Obama, the terrorist financier

analysis
By J. D. Heyes, editor-in-chief

(National SentinelUnprecedented: When he was running for his first term as president in 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered what was described at the time by ABC News as a “strikingly bold speech” about the “war on terror.”

In calling for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, the freshman Democratic senator from Illinois called for redeploying thousands of troops to Afghanistan and, if necessary, Pakistan.

“I understand that [then-]President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Obama told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama vowed.

Granted, as president, the world looks different from the Oval Office, but does it look so different that it transforms a presidential candidate seeking to protect Americans from terrorism to a president who funds them?

Apparently so — at least, if you’re Barack Obama.

You may recall that as part of his ‘gotta have it at all costs nuclear deal’ with the Iranians, Obama authorized a payment of $400 million to the murderous theocrats who run the country, a payment that was literally delivered secretly, in the dead of night, on pallets stacked in a cargo plane.

As The Wall Street Journal noted at the time, the payment wasn’t made to the Iranians until four U.S. hostages were released — meaning that Obama reversed decades of U.S. policy against paying ransom to terrorist organizations (Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism, making the entire regime a terrorist organization):

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

As outrageous as that was, there’s more to the story. The WSJ noted further:

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Jan. 17—without disclosing the $400 million cash payment.

Next, the Obama administration authorized 13 payments of $99,999,999 on the same day to the Iranian regime for a total of around $1.3 billion — paid out of a secret fund run by the Treasury Department called the “Judgement Fund” that is used to pay monetary awards against the U.S. government. The payments were less than $100 each to avoid oversight (reporting requirements), according to the New York Sun.

Of course. We’re talking about the most corrupt regime in the history of our country, as we continue to learn each day.

For months after revelations surrounding the ransom payments, foreign policy realists predicted that Iran would use the monetary windfall to fund its terrorist proxies, which include Hamas and Hezbollah (rather than spend the money on its own people).

Those predictions were met with the usual derision and pompous dismissal by the pro-Obama commentariat and congressional Democrats.

Turns out those predictions were spot-on.

As Bill Gertz reported for the Washington Times, a U.S. government study has found that “Iran used the funds to pay its main proxy, the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah, along with the Quds Force, Iran’s main intelligence and covert action arm and element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

During his two terms in office, Obama did more to support terrorists aligned against America than he did to eliminate them as a threat. And now we know for certain.

What a guy.

A version of this story appears at NewsTarget.com.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

If Congress doesn’t pass DACA legalization, then Dreamers will…LEAVE

(National SentinelAdios, America: A group of so-called “Dreamers” — illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children by their parents — is threatening to self-deport if Congress fails to pass legislation legalizing their presence inside the country.

In an interview with CNN, one of the Dreamers, Alex Velez, said, “I will leave. I will leave America as soon as possible,” claiming that she would prefer to depart the country on her own terms than wait for the United States to collect and deport her.

She and others like her believe that by self-deporting their absence will be noticed by Americans and missed.

“Velez and her sister claim they own businesses, pay tuition, and hold jobs, and that America has a duty to keep them here in order to maintain their contributions,” The Daily Wire reported.

Both girls are from Venezuela, a country that is currently collapsing under the Marxist regime of President Nicolas Maduro.

President Obama implemented the Dreamers plan — formally known as Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, or DACA — in September by executive order. Critics at the time decried the order, claiming it was an unconstitutional change to immigration law, which only Congress can do.

As many as 10 states lined up to challenge DACA in federal court. As such, President Donald J. Trump rescinded the order in September and gave Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix.

That deadline is March 5.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

McCarthy: Lisa Page’s text PROVES that Mueller CANNOT plausibly charge Trump with ‘OBSTRUCTION’

(National SentinelIn the Clear: Former national security federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy cleared up some misunderstandings about yesterday’s alleged “bombshell” revelation in which FBI lawyer Lisa Page texted her lover, FBI agent Peter Strzok, that President Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing” in terms of the counterintelligence investigation into Team Trump.

In addressing reports about the revelation in conservative media, McCarthy wrote in his column for National Review that “Your play here is not that Obama is a liar. It is that the president is supposed to ‘interfere’ in intelligence investigations. That makes the Trump-Russia obstruction narrative patently absurd.”

McCarthy goes on to note that he has, for more than a year and well before special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment, been touting the difference between a counterintelligence investigation and a criminal probe.

“Criminal investigations are about prosecuting people who violate the penal law. Political officials are generally supposed to stay out of them because we are a rule-of-law society — we want individual cases to be decided strictly by the law, not by political considerations,” he wrote.

He notes further:

There is not, nor should there be, complete independence between politics and this law-enforcement mission: Law enforcement is an executive political responsibility; the president is accountable for it; he sets the government’s law-enforcement priorities; prosecutors and investigators exercise the president’s power, not their own; and the president has undeniable constitutional authority to wade into investigations — even to the point of pardoning law-breakers. Still, by and large, the president should not interfere in criminal cases. If the president does interfere, he should do so transparently: Issue a pardon or order the investigation closed, and take the political heat for it; don’t stage-manage a farce to make it look like your crony is being exonerated by a real investigation when everyone knows you will not permit charges to be filed (see, e.g., the Clinton emails case).

Counterintelligence investigations are quite different, McCarthy — who specialized in them as a U.S. attorney — said. Since they are not about violations of penal law, there is no worry that political officials get involved in them, especially presidents because counterintelligence is performed on behalf of presidents.

“Counterintelligence is an information-gathering exercise undertaken for one purpose and one purpose alone: to inform the president, through his subordinate intelligence officials, of information about threats to, and opportunities to advance, American interests,” McCarthy clarified.

“The president is never supposed to resist ‘interference’ in counterintelligence. To the contrary, informing the president is the reason the FBI has a counterintelligence mission,” McCarthy explained. “Indeed, the information derived from counterintelligence operations is often included in the president’s daily intelligence briefing.”

McCarthy referenced the Sept. 16, 2016, text sent from Page to Strzok, in which the pair were discussing “talking points” being provided for then-FBI Director James Comey so he could brief President Obama, because “potus wants to know everything we are doing.”

“It appears obvious that the two are referring to ‘everything we are doing in what was then their most important counterintelligence initiative: the probe of possible connections between Donald Trump, then the Republican nominee for president, and the Kremlin,” McCarthy wrote.

The former national security prosecutor noted that Strzok and Page were working off information provided to the bureau and the Justice Department received via the infamous “Trump dossier” gathered by Christopher Steele, a former British spy who had provided the FBI with reliable information in the past.

Live Fire Gear - FireCord

Though it appears as though the FBI failed to verify the contents of the dossier, the bureau was nevertheless obligated to brief Obama because, again, it was counterintelligence. Obama’s and the campaign of Hillary Clinton’s motives for creating the dossier aside, it cannot be argued that the document was not considered as evidence in a counterintelligence investigation.

More:

Put aside what you think about all this politically as we sit here in February 2018. The question is what people were thinking in September 2016. I have no doubt that the Obama administration, including the upper echelons of the Obama-era Justice Department and FBI, believed Donald Trump was unfit to be president and that he was at least vulnerable to blackmail by the Putin regime, if not in cahoots with the Putin regime. I also have no doubt that they were politically aligned with Hillary Clinton, whom Obama was ardently supporting and a criminal investigation against whom the FBI and Justice Department had dropped, despite substantial evidence of guilt, after Obama had signaled that he did not want Mrs. Clinton charged.

The point here is not to sort out the motivations and intentions of officials, which ran the spectrum from a proper desire to protect the country to a politicized loss of objectivity that induced them blindly to accept Steele’s sensational claims as fact. The point is to understand formally what was going on.

Formally, the FBI was doing a counterintelligence investigation of Russian threats to the United States that happened to involve the Kremlin’s potential coopting of the Republican presidential candidate. That was something the FBI was supposed to keep the president of the United States informed about. Informing the president about foreign threats is the FBI’s counterintelligence mission. If the FBI credited the information involved and Director Comey had nevertheless failed to brief President Obama on it, he would have been guilty of an indefensible dereliction of duty.

McCarthy notes that indeed, Obama’s April 2016 statement to Fox News‘ Chris Matthews that he never interfered in Justice Department investigations was comically false as he ran the most politicized DOJ in modern history. He even signaled during the interview that he did not believe she did anything wrong — at least intentionally so — which was a sign to prosecutors and the FBI the president wanted her cleared.

And she was.

“Yet it is frivolous to claim that Obama’s “no interference” assertion in April was a lie because he got briefed by Comey in September about the Trump-Russia caper,” McCarthy writes, because in that April interview, Obama was talking about criminal investigations.

The following September, as indicated by the Page-Strzok text, Obama was being briefed on counterintelligence operations, by comparison.

“A president cannot ‘interfere’ with a counterintelligence investigation because keeping the president informed is the reason we have counterintelligence investigations.

“Consequently, what this episode ought to focus the commentariat on is the obstruction angle of the Mueller investigation. It is cockamamie,” writes McCarthy.

He notes:

The theory behind this aspect of the special counsel’s work is that President Trump obstructed the Russia probe by, principally, (a) leaning on Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, (b) firing Comey, and (c) “threatening” to fire Mueller. Here is the problem: The Russia investigation is principally a counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 investigation. The president cannot interfere in a counterintelligence investigation. Trump can no more obstruct the Russia investigation by taking actions that could conceivably affect it than Obama could obstruct the Russia investigation by being briefed on it and giving the FBI directions on it. Counterintelligence investigations are conducted for the president.

The point of them is to provide the president with all relevant information he needs to make decisions about protecting the country and advancing American interests. That’s also the point of the ‘Russia’ investigation.

Democrats and others obsessed with ‘getting Trump’ fail to make the distinction that counterintelligence operations are conducted to inform the president, McCarthy notes; if Mueller is conducting a criminal probe, then the Justice Department was required to make that point clear when it appointed him.

The DOJ did no such thing. In fact, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller without alleging that Trump or members of his campaign team even committed any violations of law.

“But let’s set that aside,” McCarthy continued:

According to Director Comey, Trump was not a criminal suspect. Asking Comey to go easy on Flynn — who was under criminal investigation for lying to the FBI — cannot legitimately have turned Trump into a suspect. As we’ve covered at length, the president is authorized to exercise prosecutorial discretion (an executive power) by weighing in on the merits of prosecuting a person; Trump did not direct Comey to drop the investigation, though he could have; Trump could have pardoned Flynn, which would have ended the investigation; and the investigation proceeded apace — ultimately leading to Flynn’s guilty plea.

As for firing Comey and purportedly threatening to fire Mueller (in fact, Trump has not taken any serious step in the direction of removing the special counsel), these are imagined by Trump detractors into obstruction episodes because they show Trump interfering in the Russia investigation. But the Russia investigation is a counterintelligence investigation. Trump gets to “interfere” in it if he chooses to. Though he grouses about it, he does not seem to have much inclination to interfere in it.

If there is no criminal investigation of Trump — and there is no indication there is — then it is not constitutionally possible for him to “obstruct” a counterintelligence probe since they are conducted for the president McCarthy concluded.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Flashback: Obama plays ‘LIAR in chief’ with FOX News’ Chris Wallace over claim he doesn’t talk with FBI directors regarding investigations (unless it’s Hillary) (Video)

(National SentinelMisdirect: In an April 2016 interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, then-President Barack Obama claimed that he never spoke to Attorney General Loretta Lynch or any FBI directors regarding ongoing investigations.

“I can guarantee that not because I give Attorney General [Loretta] Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated,” the former president claimed.

“I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. I guarantee it.”

“I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Period. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law,” he added.

Obama’s claim resurfaced on Wednesday after text messages exchanged between anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, indicating otherwise were released by the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Free Gift with Every Gift Membership!

“Potus wants to know everything we’re doing,” Page told Strzok in a text message dated Sept 2, 2016. Page then described preparing former FBI director  James Comey to brief Obama on the details of the then-ongoing investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails.

Watch:

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Here’s PROOF that OBAMA is PERSONALLY implicated in Trump campaign SPYING SCANDAL

(National SentinelBusted: A series of new texts between anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, revealed that President Barack Obama may have been directly involved in the probe of Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified emails.

As reported by Fox News, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is releasing the texts, along with a report entitled, “The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI’s Investigation of It.”

In a Sept. 2, 2016, text to Strzok about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, Page said it was important to do so because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”

“Potus” is the acronym for “president of the United States.”

That text exchange is the first evidence that Obama was likely kept in the loop as the Trump spying scandal unfolded.

Fox News reported further:

Among the newly disclosed texts, Strzok also calls Virginians who voted against then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s wife for a state Senate seat “ignorant hillbillys.” (sic)

That text came from Strzok to Page on Nov. 4, 2015, the day after Jill McCabe lost a hotly contested Virginia state Senate election. Strzok said of the result, “Disappointing, but look at the district map. Loudon is being gentrified, but it’s still largely ignorant hillbillys. Good for her for running, but curious if she’s energized or never again.”

The revelation that Obama was keeping tabs on the probe involving Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails make it more likely that he was also staying abreast of the ongoing counterintelligence operation against Trump campaign staffers.

Earlier, The National Sentinel reported that Obama had other ways to find out what was happening with his FBI and Justice Department in terms of securing surveillance warrants from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Not only does the attorney general — Loretta Lynch at the time — have to sign off on all FISA surveillance requests, but such requests are generally included in the President’s Daily Brief.

As the Brookings Institute noted in a policy paper arguing for the Trump administration to renew legislation reauthorizing Section 702 of the FISA Act, which clarifies warrant requirements of the Act, information gathered via FISA warrants “sometimes known as PRISM, comprises a large part of the President’s Daily Brief.” 

Also, last week Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, warned Americans to “watch for Obama’s fingerprints” all over the FISA court abuses.

“Watch closely for Barack Obama’s fingerprints,” King told Breitbart News Radio. “[Democrats and their allies] will defend Barack Obama at all costs, and they’ll defend Hillary Clinton almost at all costs unless they have to sacrifice her to protect Barack Obama.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

DiGenova: Memo 2.0 proves SOMEONE in Obama’s State Dept. helped feed false info to FBI; ‘Somebody’s going to have to go to PRISON’ (Video)

(National SentinelIndictments: Former U.S. attorney Joe diGenova argued on Fox News‘ Laura Ingraham program Tuesday night that the newly released “memo 2.0” — a redacted version of an eight-page memo written by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham — proves someone in President Obama’s State Department fed the FBI false information through Trump dossier author Christopher Steele.

Part of that information was then used by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants against a member of President Donald J. Trump’s campaign.

In his inteview, diGenova said such actions are likely illegal and that someone needs to be held legally responsible.

“The Grassley-Graham memo establishes beyond any doubt that the FBI knowingly deceived the FISA court about the information it was presenting to them, lied to them about the fact that it was verified information, which it was not — which the law requires,” he said.

“And now we know that additional Clinton allies, including Sidney Blumenthal, were involved in the transmission of false information, unverified information to the FBI through State Department officials. Somebody’s going to have to go to prison,” he declared.

Watch:

Also on Tuesday, Grassley released a “much-less redacted” version of this week’s criminal referral — also known as memo 2.0 — of former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

On Monday, Grassley and Graham said that Steele compiled his anti-Trump dossier based on information provided him by a Hillary Clinton contact and Obama State Department official.

Investigative reporter Sara A. Carter noted further:

A new and highly redacted document released Monday by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveals that former British spy Christopher Steele, the man behind the unverified and controversial dossier, wrote an additional memo regarding alleged Russian collusion with President Donald Trump but that the information was largely based on information provided by allies of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

…[G]rassley sent a criminal referral regarding Steele’s involvement in the dossier to the Department of Justice referral January 4. The criminal referral confirms that allies of Clinton and the Obama administration were providing Steele with what they deemed damaging information on then candidate-elect Trump.

“One memorandum by Mr. Steele that was not published by Buzzfeed is dated October 19, 2016. The report alleges (redacted), as well as (redacted),” Memo 2.0 states. ”

FO-300x250-1

Mr. Steele’s memorandum states that his company ‘received this report from (redacted) U.S. State Department,’ that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was information that came from a foreign sub-source who ‘is in touch with (redacted) US State Department,’ that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was information that came from a sub-source who ‘is in touch with (redacted), a contact of (redacted) of (redacted) a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to (redacted).”

“I don’t take lightly making a referral for criminal investigation. But, as I would with any credible evidence of a crime unearthed in the course of our investigations, I feel obliged to pass that information along to the Justice Department for appropriate review,” Grassley said in a statement.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Report suggests FBI PAID Trump dossier author Steele’s travel expenses so he’d look like an ‘INFORMANT’ rather than a HACK for the DNC

(National SentinelPoliticized: Congressional investigators are poring over evidence in an effort to find out if the FBI paid Trump dossier author and former British spy Christopher Steele’s travel expenses to Washingon, D.C., and Rome so he would look more like an “informant” than an opposition researcher paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Steele, who was due in a London court earlier this week for a long-awaited deposition, was a no-show after his lawyers argued he should not have to sit for videotape sessions.

Steele is under fire again following the release of a redacted eight-page memo by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that was part of a criminal referral involving Steele to the Justice Department.

Steele and the dossier are key to the so-called “Russian collusion” investigation. Congress wants to the Obama FBI’s full role in its relationship with Steele. The four-page FISA memo last week said that the FBI cut its ties to Steele after agents discovered he was leaking info about his relationship with the bureau to the press.

The Grassley-Graham referral also said that Steele was paid $160,000 by Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that commissioned the dossier, which was ultimately financed by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

It also confirms that the FBI authorized payment to Steele as well.

Steele traveled to Washington D.C. in September of 2016 and met with reporters. One of the meetings was held in the office of the DNC’s general counsel. He also traveled to Rome in September of 2016 to meet with FBI officials.

Now, congressional investigators would like to know why the bureau agreed to pay Steele at all.

On Tuesday, Paul Sperry, an investigative reporter for the New York Post, tweeted that investigators were pursuing this “new line of inquiry.”

“BREAKING: Hill committees pursuing new line of inquiry into whether FBI offered to pay Steele in order to ‘clean him up’ before FISC as ‘paid informant’ vs hired Hillary hand. Looking at FBI reimbursement of Steele travel expenses to DC & Rome legat [sic] office. (Never went to Russia),” he tweeted.

In addition, according to Breitbart News, the Grassley-Graham memo indicates that Steele allegedly lied to the bureau about his contact with Yahoo News, while the FBI was not fully forthcoming with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to obtain a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign figure Carter Page.

“Then-FBI Director James Comey briefed Feinstein and Grassley in March 2017 and told them that the FBI had relied on the dossier “absent meaningful corroboration — and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation” because Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the FBI,” the site reported.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Nunes MISSILE: ‘Clear LINK’ between DEMOCRATS and Russia in 2016 election

(National SentinelRevealed: House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., made waves again on Tuesday after he stated the panel’s ongoing ‘Russian collusion’ investigation has established a “clear link” between Moscow and Democrats.

During an appearance on Fox News, Nunes made it clear that the link was part of a conspiracy to undermine and smear President Donald J. Trump with the assistance of Russian government operatives.

“We have a clear link to Russia — you have a campaign who hired a law firm, who hire Fusion GPS, who hired a foreign agent, who then got information from the Russians on the other campaign,” said Nunes.

“It seems like the counterintelligence investigation should have been opened up against the Hillary campaign when they got ahold of the dossier. But that didn’t happen, either.”

The Intel chairman also said that the FBI never informed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the manufactured “Trump dossier” the bureau used to get a surveillance warrant for one-time Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was, in fact, a political opposition research document, not a piece of intelligence.

And he said the bureau also never informed the FISC that the dossier was paid for by the Hillary campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Nunes also lamented the fact that the establishment media is essentially ignoring the revelations contained in his FISA memo and the further allegations being made against the Obama administration and the former president for their alleged roles in the scandal.

“I think the bigger problem, challenge here, is that the mainstream media is totally uninterested in this,” he said.

“Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot – and Donald Trump or George Bush or Karl Rove had paid for information and then George W Bush’s FBI had opened an investigation into the Obama campaign because they were talking to Russians – which, by the way, really did happen; the Obama campaign was talking to Russians back in 2008 – and open up a counterintelligence investigation using dirt dug up and paid for by RNC and George W. Bush supporters?” the chairman continued.

“This town would be on fire. Every reporter would be following around Karl Rove and George W. Bush all over town – yet it’s crickets from the media,” he noted.

“It’s embarrassing. It’s absolutely embarrassing, I’m almost flabbergasted. Because I thought at least there would be some ounce of credibility left, but there really is none.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Coming next: DOJ IG Horowitz’s YEAR-LONG investigation into FBI’s bungling of Hillary email case set to blow case wide open

(National SentinelBombshells: Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz is not well-known to most Americans, but in the coming weeks his name is liable to become much more familiar.

That’s because he is expected to wrap up an investigation that he’s been conducting quietly in the background regarding the FBI’s so-called investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails.

As reported by The Hill, Horowitz’s report is expected by the spring, and it could reignite the Clinton case and lead to further revelations regarding the scandalous nature in which the probe was allegedly conducted.

Already many Americans are familiar with previous reports noting that, for instance, then-FBI Director James Comey began preparing a statement exonerating Clinton months before the probe was completed and before she was ever interviewed. In fact, the bureau has already confirmed this.

What’s more, we know that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was aware that Comey would exonerate Clinton before she recused herself from the investigation after meeting former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Arizona.

And others believe the scandal deeply involves former President Obama. That includes former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova, who spoke about that last month with The Daily Caller:

Now, Horowitz’s report promises to provide even more evidence that the ‘fix was in’ to let the Democratic nominee for president in 2016 off the hook for what many experts — including Comey — saw as clear-cut violations of the Espionage Act.

As reported by The Hill:

A political appointee in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Horowitz’s yearlong investigation already reportedly contributed to the early resignation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. And his work has been felt in other ways.

Horowitz also uncovered a series of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that led special counsel Robert Mueller to remove Strzok from his team. Those texts have fueled accusations among GOP lawmakers that Mueller’s probe is tainted by partisanship.

Friends and associates of Horowitz describe him as fair-minded and independent.

“He is really one of the smartest and fairest people I have ever had the pleasure to work with,” said Bill Hamel, who served as assistant inspector general for investigations at the Department of Education. “He’s a straight shooter and a fair guy. He’s an honest broker.”

That said, no matter what Horowitz’s findings conclude, they are liable to be attacked by a hyper-partisan Congress, say observers.

More from The Hill:

It’s possible that both parties will get political ammunition from Horowitz’s report.

The inspector general is examining whether then-FBI Director James Comey broke FBI procedure with his public disclosures about the Clinton case, including the letter that he sent to Congress a few weeks before the election. Before Trump fired Comey, Democrats were outspoken in their criticism of those decisions, saying they violated procedure and cost Clinton the election.

But Horowitz is also looking into allegations that McCabe should have been recused from the investigation. Republicans, including Trump, have seized on reports that McCabe’s wife accepted campaign contributions from Clinton ally and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe when she ran for state office in Virginia, calling it a clear conflict of interest. 

Finally, Horowitz is also looking into unauthorized disclosures of information.

“There are a lot of legitimate questions that I hope would be answered by this inspector and that probably aren’t going to paint the DOJ or the FBI in a particularly good light,” Ron Hosko, a former official in the FBI’s criminal investigative division, told the paper.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

After FISA memo drops, now Gen. Flynn will seek to have ALL CHARGES against him DROPPED (Video)

(National SentinelClearing His Name: Former U.S. Army Lt. Gen. and national security advisor Michael Flynn’s lawyers are preparing to file papers in court seeking to have all charges against him dropped in light of revelations made in the just-released FISA memo.

That’s according to legendary political operative and current Infowars contributor Roger Stone, who made the stunning announcement on Monday in a video for the Alex Jones Channel on YouTube.

“Lawyers for General Mike Flynn will shortly file a motion to dismiss all the charges filed against him, based on reports now confirmed by The Hill, Circa News and Infowars, that Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe told a teleconference of law enforcement officials, ‘First we f*ck Flynn, then we f*ck Trump.'”

Stone’s claim comes amid earlier reports noting that special counsel Robert Mueller has requested a delay in Flynn’s sentencing.

“Due to the status of the Special Counsel’s investigation, the parties do not believe that this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time,” the special counsel asked the court last week.

Mueller’s office requested a 90-day extension.

Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, pleaded guilty to charges of lying to FBI agents. But some reports have suggested Flynn may have been set up and improperly interviewed by anti-Trump counterterrorism agent Peter Strzok.

Flynn reportedly did not have an attorney present when he was being questioned. Others have said that’s because since he was part of a new administration he assumed the FBI was sending agents over to brief him on current investigations, not to question him about Trump-Russia collusion allegations.

Watch Stone’s report, via the Alex Jones Channel:

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Left-wing HACK and former CIA official Phil Mudd threatens TRUMP on CNN: ‘We’re going to win!’

(National SentinelDeep State: Former CIA counterterrorism official Phil Mudd, now a contributor to CNN, told the network’s Wolf Blitzer Saturday that President Donald J. Trump’s decision to release the FISA memo was a mistake that is likely to cost him.

But cost him in what way, Mudd was less clear — except to essentially hurl yet another threat at the president.

“The workforce is going to look and this and say, this is an attack on our ability to conduct an investigation with integrity… The FBI people, I’m going to tell you, ‘are ticked’ and they’re going to be saying, I guarantee you, “You think you can push this off this?”… You better think again, Mr. President,” he said.

“You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win!” Mudd declared.

Infowars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson took Mudd to task on Twitter.

“This is the same idiot who last year said of Trump on CNN ‘the government’s gonna kill this guy,'” he tweeted.

As for dates, the FBI was founded on July 26, 1908, but the CIA — the organization Mudd belonged to — was founded after World War II, in September 1947.

As for the FISA memo, it documents serial abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Obama administration appointees to illicitly obtain a surveillance warrant so they could spy on Trump’s campaign.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

The OBAMA factor in the FISA memo scandal: AG Lynch signed off on ALL requests to spy on Team TRUMP; Prez likely BRIEFED about the spying

analysis
By J. D. Heyes, editor-in-chief

(National SentinelFISA Corruption: More information continues to be revealed and released following Friday’s publication of the scandal-filled FISA memo.

It has now become clear that there is a direct link from the FISA approval process to the former president of the United States, Barack Obama.

As ABC News reported:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courtcommonly referred to as the “FISA Court,” is a secret tribunal with legal authority to grant (or deny) warrants for electronic surveillance against would-be spies or terrorists.

The court — made up of 11 federal judges, serving 7-year terms and selected by the chief justice of the Supreme Court — meets in private, sometimes in the middle of the night. FISA targets are highly classified.

More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved.

The Obama administration said after President Donald J. Trump claimed he was “wiretapped” by his predecessor March 2017, “A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

But changes made to the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 — via the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (and renewed in December 2012) give presidents and the intelligence community much more latitude when it comes to surveillance of “foreign” persons.

As explained by Yale Law professor Jack Balkin in 2009:

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President – now President Obama – the authority to run surveillance programs similar in effect to the warrantless surveillance program [secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001]. That is because New FISA no longer requires individualized targets in all surveillance programs. Some programs may be ‘vacuum cleaner’ programs that listen to a great many different calls (and read a great many e-mails) without any requirement of a warrant directed at a particular person as long as no US person is directly targeted as the object of the program.

As the Brookings Institute noted in a policy paper arguing for the Trump administration to renew legislation reauthorizing Section 702 of the FISA Act, which clarifies warrant requirements of the Act, information gathered via FISA warrants “sometimes known as PRISM, comprises a large part of the President’s Daily Brief.” 

If you can believe that Obama’s attorney general — the one who spoke with the former president-husband of a suspect currently under investigation for Espionage Act violations (Hillary Clinton) — would not have informed the head of the Executive Branch that his intelligence community was spying on a rival presidential campaign, well, okay.

But then, that information very probably was included in the President’s Daily Intelligence Brief.

There’s more; Brookings’ policy paper arguing on behalf of maintaining Sect. 702 also noted this important distinction:

We often think about 702 as an NSA authority, but it is also to a significant degree an FBI authority. Thus, the person and the integrity of the FBI director is critically important to the integrity of the program.

We now know, thanks to the release of the FISA memo on Friday, that fired FBI Director James Comey was involved in approving the FISA warrants used to spy on Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page over his alleged “ties” to Russia (foreign intelligence targets). As Fox News reported, “The memo stated that then-FBI Director Comey signed three FISA applications for [Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter] Page and McCabe signed one.”

Comey has testified before Congress that he had no idea the so-called “Trump dossier” used as justification for the FISA spy warrant against Page was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — that it was a political, not intelligence, document. As House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said on Saturday, either Comey’s telling the truth or he’s lying — either way that’s a problem.

Given all of this, how likely is it that Obama — whose FBI director and AG were heavily involved in securing the FISA warrant (information included in daily presidential briefs) — really didn’t know that Trump’s campaign was under surveillance?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

 

Black writer/activist: Congressional Black Caucus’ behavior during SOTU address show they are ‘slaves to Democratic Party’

(National SentinelDisrespect: A young, black YouTube sensation and writer took to Twitter to voice her disgust at the way the Congressional Black Caucus behaved during President Donald J. Trump’s State of the Union address, comparing their lockstep Democratic Party allegiance to slavery.

Legacy Food Storage

Candace Owens, otherwise known as Red Pill Black, posted several tweets during and after Trump’s SOTU as the caucus showed what she described as blatant disrespect for Trump’s accomplishments on behalf of the black community, the Western Journal reported.

“Phew. Turns out it’s not just the triumphs of black people that Democrats hate; It’s America in general,” she began.

Owens continued her tweet storm, criticizing caucus members for remaining seated as Trump touted historic low unemployment figures for blacks and Hispanics, to a standing ovation from Republicans and others in the U.S. Capitol chamber.

She said that they would have stood in ovation had President Obama made the same announcement, claiming it proves they “are nothing more than slaves to the Democratic Party.”

“If Obama had announced that black unemployment was at an all time low, the black caucus would have leapt to their feet and erupted into cheers. Their silence last night proves that they do not hold black interests. They are nothing more than slaves to the Democratic Party,” she tweeted.

“For too long, blacks that have been trying to help the black community have been labeled coons, while those that wish to destroy it have been celebrated as heroes,” Owens added. “That chapter is coming to an end. BlackAmerica is on the brink of an ideological revolution. We can’t be stopped.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

FISA memo update: GOP will make case FBI probe of Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ based on TAINTED evidence

(National SentinelSpecial Counsel: Republicans plan to make the case following the release of the FISA memo that the FBI’s Russia “collusion” probe involving President Donald J. Trump and his campaign team is based on tainted evidence and thus should be ended.

As reported by John Solomon at The Hill, Republicans making that case are basing it on the contents of the as-yet-unreleased FISA memo, which purports to document Obama-era abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The allegations thus far are that some politically motivated officials within Obama’s FBI and Justice Department who did not want to see Trump as president misrepresented an unsubstantiated opposition research document paid for in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign as legitimate intelligence in order to obtain a surveillance warrant so they could spy on Team Trump.

“Another document — an eight-page criminal referral filed with the Justice Department by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — is also part of the GOP case,” Solomon reported.

While the FBI has been waging a public campaign to either halt the release of the memo or have it released in heavily redacted form, the bureau has been working behind the scenes to vet the Graham-Grassley memo, which is also expected to be released soon, in redacted form, Solomon reported, adding:

Republicans believe both documents will back up arguments that evidence used to justify the FBI’s probe came from partisans loyal to Clinton, sources said. They are also expected to play into arguments from some Republicans that special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia is based on false information.

GOP arguments that the FBI’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is based on flimsy, perhaps intentionally erroneous information, will focus primarily on the unsubstantiated “Trump dossier” compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, commissioned by Democrat-leaning opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and paid for by the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.

Reports have suggested that politically motivated officials within the FBI and DOJ used the dossier to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant so they could spy on a rival presidential campaign.

“They will argue the FBI failed to critically assess the political motives and credibility of Steele and did not fully disclose that evidence came from Clinton supporters as it sought to get permission from courts for surveillance warrants,” Solomon reported.

“The fact that half to three-quarters of the evidence the FBI used to unleash the most awesome of surveillance powers upon Donald Trump’s inner circle came from sources tied directly to his Democratic opponent should worry us all, especially when that happened during an election,” said one senior Republican directly familiar with the evidence, describing the party’s core concerns.

hacked-FO-300x250

“The FBI allowed itself to be used by Clinton partisans to parlay single-sourced, mostly unverified evidence into a counterintelligence probe with clear weaknesses that weren’t disclosed,” the source added.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Father of daughter murdered by MS-13 thugs BLASTS Democrats at SOTU for their DISRESPECT; ‘It hurt me ALOT’ (Video)

(National SentinelClassless: When Democrats showed President Donald J. Trump disrespect over his comments regarding illegal immigration at his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, they also disrespected the parents of two daughters who were murdered MS-13 gang members in the U.S. illegally.

FO-300x250-1

Brentwood, New York teenagers Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens, childhood friends, were both killed in September 2016, galvanizing their community and local law enforcement. The gang members chased the girls down and struck them repeatedly with baseball bats and a machete.

Their parents, Kayla and Nisa’s parents, Elizabeth Alvarado, Robert Mickens, Evelyn Rodriguez, and Freddy Cuevas, were invited by the president to sit alongside first lady Melania Trump during his SOTU address.

“On Tuesday night when the President honored the parents of Kayla and Nisa and the victims of illegal immigrant violence the Democrats groaned and sat on their hands,” The Gateway Pundit reported. “This was a shocking display – even for today’s Democrats.”

On Wednesday, Fox News host Laura Ingraham invited two of the parents, Elizabeth Alvarado, Robert Mickens, on her program to discuss what some Democrats in the chamber did as Trump honored both daughters while railing against illegal immigration.

“I thought it was very disrespectful,” Mickens said. “For the simple fact that the Democrats who were there and did not stand up, they were African-Americans.

“So that hurt me a lot… Regardless of how they feel about the president, they should show the respect, because I would show them the respect if that was their loved one,” he added.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?