I started drafting this post more than 10 days ago. The post title has not changed. I saw this coming and stand by it.
Finally, there are others saying the exact same thing. My friends warned me not to post with a title like this. As Chuck Schumer said “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” When the Senate Minority Leader warns a President about the terrifying power of an agency supposedly under his own Executive Branch it is time to take a hard look at our system. It should be reiterated there are thousands of great people in the FBI and DOJ. However, the old saying “The fish rots from the head” appears to be true here.
By now the hard work I did in outlining the facts has been exposed by several journalists. I have deleted all the bullet points and links that originally had been drafted for this posting. The only question now is will there be prosecutions of the FBI and DOJ people involved in the attempt to thwart a Donald Trump Presidency with the help of foreign nationals in Great Britain and Russia?
We have the smoking gun in Strzok’s text messages.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
I think the best outline of this attempt to overthrow the election has been outlined by Jeanine Pirro. Here is the video from last night.
General Paul Vallely said it like this on his FB page:
Here’s the way the entire operation looks in simple outline.
Career officials, managers and staff within the DOJ and FBI wanted to help ensure Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election. Those people were ideologically aligned with President Obama, and held the goal of maintaining progressive advances as part of their motive.
A “small group” was formed within the DOJ and FBI to facilitate this goal. The first goal was to remove Clinton from the burden of the FBI email investigation.
Once that goal was achieved, they moved on to Clinton’s 2016 challenger. By the time the 2016 GOP convention drew near, everyone accepted that challenger would be Donald Trump.
As such the FBI “small group” began monitoring candidate Donald Trump in June/July 2016 as part of a plan toward the benefit of candidate Hillary Clinton.
However, the FBI and DOJ officials also needed an actual basis, a legal justification for their behavior and the time they were spending. The plan to justify that behavior was to create an official counterintelligence operation.
To get the counterintelligence operation going, they needed a reasonable basis for creating one. That basis was the formative seeds of claims of Russian connections to the Trump campaign.
To establish the basis the Russian elements needed for the operation; the DNC and Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to contract Christopher Steele to write a dossier that would form the legal grounding for the counterintelligence operation.
Fusion GPS hired DOJ Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, who was well versed in counterintelligence operations, CIA operations, and using tradecraft to create illusions.
Nellie Ohr worked with retired British MI6 Agent Christopher Steele to manufacture the Steele Dossier. The dossier would take innocuous connections between Trump and Russian people, enhance them, fabricate some nefarious appearance, and then be turned over to Bruce Ohr’s counterintelligence buddy in the FBI Peter Strzok.
In essence, the Clinton’s created the Russian “angle” out of thin air; and the FBI and DOJ used that creation as the legal underpinning for the counterintelligence operation.
The cointel op was always just a ruse for wiretapping, surveillance and monitoring of Donald Trump campaign officials.
The FBI (Strzok) and DOJ (Ohr) dressed up the Steele Dossier to apply for a FISA warrant (FBI Attorney Lisa Page). The surveillance was happening with or without the FISA approval; but the FISA warrant would make the surveillance legal.
The initial application to the FISA Court was so sketchy (June/July 2016) is was actually denied. Denials rarely happen. One-in-a-thousand.
The Steele Dossier was dressed up some more. More stuff added, thanks to Christopher Steele and Nellie Ohr, to the second FISA application in Sept./October. That FISA application again submitted by Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page. That warrant was approved.
If Hillary was elected, the entire counterintelligence operation just disappears into the ether. No-one would ever know about it.
But Hillary didn’t win.
Subsequently, the entire Trump Counterintelligence Operation was likely to be exposed. So the team behind the CoIntel scheme, again “the small group”, had to make up the “Russian Interference in The Election” narrative, a larger narrative, to cover their tracks.
The manufactured basis for the FISA warrant, ‘Muh Russia’ now needed to become real; or at least have the appearance of being real or justified.
That’s why the goofy “Joint Analysis Report on Russian Interference” was created. Brennan (CIA), Clapper (ODNI), and Comey (FBI), and to a much lesser extent the outsider Mike Rogers (NSA). This became the “17 intelligence agencies” blah.. blah… blah.
It was never 17 intel agencies. It was four. Only three pushed it. Mike Rogers said he had low/moderate confidence in the underlying intelligence within the report. The report was created as evidence to enhance the cover. Nothing more.
[My hunch is if you put the Steele Dossier together with the Joint Analysis Report, you will find 90% of the FISA application documentation.]
Additionally, the entire crew, from the Obama Administration and current career people within the DOJ, FBI, etc., who understood the larger scheme, needed ongoing people to continue ensuring the story was maintained.
That drove the need for a Special Counsel investigation. Mueller’s investigation was really just another way the players within the original scheme could keep a lid on the events in 2016.
That’s why many of the FBI/DOJ “small group”, the crew who cleared Hillary in the email investigation, were also assigned to the Mueller investigation. Controls were needed.
Inside Mueller’s crew, the “small group” essentially works to watch over what information the Trump officials or congress could possibly be discovering…. under the auspices of investigating ‘Muh Russia’ etc. If the “small group” comes across a risky trail being followed, they work to impede, block, delay or deflect anyone from that trail.
That’s the ‘high-level’ summary of the way things look from a researched perspective.
There’s one guy at the heart of this operation who can blow the lid of EVERYTHING.
His name is Bill Priestap.
Priestap’s position in 2016 was Director of Counterintelligence for the FBI.
Mc Cabe is caught. There’s a growing possibility Priestap has flipped. Start asking about him.
There is more. Prove us wrong.
One woman’s response to Michelle Obama who told all women that they should have voted for Hillary because she is a woman and would represent women properly.
I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost.
- Was it the Russians?
- Or was it Wikileaks?
- Or was it Podesta?
- Or Comey?
- Or was it a sexual predator husband?
- Or was it her chief of staff’s husband Wiener’s pictures of his penis?
- Was it a subpoena violation?
- Or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation?
- Or was it the congressional lies?
- Or was it the Benghazi bungle that cost several lives?
- Or was it pay for play?
- Or was it the travel gate scandal?
- Or was it the Whitewater scandal?
- Or the cattle gate scandal?
- Or the Trooper-Gate scandal?
- Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apt bought with Clinton Foundation money?
- Or Comey’s investigation?
- Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation?
- Or was it stealing debate questions?
- Was it deleting forensic 30,000 emails?
- Was it the Seth Rich murder?
- Was it calling half the USA deplorable?
- Was it the underhanded immoral treatment of Bernie Sanders?
- Was it the Vince Foster murder?
- The Jennifer Flowers assault?
- The Jennifer Flowers settlement?
- The Paula Jones lawsuit?
- The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement?
- The lie about taking on sniper fire in Eastern Europe?
- The impeachment?
- The $6 billion she “lost” when in charge of the State Department?
- The $10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich?
Gee, I just can’t quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.
For a long time, I’ve been wondering where the whole story about President Trump and Russia began. At first thought, I recall asking myself who Vladimir Putin would want in the White House more, Clinton or Trump? Would Putin want a known quantity in Hillary Clinton? Granted, Hillary would have been a bit more hawkish than President Obama but that is like asking which is blander without butter and seasoning, grits or mashed potatoes.
Consider Hillary Clinton’s slogan (can you even remember it?) versus “Make America Great Again.” With those two slogans alone, pretend you are Vladimir Putin with a troubled economy that doesn’t want to see America great again. After all a strong American economy and military would put Russia further down on the stage of world influence. It is as plain as the nose on your face.
Just look at this excerpt from yesterday’s Washington Times (no supporter of President Trump).
Apparently, it’s Bill and Hillary Clinton who’ve been doing the behind-scenes and suspicious dealings with Russia all along. Oh, and perhaps others in the Barack Obama administration, too.
You think special counsel Robert Mueller might switch the target of his investigation any time soon? Seems a bit time-wasting — not to mention taxpayer dollar-wasting — to keep on the Trump trail, desperately searching for signs of a collusion that just didn’t happen.
Add to that today’s bombshell that was dropped about those who accused President Trump during the campaign pleading the fifth. Why would Vladimir Putin want a President Trump rather than a President Clinton considering the Obama Administration essentially gave away control of 20% of United States uranium to Russia?
Read full story. Excerpt below.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
Yes, it looks like Hillary Clinton was using the “Clinton Foundation” as a money laundering operation. No, it is not our imagination. No matter how hard Hillary Clinton supporters and President Trump haters want it not to be true, there it is. Apparently, it has all been a masterful spin job accusing President Trump of some kind of illegal dealings with Russia. All the while it was the Clinton’s with possible support from the Obama Administration colluding with the Russians.
Thanks to Navy man Norm for emailing me this video. It is funny when you look back at the liberal media and comedians.
I was thinking about the blood Hillary has on her hands. Some we know about, some we may never know about.
Ambassador Stevens’ Request for Security
Consider the fact that Ambassador Stevens (a friend of Hillary’s by her own account) made over 600 requests for extra security. As you can see from the testimony I linked to Hillary said none of those requests ever reached her. Some have asked me why Ambassador Stevens did not contact Hillary directly. Maybe Ambassador Stevens knew better than to email her to a non-secure email? I’m sure he remembered his security briefings about using non-secure email.
Hillary on Late Term Abortion
Next is Hillary on late-term abortion. She did not dispute in the Debate with Trump that she was fine with a woman terminating her child in the 7th, 8th or 9th month. WOW! She fell back the old “health of the mother” routine. Of course, if there is really a serious health threat to the mother nobody would prevent her from taking action to secure her own life. That is NOT what we are talking about. There are always exceptions for the mother’s health! This effects over 600 women per year and NOBODY would ask a woman to die. That is NOT Hillary’s view. She would allow it for any reason. 80% of Women oppose late-term abortion according to a Jan 2016 Marist Poll.
It’s Not Gun Control it is the ACLU / Democratic Views
Hillary’s policies related to gun sentencing guidelines is another way she has blood on her hands. Like it or not, the truth is Hillary does not want to stop gun violence using techniques that work. After all Gun Control is a major Democratic talking point. If gun violence is to be brought under control you need to do two simple things that Hillary does not support.
Use Stop & Frisk. Hillary and the Democrats say it is Unconstitutional. While it is controversial in particular cases the truth is it is fully in line with the Constitution. This was the Supreme Court of the United States Ruling in 1968. The case cited in the debate was about a particular case in New York that was never fully resolved due to a Socialist Mayor being elected who wanted to stop the practice. See below for details on Stop & Frisk.
The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The “sole justification” for a frisk, said the Court, is the “protection of the police officer and others nearby.” Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be “reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.” As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. ~ Read the full definition by clicking here.
Longer Mandatory Penalties for crimes related to guns is another thing that would fix the problem. Hillary does not support this solution. You might remember the large number of “carjackings” that took place in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Carjacking was quickly solved by making it a Federal Crime carrying prison terms of 15 to 25 years when no bodily harm occurred and up to life in prison or the death sentence. See below for carjacking penalties.
(1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both,
(2) if serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title) results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and
(3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both, or sentenced to death. See more notes by clicking here.
The NRA, Republicans or Conservatives do not stand in the way of mandatory minimums for violent crimes committed with guns. The Democrats, ACLU and other Left Wing groups are the ones against common sense laws. The other problem is we do not apply the laws we have at our disposal due to Liberal judges.
Ask yourself this simple question. Would you commit a crime with a gun if you knew it would result in a minimum life sentence?
So, how much blood is on Hillary’s hands? We may never know but it is sure to increase if she gets elected.
I’ve been watching Doug Schoen for a long time now. He is an “old-fashioned” Democrat as far as I’m concerned. I’m talking about the older generation like my aunts and grandmother. They were very good patriotic people who anyone would have loved to know. They supported the old JFK saying “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” It has been a long time since we have words even close to that (1961). I was just three years old!
I admire Doug for his courage. It is hard to turn on long time friends, especially in such a high-profile position. Imagine what it must have taken for Doug to withdraw his support. If you want the follow-up 13 minute interview with Doug click here. I’ve inserted the short version below and he expands on it the next day. I would not someone thinking I took his comments out of context.