There was no honeymoon for the unlikely winner of the 2016 election. Progressives have in succession tried to sue to overturn Trump’s victory using several different approaches. First on the bogus claim of fraudulent voting machines. Then they sought to subvert the Electoral College by bullying electors into renouncing their respective states’ votes.
Massive protests and boycotts marked the inauguration. Then there were articles of impeachment introduced in the House. Some sued to remove Trump on a warped interpretation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Others brought in psychiatrists to testify that Trump was ill, disabled, or insane and should be removed in accordance with the 25th Amendment. The former FBI director, CIA director, and director of the Office of National Intelligence have variously smeared the president as a coward, a traitor, and a Russian mole.
The Mueller Investigation
We are about 430 days into Robert Mueller’s investigation; the special prosecutor whose team of lawyers and investigators has in a large part been made up either of Clinton donors, clear Clinton partisans, lawyers who have in the past represented Clinton interests or employees, or partisans already removed for expressing clear Trump hatred. The media grew ecstatic over its creation, dubbing it an “all-star” or “dream” team, as leaks assured the public that next week, next month, or “soon” there would be a sensational indictment proving that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.
We have gone through the psychodramas surrounding Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and a host of others. Any second, any minute they would be indicted for collusion in throwing an election, or they would soon flip and end the Trump presidency.
When we learned that Robert Mueller initially did not disclose to the media why he had fired Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and why he had spaced out their firings to prevent the impression that they were connected, we were only reassured of the professionalism of the Mueller investigation.
U.S. intelligence operative Peter Strzok has been outed this week as a CIA counterespionage section chief who served closely under John Brennan, the Obama CIA director who led efforts to stop President Donald Trump. (RELATED: Strzok Worked For CIA And FBI At Same Time).
Big League Politics reporter Tore Lindeman reported, based on a high-level source and former co-worker of both Strzok and Brennan, that Peter Strzok grew up in Iran, where his father was influential in the CIA effort to overthrow the Shah and install the Ayatollah in 1979. Strzok served as Obama and Brennan’s middle man in dealings with the Iranians.
The fact that Peter Strzok answers to John Brennan (whom President Trump called a “bad person” in his interview Tuesday night with Tucker Carlson) puts Brennan squarely in the center of the controversy surrounding Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the failed Deep State plot to quash Trump’s campaign. The conspirators, including Strzok, named their effort Crossfire Hurricane because they were all using Hurricane Electric computer servers. The conspirators, including Fusion GPS, all had access to Obama’s FBI facial recognition and fingerprint analysis programs, which stored personal identifying information from American citizens in at least 14 states. The Russians managed to hack that database during the general period in which the Hurricane conspirators were using it.
Trending: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan’s Envoy To Iranian Regime
Let’s look at the key roles that Strzok played for John Brennan, and also for James Comey and for Obama, in his effort to work against Trump and to take down General Flynn and others in Trump’s inner circle:
by Patrick Howley July 18, 2018
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
“Why the hell are we standing down?”
That was the question that the White House’s cybersecurity coordinator was asked after Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, issued a stand down order on Russia.
Testimony at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on Russian interference in the election once again raised the central paradox of the Russia conspiracy theory. If Russian interference in the election represented the crisis that we are told it did, why did Obama fail to take any meaningful action?
The White House’s own cybersecurity people wanted an aggressive response before being told to stand down. Obama issued a bloodless warning to Russia while his people deliberately crippled our offense.
Democrats and the media blamed the Russian hacking on Trump. But it was Susan Rice who had told the cybersecurity team to “knock it off” and Obama’s people who hadn’t wanted him to be “boxed in” and forced to respond to Russian actions. Was this just the usual appeasement or was there more to it?
Why didn’t Obama and his team want to stop Russian hacking? Because they needed the Russians.
The 2016 election is really the story of two deep state intelligence operations that dovetailed neatly with each other. One was an ongoing Russian operation that took advantage of a weak president to sow chaos in America and Europe. The other was a domestic political operation utilizing counterintelligence resources in the United States and Europe to spy on, undermine and try to bring down Trump.
Contrary to claims made by Obama operatives, the Russian operation was not new. Russian hackers and spies had done enormous damage to America’s intelligence community. But they had succeeded so well because the mission of the intelligence community had shifted from deterring foreign adversaries to suppressing domestic political opponents. And this new mission made the Russians attacks irrelevant.
As a Republican media consultant, I’m routinely invited to represent the right-leaning view on left-leaning news outlets, including CNN, MSNBC and NPR. Usually I’m invited to appear alongside two liberal panelists, a liberal show host, and a viewing audience rooting for my competitors. I’m not expected to take a dive, but everything is arranged to make it hard for me to win the argument.
Truth be told, I enjoy the challenge. The real reward, however, is the time spent beforehand in the greenroom. Hours waiting to go on air have given me a unique opportunity to meet a bunch of liberal journalists, activists, progressive politicians and Hollywood celebrities. They have all been friendly.
What have I learned from observing the other side of the political universe up close? Liberals are united in the belief that the election of Donald Trump constituted a cataclysmic anomaly in the political cosmos. They believe in their hearts that this cataclysm was instigated by an outside agent using cyber chicanery. Equally clear is their newfound collective purpose in life—to rectify this horrific reality any way they can.
I’ve listened in on numerous conversations about how voter manipulation is the only plausible explanation for Mr. Trump’s victory. One segment producer explained to me that despite the more than $1 billion in total marketing dollars spent on the presidential race—and almost two years of daily news coverage of the campaigns—it was the approximately $200,000 that might or might not have been spent by the Russians on social media that tipped the race in Mr. Trump’s favor. If so, those were the most effective ads in political history, despite the spelling mistakes.
This article gives us a different slant on Gina Haspel and her work with John Brennan. The author of the article is a retired CIA station chief and operations officer, and is president of Americans for Intelligence Reform. Nancy
The new director of the Central intelligence Agency must reverse the damaging Brennan reform
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
A group of former senior intelligence officials recently published a letter supporting Deputy CIADirector Gina Haspel as the nominee to be the next CIA director.
Critics of Ms. Haspel have focused most of their questions about her suitability for the position on her past role in the agency’s interrogation programs for captured terrorists after the September 11 attacks.
The debate so far is largely centered on the past and has ignored important questions about whether Ms. Haspel is the right person to bring much-needed reform to the CIA in the aftermath of disastrous reforms put in place under the administration of President Barack Obama.
A key indicator of concerns that should be raised about Ms. Haspel is the endorsement she received from Mr. Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, who has revealed himself a bitter partisan and critic of President Trump.
During his tenure as CIA director, Mr. Brennan worked closely with Ms. Haspel in drafting and launching the CIA’s so-called “modernization” plan.
As someone who spent a career in the shadowy world of intelligence, I can attest this damaging modernization went largely unnoticed by the public and never received the attention it should have from the agency’s congressional overseers and the public. The Brennan reforms will have a long-term impact by severely limiting the CIA’s espionage capabilities — and they should be reversed by the next CIA director.
Under Mr. Brennan and with the support of Ms. Haspel, the modernization plan systematically dismantled and destroyed the CIA’s operations division — the heart of the agency’s critical mission of using people to steal vital secrets around the world.
To avoid critical reaction, the weakening of the CIA’s operations branch was disguised under the modernization program by announcing with great fanfare the creation of a new Directorate of Digital Innovation. The new bureaucratic entity sought to redirect the agency toward using cyber capabilities as a key intelligence-gathering tool.
Historically, the operations division was staffed by an elite cadre of highly trained specialists schooled in the dark arts of espionage and capable of operating around the world — from places like Beirut to Beijing.
VIDEO JOHN GUANDOLO – MCMASTER MUST BE FIREDMcMaster Must Be Fired – He’s covering up Islamic Threat
#FireMcMaster@POTUSPublished on Aug 3, 2017
New revelations have surfaced that the Obama administration abused intelligence during the election by launching a massive domestic spy campaign that included snooping on Trump officials.
The irony is mind-boggling: Targeting political opposition is long a technique of police states like Russia, which Team Obama has loudly condemned for allegedly using its own intelligence agencies to hack into our election.
The revelations, as well as testimony this week from former Obama intel officials, show the extent to which the Obama administration politicized and weaponized intelligence against Americans.
Thanks to Circa News, we now know the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama routinely violated privacy protections while snooping through foreign intercepts involving US citizens — and failed to disclose the breaches, prompting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a month before the election to rebuke administration officials.
An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.
Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.
John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.
A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.”