Locations

eastcoastseaboard.jpg

Midwest/Mid East Coast Riot Locations

According to this record, rioting occurred in the United States this summer not just in Portland, New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and other large U.S. cities, but in small and midsize cities such as Fort Collins, Co. (population 170,000), Cottonwood Heights, Utah (population 33,800), Gilbert, Ariz. (population 258,900), Wichita, Kan. (population 388,800), and Davenport, Iowa (population 382,600). Forty-seven states have seen riots this summer.

A report accompanying the data project, however, reads like an upscale attempt to blame the police for criminals’ decision to steal, kill, and destroy. Several times the report explicitly does so, such as here: “Although federal authorities were purportedly deployed to keep the peace, the move appears to have re-escalated tensions. Prior to the deployment, over 83% of demonstrations in Oregon were non-violent. Post-deployment, the percentage of violent demonstrations has risen from under 17% to over 42% (see graph below), suggesting that the federal response has only aggravated unrest.”

This is a logical fallacy called post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Because one thing happened after another, the first thing caused the second. It’s just plain false. In science, this error is described as the difference between correlation and causation. Social scientists ought to be aware of and refrain from employing it, yet these did not.

The cause of violence is not the police. It is not poverty. It is not one’s race. To say so is in fact a smear against poor people and people of the racial group identified. The cause of violence is the people who have chosen to be violent.

Rather than assigning responsibility for violence to those who engage in it, the report constantly pushes the criminal victimization narrative that the rioters are not to blame for their rioting. This is abuser psychology 101: The abuser is never responsible for his or her abuse. The people who might object to it are. This is also false and manipulative.

The report also attempts to downplay the wave of BLM-linked violence sweeping the nation this summer, even while documenting it.

“The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity,” it states. “Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests.”

I’m sure it is comforting to those whose businesses have been burned down and insurance won’t cover it to hear that the movement that ruined their livelihoods protests peacefully in most other cities.

When unarmed black people comprise 1.2 percent (or less) of annual police shootings, it is alleged to be a gross injustice that may legitimize, or at least excuse, murder, and theft. Yet when an activist movement is linked with riots approximately 6 percent of the time it engages in public protest, we are to see that movement as “non-violent.”

ACLED labels a 5 percent rate of police use of “force” — such as rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and other crowd dispersal techniques — as “heavy handed.” Thus ACLED both claims a 6 percent rate of rioting is “peaceful” and “non-violent” and that a 5 percent rate of police response to such riots is “heavy handed.”

“Over 5% of all events linked to the BLM movement have been met with force by authorities, compared to under 1% of all other demonstrations,” its report says. Elsewhere, it says: “ACLED conducted a pilot data collection program for the US last summer, allowing for comparison of the current moment with the same time period last year. In July of this year alone, ACLED records nearly 2,000 demonstrations — an increase of 42% from the 1,400 demonstrations recorded in July 2019.”

The violence is not limited to the extreme of rioting. It is pervasive in the summer 2020 protests. Of the 12,045 incidents recorded by ACLED, 1,143 — or nearly 1 in 10 — involved violence of some sort: rioting, looting, clashes with police, cars rammed into crowds, bystanders pepper-sprayed, armed attacks. Of these violent incidents, 84 percent involved BLM.

These statistics could be interpreted as indicating BLM is unusually violent among U.S. political movements, but ACLED interprets it in a way that enables resentment against police. Widespread U.S. political demonstrations such as the Tea Party, however, almost never featured violence despite holding thousands of events. Tea Partiers were even known for cleaning up the public areas where they demonstrated.

The report goes on amazingly to suggest that police standing behind barricades using tear gas and rubber bullets is a disproportionate use of force against rioting in Portland that has included the use of blinding lasers, rushes at barricades with clubs, destruction of public buildings, bomb-throwing, arson, and murder: “In some contexts, like Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon (see below), the heavy-handed police response appears to have inflamed tensions and increased the risk of violent escalation,” the ACLED report says.

Judge for yourself whether police use of force and riot-dispersal techniques often seems justified by reading the project’s summaries of some of these riots based on largely local news reports. I picked incidents from smaller cities to avoid the most sensational and nationally publicized instances, in an effort to fairly illustrate what police were responding to. The italicized material below is all quoted directly from the project. The bold is added.

On 28 May 2020, about 200-400 people demonstrated in Columbus, Ohio in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and against police brutality and the death of George Floyd. The demonstration turned violent when businesses and the Ohio Statehouse were damaged. Some people threw water bottles, smoke bombs, and other items at police. Police used tear gas on the demonstrators.

On 28 May 2020, around 400 people held a demonstration in Albuquerque, New Mexico over the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. At night, the demonstration turned violent when a group of rioters were approaching vehicles and trying to damage them. Also, several shots were fired from a car and 4 people were arrested. Another man took a baseball bat and started smashing police car’s windows. Police used gas to disperse the crowd and control the area.

On 29 May 2020, hundreds of people attended a demonstration in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and against the death of George Floyd. The demonstration was initially peaceful until conflicts broke out between the demonstrators and the police. A demonstrator was pepper-sprayed twice in the face. Another demonstrator was shoved to the ground. Vandalism was reported. 29 people were arrested. Clashes continued until the next morning.

On 29 May 2020, over 1000 demonstrations [sic] were held in Des Moines, Iowa over the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. Police vehicles and buildings were damaged. Police used pepper spray and tear gas and made 12 arrests.

On 30 May 2020, people demonstrated in Grand Rapids (Michigan) in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and against police brutality and the death of George Floyd. Rioters smashed windows and lit fires. A non-violent demonstrator was pepper-sprayed and shot in the face with a ‘Spede-Heat’ round by a police officer.

See the descriptions and locations of every riot recorded in the “Details of Events” box here.

According to many innocent victims of this wave of injustice, the police response is not robust enough. They want to know why the police are not protecting them and their property. They pay taxes. They contribute to the common good rather than attempt to destroy it. What’s the point of mayors and governors if they don’t ensure their police protect innocent people and their property when rioters come to town?

 

 

 
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pitcher said:

Lindsey Graham announces Comey's 'day of reckoning' before Senate, says Mueller 'declined'

Senate panel also 'negotiating' with McCabe to appear, lawmaker says.

Charles Creitz10 hours ago

Lindsey Graham announces James Comey will testify before Judiciary Committee

Sen. Lindsey Graham joins Sean Hannity with insight.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced Wednesday that former FBI Director James Comey has agreed to testify on his own volition before the panel in regard to "Crossfire Hurricane" -- the counterintelligence investigation into whether President Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election.

Graham told "Hannity" that Comey will appear September 30th without necessitating a subpoena:

"The day of reckoning is upon us when it comes to Crossfire Hurricane," he said.

"I appreciate Mr. Comey coming before the committee and he will be respectfully treated but asked hard questions. We are negotiating with [former Deputy FBI Director Andrew] McCabe; we are hoping to get him without a subpoena -- time will tell."

Graham however expressed dismay that the former special counsel behind the Russia investigation's published report, ex-FBI chief, Robert Mueller, refused to appear on his own accord.

"Mueller has declined the invitation to the committee to appear to explain his report," Graham said. "[Mueller] says he doesn't have enough time."

Host Sean Hannity asked whether Graham will accept that Mueller declined his invitation, noting recent reporting that Justice Department records showed the special counsel's team's cell phones were "wiped" during the Trump probe.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The records show at least several dozen phones were wiped of information because of forgotten passcodes, irreparable screen damage, loss of the device, intentional deletion or other reasons -- before the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) could review the devices.

Graham called that development "fishy as hell" and added he will call on the DOJ and its inspector general to look into the incidents.

"We've invited [Peter] Strzok to come -- he's selling a book," he added of the September 30 hearing. "[W]e will see if he will come without a subpoena. But I look forward to this hearing and I think it will be important to the American people."


Lindsey Graham just might lose his senate seat in SC.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Census data boosts Trump, showing record income gains and historic low poverty

As he heads into the final stretch of the election, President Trump is getting a boost from new census data showing historic, broad-based economic gains for U.S. households in 2019.

The U.S. Census Bureau on Monday released data showing median household income surging to a record high of more than $68,700 last year. The increase of 6.8% in household income was the largest one-year increase on record.

The poverty rate, meanwhile, fell to 10.5% last year, a record low, with 4.2 million Americans lifted out of poverty last year, the largest decrease in poverty since 1966.

"We've done a tremendous job in poverty for all people in our nation, in particular for African-Americans," Trump told Just the News when asked about the census data at the White House on Wednesday. "I'm very proud of the numbers — African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, they had the best numbers ... both employment and unemployment, depending on the definition."

The new data shows median household income increased by 9% in the first three years of the Trump administration, compared to only 5% under eight years of the Obama-Biden administration. Census figures show 6.6 million Americans were lifted out of poverty from 2016 to 2019, "the largest 3-year reduction" in poverty to start a presidency since 1964.

The White House noted that while Biden was vice president, the number of Americans in poverty increased by nearly 787,000

Median household incomes for African-AmericansHispanics, and Asian-Americans all hit record highs last year, along with a record-high median income for women. The income gains for blacks, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans were all one-year record increases. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, "the poverty rate fell to an all-time record low for every race and ethnic group in 2019,” and the child poverty rate hit a 50-year low.

At the White House, Trump noted that the new census data showed income inequality has fallen over the last two years. He noted that COVID-19 presented challenges during 2020 to American households but predicted a robust economic recovery, which to date has exceeded many economists' forecasts.

"We will be back to full strength very soon," Trump said on Wednesday at the White House. "We will be back to full strength very soon. We're going to have a fantastic year next year. It's looking like that. I think you're going to have an incredible third quarter. The numbers are looking very, very strong for the third quarter."

Jack Brewer, a former NFL football player and a member of the Black Voices For Trump Advisory Board, told Just the News that part of the decline in poverty among black Americans was due to a focus on welfare reform, jobs training programs and school choice.

 

"Getting out of poverty is a deep issue," Brewer said in a video interview with Just the News. "I think the reason why you saw so much progress — pre-coronavirus — from this president is because he actually went at the core of issues issues like welfare reform. When I say welfare reform, I mean the fact that the president, through his policies, [was] able to take 5 million people off of welfare and give them actual jobs, so to incentivize folks to actually get off welfare to start jobs."

Brewer praised the Trump administration for implementing jobs training programs, singling out Ivanka Trump for her work in this area. He also said Trump's policies on school choice and vouchers allowed black families to take their children out of failing, inner-city schools and give them another chance elsewhere.

"And so these are deep, systematic issues, and you're just not going to wave a wand and end poverty," Brewer said. "But what it really takes is it takes passing policies like school choice, that allow a mother to have some control over where her city or state is spending $20,000 or $25,000 per kid on their child's education, yet failing them." 

Brewer praised the Trump administration for securing permanent funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which previously had to repeatedly ask for public funding.

"I know that's what took me to another level is I was the first of my family to get a chance to go to school," Brewer said. "And so these are the real policies that need to be put in place to end poverty. It's more than just the unemployment rate. It's actually being bold enough to go into the deep, systematic issues."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, slb said:

Here is wishing ! And when the crazy libs lose their shift and start rioting again, he needs to bring the hammer down hard with the National Guard .


yeah that Posse Comitatus Act, just gets in the way.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, please use the Posse Comitatus Act

 

 

Military Power in Law Enforcement: The Posse Comitatus

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both . . . shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law . . . .”748

 

Better, he should invoke the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

 

Half of Congress and a lot of Mayors and Governors would be gone. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The European Bureau Chief of China’s state-run outlet China Daily appeared to confirm U.S. intelligence reports concluding the Chinese Communist Party prefers a Joe Biden presidency.

In response to a CNN tweet containing a video affirming reports foreign countries are “influencing the 2020 election” and that “the Chinese want to make sure President Trump is not reelected,” Chen Weihua wrote:

“Europe wants Biden too.”

In other words, Chen uncritically accepts the assessment provided by CNN, only later pushing back on the fact the network “omits” Europe’s alleged preference for the former veep.

Specifically, Chen’s mention of Europe is followed by a question – “Why omit that deliberately” – in which he attempts to draw a double standard over U.S. fears of foreign interference in the upcoming presidential election.

Europe wants Biden too. Why omit that deliberately?

— Chen Weihua (陈卫华) (@chenweihua) August 7, 2020

Chen’s words echo a barrage of op-eds appearing in Chinese state-run media praising Biden an endorsingthe candidate, who recently refused to call China a “competitor” while speaking at a CNN town hall.

The remarks serve as a testament to the findings of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, which notes the Chinese Communist Party does not want President Trump to be reelected:

“We assess that China prefers that President Trump – whom Beijing sees as unpredictable – does not win reelection. China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China.”

The findings were also confirmed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi during a CNN interview where she uncritically repeated the National Counterintelligence and Security Center’s findings. During the infamous interview, Pelosi stated:

“The Chinese… what they said is [that] China would prefer [Biden]. Whether they do, that’s their conclusion. That they would prefer Joe Biden.“

"China would prefer Joe Biden." – Nancy Pelosi pic.twitter.com/gI1RHmFNOu

— Francis Brennan (@FrancisBrennan) August 9, 2020

And this revelation is just the latest piece of evidence to give credence to the moniker “Beijing Biden.”

The Chinese Communist Party’s endorsement of Biden should come as no surprise: while in government, the former veep has routinely championed the selling out of America’s manufacturing base, intellectual property, and economic power to the Chinese Communist Party.

What’s more, his family members have profited from billion-dollar business deals with the Chinese Communist Party apparatchiks in sectors ranging from energy to manufacturing.

Beyond the findings of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Chinese state-run media outlets including China Global Television Network and Global Times bolster the prospect of the Chinese Communist Party interfering in the election on behalf of Biden.

China Global Television Network, for example, praised the Democratic National Convention as a “slick showpiece” and insisted that “Biden’s multilateral worldview runs parallel to Beijing’s.”

Global Times also noted that a Biden presidency would be “smoother” for the Chinese Communist Party:

“Biden is definitely smoother to deal with, which is the consensus around the world. For China, because Biden was vice president during Obama’s term, and had a lot of prior experience dealing with Chinese leaders, we would expect to facilitate more effective communication with Biden if he wins.”

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Permanent Coup': Just as Mueller probe fizzles, anti-Trump cabal hatches new collusion tale

Below follows the second installment of a two-part excerpt from Just the News contributor Lee Smith's book "The Permanent Coup: How Enemies Foreign and Domestic Targeted the American President":

Robert Mueller's July 24, 2019 congressional testimony about his nearly two-year long investigation seemed to bring an end to the conspiracy theory holding that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. And yet the very next day, the anti-Trump resistance seized on another opportunity to try to destroy his presidency. He would again be accused of colluding with a foreign power to defeat a Democratic rival. 

On July 25, Trump spoke with new Ukrainian president Volodmyr Zelensky on the phone and asked him to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr. He and Trump were both determined to discover the origins of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign. 

"They say a lot of it started with Ukraine," Trump told the Ukrainian president. "I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people, and I would like you to get to the bottom of it," he said. "Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it, if that's possible." 

Trump had another matter he wanted to raise. "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me." 

Other senior U.S. officials whose duties and areas of expertise required it were listening in on the call. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was listening, and so was Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the NSC's Ukraine director. After the morning call, Vindman registered his concerns with two NSC staff lawyers, one of whom was his twin brother, Yevgeny. In the afternoon, Alexander Vindman phoned Eric Ciaramella, who also worked on Ukraine and Russia issues. 

The next day Ciaramella wrote a memo about his conversation with Vindman: "The official who listened to the entirety of the phone call was visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call." 

The official described the call as "crazy," "frightening," and "completely lacking in substance related to national security." 

The official asserted that the president used the call to persuade Ukrainian authorities to investigate his political rivals, chiefly former vice president Biden and his son Hunter. The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official's view, the president had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own reelection bid in 2020. 

"The president," Ciaramella wrote, "did not raise security assistance." 

Just two days after the curtain dropped on the Mueller investigation, Ciaramella was rebooting the collusion narrative. According to the story the CIA officer and his colleagues would tell, Trump was again in league with a foreign power to defeat a rival candidate. They rotated Ukraine in for Russia and Biden for Clinton. 

The operation's personnel drew from the same sources as the Russia collusion operation — serving officials from powerful government bureaucracies, the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department, as well as elected officials, political operatives, and the press. Therefore, the process was also the same: The actors would work the operation through the intelligence bureaucracy and the media to start an official proceeding, in this case an impeachment process. The play was set to begin. 

Ciaramella first expressed his concern to a CIA lawyer. Frustrated that his action wasn't moving quickly enough, he turned to the intelligence community inspector general responsible for oversight of all 17 of the nation's agencies. On August 12, he filed a whistleblower's report with ICIG Michael Atkinson. 

It was a version of the dossier, allegations based on second- and thirdhand sources. Steele said that his information came from anonymous Russians; Ciaramella claimed his came from unnamed Americans. 

"In the course of my official duties," wrote Ciaramella, "I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. elections." 

He even replicated a key feature from Steele's memos that helped the FBI obtain the FISA warrant. The dossier alleged that the Trump campaign had agreed to two Ukraine-related quid pro quos. One, in exchange for the hack and release of DNC emails, the Trump team would sideline Ukraine as campaign issue. Two, in exchange for dropping Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia, a Putin ally promised Trump advisers energy deals. 

Ciaramella also alleged a Ukraine-related quid pro quo. His August 12 report added a detail missing from the July 26 memo. He claimed in his document he'd learned earlier in July that Trump had "issued instructions to suspend all security assistance to Ukraine." With this, the CIA official had planted the seed that would grow into the basis of the impeachment charges brought against Trump: The president had withheld foreign aid in exchange for something that would benefit him personally — an investigation of his political rival. 

Ciaramella and his confederates had simply taken the boastful blunder Biden made in front of the Manhattan audience and hung it on Trump. Now he was the one using U.S. aid to secure a favor from a Ukrainian president. It was an audacious move, but the Ciaramella dossier was also a defensive maneuver. "It was born out of desperation," says one of his former colleagues. 

"He wasn't just trying to protect Biden," says the source, a former senior Obama administration intelligence official. 

"Remember that Ciaramella is setting up all those phone calls and meetings with the Ukrainian president Poroshenko and then handling all the follow-up. He's like Al Capone's bookkeeper in 'The Untouchables' — he knows everything that went on. When he finds out Trump may get the Burisma investigation restarted, he's worried for himself, too." 

As Steele had, Ciaramella inserted hearsay and secondhand sources into official intelligence channels. He had help. The form for reporting whistleblower complaints to the ICIG required firsthand information. Ciaramella's complaint, however, was based on secondhand information, from Vindman. In September, the ICIG quietly changed the language in the form to remove the ban on hearsay information. Then he backdated the change in the complaint form to August. 

On August 26, Atkinson forwarded the complaint to Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence. Maguire, though, didn't believe it satisfied the requirements of the whistleblower statute. It didn't concern an intelligence activity, and it didn't concern a member of the intelligence community; it was about the president. 

The Justice Department agreed. "The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community," the Office of Legal Counsel noted in a September 3 memo. "Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand." 

Seemingly closed down, the anti-Trump operatives had a back door into official intelligence channels, the same entrance they'd used for the Steele dossier — the media. A September 5 Washington Post editorial reported that Trump was "attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden." 

Now that the article had sparked interest in a part of the unfolding operation, Atkinson produced another piece of the puzzle. He notified the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on September 9 that he had a whistleblower complaint. Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Adam Schiff was on relay. That same day, he and two other Democratic committee chairmen announced the opening of an investigation into Trump, Giuliani, and Ukraine. They cited recent press reports, a less than subtle reference to the September 5 Washington Post op-ed. It was the same process used during the Russiagate operation: A report based on a fraudulent document is leaked to the press, which publishes it, and intelligence officials cite it as a pretext to justify starting an investigation. 

On September 13, Schiff subpoenaed Maguire to get the complaint. That same day, he put out a press release about the subpoena, which forced the whistleblower's complaint into the public for the first time. HPSCI had always treated whistleblower's complaints with discretion — but the point of the Ciaramella dossier operation was to force the complaint into the public. 

On September 18, three of the Washington Post's top collusion conspiracy theory reporters, Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Shane Harris, wrote that the whistleblower's complaint involves "Trump's communications with a foreign leader" and a "promise" that was made. The release of the transcript would show no promise was made. 

On September 19, the Washington Post's Aaron Blake showed two of the pieces together. He wrote that the complaint dealt with Ukraine and hinted it had to do with foreign aid. "Lawmakers were concerned," wrote Blake, "that the administration was failing to provide $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is intended to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia." 

By declassifying the transcript of his call with Zelensky, Trump had gained a step on his opponents. The Steele dossier was made of rumors and whispered accounts of things that never happened, but Ciaramella's fiction was based on a real dialogue that anyone could now read for themselves to know the truth. Trump's reluctance to hand out U.S. taxpayer dollars to a foreign government was unlikely to turn supporters against a president who had campaigned on America First. That his adversaries saw it rather as a vulnerability highlighted how far Washington was from the rest of America. 

When Vindman later testified that he "became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency," he might as well have been describing a galaxy far, far away. What did the consensus opinion held by the federation of officials from the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury and the intelligence bureaucracies matter to American voters? They were under the impression that the president they sent to the White House implements the foreign policy they voted for. It says so in the Constitution. 

After Speaker Nancy Pelosi officially initiated impeachment proceedings on September 24, HPSCI Democrats took depositions from 17 witnesses whose transcripts they eventually made public. They also convened a secret hearing with Michael Atkinson, who had circumvented normal procedures to get Ciaramella's compromised whistleblower's report to Schiff. The HPSCI chairman marked that hearing as classified and never released the transcript or sent it for a declassification review. 

Schiff had first promised that Ciaramella, the whistleblower, would testify, but he changed his mind soon after it was reported that Schiff's staff had met with him before he was passed on to Atkinson, even though the HPSCI chair had publicly denied the committee had any contact with him. It seems Schiff was reluctant to subject Ciaramella to Republicans' questions about his secret contact with Schiff staffers, but there may be another reason Schiff kept his whistleblower under wraps. 

"At a certain point he must have found out that he was Biden's guy on Ukraine," says Ciaramella's former colleague in the intelligence community. "If he testifies and the Republicans start asking him questions about Biden and Ukraine, it's over." 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Next declassification could flip Russia collusion script, point to effort to hurt Trump

The Trump administration is preparing one of its biggest declassifications yet in the Russia case, a super-secret document that could flip the collusion theory on its head four years after the FBI first started its investigation.

Multiple officials familiar with the planned declassification, which could happen as early as this week, told Just the News that the new evidence will raise the specter that Russian President Vladimir Putin was actually trying to hurt President Trump, not help his election in 2016, as the Obama administration claimed.

The new evidence would complement a revelation last week that the primary source for the Christopher Steele anti-Trump dossier was known to the U.S. government to be tied to Russia intelligence, raising the possibility that the Russians were undercutting the GOP nominee.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., hinted at the big revelation in a Sunday appearance on the Fox News show "Sunday Futures with Maria Bartiromo."

"Everything Russia-Trump was looked at. You had $25 million, 60 agents. You had subpoenas, you had people’s lives turned upside down," Graham said. "The question is, 'Did they look at Russia coming after Trump?' "

Referring to last week’s revelation, Graham added: “We’ve got a Russian spy on the payroll of the Democratic Party putting together a document that details the FBI was not reliable.”

The possibility that the FBI and CIA had reason to suspect Russia was trying to hurt Trump and help rival Hillarious Clinton first emerged in a Just the News article last month that revealed a House Intelligence Committee secret report accused the U.S Intelligence Community Assessment of ignoring credible evidence that the Russians tried to help Clinton in 2016.

"When I was briefed on the House Intelligence Committee report on the January 2017 ICA, I was told that John Brennan politicized this assessment by excluding credible intelligence that the Russians wanted Hillarious Clinton to win the 2016 election and ordered weak intelligence included that Russia wanted Trump to win,” former CIA and National Security Council official Fred Fleitz said last month.

Brennan was the CIA director at the time.

"I also was told that Brennan took both actions over the objections of CIA analysts. I am concerned about what happened to these analysts and worry that they may have been subjected to retaliation by CIA management," Fleitz also said. "These analysts are true whistleblowers, and they should come to the congressional intelligence committees to tell their stories and set the record straight on the ICA."

An official familiar with the document said it will show the intelligence community “cherry-picked pebbles of evidence” to make the case Russia sought to help Trump win in 2016 when there was similar evidence to the contrary. 

Several prominent Russia experts, including the CIA’s former station chief in Moscow, have argued that the intelligence community assessment got it wrong and that Russia’s true intentions in 2016 was actually to sow chaos and discord in America without regard to which candidate won. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.