The Deep State Cabal Moves Into Justification Phase With American Pravda’s Help

Today’s Campaign Update (Because The Campaign Never Ends) Tired of all this Winning yet? – Gosh, I’m old enough to remember like, a couple of weeks ago, when everyone at CNN was sagely ensuring us that President Donald Trump’s crazy policies would lead to a massive trade war with China. Then yesterday, this happened:

CNN Breaking News ✔ @cnnbrk China will "significantly increase" purchases of US goods and services, according to a joint statement from both countries https://cnn.it/2kavMLq

The Cabal and American Pravda move into justification phase. – The Sunday morning talk shows today will no doubt be filled with Democrats and fake journalists reciting talking points about how terrible it is for congressional oversight committees and supporters of President Trump to want to “out” the identity of a “confidential source” for the FBI and CIA. What these Democrats and fake journalists are not going to admit is that the FBI and CIA spent the last week systematically ensuring that this “source” was outed through a series of strategic leaks to the New York Times and the Washington Post, which the fake journalists at the Times and the Post eagerly accepted and published.

Say hello to American Pravda, which officially arrived as of this week. The mainstream news media crossed the line formally into being nothing but useful tools of the deep state with the publication of these articles, and the follow-on support propaganda provided them by the fake reporters and talking heads at CNN, MSNBC and the major networks.

The Times even went so far as to publish a piece under the headline “FBI Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims”, which is hilariously self-refuting. Not to be outdone, the Post followed that with a piece written by an ex-FBI agent who was one of Jim Comey’s subordinates with the title “If the FBI Used an Informant, it Wasn’t to go After Trump. It was to Protect Him.”

If Jeff Bezos had owned the Post in 1940, we’d have no doubt seen this headline: “Hitler Didn’t Invade France to Dominate it; He Invaded France to Protect it from England.”

Virginia Senator Mark Warner, who we should all remember was caught last year coordinating efforts with a Russian agent, spent his time Friday evening issuing a series of tweets hilariously trying to make the case that it is actually illegal for congressional committees to exercise oversight of the FBI and CIA:

Mark Warner ✔ @MarkWarner 18 May Replying to @MarkWarner Publicly outing a source risks not only their life, but the lives of every American, because when sources are burned it makes it that much harder for every part of the intelligence community to gather intelligence on those who wish to do us harm.

Mark Warner ✔ @MarkWarner It would be at best irresponsible, and at worst potentially illegal, for members of Congress to use their positions to learn the identity of an FBI source for the purpose of undermining the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in our election.

By the time Warner issued those idiotic tweets, the name of the “source” – Stephan Halper – had been known for days, outed by strategic leaks coming from those very agencies. Halper is a retired U.S. college professor who now lives in England and teaches courses at Cambridge. He has been a well-known, long-time contract asset for the CIA.

What we now know is that in the mid-summer of 2016, he was assigned by most likely then-CIA Director John Brennan or someone who worked for him to begin making contacts with junior members of the Trump Campaign – first Carter Page and then the pitiful George Papadopoulos – in an effort to “dirty them up.” The strategy was to convince these two to take meetings with Russian nationals or people with Russian contacts so that he could then report back to the CIA that he had “observed” these meetings, thus creating the “raw intelligence” necessary for Brennan to authorize Comey’s FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump Campaign, which is exactly what happened on August 1, 2016.

Got it? A classic entrapment operation. The entire Russia Collusion fantasy play was a set-up from day one. This is the “insurance policy” that Super-Duper FBI Agent Peter Strzok referenced in one of his 50,000 texts to his mistress Lisa Page. As early as July 2016, the FBI/CIA deep state cabal had a plan to activate this “insurance policy” on the off chance that Trump won the election. And the Pantsuit Princess was well aware of it all along, which explains her funding of the fake Trump Dossier and why she started talking about Russia Collusion the day after the election.

Now that all of this has been uncovered by independent researchers – doing the job of the incurious fake journalists who infest American Pravda – and with the next report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz looming, the deep state cabal and its congressional and media support group have moved on from the cover-up phase of their falling-apart conspiracy to the justification phase. So you end up with the incredibly absurd rationalizing pieces we’ve seen in the Times and the Post this week, and congressional co-conspirators like Mark Warner sending out tweets of desperation on a Friday evening.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump If the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that is a really big deal. Only the release or review of documents that the House Intelligence Committee (also, Senate Judiciary) is asking for can give the conclusive answers. Drain the Swamp!

It has been well-discussed that the President has the absolute authority to declassify any document and force its release. This tweet indicates he is at least considering doing that related to some of the thousands of documents that the FBI and DOJ have refused to release to congressional committees over the last year.

Just another day in the conspiracy to take down a president is falling apart America.

I do think that Trump is close to ordering the release of the documents. The ‘resistance’ already shot their wad with their doomsday implications that the release of the first report, earlier in the year, was the end of America as we knew it...only to be told by none other than James Comey that they were FLAT OUT LYING, when, after the release, Comey called it “a big nothing-burger”.

In this case, and for the future, Trump should just release everything, UNREDACTED, with the one exception of American assets on foreign soil, such as Iranians actually trying to help us. As far as American spies in this country, tough, get a new identity (if needed), work on a farm, and blame your ‘leaders’ for DESTROYING your agencies and your careers (and most of them probably had a hand in supporting these ‘leaders’ anyway).

The idea of “protecting methods and sources (other than above)” is tough shit as far as I’m concerned. These agencies had a chance to come clean, while still protecting methods and sources, but instead they chose to stonewall, FOR OVER A YEAR.

It’s over, and if it means that we have to rebuild the CIA and FBI from the ground-up, so be it, and if it means that we’ll have to suffer a few more terrorist attacks that those agencies might have otherwise prevented, so be it also...the country CANNOT SURVIVE with government agencies, using government money and resources, to DESTROY political opposition. That’s what the Soviet Union did, and that’s what Third World dictatorships do...we need to PUT AN END TO IT here.

Trump knows the Deep State CAN be extinguished.......b/c really, they’re not that smart. Susan Rice proved that in one memo.

If they were as smart as they think they are, “sure-thing” Hillary would have won.

IMHO, Obama’s CYA maneuver of January 3, 2017-——the signing
of NSA Data-Sharing Order Section 2.3 by AG Lynch. ——could be the coupe d’etat to blow out The Deep State. Obama’s after-the-fact ex/order contains some unusual language particularly the convoluted language WRT “The Strategic Delay of Section 2.3 of Obama’s Executive Order 12333”:

NOTE WELL: Prior to the formal signing of Section 2.3, greater latitude existed within the White House in regards to collection of information – especially in relation to the Trump Campaign. However, once signed, Section 2.3 granted broad latitude to inter-agency sharing of information.

But by the time Obama’s new executive order was signed on January 3, 2017, all that information was already in the possession of Obama White House.

Thus, Susan Rice’s email to herself takes on an even greater significance b/c no one was ever supposed to know
about the REAL meaning of Obama’s retroactive CYA.....until Rice stupidly laid it all out in an official email.

cont

When Susan Rice stupidly wrote a CYA memo to herself, she inadvertently confessed to a series of crimes that added the time line and inferences about what the outgoing Obama administration illegally concealed from incoming President Trump and his aides.

CYA memos are rarely a good idea. Most often, they reveal things the author never intended——ala Susan Rice’s now-infamous email to herself.

powerlineblog.com

WHY SUSAN RICE WROTE AN EMAIL TO HERSELF........the extraordinary email Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote to herself at 12:15 on January 20, 2017........within minutes of President Trump’s inauguration must have been her last act, more or less, before she vacated the White House. So obviously the email was important to her. But why would it be important to send an email to herself (the only person copied was one of her aides)?

If you read the email, along with Senator Grassley’s letter to Rice, it is obvious that it is a CYA memo. But the question is, whose A is being C’d?

Most attention, so far, has focused on the first two paragraphs of the email, which describe a meeting that occurred around two weeks earlier.

The participants included
<><>Barack Obama,
<><>Joe Biden,
<><>James Comey,
<><> Sally Yates–who turns up like a bad penny whenever skulduggery is afoot–
<><>and Rice:

Rice made sure to underscore that Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. Rice writes Obama stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

This is pure boilerplate.

It represents, obviously, the company line. But Rice did not write her email to cover Barack Obama’s rear end. If she or
anyone else had wanted to document the claim that Obama said to proceed “by the book,” the appropriate course would have been an official memo that copied others who were present and would have gone into the file. (My guess is that such a memo was written, but we haven’t seen it.)

The important part of the email is not the paragraph that purports to exonerate Obama, but the paragraphs that follow: “From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

The next paragraph of the email remains classified and has been redacted. The email concludes:
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

CONCLUSION Why did Susan Rice send herself an email purporting to document this part of the meeting? Because she was C’ing her own A. Rice was nervous about the fact that, at the president’s direction, she had failed to “share information fully as it relates to Russia” with President Trump’s incoming national security team.

Her actions violated longstanding American tradition. Outgoing administrations have always cooperated in the transition to a new administration, whether of the same or the opposing party, especially on matters relating to national security.

Susan Rice is far from the brightest bulb on the tree, but she was well aware that by concealing facts ostensibly relating to national security from her counterpart in the new administration–General Michael Flynn–she was, at a minimum, violating longstanding civic norms.

If she actually lied to Flynn, she could have been accused of much worse. So Rice wanted to be able to retrieve her email, if she found herself in a sticky situation, and tell the world that she hid relevant facts about Russia from the
new administration on Barack Obama’s orders.

What were the secrets that Obama wanted to keep from the new administration? We can easily surmise that the fact that the Steele memo was paid for by the Democratic Party; that the FBI had to some degree collaborated with Steele; that the Clinton campaign had fed some of the fake news in the dossier to Steele; and that Comey’s FBI had used Steele’s fabrications as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were among the facts that Obama and his minions didn’t want Michael Flynn and Donald Trump to know. Susan Rice, we can infer, was told to keep these secrets, and if anyone ever asked why she had failed to disclose them to Michael Flynn and others on Trump’s team, or even lied to those people, she would have the defense that President Obama ordered her to do it.

There may be more to it than this. The redacted paragraph likely contains more information about what it was that Rice wasn’t supposed to tell the Trump team. One of these days, we will learn what was blacked out.
The fact that Michael Flynn was Susan Rice’s counterpart in the incoming administration may also be significant. We know that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn–even Peter Strzok!–reported that they didn’t think he had lied about anything.

And yet, Obama’s DOJ and Bob Mueller’s “investigation”–basically a continuation of Obama’s corrupt Department of Justice under another, less accountable name–persecuted Flynn to the point where he finally pled guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in order, as he says, to end the madness and the financial drain.

Why were the Democrats so determined to discredit General Flynn? Perhaps because they wanted to pre-empt any outrage that may otherwise have followed on revelations that the Obama administration’s National Security Advisor hid important facts from her successor during the transition, and may have lied to him about those facts, in violation of all American tradition.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.