Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Sunday, Feb. 4, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
The eyes have it...
The 5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo That Have Dems Reeling
BY BEN MARQUIS
After weeks of discussion about a special memo prepared by the Republicans of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a document that was purported to detail abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by the Department of Justice and FBI, the memo has finally been released to the public, according to the Washington Examiner.
While the entirety of the memo in and of itself is rather damning — it can be read in full right here — there were five key revelations within it that should have Democrats back on their heels and scrambling to find an explanation.
The first truth unveiled by the memo is that the dubious “dossier” compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and political opposition research group Fusion GPS on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign was used by the DOJ and FBI to obtain a FISA warrant from the court.
That warrant obtained in October 2016 specifically targeted Carter Page, an American citizen who briefly served as a volunteer on candidate Trump’s campaign in 2016, and the veracity of the application for the warrant was certified by top officials of the DOJ and FBI.
However, the second major takeaway from the memo is that the FISA warrant application failed to disclose to the court exactly who had financed the dossier that served as the application’s foundation — information that should have been included.
As is now know, the dossier was funded in part by the DNC and Clinton campaign via the law firm Perkins Coie, but that relevant information was omitted from the initial FISA application as well as subsequent renewals of the warrant, despite the DOJ and FBI being aware of the financial origination of the dossier.
Third, the FISA warrant application cited as corroborating evidence an article in Yahoo News written by Michael Isikoff that was published on Sept. 23, 2016 and focused on a trip to Moscow made by Page in July 2016.
But that Yahoo News article couldn’t really be considered “corroboration” of the dossier compiled by Steele, as it was revealed that Steele himself had provided the information upon which this article wa based to Isikoff. This tactic is known as circular sourcing, or making a single source of information appear as though it is coming from multiple independent sources.
Fourth, the memo revealed that Steele had been “suspended and then terminated” as a source with the FBI after it was discovered that he had lied to the bureau about previously undisclosed contacts with various members of the media.
Yet, despite Steele proving to the FBI that he was a liar and “less than reliable source” for the FBI, they continued to use his dossier as the foundation of the FISA warrant against Page and the Trump campaign.
Finally, the memo exposed contacts between Steele and then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr — whose wife Nellie was employed by Fusion GPS and participated in compiling the dossier — that occurred both before and after Steele’s relationship with the FBI was terminated. These potential conflicts of interest were not properly disclosed on the FISA warrant application.
That matters because Ohr testified to investigators that Steele had admitted to him that he held a strong bias against Trump and was purposefully working toward preventing him from being elected to the presidency.
The admitted anti-Trump bias of Steele, as well as the repeated contacts between Steele and Ohr, not to mention Ohr’s wife’s employment with Fusion GPS and her role in compiling the dossier, should all have been disclosed in the FISA warrant application. Inexplicably, they were not.
There were a few other incredibly important bits of information revealed in the four-page memo from the House Intel committee, but the five revelations and confirmations of prior suppositions listed above are awfully damning as is.
It will be interesting to see how Democrats and their liberal media allies choose to respond to this incredible bombshell of a memo that significantly undercuts the entire Russian collusion narrative by exposing the weak foundation of the dossier-supported FISA warrant upon which it all rests.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter so everyone else can see these five important takeaways from the House Intel Committee memo on the Steele dossier and FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
What do you think of what was revealed by the FISA memo?
Oh My: New Texts Show FBI Agents Discussed Ways To Avoid Federal Records Regulations
Matt Vespa
FBI agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page sent each other tens of thousands of texts. Strzok was a top counterintelligence agent at the bureau. He was having an extramarital affair with Page, taking swipes at Trump and obviously showing bias towards Hillary Clinton; the two really wanted her to be the next president. All of these communications sent during the FBI’s email probe into Hillary Clinton and the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign concerning possible collusion with the Russians.
For the Russia probe that’s now head up by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Strzok signed off on it in July of 2016. In August of 2016, he sent a text to page regarding their meeting with now ex-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe about “an insurance policy” against a Trump win. What is that? Well, some has suggested it could be a reference to the Trump dossier, which is said to have been used to secure FISA warrants against members of the Trump team. The dossier has not been fully corroborated. It’s also a piece of opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Fusion GPS was paid by the Hillary team to find dirt on Trump, GPS then contracted former MI6 spook Christopher Steele to compile information.
With Hillary, there were texts sent by Page worrying that the FBI was being too hard on the former first lady. Did the bureau tip the scales here? We all know Hillary escaped charges being filed against her for her reckless email setup while serving as secretary of state. Now, former CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson noted there was also an exchange between the Strzok and Page about avoiding federal records regulations (via The Hill):
In a new exchange released by the Senate Homeland Security committee today, FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok seem to discuss this very issue in private texts.
Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so
Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?
Page: Have a meeting with turgal about getting iphone in a day or so
Strzok: Oh hot damn. . . We get around our security/monitoring issues?
Page: No, he’s proposing that we just stop following them. Apparently the requirement to capture texts came from [Office of Management and Budget], but we’re the only org (I’m told) who is following that rule. His point is, if no one else is doing it why should we. . . I’m told – thought I have seen – that there is an IG report that says everyone is failing. But one has changed anything, so why not just join in the failure.
It’s a shockingly cavalier attitude from an attorney and high level FBI official.
There are more text messages between Strzok and Page from a critical time period, as we now know, that the FBI claimed had been lost in a technical glitch. After that became public, the Inspector General said he was able to recover them. (Interesting that the FBI couldn’t.)
Where are all those text messages now? Instead of providing them directly to Congress, the Inspector General is giving the recovered text messages to the Department of Justice which then can give them to Congress (after any bad actors theoretically implicated in the texts have time to mount a fulsome defense).
This is just one artery of a huge problem that also includes federal agencies routinely violating Freedom of Information Act law. They’ve twisted the law on its head, using it to obstruct and delay the release of obviously public information.
Turgal is a reference to James Turgal, the executive assistant director for the Information and Technology Branch, who was appointed there in February of 2016.
So, while the bureau was investigating Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information through her unauthorized and unsecure server, and trying to find her missing emails, and with the press hammering Clinton for siring federal records regulations—the top officials at the FBI were discussing ways to do just that. Yeah, I could see how the FBI would want to keep that hidden, the aversion to getting information out there that could embarrass the bureau seems to be the reason why they’re dragging their feet on these document requests made by investigative congressional committees. Well, the FISA memo is now released, so dig in, folks.
Strzok was removed from the Russia probe in August of 2017 once Mueller found out about the deluge of anti-Trump texts. He was reassigned to human resources.
New Poll Shows More Trouble for Democrats in 2018 Midterms
By Erin Coates
A new poll on approval rankings of U.S. governors shows Republicans in a strong position for those seeking re-election this year.
The top 10 governors, based on the poll, are all Republicans with at least a 59 percent net approval rate.
The Morning Consult’s Governor Approval Rankings is based on a survey of 253,393 registered voters nationwide.
The top 10 governors, based on the poll, are all Republicans with at least a 59 percent net approval rate.
The Morning Consult’s Governor Approval Rankings is based on a survey of 253,393 registered voters nationwide.
First-term GOP governors in blue states have high approval rates as well. Charlie Baker has a 69 percent approval rate in Massachusetts, Larry Hogan has a 66 percent approval rate in Maryland and Phil Scott has a 63 percent approval rate in Vermont.
In Alaska, independent Bill Walker finished 2017 as the 6th least popular governor with 55 percent of registered voters disapproving of his work.
The Democrat governors running for reelection this year have relatively low approval rates as well.
Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island is the 11th least popular governor with a 47 percent disapproval rate.
The governors who are not running for re-election were either among the most or least popular governors in 2017. Democrat Dan Malloy of Connecticut was the second-least popular governor in the country, behind Chris Christie.
Democrat Terry McAuliffe will also not be running for re-election in Virginia, though he finished 2017 with a 47 percent approval rate.
Florida’s Republican governor, Rick Scott, is finishing up his second term and many Republicans are trying to get him to challenge Democrat Bill Nelson for his Senate seat.
Politico reported Thursday that Scott has raised $1.1 million for a recently revived super PAC. A Senate bid would hurt Democratic hopes of winning back control of the Senate next year.
“In my opinion, the governor is highly likely to make this race. He has plenty of time to make his final decision,” William Rubin, a Tallahassee lobbyist and friend of Scott, said.
McKinley Lewis, a spokesman for Scott, told Morning Consult that the governor was “focused on finishing his work in office.”
Scott gained seven net points in popularity as the Sunshine State’s governor, with a 58 percent approval rate. His approval numbers increased from GOP, independent and even Democrat voters.
The Morning Consult’s poll was conducted from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2017, to find the governor approval rankings for the fourth quarter.
In the poll, voters indicated whether they approved or disapproved of their governor’s job performance. “For each question, they could answer strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, strongly disapprove, or don’t know/no opinion,” according to Morning Consult Polling.
Planned Parenthood: Willing to “Break the Baby’s Neck” if Born Alive, Congress Fails to Act
By Onan Coca
Former St. Paul Planned Parenthood client testifies that the abortionists there told her they would “break the baby’s neck” if born alive. This would be a violation of federal and Minnesota law.We missed this story when it first broke, but the latest news from the Senate makes this story very relevant… again.
Back in June a video surfaced of woman who was 22-weeks pregnant and had recently visited her local Planned Parenthood in St, Paul, Minnesota. The woman sat down with investigators and told them a terrifying story. When she asked the Doctor what would happen if her baby were born alive, the Doctor told her that he “would break the baby’s neck” if it was born alive.
The woman arrived prepared to have an abortion but the experience was unsettling that after a day or so of thought, she began to changed her mind and told the clinic workers that she simply wanted an ultrasound instead.
Thankfully, the ultrasound showed that her preborn baby was still alive, and that her little boy was strong and active. She told the two abortionists:
Since he’s still alive and still active, if you guys were to take him out right now while he’s still… his heart rate is still going, what would you guys do? She looked at him [the other abortionist] and she looked back at me and she was quiet just for a little bit […] And she told me, “We don’t tell women this […] but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likley we would break the baby’s neck.”
Federal law states that “the words ‘person, ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual,’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Minnesota state law agrees: “A born alive infant as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born-alive infant.”
Shocked that the Planned Parenthood abortionist would have broken her baby’s neck and disturbed by the details of what abortion is, the mother told them to remove the dilators. The abortionists told her that there was a possibility her baby’s heart was going to stop anyway, though their basis for this is unclear, and they urged her to go through with the abortion. The woman says it was as if they were trying to sell her the abortion like a pushy salesperson would sell a product. Deciding saving her son’s life was worth any risk, she had Planned Parenthood staff remove the dilators and, thankfully, her son is now born. She had checkups every week throughout her pregnancy, and her son is perfectly fine.
“I couldn’t ask for more of a blessing than ever that what they told me about the shot and how he wasn’t gonna make it more than 48 hours and things like that, it wasn’t true,” the woman explains on tape.
Earlier this week Congress had an opportunity to make sure that nothing like this would ever happen again, and they (of course) screwed it all up.
The Senate failed to pass legislation Monday evening that would prevent doctors from performing abortions on women who are 20 weeks pregnant or more.
Fifty-one lawmakers voted for the measure and 47 vote against it, but the bill failed to pass the Senate requirement of 60 votes necessary for a debate on the bill.
“There’s a disconnect between science and the law,” GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said at Monday night’s hearing on the bill before the vote. “I just don’t see how this makes us a better nation,” he added.
Also known as Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the bill sought to make it illegal for a person to perform or attempt to perform an abortion after 20-weeks gestation of pregnancy. Transgressors would face fines and up to five years in prison. The legislation did include exemptions for rape victims however, but only if the woman received medical treatment or counseling at least 48 hours before the abortion.
“While we are grateful that this was brought to a vote, it is disappointing that the U.S. Senate could not pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act today,” March For Life President Jeanne Mancini said in a statement after the vote.
President Donald Trump also expressed his disappointment that the bill did not pass. “It is disappointing that despite support from a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators, this bill was blocked from further consideration,” the president said in a statement. “I urge the Senate to reconsider its decision and pass legislation that will celebrate, cherish, and protect life.”
“Research shows that a woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks (five months) is 35 times more likely to die from an abortion than she was in the first trimester,” President of Americans United For Life Catherine Glenn Foster said in a statement, noting her organization’s disappointment over the failed vote.
Planned Parenthood wrote on their website that “nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks.”
Seventy-six percent of Americans want significant abortion restrictions, including making abortion illegal after three months of pregnancy, a recent poll showed. More than 60 percent of Americans are also in favor of banning abortions after 20 weeks in pregnancy and six in 10 Americans oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions.
Perhaps the most maddening part of the failure was that the bill was based almost solely on SCIENCE, something the Democrat Party pretends to care about. The bill relied on on research that unequivocally proves that after 20-weeks gestation pre-born babies most certainly feel pain… but apparently Democrats don’t actually care about science… and neither do some Republicans.
Two Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — continued their support for abortion by crossing the aisle to vote with the Democrats against the bill.
Meanwhile, three Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana — broke ranks and voted with Republicans in favor of the legislation. The vote split along similar party lines in 2015, the last time the Senate considered similar legislation. Among the Democrats opposing the legislation were several from states that voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election: Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters of Michigan, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Doug Jones of Alabama, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.
It’s sad, it’s disgusting, and it’s more evidence of how corrupt our nation has become. Killing the most innocent among us for convenience sake is simply a travesty of untold proportions.
Trump Used the Word ‘America’ More Than 80 Times During SOTU and the ACLU Is Furious About It
By Erin Coates
The American Civil Liberties Union issued a complaint about the president’s frequent use of the word “America” in his State of the Union address.
Faiz Shakir, the ACLU’s national political director, said that the “America” President Donald Trump talked about is “exclusionary,” CNS News reported.
The word “America” was said over 80 times in Trump’s speech, according to Shakir’s statement.
“Yet, after a divisive first year, we hear and feel how exclusionary that ‘America’ is, with policies that have harmed so many vulnerable American communities,” the statement read. “The ACLU stands ready to protect these communities, both in the courts and at the polls.”
The political director was referencing the fact that the fate of “Dreamers” — the illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and were protected by the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — is still up in the air.
“In particular, the immigration plan put forth by Trump would hold Dreamers hostage to his demands for a harmful border wall and an even larger mass deportation force,” Shakir wrote, according to CNS News. “We are at this crossroads because of the President’s deeply destructive ideas fomented by his nativist allies and divisive rhetoric.”
The statement concluded, “We will continue to stand up for these young immigrants and ensure they continue to contribute to our country. We cannot let America’s Dreamers be deported.”
During his address, Trump indicated he is willing to work with lawmakers to find a compromise for immigration reform.
“Tonight, I am extending an open hard to work with members of both parties — Democrats and Republicans — to protect our citizens of every background, color, religion and creed,” he said.
“My duty, and the sacred duty of every elected official in this chamber, is to defend Americans, to protect their safety, their families, their communities, and their right to the American Dream,” Trump said. “Because Americans are dreamers too.”
The Trump administration’s immigration plan has been widely criticized, and he admitted during his speech that the four-pillar plan won’t please both sides, but it’s needed anyway.
The first pillar is a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Under Trump’s plan, these immigrants can become U.S. citizens over a period of 12 years.
The second pillar — border security — involves “building a great wall on the southern border,” Trump said, in addition to hiring more agents to beef up security. The building of the border wall would follow through on a major tenet of Trump’s campaign platform.
As the third pillar, Trump called for an end to the visa lottery system, which he said randomly hands out green cards to immigrants. Instead, he wants a merit-based program that prioritizes skilled immigrants who will contribute to American society.
Finally, Trump said it is necessary to end chain migration. Though his point was met with scattered boos from Democrats in the crowd, Trump said such a move is “vital for the security and future of America.”
“Most importantly, these four pillars will produce legislation that fulfills my ironclad pledge to sign a bill that puts America first,” Trump said. “So let’s come together, set politics aside, and finally get the job done.”
Donald Trump’s Amazing Pro-Life Moment in the SOTU
BY BRISTOL PALIN
Donald Trump delivered his first State of the Union address, and it was fantastic. He talked about new programs such as infrastructure and paid leave. He said he would appoint judges, develop our strong national defense, and make sure to take care of immigration. But there was one really powerful moment, one that National Review lauded specifically:
Trump’s speech featured one of the most powerful pro-life moments I’ve seen in a presidential address. It occurred when Trump honored Albuquerque, New Mexico, police officer Ryan Holets and his wife Rebecca. He intervened to stop a pregnant homeless woman from injecting heroin and then later adopted the child, naming her Hope.
CNN posted the video and introduced it in this way. “President Trump honors Albuquerque, New Mexico, police officer Ryan Holets who, with his wife, adopted the baby of a homeless woman addicted to heroin: “Ryan and Rebecca, you embody the goodness of our nation.” Here’s the video:
CNN ✔@CNNPresident Trump honors Albuquerque, New Mexico, police officer Ryan Holets who, with his wife, adopted the baby of a homeless woman addicted to heroin: “Ryan and Rebecca, you embody the goodness of our nation” #SOTU http://cnn.it/2ntU8Rd
10:25 PM - Jan 30, 2018
That’s the heart of adoption in America — parents who live their faith, preserve life, and love their new children. Spend any time with adoptive families, and you’ll hear stories every bit as inspiring as Ryan and Rebecca’s. Their story is wonderful, but it’s not as extraordinary as you might think. I’m constantly in awe of the adoptive moms and dads that I meet, and I’m grateful that the president chose to highlight one of those families tonight.
Amen.
Report: NFL Losing Its Core Audience
by WARNER TODD HUSTON
AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh
The National Football League is quickly losing its core audience marking a shift that could bring an end to the sport’s dominance, a new poll finds.
The WSJ/NBC poll found several things that should worry the NFL both for its near and long-term future. For instance, in the short-term, fans are paying less attention than ever to the NFL. But, more worrisome, in the long-term, parents are increasingly discouraging their children from playing football over concerns over the sport’s safety. The latter would tend to create fewer football fans into the future.
The effect does not seem to be localized, either. Fan interest in the NFL has dropped across the various demographics, including in the crucial growth demo of young males, according to the Wall Street Journal.
“The drop in interest spans age groups and the political spectrum—painting the picture of a sport that isn’t just experiencing a momentary dip, but a battle against fundamental questions about football’s future that have been building for years,” the Journal wrote.
On the heels of a contentious season, fans seem to have become fatigued by the NFL on a myriad of levels:
The problems are taking a heavy toll. Adults who report following the NFL closely have dropped 9% since 2014, the poll finds. More alarming for the league, however, is the makeup of the people moving away from the NFL in large numbers: Just 51% of men aged 18 to 49 say they follow the NFL closely, down from 75% four years ago. The poll did not ask respondents why their interest changed. The Journal/NBC News poll interviewed 900 adults from Jan. 13-17. The margin of error for the full sample was plus or minus 3.27 percentage points.
Interestingly, the drop-offs fell across both Republican and Democrat viewers, but interest fell more among Democrats. While Republican interest declined 14 percent, it fell even further at 16 percent among Democrats.
While all that is bad for the NFL today, the poll also found that the league has long-term troubles on the horizon:
Beyond the scope of the NFL, the poll also revealed that parents are increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of their kids playing football, prompted by a surge in information about the dangers of head injuries. In 2014, 40% of mothers said they would encourage their child to play a sport other than football due to concerns about concussions. That figure has now climbed to 53%. Democrats, the poll found, expressed these concerns with head injuries more frequently than Republicans.
…
Even people without kids in their households appear to harbor doubts about football, with 49% saying they would encourage their child to play another sport, up from 43% in 2014. Roberts described this data as “a flashing yellow light,” since robust youth participation in a sport typically correlates with a larger adult fan base.
With fewer children joining the sport, this could reduce the number of new fans who might otherwise have come to the NFL when they grow up.
Fans are also skeptical about whether or not the NFL is taking sufficient steps to assure player safety. A recent poll found that only 47 percent say the league is taking meaningful steps to reduce concussions. That is down from the 59 percent who approved of the NFL’s actions on the matter in 2014.
FBI, DOJ Knew Clintons Funded Anti-Trump Russia Dossier, Hid It from FISA Court
By Dick Morris
The blockbuster memo just released by the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee makes it abundantly clear that the FBI was staffed and led by pro-Clinton/anti-Trump zealots who would stop at nothing to keep him from office or remove him once he was there.
They’re still at it.
The Nunes/GOP memo shows that the top leadership of the FBI and the Justice Department knew that the dossier prepared by Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee — but hid its partisan origin from the FISA court.
In other words, our top FBI and Justice Department officials omitted key information from the FISA Court warrant application in order to convince them to let them spy on Trump transition and campaign officials — American citizens. Would the Court have looked at the warrant in the same way if they knew it was commissioned by the Democrat nominee for president to discredit her opponent?
The FISA court is really on a par with the Supreme Court in that its decisions cannot be appealed. Its standard of proof for issuance of a FISA warrant is extremely high. Concealing that the dossier was funded by a partisan group is a major mistake and perhaps indictable.
Former Deputy Director McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that the FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page would never have been issued were it not for the dossier.
But the FBI knew that the dossier was never verified. The memo also states that the FBI’s counterintelligence attempted to verify the sources in the dossier and found that it was only “minimally corroborated.”
Defenders of the Justice Department say that the dossier was not the sole source used before the FISA Court but that news stories added to its credibility. But the Nunes memo makes the point that the corroborating news story they cite was a Yahoo! News story published on Sept. 23, 2016, by Michael Isikoff that was based entirely on Isikoff’s interview with Steele himself.
So, the use of the article to bolster the dossier is an exercise in “circular reporting.”
During his research on the dossier, Steele’s expenses were paid by the FBI, even as his consultant fee was paid by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. His credibility was based on the FBI’s vouching for him. But, as the memo reveals, he was actually fired by the FBI — “suspended and terminated” — for leaking the dossier to Mother Jones and for concealing his meeting with Yahoo reporter Isikoff and other news media and then lying about it.
Steele pretended that he quit his partnership with the FBI because he was angry at its failure to pursue his findings aggressively. Now it turns out that this was not true. He was fired because he lied to them and because he revealed his confidential association with the FBI to the media.
Steele and Simpson repeated this lie. Steele told various media outlets the tall tale and Simpson testified before Congress that Steele had ended his relationship with the FBI after he read a New York Times story indicating that the agency did not seek a link between Trump and the Russians.
This degree of coordination among the media, Steele, Fusion GPS, the DOJ, FBI and the Clintons was laid out and predicted in our book “Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War on Donald Trump.”
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Christopher Steele was not the main author of the dossier — Cody Shearer was.
Steele admits that Shearer provided him with material.
Shearer, who the Clintons had called upon time and again to discredit women and others who testified against Bill Clinton, was the key black ops guy in Hillary’s orbit. He and Clinton rony Sidney Blumenthal sent a horde of spook memos about Libya to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state. Now, facing the biggest challenge of her life — discrediting Donald Trump — she may have turned to her old familiar pattern and brought in Shearer.
For his part Shearer could have made up most of the fictitious meetings and encounters breathlessly reported in the final Dossier.
But Shearer had a terrible reputation and was widely seen as unreliable — and somewhat wacky. So the Clintons needed a front man to be seen as the dossier’s author. They relied on Christopher Steele because of his credentials as an ex-operative of MI-6 and his access to the FBI.
Then, when Steele — desperate to get out the phony charge of Trump-Russia collusion — leaked to the media — first to Yahoo’s Michael Issikoff and then to Mother Jones — the FBI “suspended and terminated” him.
To fill the gap left by Steele’s termination by the FBI, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., got the dossier and, through Andrew McCabe, arranged for a meeting to give the dossier to FBI Director James Comey. (McCabe is, of course, a Clintonista who’s wife’s state Senate campaign in Virginia was funded by the Clinton machine). From Comey, the dossier went to President Barack Obama and thence to the media, accomplishing the Clintons’ mission, albeit too late to swing the election.
Kennedy Said He Would Tear Down Trump’s Wall, Then People Notice, What a phony Lumox.
BY CHRIS GOLDEN
For a party trying to float by on feminist hashtags and regain lost blue collar voters, a Kennedy seemed an odd choice to give the rebuttal to the State of the Union.
And that was before they put him in front of a wrecked car.
Yet, even though the speech was a farrago of platitudes given by a wholly undeserving trustfunder who appeared to be drooling and was attired like a freshman high school athlete dressing up for game day, this was a Kennedy, after all — which meant the media had to find something to praise him for.
And they did, in the line, “Build a wall and my generation will tear it down.”
Given that this was a Kennedy, you probably shouldn’t be surprised to learn the line actually wasn’t his. His mention of it came during a part of the speech where he addressed those in the loose coalition of anti-Trumpers who would probably use the hashtag #TheResistance without a hint of irony.
“And to all the Dreamers watching tonight, let me be clear: Ustedes son parte de nuestra historia. Vamos a luchar por ustedes y no nos vamos alejar. (You are a part of our story. We will fight for you. We will not walk away.) America, we carry that story on our shoulders,” Kennedy said.
“You swarmed Washington last year to ensure no parent has to worry if they can afford to save their child’s life.
“You proudly marched together last weekend – thousands deep — in the streets of Las Vegas and Philadelphia and Nashville.
“You sat high atop your mom’s shoulders and held a sign that read: ‘Build a wall and my generation will tear it down.’”
So, Joe Kennedy is essentially getting credit for a line written by someone else and taken off of a placard. If nothing else, this provides an ample glimpse into just how feverishly the media continues to perform CPR on the Kennedy legacy.
However, there’s another funny thing about the Kennedy legacy that’s worth pointing out: As a family, they actually seem to love walls. Just not along our Southern border.
For instance, let’s take a look at Rep. Kennedy’s house. It’s not exactly modest, and it’s got a rather familiar circumambient feature:
Here's a picture of Joe Kennedy's house. Notice that it has A WALL !
11:29 PM - Jan 31, 2018
Oh look — a wall. And, as Julian Gillespie noted in a piece at The Daily Caller, “the young congressman failed to mention that generations of Kennedys preceding him have enjoyed the protections and sanctity provided by walls and extra security at compounds stretching from Cape Cod to Palm Beach.”
“When the Kennedy family sold the estate in Palm Beach, Florida in 1995, the walls and gate were the only part of the two-acre oceanfront compound to be legally protected,” Gillespie wrote. “The family had fought for years to keep the estate from historical designation to help resale value and make remodeling less complicated for a new owner.”
Now, of course, this is private property, but both walls serve roughly the same purpose: They are designed, in cases where there might be an incentive for ill-meaning actors to cross into territory they’re legally prohibited from doing so, to stop them from doing so.
In the case of illegal immigration, the costs and externalities are supposed to be borne by the American people because the demographic shifts are favorable to the Democrats. This is what they never mention. In any other circumstance, especially if the electoral benefits were neutral or unfavorable to the party, the wall would have been erected decades ago.
But don’t ask me. Ask Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. When slamming illegal immigration made electoral hay for the Democrats, they were more than willing to pay lip service to stopping it in their State of the Union addresses, as The Daily Wirepoints out.
Walls and border enforcement, when it suits them, are perfectly dandy with the party of the left. It’s just the ones that interfere with their demographical destiny that Joe Kennedy and his compatriots wish to tear down.
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you think Joe Kennedy is a hypocrite.
What are your thoughts on Kennedy's speech? Scroll down to comment below
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/02/www_3.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment