Posted on 05/23/2018 8:37:23 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
SNIP
Here are eight signs pointing to a counterintelligence operation deployed against Trump for political reasons.
Code name
Wiretap fever
National Security Letters
Unmasking
Changing the rules
Media strategy
Leaks
Friends, informants and snoops
These eight features of a counterintelligence operation are only the pieces we know. It can be assumed there’s much we don’t yet know. And it may help explain why there’s so much material that the Department of Justice hasn’t easily handed over to congressional investigators.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
We know they planted spies, now we just need to get the particulars so we know who to prosecute.
Perhaps the whole charade wasn't really a covert spy/infiltration effort against the Trump campaign at all, but was actually an epic disinformation strategy orchestrated by the Trump campaign.
Maybe nobody in the Trump campaign "discovered" any surveillance at all. Maybe they used a bunch of dupes like Carter Page to contact Russian operatives, knowing full well that the FBI and U.S. intelligence community would begin a covert surveillance operation against the Trump campaign.
The possibilities here are endless, but either scenario sure does explain a lot about what has transpired since mid-2016.
See Post #22. It may even be more bizarre than I originally thought. LOL.
I was watching her on Hanity last night.
Of all the talking heads following this story, she is the only one who gets that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
They really don’t want anyone to take a close look at the FBI and CIA.
It probably goes back as far as the 90’s coverup of the first Towers Bombing, Flight 800, Waco and Ruby Ridge.
They have been inducing regime changes in many countries for many decades and decided they could also pull that $hit on us in the USA. That’s why the Founders insisted on natural-born citizens for President.
I have always believed that someone in the know informed Trump way before Adm. Rogers. Perhaps a patriot in the CIA/NSA/FBI. All it would take is an anonymous letter with a little bit of inside baseball included. Trump knew about this and it will be interesting if that ever becomes public. I bet it won’t.
“Such a joy reading the writings of a real journalist.” And now you know why Sharyl Attkisson is not working at CBS.
Seems very likely...
Might explain why Hillary was SO complacent. I bet Trump fed them lies about internal GOP polling.
Who paid, how much, to Mifsud for his work in getting this set-up attempted coup going hot?
In addition to the strange move to campaign in Georgia and Texas (and I'd add Arizona to that as well) late in the campaign, Hillary Clinton was also making campaign appearances in other places that made no sense at all -- like San Francisco and Los Angeles (she would have won California even if she was dead), St. Louis and Kansas City (nobody believed she had a chance to win Missouri under any circumstances), and even New Orleans at one point (Louisiana was going to be a "red" state no matter what).
The explanation I saw that made the most sense was this:
The Clinton campaign leadership believed there was a very real possibility that the 2016 election would end the opposite way it did -- with Clinton winning the electoral vote in a landslide but Trump eking out a narrow "win" in the popular vote. They feared a scenario where Trump would then spend the next four years running around as an "opposition leader," devoting his time and energy to lead a populist campaign to undermine President Hillary Clinton.
So the Clinton team spent a lot of time and money late in the campaign trying to bolster her popular vote total by campaigning in urban areas even in states that weren't competitive either way.
I could easily see how a disinformation campaign by Trump's people could be used to feed this narrative.
Senator Schumer should be called out on that remark. Clearly he means that the intelligence community would engage in illegal activities in retaliation.
If he knows something we don’t, he should be made to explain.
The Great American Hero, Admiral Mike Rogers?
You may or may not have noticed that didn't help one bit.
NEW (Aug 1, 2017): Attkisson v. DOJ: The Computer Intrusion Lawsuit against the Federal Govt.
I added the story date - 'new' then, but almost a year has passed.
Donald Trump won the election because he a very bright man who recognized the issues which really mattered to a lot of Americans. He ran the outsider campaign to the hilt, worked tirelessly, had his own source of campaign funds and he is a great showman and public speaker. His unorthodox campaign style and colorful bordering on provocative speeches garnered him far more air time in the media even when the commentators were hostile to what he said. What he was saying resonated with many Americans and the MSM gave him the coverage that he wanted, even though they were bashing him relentlessly. Confidence in the mainstream media has declined since Donald Trump appeared on the horizon but it hasn't been particularly high for many years, so the air time gave him the opportunity to reach enough citizens in enough key states to give us a great President who we deserve.
Our President ran a smart campaign, recognizing his strengths and weaknesses and did a good job ducking and weaving which outwitted many of Killary's staff in my opinion. His tireless efforts and the depth of dissatisfaction by many Americans with the Washington machine made all the difference. Donald Trump is at his best when making the stump speech. but he is not clairvoyant.
He didn't trust the character of Killary or Obongo but I doubt he realized the depth of their dishonesty or what extreme measures they would take to block his path to the White House. I also don't believe he realized the complex web which he was stepping into when he was sworn into office; the office has so many constraints politically and by law that his smart, fast acting managerial style is oft times restrained. He knew he was walking into a swamp but I don't know if he realized the width and depth of bureaucratic muck that covers the District of Collusion.
Great article by Sharyl Attkisson. I am encouraged when I read straight shooting journalists like her. Maybe there is still hope for our democratic republic with these bright people shining a light on the dark recesses of the Washington Swamp?
The longer the carries on the more lies they lay out and may be trapped by.
Also perfectly explains "Hillary Havisham's" inability to move on after her epic loss.....reliving it over and over again.
Hillary surrounded herself with people who kept telling her she was perfect.
She was unable to see her shortcomings....and lives with the fact that she made bad campaign decisions.
Reminds me of the old European fable.....everytime the people told the Burgermeister he was great, they were actually talking about themselves.
PROOF POSITIVE THAT OBAMA KNEW
Obama’s CYA maneuver of January 3, 2017-——the signing of NSA Data-Sharing Order Section 2.3 by AG Lynch —— is 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 ALREADY 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 January 20, 2017 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.
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.
Code name/Wiretapfever/NationalSecurity Letters/Unmasking/Changing rules/MSM strategy/Leaks-Attkisson
the emperor has no clothes said the child
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.