The Wiki-Leaks “Dump” pre-dated when Roger Stone supposedly told Trump. In other words… the information about the dump was already publicized BEFORE Roger Stone “told” Trump. While I do not agree with everything below, it is humorously pointed out that Congress and the media are clueless about htis simple fact.
WikiLeaks
Stones Indictment Shows No Russian Collusion (Andrew McCarthy)
Dennis Prager invited Andrew McCarthy on his radio program to discuss his (McCarthy’s) article entitled, “Stone Indictment Makes Clear There Was No Trump-Russia Conspiracy”. Key to the article is this short paragraph:
- It is very simple. If the Trump campaign had been in an espionage conspiracy with Russia to hack Democratic email accounts, why would the campaign have needed Stone to try to figure out what stolen information WikiLeaks had and when it would release that information?
Yep. There you have it. Unless it’s as bad as Sidney Powell thinks it may be if Andrew Weissmann writes the report for Mueller (), McCarthy may be right that Trump will be vindicated.
NOTE: During the interview Andrew McCarthy responded, “Yes, I think…” which reminded me of a Boogie Down Productions song, “My Philosophy” — so I spliced it in.
Sean Hannity Interviews Jerome Corsi
Sean Hannity interviews Jerome Corsi. I first want to say that I am not a fan of Jerome – at all. BUT, the interview sheds a lot of light on the entire case, and he (if this is true) should win his case easily. But discussion about Roger Stone and Julian Assange add some substance to the case[s]. Good stuff, I hope it helps fill-in holes for the listener. Here is more information:
- Could Jerome Corsi’s Lawsuit Destroy The Mueller Investigation? (American Thinker)
- Judge Denies Mueller Request for Delay in Corsi Case (NewsMax)
- So The FBI Staged Quite The Show In Arresting Roger Stone (HotAir)
- Stone Indictment Follows Concerning Mueller Pattern (The Hill)
HOT AIR reports on this:
…So what were Stone’s false statements? The six counts of false testimony in the indictment allege:
- Stone lied when he claimed that he had no records pertinent to the House Intelligence Committee’s probe
- Stone lied when he claimed not to have sent or received e-mails and texts relating to the hacked e-mails
- Stone lied about the timing of his contacts with “Person 2” about Julian Assange, and had actually contacted “Person 1” rather than “Person 2”, which he did not disclose
- Stone lied when he claimed he never directed either to get more information about the hacked data, when in fact he asked both to get documents from Wikileaks
- Stone lied about never sending e-mails or texts to “Person 2”
- Stone lied about discussing all of the above with “anyone involved in the Trump campaign
It’s tough to argue that all of these are immaterial to the House’s purpose in investigating the issues surrounding the 2016 campaign, if — if — Mueller can prove these allegations in court. It’s also tough to establish forgetfulness on the first two, since there is a reasonable expectation that a subpoenaed witness would check to see if requested/demanded records exist before denying that they do. A jury is not likely to find “memory loss” as a reasonable explanation for this series of supposed senior moments.
Plus, let’s not forget (pardon the joke), that the questions of materiality and memory loss do not at all pertain to the witness-tampering charge. That charge might make it tough for Stone to sustain a memory loss defense, too:
e. On multiple occasions, including on or about December 1, 2017, STONE told Person 2 that Person 2 should do a “Frank Pentangeli” before HPSCI in order to avoid contradicting STONE’s testimony. Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film The Godfather: Part II, which both STONE and Person 2 had discussed, who testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know critical information that he does in fact know.
f. On or about December 1, 2017, STONE texted Person 2, “And if you turned over anything to the FBI you’re a fool.” Later that day, Person 2 texted STONE, “You need to amend your testimony before I testify on the 15th.” STONE responded, “If you testify you’re a fool. Because of tromp I could never get away with a certain [sic] my Fifth Amendment rights but you can. I guarantee you you are the one who gets indicted for perjury if you’re stupid enough to testify.”
If Mueller’s team can establish this communication as genuine, and if Stone’s attorneys can’t establish any other context for demanding that Person 2 pull a Frankie Five Angels, it shows that Stone knew full well that he’d perjured himself…..
“Is This It?” Vanity Fair Asks of “Collusion”
- “…Trump’s White House has pursued what is arguably the harshest set of policies toward Russia since the fall of Communism…” | Vanity Fair
Larry Elder reads from a Vanity Fair article that is entitled, “Is This It? A Trump-Hater’s Guide To Mueller Skepticism.” The “Sage” also plays a recent interview on CNN of Jerry Nadler by Jake Tapper.
Here is one of the powerful paragraphs from the article:
- Certainly, Trump’s ethical standards are low, but if sleaziness were a crime then many more people from our ruling class would be in jail. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to try to find out in advance what WikiLeaks has on Hillary Clinton. It is sleazy, but not criminal, to take a meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer promising a dossier of dirt on Clinton. (Just as, it should be mentioned, it is sleazy, but not criminal, to pay a guy to go to Russia to put together a dossier of dirt on Trump. This is one reason why the Clinton campaign lied about its connection to the Steele dossier, albeit without the disadvantage of being under oath.) It is sleazy, but not criminal, to pursue a business deal while you’re running for president. Mueller has nailed people for trying to prevaricate about their sleaze, so we already have a couple of guilty pleas over perjury, with more believed to be on the way. But the purpose of the investigation was to address suspicions of underlying conspiracy—that is, a plan by Trump staffers to get Russian help on a criminal effort. Despite countless man-hours of digging, this conspiracy theory, the one that’s been paying the bills at Maddow for a couple of years now, has come no closer to being borne out.
Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi | Hannity
BTW, to be clear, I am neither a fan or Corsi or Stone. I think both men are wacko conspiracy guys (one of my stated issues with Trump and his going on the Alex Jones Show). But that aside, we will see in the end where Corsi’s refusals lead… to the truth? This upload may disappear at some point (not because of a conspiracy, but because of copyright issues.) Good analysis starts at the 30-minute mark.
FOX NEWS has the interviews separated here: Stone: I Never Talked To Julian Assange | Corsi: Basis For Collusion Is Complete Nonsense
The DNC Just Effed Up! (Reactionary Leftists)
Mark Levin slams the choice by Tom Perez to sue the Trump admin. This opens up soo much legalities (counter lawsuits, discovery, depositions, and the like) that will allow the Republicans and the Trump administration to focus on the Clinton Foundation, the Steele Dossier, and all the other avenues that Democrats used to try and stop Trump from being nominated (and their attempts to impeach him) — even Bernie Sanders.
Because the Democrats are soo reactionary and trying to please their base…. this action was not thought through well. Which is a political plus for our side.
The Democrat’s Selective Outrage On Intelligence
UPDATE! via THE DAILY CALLER and the NYTs:
The New York Times issued a correction Thursday on an article that incorrectly claimed all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that “Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get [Trump] elected.”
[….]
Former candidate Hillary Clinton made the claim in late May that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed “that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.”
Former FBI Director James Comey refuted this false claim in a congressional hearing in May, stating that the assessment was only from the NSA, FBI and the CIA.
The Daily Caller News Foundation published a fact-check June 1 that rated Clinton’s claim as “False.”
Larry Elder discusses in the following clips some of the hypocritical positions the Democrats have in regard to accepting or rejecting intelligent agencies positions — selective outrage in other words. The above audio includes a partial interview with Ed Klein as well (interview begins at the 6:28 mark). Mr. Klein’s books and more can be found here: http://edwardklein.com/
I believe this line about 17-intelligence agencies saying the “Russians” did it is still the same evidence as when I posted this: “NO, 17-U.S. AGENCIES DID NOT SAY RUSSIA HACKED DEM E-MAILS.”
But many issues have still negated the narrative by the Democrats in this regard…see:
➤ CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election
➤ The Hillary Campaign and the DNC Refused FBI Help
The bottom line is that even if the Russian’s have an involvement, it didn’t change the outcome of the election. Whatsoever. And the leaks from Podesta’s emails and the DNC were from insiders, not Russians.
Via CNSNEWS:
“Hold on a minute! CNN didn’t invent this,” said Camerota. “As you know, there were a score of intelligence agencies — seventeen of them — that concluded that Russia had hacked and meddled in our election.”
King replied, “Alisyn, there was dissent among that. And, furthermore, I sat in on that classified briefing and they divulged not one fact. They only gave us their opinions. So, we’re back at the same place again. We need facts to work with.”
Camerota then asked, “Just so I’m clear Congressman: You do not believe that Russia meddled?”
King answered, “I don’t know. I don’t have — I don’t know if they meddled or not. I want to see a transcript; I want to hear some audio. I want to see a chronological timeline, that we can say these things we know that are facts. Because what we’re dealing with are opinions.”
CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election
Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:
➤ Wikileaks founder Assange on hacked Podesta, DNC emails: “Our source is not the Russian government”
- Russian Hackers and American Hacks – The CIA that misjudged Putin for years is now sure of his motives;
- FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russia’s motives in 2016 hacks;
- 10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’;
- FBI Disagrees With CIA On Russian Influence In The Presidential Election;
- Reports: FBI has no evidence linking Trump, Russia;
- Wikileaks Keeps Saying Leaker Was Not Russian – Liberal Media Keeps Ignoring Them;
- UK Diplomat: I’ve Met the DNC Wikileaks Leaker and the Person Is an Insider – Not Russian;
- FBI Investigation Refutes CIA=> There’s No Evidence Russia Tried to Help Trump;
- Report: FBI less certain about the purpose of Russia’s hacking;
- Russian “Meddling” In Election: Most Overblown Story Ever? [Updated];
- Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources
➤ [My Post a While Back] No, 17-U.S. Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails.
YOUNG CONSERVATIVES have this clip from TOWNHALL:
…Contrary to claims made by Democrats about Russian interference helping President-elect Donald J. Trump, there is no definitive proof that the Kremlin ordered such cyber attacks. It’s all based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and anonymous sources that are bound by an apparent inter-agency feud between the CIA and the FBI. On December 10, The Washington Post reported that both agencies were not on the same page, which seemed to have angered Democrats:
Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking.
During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.
[…]
The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.
Our intelligence agencies don’t all agree that the Kremlin is responsible.
The talking point that 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia was behind the hacks is not accurate….
More YOUNG CONS… “Here are the top 5 reasons why it isn’t accurate to definitively say Russia interfered in our election process. From Breitbart“
- There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.
- The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hillreported on Sunday.
- Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
- Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
- What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.
No, 17-U.S. Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails
Unfortunately, Russia being behind the hacks is more conjecture than fact. Some have been leaked by Democrats themselves, others may have been leaked by NSA officials getting back at Hillary for the death of some intelligence agency employee’s and the worry that her reckless behavior with State Secrets would continue in the White House. Annnd may some were done by Wikileaks. The funny thing is however that Hillary denies her emails were at the same time she blames Russia.
Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country.
What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks
- …are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible….
Don’t forget that some are saying that a portion of these WIkiLeaks came from a Democrat operative, that dies in the nick of time:
DNC staffer Seth Rich was mysteriously murdered in the streets of Washington, D.C., on July 10. Although it is being investigated as a robbery, his wallet, credit cards and watch were not taken. The 27-year old was shot in the back on July 10 at 4:15 a.m. near his affluent neighborhood, while he was reportedly walking home from his girlfriend’s apartment. Police still have no suspects, witnesses or motive. His mother told the local NBC station that there were bruises on his face, knees and hands, apparently from trying to fend off his attackers.
[….]
Rich was a data analyst, so it is very possible he could have had access to the DNC’s emails. Julian Assange of Wikileaks said recently on TV that it wasn’t Russian hackers who intercepted the emails, as the Hillary Clinton campaign has alleged; instead, any one of a number of staffers within the DNC could have leaked them.
(RPT)
Top 100 Most Damning Wikileaks
Larry Elder Discusses Current and Past Media Collusion
Larry Elder dives into the media bias surrounding collusion with the Hillary campaign in getting he elected. As Larry notes, this is not the first time collusion like this has been discovered, remember “Journolist“? Of course this is not new news, but it is instructive to hear it once in a while.
Hillary’s campaign director, Robby Mook, get’s pressed on the issue of comparison.
