It took them long enough, but they finally admitted it after Christopher Wray (FBI head) laughably said it was a death by cop scenario — rather than an ideological Leftist shooting political adversaries Here is THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The FBI quietly admitted Friday that the 2017 Alexandria, Virginia, baseball field shooting that nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise has been classified as “domestic terrorism” carried out by a “domestic violent extremist” targeting Republicans after the bureau previously classified it as “suicide by cop.”
The revelation appears in the middle of an appendix on page 35 of a 40-page FBI-DHS report released on Friday titled “Security Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism.” In a section describing approximately 85 different “FBI-Designated Significant Domestic Terrorism Incidents in the United States from 2015 through 2019,” the Alexandria baseball field shooting appears, with the FBI categorizing the perpetrator as a “Domestic Violent Extremist” and describing the incident thusly: “An individual with a personalized violent ideology targeted and shot Republican members of Congress at a baseball field and wounded five people. The subject died as a result of engagement with law enforcement.”
In June 2017, James Hodgkinson, a man from Illinois who was living out of a van in Alexandria, opened fire at Eugene Simpson Stadium Park after asking GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan, who was leaving practice early, if the players were Republicans or Democrats. Hodgkinson struck Scalise in the hip, hit lobbyist Matt Mika in the chest, and injured two U.S. Capitol Police officers, Crystal Griner and David Bailey. Scalise nearly bled to death and required multiple surgeries before returning to Congress.
Hodgkinson, an avid liberal and supporter of Democratic presidential primary candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, was killed by law enforcement. He had posted on Facebook that “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” and joined other groups such as “Terminate The Republican Party” and “Join The Resistance Worldwide!!”…..
THE BLAZE notes a portion of the declassified FBI report:
An individual with a personal violent ideology targeted and shot Republican members of Congress at a baseball field and wounded five people. The subject died as a result of engagement with law enforcement.
Continuing, they also write:
The Republicans also noted that Hodgkinson had a “potential ‘hit list'” in his pocket. The names on that list were GOP Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Morgan Griffith (Va.), Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.), and Jeff Duncan (S.C.).
AS A REMINDER…
… of the recent revelation by Director Wray that got common sense people saying WTF!? BYRON YORK (May 3rd)
….“On Nov. 16, 2017, the FBI briefed those of us who were at the field that day,” Wenstrup said at a House Intelligence Committee hearing featuring FBI Director Christopher Wray. “Much to our shock that day, the FBI concluded that this was a case of the attacker seeking suicide by cop.”
“We were just astonished,” Wenstrup told me in a recent conversation. “We just went, ‘What?’ I said, ‘There’s no way. If you want to commit suicide by cop, you just pull a gun on a cop.’”
Hodgkinson had obviously done much, much more than that. and the suicide by cop theory made even less sense in light of the fact that the Capitol Police who were at the baseball field that day — the security detail for Scalise, a member of the House leadership — were sitting in an unmarked vehicle, wearing plain clothes. Hodkinson would not have known they were police.
Wenstrup also noted that the FBI had not interviewed the members — the victims — in this case. They never interviewed Duncan, who had actually spoken to the shooter. “I asked (the FBI), ‘Who did you talk to?’” Wenstrup recalled. “They took my number, called me the next day. I called them back, and never heard from them again.”
At the hearing, Wenstrup noted that, “Both the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence published products labeling this attack as a domestic violent extremism event specifically targeting Republican members of Congress. The FBI did not. The FBI still has not.”
Now, in light of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which is widely referred to as domestic terrorism, Wenstrup wonders what the FBI was doing. The attack “could have been a massacre,” Wenstrup noted. “The attacker may have believed he could change the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives in one morning.”
The unanswered question in all this is why the FBI, at the time under the leadership of acting Director Andrew McCabe, did what it did. Even at that time, the bureau was warning Americans of the danger posed by domestic terrorists. and yet the FBI refused to publicly recognize a clear act of domestic terrorism. Was some sort of Trump-era bias involved? Was it bureaucratic infighting? Something else? It’s time the victims in the case — and also the country as a whole — got some answers.
A PolitiFact article written by Bill McCarthy declares “there’s no proof that” a left-wing anti-Trump activist named John Sullivan incited rioting at the U.S. Capitol. As a result of this claim, Facebook flagged and reduced distribution of a post that accused Sullivan of doing so.
However, video footage indisputably proves that Sullivan encouraged people to storm and vandalize the Capitol. Moreover, Sullivan was subsequently arrested and charged with “violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds” and “interfering with law enforcement” during the riot. In the wake of these revelations, PolitiFact “updated” its article twice but has not changed its conclusion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The Facebook post targeted by PolitiFact states that “Anti-Trump founder of radical left-wing group ‘Insurgence USA’ John Sullivan, incited insurgence of U.S. Capitol.” PolitiFact proclaims “there’s no evidence that he ‘incited’ the violence himself or led the charge into the Capitol.”
PolitiFact’s first evidence for its conclusion is Sullivan’s claim that he was “not leading” the mob in “any shape, form, or fashion” and “was only there to experience and witness what went down.” PolitiFact then cites Jade Sacker, a photojournalist who has done work for NBC and NPR to back up his account. Sacker claims to have been with Sullivan for half of the riot and says that Sullivan was “vocal” and “actively there and interested in what was going on,” but not “directing the charge” or “inciting violence.”
However, law enforcement obtained videos from Sullivan that show him provoking and participating in the riot. As such, the FBI sought and was granted a warrant to arrest him. Per the affidavit and other videofootage, Sullivan:
yelled through a megaphone outside of the Capitol, “Get in that shit! Let’s go! Let’s go! Move! Move! Move! Move! Storm that shit! This shit is ours! This is our fucking house!”
wore a “ballistic vest and gas mask” as he entered the Capitol and declared, “Let’s burn this shit down,” “We gotta get this shit burned,” “It’s our house motherfuckers.”
pointed his camera at a door and said, “Why don’t we go in there?” After someone hit the door, Sullivan said, “That’s what I’m sayin,’ break that shit.”
broke a window and said, “I broke it. My bad, my apologies. Well, they already broke a window. I didn’t know I hit it that hard. No one got that on camera.”
joined a crowd of rioters that were trying to break through a door, and said, “I have a knife. Let me through. I have a knife.”
Moreover, the videos show that Jade Sacker, the photojournalist who PolitiFact used to exonerate Sullivan, was complicit in his plan. Sullivan’s video shows Sacker and him inside the Capitol saying to each other:
Sacker: “I’ll give you your hug now. We did it!” Sullivan: [Laughter] Sacker: “You were right, we did it.” Sullivan: “Dude, I was trying to tell you. I couldn’t say much.” Sacker: “You were right [laughter].” Sullivan: “You just have to watch my chat.” Sacker: “Oh my God!” Sullivan: “Is this not gonna be the best film you’ve ever made in your life?” Sacker: “Yeah [unintelligible].” Sullivan: “Nah, you gotta give me a real kiss for that shit.” Sacker: “That’s it.” Sullivan: “Hell, yeah!” Sacker: “Hell, yeah?” Sullivan: “Hell, yeah!”
Then realizing that they were incriminating themselves, they say:
Sacker: “Wait, you weren’t recording, were you?” Sullivan: “I’ll delete that shit after. But I didn’t record you or me. We’re just voices.”
“one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.”
“one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.”
“one count of interfering with law enforcement engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties incident to and during the commission of civil disorder.”
Faced with those facts, PolitiFact “updated” its original article two separatetimes to include “more detail” from the video and the FBI affidavit. Yet, PolitiFact deceitfully:
ignores the vast bulk of damning content in the video.
summarizes the footage by saying that “it doesn’t show Sullivan clearly engaged in the violence or leading the run up to the Capitol, although it does show him animated as he spoke with police and rioters from the frontlines.”
insists “there’s no proof” Sullivan incited insurgence.
POLITIFACT’S DOUBLE STANDARDS
In contrast to PolitiFact’s claim that Sullivan’s calls to “storm” and “burn” down the Capitol don’t constitute incitement, PolitiFact has not fact-checked any of the hundreds of Congressional Democrats who declare in their impeachment resolution that President Trump incited the riot. This is in spite of the fact that Trump didn’t call for violence and emphasized in his speech on that same day that people should go “to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Yet, the impeachment resolution alleges that Trump is guilty of “inciting violence against the Government of the United States” because he stated in his speech: “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” This quote is taken out of context, as Trump used the word “fight” 20 times in the speech, making clear that he was speaking about legal, not physical, fighting. For example, he said that Rudy Giuliani has “guts, he fights.”
PolitiFact also uses a dishonest debating technique called a “straw man.” This involves debunking an argument that someone did not make. Again, the Facebook post says: “Anti-Trump founder of radical left-wing group ‘Insurgence USA’ John Sullivan, incited insurgence of U.S. Capitol.” Yet, PolitiFact twists this by arguing “there’s no evidence that Sullivan ‘incited (the) insurgence’ alone amid a crowd of thousands.”
In short, the post does not claim that Sullivan is solely or even mainly responsible for inciting the riot, but PolitiFact inserts the words “alone” and “the” to make it seem like the post said he was the lone ringleader.
Rumble — One America’s Jack Posobiec is continuing to investigate the events that took place at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He recently sat down with Michael Yon, a war correspondent with years of experience studying tactics of Antifa and other groups. Jack asked Yon to compare what he has seen in other countries to the scenes at the Capitol earlier this month. Here’s what he had to say, take a look.
The below is built off of my Facebook Post on the matter. I post this here to highlight the idea for clarity — as the Left like to misinterpret what is said. THAT IS: “Remember, I am NOT saying Trump supporters weren’t involved.”
A couple UPDATES since I started this post:
Feds back away from claim that Capitol rioters were looking to capture and assassinate officials — Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin told reporters Friday that prosecutors don’t have concrete proof of such an effort.(POLITICO)
CNN Forced To Walk Back Story That Rioters At U.S. Capitol Building Were Specifically There To Kill Politicians… (WEASEL ZIPPERS)
So, since the beginning of the Capital Hill Incident, I have maintained the same point of view. First, riotess gatherings involve people that wouldn’t usually do criminal activity do such things. Which is why I mentioned a book in my first response to the Incident, here is an excerpt of that:
I suggest that every person who has not read Ann Coulter’s book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, read it. This “mob mentality” does not just exist on the Left, but when caught up in the energy of a large crowd, many will make a decision that alone, in a less stressful environment, wouldn’t make. We are human and are vulnerable at times to peer pressure.
Another thought is that I don’t care who you are — Antifa, Trump supporter, progressive, conservative, libertarian… whatever. If you storm the Capital you stand a high chance of being shot.
So, I acknowledged that part of the crowd was made up of Trump supporters (see DAILY BEAST and HEAVYfor instance), but I also noted from the beginning that LEFTIES were involved as well. TO WHICH I got many people on my Facebook saying “no” to. And within 2-days I got links to stuff where the FBI supposedly said that no Antifa was involved — which seems improbable because the investigation would and is a long term investigation. If — within days — the FBI could immediately access that sort of situation, I would ask people to check for responders surgically placed in their body.
“We have no indication of that at this time,” Washington Field Office assistant director Steven D’Antuono said during a briefing when asked about any potential involvement of antifa.
Again, “We have no indication of that at this time,” THAT statement within 2-days seems fair. I was confident Antifa would be found in the crowd. And as a response to my detractors I sent pics of this guy on January 7th (these are not from the 6th at the Capital, they are just meant to show his affiliations… MOONBATTERY has more as well):
(These pics are from a 2nd tear news source [100% FED-UP] I noted to my son who asked for sources to go to while on his tour of duty. Second tear are sources generally good, but may need to be verified — Reagan’s “trust but verify” — by checking their linked sources.) At the time 100% posted this on the 7th… John Sullivan, he was interviewed on CNN — more on that in a bit. Here is a portion of an older story on Antifa John noting how easy to connect him to a Leftist “revolutionary” past of activist activity (at least a good producer from CNN would not have him on):
….Last summer, Sullivan organized a BLM protest with other leftist groups, including a local ANITFA chapter. The event became violent and one person was shot. He was arrested at the time. …. (TOWNHALL)
Far-Left Antifa/BLM activist John Sullivan has been identified as one of the activists who were part of the group of people who illegally entered the Capitol building on Wednesday. Sullivan is not, however, a Trump supporter, in fact, he’s just the opposite. On his Instagram page that has now been deleted, the BLM activist who is also the self-proclaimed founder of the “Insurgence USA” group, posted warnings like “An armed revolution is the only effective way to bring about change.”
Only 6 months ago, extreme BLM activist and Antifa leader Sullivan was arrested during a protest he organized. He was also caught on video standing next to a fellow protester who shot an innocent woman.
Sullivan was arrested and was booked into the Utah County Jail for investigation of rioting, making a threat of violence and criminal mischief. Sullivan was an organizer of a protest in Provo, UT, where an innocent motorist who was trying to get around Sullivan’s roadblock/protest, was shot.
The Deseret News reports- John Earle Sullivan, 25, of Sandy, was captured on video threatening to beat a woman in an SUV, according to the affidavit, and then kicking her door, leaving a dent.
“As a protest organizer, John Sullivan is heard talking about seeing the shooting, looking at the gun and seeing smoke coming from it. John did not condemn the attempted murder nor attempt to stop it nor aide in its investigation by police.”
Sullivan’s Instagram page is filled with activist posts that contain language like “F*ck Trump.”
Sullivan is also the self-described founder of the Insurgence USA group. On their website, they provide a handy little guide on how to be an Anarchist. The guide explains how to disregard previous and predictable strategies, and instead, to use “guerilla tactics to overwhelm your adversary.” Hmmm…that almost sounds like what happened at the White House?
Strangely, when CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewed Sullivan, he never mentioned his recent criminal history, his threats of preventing President Trump from serving a second term, including “ripping” him from the White House, or the radical group he founded that supports Anarchy and an armed revolution.
Watch his interview with Anderson Cooper that’s impossible to find anywhere on the internet. It’s almost like CNN doesn’t want anyone to see Anderson Cooper pretending that Sullivan is simply a “left-wing activist” or treating him like was a reporter on the scene who just happened to be standing next to Ashli Babbit when she was shot to death:…
Well… Antifa John was arrested by the FBI. Ooopsie Daisy CNN — here is the PDF of the charges. They have seen enough evidence to include him (and other Lefty activists involved as part of the mixed group). Video of him antagonizing the police at the spot of where that nutty gal was shot — rightly shot.
ANTIFA JOHN’S BROTHERS SAYS OVER 200 ANTIFA
So since this last story… Antifa John was turned in by his brother, James — who has spoken at Proud Boy events… a light vs. darkness (fire n ice) thing going on here [called the authorities and said his brother was in charge (100% FED-UP). And noted there were over 200 Leftists at that January 6th rally (NOQ REPORT).
ANTIFA JOHN CALLING ALL ANTIFA
Here is Antifa John leading the charge in getting Lefty BLM and Antifa to go on the 6th (*click to enlarge):
So, just as a recap, the HEADLINE (“No evidence antifa involved in Capitol riot”) mentioned above is in fact wrong. The FBI didn’t state that but rather said “at this point in the investigation.” Not only that, but the FBI HAS been wrong many times — so stating it like a definite is not always the best thing to do either. For instance I told a person I know the following:
A violent radical BLM/Antifa leftist was arrested in Florida after his plot to organize an attack on peaceful protests ahead of Biden’s inauguration was uncovered by the FBI. You remember Antifa, the group that doesn’t exist and also is mostly peaceful and also is just like the D-Day troops according to Chris Cuomo? Yeah, THAT one….(RIGHT SCOOP)
Rioting first started on May 28 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, over the death of George Floyd, who was allegedly murdered by police officer Derek Chauvin. Since then, the riots have spread to major cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, Oakland, Louisville, and St. Louis. The riots have led to more death, especially among black Americans. The victims include: Dave Patrick Underwood….. David Dorn…. Italia Marie Kelly…. David McAtee…. Chris Beaty…. (BREITBART)
It would not be fair to judge the left on the violence and property destruction carried out by unhappy anti-Trump protesters. After all, didn’t Anti-Obama conservatives smash windows, assault Obama supporters, and set fires after Obama won the election?
Oh, wait, we didn’t do any of those things, did we?
These people call themselves Anarchists, and yet they are committing violence because they want more socialism, socialism being a maximized amount of Government control. Do they see the irony? Or are they just violent and stupid and have latched onto the progressive left because that side of the political spectrum is more accepting of hate and violence?
And I’m sure some lefties are saying (nasal, high-pitched, know-it-all liberal voice), “Oh, I think violence is wrong no matter which side does it.” Yeah, nice virtue signaling, but you’re just evading the reality that most of the time… an overwhelming amount of the time… it’s *your side* that’s doing it. Mainly because, your side tells people that temper tantrums and hatred are okay if they are directed against…. [insert name here]
Another example that makes me put “tolerant” Leftists in air-quotes is this story via MOONBATTERY:
Some entertainers have refused to participate in the inauguration because they are moonbats who put their self-indulgent leftist posturing ahead of their profession — others, because they are afraid:
Opera star Andrea Bocelli backed out of singing at Donald Trump’s inauguration after receiving death threats, The Mail on Sunday has learnt.
It was rumored that Bocelli backed out because he didn’t want to face a boycott from intolerant liberal fans…
Bocelli isn’t alone:
The revelation came as another singer – Broadway legend Jennifer Holliday – last night pulled out of the President-elect’s festivities after being threatened and branded an ‘Uncle Tom’.
Singer Holliday, 56, famed for her performance as Effie in Dreamgirls, had originally said she was ‘determined’ to sing for Trump despite voting against him.
She also denounced the abuse she was getting and called it an attack on freedom of speech.
However, she knuckled under to this attack, not only canceling her performance but validating the thugs who forced her to….
NEWSWEEK points out that “A new survey report shows that 8.5 percent of current college freshmen expect to participate in a student protest while in college. That figure is up 2.9 percentage points from 2014, and it is the highest percentage to respond that way in the annual survey since 1967.”
As the rapper Tef Poe sharply pointed out at a St. Louis rally in October protesting the death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.: “This ain’t your grandparents’ civil rights movement.” (WaPo)
GAY PATRIOT notes this violence in trying to feel as relevant as the 1960s generation:
…The protests began peacefully, but quickly escalated into violence as protesters jumped the barricades set up by campus police. The news station confirmed that one anti-Milo protester threw hot coffee at its camera crew and their equipment.
The DAILY CALLER notes the anti-free-speech movement of the fascist left:
A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support government prevention of public statements offensive to minorities.
It should be noted that vastly different numbers resulted for older generations in the Pew poll on the issue of offensive speech and the government’s role.
Around 27 percent of Generation X’ers (ages 35-50) support such an idea, while 24 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 51-69) agree that censoring offensive speech about minorities should be a government issue. Only 12 percent of the Silent Generation (ages 70-87) thinks that government should prevent offensive speech toward minorities.
The poll comes at a time when college activists, such as the group “Black Lives Matter,” are making demands in the name of racial and ethnic equality at over 20 universities across the nation.
Newsmax host Rob Schmitt opened his show on Tuesday discussing the upcoming impeachment of private citizen Donald Trump. Schmitt also took time to mention the many irregularities, rule changes and fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Schmitt may be the only honest reporter left in America today.
QUOTE via FBI MEMOS:
Pipe bombs found near Capitol on Jan. 6 are believed to have been placed the night before. [RPT Note: planted at Democrats AND Republican offices]
One of the comments cited in the FBI memo declared Trump supporters should go to Washington and get “violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die.” Some had been preparing for conflict for weeks.
In the week leading up to the rally and riot, Watkins and Caldwell were in regular contact as they talked about various groups of people meeting up on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, according to an indictment filed this past week against them.
This was planned weeks ahead of time, the violent crowd had already entered the Capitol even before Trump was half-way through his speech:
Based on Chief Sund’s timeline, the riot at the Capitol began more than thirty minutes before Trump finished his speech, and long before he made the only comment that Democrats pointed to in order to back up their baseless claim that the president “encouraged” insurrection. (LIFESITE)
Again, the pipe-bombs were placed at both Republican and Democrat sites, the DAY BEFORE:
Just to be clear, While I am posting a portion by RIGHT SCOOP, this is them sending people to the fuller article, to quote:
On January 6th, amid a large gathering at the nation’s capitol to protest what millions of Americans perceived to be illegitimately held elections in key swing states, the former president gave a speech. The timing of the speech was the convening of the Joint Session of Congress to validate the slates of electors from the Electoral College.
It has been argued that Donald Trump’s language at the speech, including using the words “fight” was deliberately incendiary. But let’s take a look at the actual language of the speech. Trump deliberately says “fight” in the commonplace political context:
For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it’s, it’s incredible.
It should be noted further that allegations of election “fraud” are not incitement. Indeed, the same mainstream media accusing Trump of ‘inciting’ the crowd with fraud allegations accused Donald Trump himself of perpetrating fraud in the 2016 election.
Becker walks through several of the deceptive headlines that have poured out since January 6th (which is in fact its own form of incitement) and gets into the heart of it.
“For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI,” the report states.
It is quite obvious that the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and head of some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world, would not incite an “insurrection” or a “coup” from a mob of common political supporters and amateurish rabble like these fellows, who are suspiciously emblematic of the media’s warped reading of who is likely to be a Trump supporter:
After the U.S. Capitol riot, Democrats suddenly discovered law and order, and they no longer want to defund the police. But back during the Black Lives Matter riots throughout the summer of 2020, not so much. In this episode, Larry looks back at the comments made from the Democrats and the mainstream media, and how they served as cheerleaders for the rioters burning and looting in cities across America. Can you say… double standard?
A long montage (8-minutes), but the key point is the first few minutes of the longer montage. I have another montage of Democrats calling for violence here (RUMBLE)
What I find interesting about the article by Rachel S. Mikva (USA TODAY) is her grouping these people with Christianity. For instance, she seems to think that the horned guy mentioning “god” means he is referencing “God” (the Judeo-Christian God). For instance, here is a decent article zeroing in on the neo-Pagan aspects of the white supremacy movement. Of which I know personally about being that I was in jail for almost a year-and-a-half. I know their neo-Pagan systems of belief well. As well as studying the Third Reich love of this Paganism. See for instance:
…Then Jacob Chansley, sometimes called the “QAnon Shaman,” took his bullhorn and announced gratitude to God for being able to “send a message to all the tyrants, the communists, and the globalists that this is our nation, not theirs.”Bare-chested to expose his white supremacist tattoos, he had paused briefly to remove his Viking-inspired horned headdress and cap — presumably to assume a properly humble posture as he claimed the United States for himself and his fellow-believers.
One thing that should make it very clear where Angeli’s politics lie are his tattoos. On his torso he has a large Thor’s hammer, known as Mjölnir, and what appears to be an image of the Norse world tree, Yggdrasill.
Mjölnir is one symbol we can be pretty sure was used by the original adherents of the Norse belief system, perhaps to summon the protection of the god Thor. Yggdrasill is the giant ash tree that supports the Norse cosmos, its branches reaching into sky realms inaccessible to humans, and its roots to the subterranean realm of the dead. Unlike Thor’s hammer, it was only rarely depicted by the Vikings, and representations such as the one below are modern interpretations.
Above these tattoos with a central place in Norse mythology is one that is more contentious. It depicts a valknut – an image that appears on two Viking-Age stones from Sweden carved with scenes from Norse mythology, including the Stora Hammars I stone on the island of Gotland.
The symbol’s original meaning is unclear, but it appears in close proximity to the father of the gods, Odin, on the stones. As Odin is closely connected with the gathering of fallen warriors to Valhalla, the valknut may be a symbol of death in battle.
Snorri Sturluson, a medieval Icelandic collector of myths, tells us in his “Language of Poetry” that a famous giant called Hrungnir had a stone heart “pointed with three corners”, and so the valknut is sometimes also called “Hrungnir’s Heart”. Whatever its original meaning, it has been used in more recent times by various neo-pagan groups – and increasingly by some white supremacists as a coded message of their belief in violent struggle…..
Another post with some names of the Norse gods is here. When I was in jail, I met a couple “Odinites”
…Odinism is another term for Asatru, a pagan religion. But in the FBI’s Project Megiddo, it was described as a:
… white supremacist ideology that lends itself to violence and has the potential to inspire its followers to violence in connection to the millennium. What makes Odinists dangerous is the fact that many believe in the necessity of becoming martyrs for their cause. — FBI Report: Project Megiddo
The New Romantics ”A Swedish expert on right-wing extremism says that racist Odinism is the radical religion of the future.” By Mattias Gardell, professor of religious history at the University of Stockholm’s Center for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations, writing in the Spring, 2001 edition of Intelligence Report (published by the Southern Poverty Law Center). See also: Clarification, by Mattias Gardell.
What is Asatru? Long before Christianity came to northern Europe, the people there – our ancestors – had their own religions. One of these was Asatru. It was practiced in the lands that are today Scandinavia, England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and other countries as well. Asatru is the original, or native, religion for the peoples who lived in these regions. Simply put, you might think of it as ”the religion of the Vikings” since they were its main followers in the years just before our ancestors were forced to adopt Christianity.
What does the word ”Asatru” mean? It means, roughly, “belief in the Gods” in Old Norse, the language of ancient Scandinavia in which so much of our source material was written. Asatru is the name by which the Norsemen called their religion.
What are the basic tenets or beliefs of Asatru? We believe in an underlying, all-pervading divine energy or essence which is generally hidden from us, and which is beyond our immediate understanding. We further believe that this spiritual reality is interdependent with us – that we affect it, and it affects us.
We believe that this underlying divinity expresses itself to us in the forms of the Gods and Goddesses. Stories about these deities are like a sort of code, the mysterious ”language” through which the divine reality speaks to us.
We believe in standards of behavior which are consistent with these spiritual truths and harmonious with our deepest being.
How does Asatru differ from other religions? Asatru is unlike the better-known religions in many ways. Some of these are:
We are polytheistic. That is, we believe in a number of deities, including Goddesses as well as Gods. (We have a tongue-in-cheek saying that a religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism!)
We do not accept the idea of ”original sin,” the notion that we are tainted from birth and intrinsically bad, as does Christianity. Thus, we do not need ”saving.”
We do not claim to be a universal religion, a faith for all of humankind. In fact, we don’t think such a thing is possible or desirable. The different branches of humanity have different ways of looking at the world, each of which is valid for them. It is only right that they have different religions…..
Asatru (pronounced AS-a-tru or OW-sa-tru) is a word which means ”those true to the Gods” in Icelandic. It is one of the words used to label the pre-Christian, native religion of Scandinavia and the Germanic countries. Another term used for these beliefs is ”Odinism,” and it will be used throughout this document as meaning the same as Asatru. (Source: A Brief History of Asatru, or Odinism)
Finally, Odinism is anotherwhite supremacist ideology that lends itself to violence and has the potential to inspire its followers to violence in connection to the millennium. What makes Odinists dangerous is the fact that many believe in the necessity of becoming martyrs for their cause. For example, Bob Mathews, the leader of The Order, died in a fiery confrontation with law enforcement. Also, William King relished the fact that he would receive the death penalty for his act of dragging James Byrd, Jr. to his death. Odinism has little to do with Christian Identity but there is one key similarity: Odinism provides dualism — as does Christian Identity — with regard to the universe being made up of worlds of light (white people) and worlds of dark (non-white people). The most fundamental difference between the two ideologies is that Odinists do not believe in Jesus Christ. However, there are enough similarities between the myths and legends of Odinism and the beliefs of Christian Identity to make a smooth transition from Christian Identity to Odinism for those racist individuals whose penchant for violence is not being satisfied. (Source: White Supremacy, Project Megiddo)…..
Government Agent Whose Altered Email Enabled the Russia Hoax Won’t Spend a Day in Jail or Pay Any Fine
The Russia hoax undermined a duly elected president and continues to divide the nation. But one of the key figures who abused the trust of the people will not face prison time, reports Fox News.
Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service Friday after pleading guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
That false statement had major consequences. The altered email cast suspicion on Page and thereby Trump, and created a false justification to wiretap Page.
What about the abuse of trust, the destruction of the FBI’s reputation, undermining the FISA court system, and the Russia hoax Clinesmith enabled and which still infects millions of American minds to this day?
“Altering the email has forever changed the course of my life,” Clinesmith said. “I have lost the means to provide for my growing family…lost the ability to give back to my nation… the shame and remorse will stay with me forever.”
The Trump presidency was not allowed to get off to anything like a normal start and was undermined by this case for most of its four years. Trump never truly overcame it despite being exonerated by the Mueller report, which found no American anywhere colluded with the Russians to impact the 2016 election.
Politico reports the prosecutors wanted Clinesmith to spend time in jail.
While prosecutors urged the judge to send Clinesmith to prison to send a message to others in government not to try something similar, Boasberg said he believed that message had already been sent.
Another message has been sent. Clinesmith will be the only Russia hoax figure prosecuted and he need not worry. Some left-wing foundation will give him a do-nothing job before long. Or CNN or MSNBC will give him an on-air analyst role.
POLITICO noted the judge saying “he believed that message had already been sent.” I doubt anyone in my own family — bedsides me and my boys and wife — knows that the Russian Collusion case has been shown to be a hoax. These are like retractions in a paper… front-page headlines splash the New York Times or the Washington Post, and then a month later a retraction is given on D3… which no one sees… so they think the headlines are still true. Trump was correct when referring to it as a witch hunt.
Recent declassified documents do not add information to the issue, they merely show that the above authors of books and columns to be 100% vindicated!
People making decisions based off of the NYTs, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, MSNBC, and the like… were LIED to for 3-years. The result?
Gallup Poll Shows 78% Of Democrats Mistakenly Believe Russia Changed Election Results
Not one intelligence agency or even Obama’s head of the Homeland Security Dept has supported that. I bet a lot of people (I would say almost all except for my sons) know the following:
President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. [RPT addition: about 50 were pro-Hillary]
Democrats and “Republicans” just continue to believe nonsense based on some late-night talk show comedians and CNN/NPR. (I say “Republicans” because many who claim to be “Reagan Republicans” would today think his favorite publication [HUMAM EVENTS] is for white supremacists.) The L.A. Times use to carry columns by Dennis Prager and other conservative thinkers. No more are they carried by the paper.
Frankly, it’s sad. And dangerous… they are ripe to believe BIG LIES about Republicans and Trump.
Poll: 61 Percent of Democrats Say Republicans Are ‘Racist,’ ‘Bigoted,’ ‘Sexist’ (2016)
49% of Democrats think Trump voters are racist…. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of self-described political liberals believe those who vote for Trump are racist. (2019)
86% of Democrats think Trump is a racist
How do you make headway with these corporate news feeders of CNN/MSNBC?? I imagine Trump gaining in almost every major demographic means nothing to them? Trump gained more in these categories than in 2016…
When Barry Goldwater accepted the 1964 Republican nomination, California’s Democratic Gov. Pat Brown said, “The stench of fascism is in the air.”
Former Rep. William Clay Sr., D-Mo., said President Ronald Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from ‘Mein Kampf.'”
Coretta Scott King, in 1980, said, “I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party.”
After Republicans took control of the House in the mid-’90s, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., compared the newly conservative-majority House to “the Duma and the Reichstag,” referring to the legislature set up by Czar Nicholas II of Russia and the parliament of the German Weimar Republic that brought Hitler to power.
About President George Herbert Walker Bush, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said: “I believe (Bush) is a racist for many, many reasons. … (He’s) a mean-spirited man who has no care or concern about what happens to the African American community. … I truly believe that.”
About the Republican-controlled House, longtime Harlem Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, in 1994, said: “It’s not ‘s—-‘ or ‘n——-‘ anymore. (Republicans) say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.'” A decade later, Rangel said, “George (W.) Bush is our Bull Connor,” referring to the Birmingham, Alabama, Democrat segregationist superintendent of public safety who sicced dogs and turned fire hoses on civil rights workers.
Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s presidential campaign manager, in 1999, said: Republicans have a “white boy attitude, (which means) ‘I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.’ They don’t see it or think about it. It’s a culture.” The following year, Brazile said: “The Republicans bring out Colin Powell and (Rep.) J.C. Watts, (R-Okla.), because they have no program, no policy. … They’d rather take pictures with Black children than feed them.”
About President George W. Bush, former Vice President Al Gore said: “(Bush’s) executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. … And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.” Digital “brownshirts”?
About George W. Bush, George Soros, the billionaire Democratic donor, said: “The Bush administration and the Nazi and communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. … Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and communist propaganda machines.”
Former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, in a 2006 speech at historically Black Fayetteville State University said, “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.”
Former Gov. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2005, described the contest between Democrats and Republicans as “a struggle between good and evil. And we’re the good.” Three years later, Dean referred to the GOP as “the white party.”
After Hurricane Katrina, Democratic Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill said George W. Bush “let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were Black.”
Feminist superlawyer Gloria Allred, in 2001, referred to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Tom types.”
Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, in 2006, said, “The (Republican-controlled) House of Representatives … has been run like a plantation. And you know what I’m talking about.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chairwoman in 2011, said “Republicans … want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”……
I bet almost all of my family believes Trump mocked a disabled man’s handicap; think that when he said “there are fine people on both sides” he was saying there were “fine Nazis or white supremacists;” or think that racists and white supremacists have voted Republican in general; or that the bodies natural defenses in immunity are non-existent and only “vaccines” can bring immunity.
These are dangerous lies to believe.
Here is more regarding the latest declassified documents… one of the biggest lies the media has pushed in it’s life
The First Trump Declassified “Russia Document” Christopher Steele’s 2017 Confession To The FBI — Steele told FBI he leaked Russia collusion story to help Clinton and Great Britain, and was connected to his primary dossier source by former NSC staffer and impeachment witness Fiona Hill. (JUST THE NEWS)
….The FBI report of an interview agents conducted with Steele in September 2017, nearly a year after he had been terminated as an informant, provided explosive information about his motives in working simultaneously for the FBI and the opposition research firm for Clinton’s campaign. The document was obtained by Just the News and at times reads like a confession from the now-infamous former MI6 agent and author of the anti-Trump dossier.
Steele told agents that then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation in fall of 2016 became his tipping point for leaking the anti-Trump collusion research that his company Orbis Intelligence had gathered and given to the FBI.
“STEELE explained that as the election season went on, they as a company were riding two horses — their client and the FBI — and after FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of the Hillary Clinton investigation, they had to pick one horse and chose the business client relationship over the relationship with the FBI,” the interview report stated.
“They followed what their client wanted, and they spoke to the press,” the report noted.
Steele and his partner Christopher Burrows even suggested the FBI deserved some of the blame for the decision to leak to the news media and Sen. John McCain’s office.
“STEELE and BURROWS described the overall situation as being one where it was ‘your [FBI] fault’ and ‘our fault,'” the memo reported, adding that Burrows was also upset the FBI had not paid Steele for his anti-Trump work.
The two British citizens told the FBI that concerns about the impact of a Trump presidency also motivated them…..
Mainstream Media before Trump was President and immediately when he set foot into the Oval Office was creating false stories about him. For instance, MLK’s Bust story an hour after Trump was elected: “On the evening of January 20, TIME White House correspondent Zeke Miller incorrectly reported that the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office.” Most major news outlets carried it right away, and this was the beginning of 16 fake stories by early February that people ate up: Hence #FakeNews
The same people lapped up the phony Russia investigation, helping push the false narrative of Democrats for almost 3-years:
People who believed in this stuff and made decisions based on it ARE the problem with our body-politic. More than Trump. Spreading lies that were bigger than Obama’s Iran Deal thingy and bigger than any Trump lie. Seditious lies cooked up by Hillary in 2016.
The below is hilarious — why!? — because Schiff called Nunes’ work lies since he put the memo out detailing the abuses of the FBI to the FISA Court. The IG Report said almost the same thing as Nunes has been saying this WHOLE TIME! In fact, on MSNBC we can see (July of 2018) Schiff knowingly lying!
“Do you think he’ll get called on the carpet by anybody who has been following this story for two years?” Bream asked.
“Well, one of the wonders, to me, of modern media is the failure of my colleagues in this business to see through this guy Schiff,” Hume said. “He has been dishonest repeatedly. He made extravagant claims about the amount of evidence he had of Russia collusion, evidence that it turned out that not even the Mueller team with all of its investigative powers did not discover and that he, Schiff, never specified. Of course the report came out and basically blew up this whole Russia collusion theory.
“Now comes this whole question of FISA abuse and he’s still telling whoppers about that. It’s amazing that he isn’t called out. And then of course he gets tapped by Nancy Pelosi to lead the impeachment inquiry. Wow!”
Schiff isn’t the only person who owes apologies to Devin Nunes and anyone who believed his lies — many NeverTrumpers also swore up and down that Devin Nunes was a liar (and that Adam Schiff was truthful), but refuse to acknowledge this, retract prior claims, and explain what partisan fury caused them to get so many things so wrong for so long.
Below, some flashbacks of the media denouncing Devin Nunes, first in reaction to his press conference announcing FISA abuse, then in reaction to his memo documenting this abuse.
Which the NeverTrumpers all denied, along with their ally Adam Schiff.
Quotable quote: “The DNC pays for the Steele dossier, solicits the Steele dossier, and then gets the Federal Bureau of Investigation to go get FISA warrants, surveil an American citizen, surveil a presidential campaign, all on the basis of this manufactured garbage that they paid for. I mean that’s extraordinary. That has got to be a first time in history. In fact, let me just ask you, Mr. Horowitz, are you aware ever of another presidential campaign being targeted by the FBI during the campaign like the Trump campaign was?” (Answer: No.)
Senator Josh questioned Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz about his report detailing widespread misconduct related to the 2016 counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign. Senator Hawley expressed deep concern about the revelation that the FBI doctored evidence to obtain a surveillance warrant against a Trump campaign official asking, “Is it worse to have a foreign government trying to meddle in our elections, or is it worse to have our own government meddling in the election?”
Sen. Hawley also asked Inspector General Horowitz if this was the first time the FBI used partisan-funded opposition research to obtain FISA warrants against an American presidential campaign saying, “The DNC pays for the Steele Dossier, solicits the Steele Dossier, and then gets the Federal Bureau of Investigation to go get FISA warrants, surveil an American citizen, and surveil a presidential campaign all on the basis of this manufactured garbage that they paid for. I mean that’s extraordinary. That has got to be a first time in history. In fact let me just ask you, Mr. Horowitz, are you aware of ever of another presidential campaign being targeted by the FBI like the Trump campaign was?”
Inspector General Horowitz told Senator Hawley that to his knowledge that to his knowledge this was the first time a presidential campaign had been targeted in this manner
Ben is great when he is conservative. (Remember, he is no fan of Trump.) He humbly eats crow regarding his and Sen Mike Lee’s conversations. Concerns he said were impossible, came to fruition against a President of the United States of America. He also ends with a very quick discussion of the FBI investigating Trump rather than defensively briefing his about their concerns:
NOQ REPORT mentions this regarding the above cataloging of Senator Sasse:
….Sasse then went into a lengthy description of the dynamic between law enforcement agencies and ODAG, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General which has primary oversight. If Ohr hadn’t been off on assignment on an unrelated task force, he would have been responsible for seeing the clear violations of protocols the FBI had engaged in with regards to the Trump campaign. Instead, he inserted himself into the matter and helped prolong the wrongdoing that was taking place.
In November, 2016, the FBI “closed” (meaning released from being an informant) Steele because he had leaked information to Mother Jones magazine. That’s when Bruce and Nellie Ohr got involved.
“The FBI was not a reluctant participant in this relationship that was a conduit from Bruce Ohr – through Bruce Ohr to Steele – as we lay out here (pointing to the IG report),” Horowitz said, “So I just want to be clear. They’re not saying ‘we don’t want to deal with him.’ They’re saying “oh, ya, call… essentially if you have something we would love to hear from him.”
This is huge. It demonstrates the FBI went far out of its way to make sure they had access to Christopher Steele even after he had been “closed.” They needed the Steele Dossier to remain as the key for them to continue renewing warrants and spying on the administration in its early days even though they had come to the conclusion it was debunked months before.
The exchange between Sasse and Horowitz demonstrates the measures by which the FBI forced the issue to continue engaging with Christopher Steele through Bruce Ohr. It reeks of more than bias. Ohr was their best shot at the so-called “coup.”
This first video is the opening statement by Sen. Graham. And it is important because he details the bias of agents and others involved in the case against Trump and his campaign:
What followed by Lindsey Graham was an excellent Q&A, which I detail a few parts of:
Here is the transcript of a few spots:
Sen. Graham (2:58): “There are five people in that interview, right?”
IG Horowitz (3:01): “Correct”
Sen. Graham (3:09): “Did they have a duty to report to their supervisors and eventually to the court this [ex]sculpatory information?”
IG Horowitz (3:16): “Absolutely”
Sen. Graham (3:17): “They did not”
IG Horowitz (3:18): “They did not”
Sen. Graham (3:19): “Why”
IG Horowitz (3:20): “That’s the question, um, I can’t specifically answer for you”
Sen. Graham (3:25): “Can you it wasn’t because of political bias?”
IG Horowitz (3:28): “On decisions regarding those FISA matters, I do not know their state of mind at this point.”
Sen. Graham (11:33): “Would you have submitted the warrant application as a lawyer?”
IG Horowitz (11:38): “Let me put it this way, I would not have submitted the one the put in… no doubt about it it had no business going in with that…” (audio trail off, Sen. Graham continues)
Sen. Graham (11:45): “So what I want you to know is that in January 2017 the whole foundation for surveilling Carter Page collapses. Exculpatory information is ignored. They lie to the [FISA] court about what the interview was all about – is that a fair summary so far?…”
IG Horowitz (12:05): “Um… I’ll ahh… they certainly misled the… [stammering] … it was misleading to the [FISA] court.”
Sen. Graham (12:12): “Okay. Fair enough. And in January – about six months later – when they find more information that could be helpful to Mr. Page, they lie about it. You feel like MR. Page was fairly treated by the Department of Justice and the FBI?”
IG Horowitz (12:27): “Um… I don’t think the Department of Justice fairly treated these FISAs, and he was on the receiving end of them.”
Sen. Graham (12:32): “You would not want to be on the receiving end of this, would you?”
IG Horowitz (12:35): “I would not want agents or anybody failing to put forward all the information their obligated to tell the [FISA] court…”
Graham’s closing statement as well is worth while:
During that December 2018 hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy posed this question to Comey: “Late July of 2016, the FBI did, in fact, open a counterintelligence investigation into, is it fair to say the Trump campaign or Donald Trump himself?”
“It’s not fair to say either of those things, in my recollection,” Comey retorted. “We opened investigations on four Americans to see if there was any connection between those four Americans and the Russian interference efforts. And those four Americans did not include the candidate.”
So, not only did the Obama administration’s FBI target the Trump campaign in the heat of the 2016 presidential election, but they used an intelligence briefing of candidate Trump to gather “evidence,” and even memorialized Trump’s comments in official FBI documents related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
The new report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed former CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress about whether the dossier authored by Christopher Steele was used in the Obama administration’s Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).
An example of a lie by ADAM SCHIFF, which he KNEW was a lie when he said it:
FBI and officials did not “abuse” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.
In fact, DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government. DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet probable cause requirement, by demonstrating: contemporaneous evidence of Russia?s election interference;
Christopher Steele’s raw intelligence reporting did not inform the decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI’s closely-held investigative team only received Steele’s reporting in mid-September more than seven weeks later.
An example of a JOHN BRENNAN lie… which he knew was a lie when he said it:
Mr. Gowdy: Do you know if the Bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier as any — as part of any court filings, applications, petitions, pleadings?
Mr. Brennan: I have no awareness.
Mr. Gowdy: Did the CIA rely on it?
Mr. Brennan: No.
Mr. Gowdy: Why not?
Mr. Brennan: Because we — we didn’t. It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community assessment that was done. It was — it was not.
Except, on Page 179 of the FISA report we find that former FBI Director James Comey told investigators that he remembers being “part of a conversation, maybe more than one conversation, where the topic was how the [Steele] reporting would be integrated, if at all, into the IC assessment.”
Comey added that Brennan and other officials argued that the Steele dossier was found credible by intelligence community analysts, and that while they did not want to include it in the main body of the ICA, “they thought it was important enough and consistent enough that it ought to be part of the package in some way, and so they had come up with this idea to make an [appendix].
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General William Barr spoke to NBC News’ Pete Williams about the findings on the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the Russia investigation and his criticisms of the FBI.
U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr sits down with the Wall Street Journal to discuss the information released within the IG report on FBI 2016 election surveillance against candidate Trump; and FISA exploitation for use therein.
As I was driving around today in slow or stopped traffic, I gave my thoughts about what I was hearing today:
Just a quick note here. The four U.S. citizens spied on by the government we’ll have a great case to make in court to sue set government (during the whole Russian Collusion conspiracy against Trump). So not only did the original investigation cost many millions of dollars, it is possible that many millions more is going to be doled out.
Now… Adam Schiff has himself (against proper procedure) gone and gotten metadata from phone companies and then matched it up with journalist an opposing political persons phones. Without a warrant. I assume another criminal case will start around this… And, much like the other case millions of dollars may be doled out to these individuals who had their metadata illegally seized by the government.
BY THE WAY, you can read here “Democrats” when I say government. Ultimately all the taxpayers will have to — and have paid for it. But these incurred cost come by way of Democrats alone. (As well as never Trumper’s)
So two articles of impeachment have been put forward. Bribery was what CNN says was the Crux of the case a few weeks ago. However, remember all the terms changed over time: quid pro quo, to extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice. None of these are part of the impeachment articles. One impeachment article is “obstruction of Congress” (read here Democrats). What a joke! I think a bulk of the American voters see through this sham/witch Hunt.
After another quick link of mine linked to thisREASON.ORGarticle, a friend said this on Facebook:
IG Report, Chapter 12: Conclusions & Recommendations (p. 411)–CHS refers to “confidential human sources”:
“We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign.”
Yes, there were problems with some aspects of FISA, but those issues were later. The investigation began earlier, based on reports from a friendly government that there might be connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. Bottom line: the Trump accusation that this was all a witch hunt with political motives has been debunked.
This was my response[s], and it is solid!
JIM G. — two things, well, three. The first is, Horowitz had no subpoena power. So, for instance, he wanted to interview Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS. Glenn simply declined. In other words, Horowitz had an incomplete picture. (Durham and Barr traveled to Italy and other places to talk to what we [not you] know were players involved in those countries.) That is number one.
Number two… and this is a common sense one. Of all the mistakes documented plus the Woods violation… Why didn’t a single one break in Trump’s favor? In other words, FBI director Wray is putting forward 40-changes to stop this from happening again. (Which wouldn’t have happened is Hillary were elected.) If Director Wray were to say, “wow, that was something from this whole thing that worked well. We should keep that.” Or if half, or even a quarter of the mistakes broke in Trump’s favor, I wouldn’t be skeptical.
And third, remember, the Steele Report (as I said in the past) was almost the exclusive bulk of the info to obtain the FISA warrants. Prior to this multiple voices in the FBI warned against Steele. The CIA warned the FBI NOT to use it. Yet:
…DOJ IG Michael Horowitz, who assumed his position during the Obama administration, and his team reported that “Steele’s handling agent” in the FBI “told us that when Steele provided him with the first election reports in July 2016 and described his engagement with Fusion GPS, it was obvious to him that the request for the research was politically motivated.”
In addition, the “supervisory intelligence analyst who supervised the analytical efforts for the Crossfire Hurricane team (Supervisory Intel Analyst) explained that he also was aware of the potential for political influences on the Steele reporting.”
The Horowitz report explained that the FBI was still able to use the Steele dossier even if it was clear that it contained opposition research connected to the Hillary Clinton campaign….
I also just found out that Horowitz wanted to speak to Comey (supporting point #1). But he couldn’t because Comey didn’t sign back up for his top secret clearance, so he couldn’t be interviewed in depth. Durham has the ability to compel testimony.
The memo from the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee reported:
A salacious and unverified dossier formed an essential part of the application to secure a warrant against a Trump campaign affiliate named Carter Page. This application failed to reveal that the dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
The application cited a Yahoo News article extensively. The story did not corroborate the dossier, and the FBI wrongly claimed Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was not a source for the story.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of a high-ranking Justice Department official, also worked on behalf of the Clinton campaign effort. Her husband Bruce Ohr funneled her research into the Department of Justice. Although he admitted that Steele “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president,” this and the Ohrs’ relationship with the Clinton campaign was concealed from the secret court that grants surveillance warrants.
The dossier was “only minimally corroborated” and unverified, according to FBI officials.
All of these things were found to be true by the Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his December 9 report. In fact, Horowitz detailed rampant abuse that went far beyond these four items.
The Democratic minority on the committee, then led by Rep. Adam Schiff, put out a response memo with competing claims:
FBI and DOJ officials did not omit material information from the FISA warrant.
The DOJ “made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016.”
In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information that corroborated Steele’s reporting.
The Page FISA warrant allowed the FBI to collect “valuable intelligence.”
“Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias.”
The FBI conducted a “rigorous process” to vet Steele’s allegations, and the Page FISA application explained the FBI’s reasonable basis for finding Steele credible.
Steele’s prior reporting was used in “criminal proceedings.”
Each of these claims were found by Horowitz to be false….
DAVID FRENCH FODDER
One of the many nuggets from ACE OF SPADES is this from MSNBC: National Review Writer On Why Nunes Should Step Down (March 2017). In the video from MSNBC we see David French retroactively go down in flames! ALSO:
Suffice it to say, ACE destroys David French and Adam Schiff!
Here is more regarding the IG REPORT with thanks to FLOPPING ACES!
The DOJ Inspector General’s report disclosed a multitude of FISA violations by the FBI. As noted by John Solomon, there were 51 Woods violations and nine false statements made to the FISA Court.
To understand just how shoddy the FBI’s work was in securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting the Trump campaign, you only need to read an obscure attachment to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report.
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: “Supporting document shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate.”
For those who don’t speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official file.
1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an “operational contact” for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;
2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,” which overstated the significance of Steele’s past reporting and was not approved by Steele’s handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;
3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a “boaster” and an “egoist” and “may engage in some embellishment” and (2) INFORMATION REDACTED
4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File- Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;
5. Omitted Papadopoulos’s consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;
6. Omitted Page’s consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had “literally never met” or “said one word to” Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page’s emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and
7. Included Page’s consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.
Do read the rest. 17 major “mistakes” and not one of them goes Trump’s way.
The FBI knew that the dossier was nearly 100% without substance, but acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe demanded it be used in the ICA. The CIA was reluctant….
INSTAPUNDIT notes the FBI campaign against Trump is not necessarily new:
“The FBI and the media joined together to launch an attack on me of unparalleled proportion in the history of his nation … It was all a lie … The Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself.”
Howard is one of the most amazing people I have ever met. Among other things, he is a corporate lawyer turned entrepreneur, inventor, and corporate executive.
Howard faced down the government. The jury didn’t think much of the government’s case. It returned with a verdict of acquittal on all charges after a day of deliberations, and that includes the time spent electing a foreman.
Howard’s case is important in its own way. The crimes charged were bogus. The government procured testimony through serious prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecution represented fruit of the poisonous Yates Memo tree. Howard had the resources to fight the government’s case against him and his company, but it exacted an enormous toll. The case cries out for study and reform.
Howard has thus sought to engage prosecutors in discussion of the case in person before professional audiences of lawyers and businessmen for whom it holds immediate relevance. The prosecutors and their superiors in the department have sought to keep Howard from speaking to such audiences. When I wrote the Department of Justice to request its explanation for what it was doing, it declined to comment (a week after I asked the question).
Former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy was more forthcoming. He called out the Department of Justice’s behavior as “a disgrace.”
The Department of Justice declines to answer to Howard or me but it has at long last responded to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Utah Senator Mike Lee. Senators Grassley and Lee sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein seeking an update on the Justice Department’s inquiry into professional misconduct committed by prosecutors and higher-ups who brought the charges against Howard and have since sought to prevent him from being heard. I posted the Grassley/Lee letter in “Fear & loathing at the DoJ, cont’d.”
In their letter Senators Grassley and Lee noted that “reports suggest a pattern of threatened and actual retribution against defendants and witnesses borne out of the Department’s disappointment with the outcome of a particular case. This not only casts doubt on the Department’s ability to accept the results of judicial proceedings in a professional manner befitting the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency, but it significantly undermines our confidence in its commitment to hold government attorneys accountable for questionable actions that may have occurred in the course of this case or other cases.” …..
When he arrived at Dulles airport in Virginia, he was immediately searched by the FBI and apprehended.
“He flew back to Dulles and the second he landed, the FBI surrounded him and started searching everything that he had,” she continued. “In fact, they already had his baggage from the plane. He couldn’t believe they got his baggage.”
One of the FBI agents warned Papadopolous during his arrest, “This is what happens when you work for Donald Trump,” Toensing claimed.
Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing explain how the FBI used $10,000 to set up George Papadopoulos in a blatant sting. So the question needs to be asked, why is the FBI running stings for political purposes in 2019? And where are the whistleblowers?
Mark Steyn filled in for Rush Limbaugh and at one point discussed the attempted set-up against George Papadopoulos. The FBI tried to “nab” him with $10,000 (). Also he discusses the interrogation of Papadopoulos’ fiance? Wife? Watch Steyn’s interview with George: