Bongino: ‘Democrats covering up the BIGGEST political scandal in U.S. history;’ they have ‘NO credibility’ (Video)

(National SentinelCover-up: Former NYPD officer, U.S. Secret Service agent and current conservative talk host Dan Bongino on Saturday accused Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media of working overtime to hide the biggest political scandal in the country’s history — weaponized spying on the Trump campaign.

“Trust the department, not the president. So your reaction to how Democrats are reacting to the White House decision to say, hey, let’s make sure we are not releasing anything to compromise national security in this memo,” said Fox News‘ “Fox & Friends Weekend” co-host Pete Hegseth, in reference to President Donald J. Trump’s refusal on Friday to agree to the release of a memo authored by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee because it contained classified information.

The Democrat memo, authored by Ranking Member Adam Schiff of California, reportedly contained classified information.

“Pete, the Democrats have forfeited all credibility on this case. They haven’t told the truth from day one,” Bongino said.

“Pete, here’s what even more tragically amusing about the Democrats. They step — they lie so much they step on their own story. They told us before the release of the Nunes Republican memo oh my gosh sources and methods, it’s going to jeopardize national security,” he continued.

“Nobody should see this. Cover it up. Sweep it under the rug. Then the memo came out, ‘oh, this is a big nothing burger.’ This is a total dud. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. They have not told the truth from day one on this,” Bongino said.

“They have forfeited all their credibility. This is important. They are covering up what I believe to be the biggest scandal in modern political history. That is the spying on of the Trump team by the Obama Administration with no evidence to do so,” he said.

Bongino also noted that the campaign of Hillary Clinton essentially “bought” an FBI investigation of her opponent, President Donald J. Trump, adding to the level of scandal.

There is much more, here, per Fox News:

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

The Pentagon Papers vs. the FISA Memo: That nostalgic time when the ‘mainstream media’ really GAVE A DAMN about government transparency

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

(National SentinelPoliticization: Last month a new movie hit theaters around the country starring, among others, Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep called “The Post.”

The movie is about, according to, “a cover-up that spanned four U.S. Presidents [and] pushed the country’s first female newspaper publisher and a hard-driving editor to join an unprecedented battle between the press and the government.”

The film traces the Washington Post’s reporting on the “Pentagon Papers,” which were officially titled, “United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense.” The study, which was conducted in secret without informing President Lyndon Johnson, was commissioned in 1967 by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. The papers noted that the Johnson administration had systematically lied to the American people about its involvement in Vietnam.

Initially, the papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study; the existence of the papers was first reported in 1971 by The New York Times during the Nixon administration. The Times was threatened with legal action by the government and Ellsberg was charged with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property (charges that were later dismissed).

Soon after the Times report, the Post was given a copy of the Pentagon Papers by Ellsberg, who approached reporter Ben Bagdikian. He then brought the information to Post editor Ben Bradlee (played by Hanks in the film “The Post”). He subsequently informed the Post’s publisher, Kay Graham (played by Streep), and in short order, the decision was made to begin publishing a series of articles detailing the papers.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist — later U.S. Supreme Court chief justice — asked the Post to cease publication, but the paper’s management refused. Rehnquist then asked a federal court to block the paper from publishing any additional materials taken from the papers but the court refused; the government appealed the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 on June 30, 1971, against the government and for the Post (and a dozen or so other papers that had begun publishing portions of the Pentagon Papers).

At the time the information contained in the Pentagon Papers was truly explosive. The country was still fighting the Vietnam War, tens of thousands of U.S. service personnel had already been killed, and it grew deeply unpopular the longer it went on. Throw into that mix the late 1960s-early 1970s social upheaval on college campuses against the old traditional order, and the discovery that the government had lied the entire time about its involvement in Southeast Asia was devastating to the country.

And yet, journalists back then correctly decided that the American people had the right know they had been duped by their government.

Today, however, some of the same media outlets are siding with Democrats against the release of a report — against transparency — that promises to be equally damaging to the American psyche: The so-called FISA Memo, which purports to show Obama-era abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to manipulate judges with a bogus “Trump dossier” in order to secure a warrant so Hillary Clinton-aligned operatives within FBI and DOJ could spy on the Trump campaign.

Yesterday’s quest for government transparency from the Times, the Post and other legacy media outlets has transformed into partisan attacks and calls for outright secrecy these days because the “wrong” political party is about to be implicated in a massive abuse of government institutions and the people’s trust.

Just to show you the difference between today’s Democrats and Democrats at the time the Pentagon Papers were making headlines, former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, the lawmaker who introduced the Pentagon Papers to the public by entering them into the official Congressional Record, said Republicans will demonstrate “the height of cowardice” if they refuse to release the FISA memo.

My, how times have changed. If the Times, the Post, and a few other legacy media outlets were all that existed today, as was the case in 1971, Americans would never discover how badly they’ve been lied to — again — by their government. This is another reason to celebrate the independent media.

This story originally appeared at

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting: Docs show FBI more concerned about LEAKS than impropriety

(National SentinelScandal: Documents obtained by legal watchdog Judicial Watch indicate that James Comey’s FBI was more concerned that details of a controversial meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac in Arizona would leak than the appearance of impropriety.

The documents, the release of which the FBI stalled, appear to support allegations that the bureau wasn’t as concerned about the scandalous nature of the meeting as it was details about it would leak to the public.

“These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself,” said Judicial Watch chief Tom Fitton.

“The documents show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people. No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until Judicial Watch caught the agency red-handed hiding them,” he added.

“These new documents confirm the urgent need to reopen the Clinton email scandal and criminally investigate the resulting Obama FBI/DOJ sham investigation.”

At the time Bill Clinton met with Lynch, his wife and then-Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, was under criminal investigation by the FBI for mishandling classified emails through an unauthorized, secret personal email server she had set up in her New York state home.

The legal watchdog organization said that the documents also indicate that Comey seemed to learn of the meeting from news reports.

The group also said the documents about a leak that Bill Clinton intentionally delayed his plane from taking off so he could “maneuver” into a meeting with Lynch.

“The resulting story in the Observer is seemingly confirmed and causes a flurry of emails about the source of the article,” Judicial Watch said in a press release. “FBI official(s) write ‘we need to find that guy’ and that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted ‘in an attempt to stem any further damage.'”

Another FBI official who was with Lynch’s security detail suggested the implementation of non-disclosure agreements.

“The names of the emails [sic] authors are redacted,” the release stated. “There are no documents showing concern about the meeting itself.”

Several Republican members of Congress have questioned the veracity of Lynch’s claim that she and the former president only made small talk regarding family and golf.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Pressure building on Mueller to RECUSE himself from Trump probe after Uranium One fallout

(National SentinelRussia Hoax: New pressure is being put on special counsel Robert Mueller to recuse himself from his investigation of alleged “collusion” between President Donald J. Trump and the Russian government during last year’s election after it has been learned the FBI and Justice Department had been politicized under the Obama administration.

Mueller was director of the FBI when the bureau got wind of racketeering and bribery among Russian operatives and U.S. nuclear industry officials, as the Kremlin worked to secure additional uranium for itself.

But, according to reporting by The Hill, the FBI failed to pursue prosecution of the crimes and instead remained silent as the Obama administration approved the sale of Uranium One to Russia, and with it one-fifth of all strategy U.S. uranium.

In addition, the FBI had uncovered evidence that Russians and others with interests in the Uranium One sale were funneling money in the form of kickbacks, gratiuity and donations to Bill and Hillary Clinton while the latter was Barack Obama’s secretary of state and had a role in approving the sale. In all, reports noted that $145 million flowed into the Clinton Foundation.

As further noted by The Wall Street Journal:

For anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story.

The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy. More recently, if just one of two things is true—Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake intelligence prompted Mr. Comey’s email intervention—then Russian operations, via their impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot behold a mountain if there’s a molehill anywhere nearby.

Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.

There is much to still sort out and questions to be answered. But just based on what has been reported thus far — much of it leaked for what are no doubt also political reasons — indicates that Mueller should never have been appointed to look into anything having to do with Russia and potential ‘collusion.’

What are your thoughts?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Senate Judiciary Committee honing in on Obama ‘unmasking’ operatives

(National SentinelCorruption: During a closed hearing on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will attempt to get a few steps closer to fully understanding the Obama administration’s potential criminal “unmasking” of then-GOP presidential nominee and President-elect Donald J. Trump’s campaign and transition team.

As reported by the Washington Times, the panel will push for additional facts about the alleged unmasking which is serving as a counter-narrative to ongoing FBI and congressional investigations into insinuations that Team Trump had a nefarious relationship with Russia:

Former National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice, in addition to other top officials from the Obama administration, have come under suspicion during recent months amid accusations that they inappropriately “unmasked” requests to identify Trump associates caught up in clandestine surveillance of Russian operatives prior to and during the immediate aftermath of the November election.

While Republican lawmakers have during recent months led the charge for a deeper investigation into the unmasking allegations, it was a key Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who raised the issue during a public committee hearing on Tuesday, asserting that lawmakers hope to explore it more deeply with FBI officials during a secret hearing slated for Wednesday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, warned the FBI’s National Security Branch Executive Assistant Director, Carl Ghattas, that he specifically wants answers during Wednesday’s closed-door hearing about President Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who resigned over contacts with Russia.

“There is a specific allegation that has been floating around that the conversations between Michael Flynn and [Russian] Ambassador Kislyak came into the White House with Flynn masked,” Whitehouse told his fellow committee members. “And that a decision was made in the Obama White House to unmask him — which then led to leaks to the newspapers, and so forth.”

Flynn, a retired three-star Army general, once served as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. Ghattas serves as head of the FBI’s operations and intelligence efforts involving all national security matters.

Whitehouse says the panel needs a timeline of events and noted that if political motivations were behind Flynn’s unmasking and subsequent leaks to the media, “I think we can all agree that … is not a good thing.”

The Times noted further:

In March, Ms. Rice admitted to requesting the unmasking of the names of some Americans redacted in raw intelligence reports on the U.S. surveillance intercepts, but argued that the requests were well within her job duties as national security adviser and were in no way driven by political motivations to know which figures from the Trump campaign were being discussed.

In fact, Rice – as Obama’s national security advisor – was not a career intelligence operative but rather a political appointee, a functionary whose primary duties were to serve the president and his objectives. So there’s that.

But we may never know the truth, at least not in the short term. Rice’s records have all been transferred to the new Obama presidential library, where – by law – they can remain hidden for at least five years.

COVER UP: Did Susan Rice’s records get moved to the Obama prez library to avoid having them released to public?

(National SentinelCorruption: Efforts by a conservative legal watchdog group to obtain records pertaining to former National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s alleged efforts to unmask the names of Americans caught up in surveillance of foreign subjects — perhaps for political purposes — has been thwarted after they were handed over to the Barack Obama presidential library.

In a press release on its website, Judicial Watch said that it had filed a Freedom of Information Act request on April 4 with the National Security Council to obtain any records related to said unmasking. However, the group noted the NSC said in response that the request could not be fulfilled because those documents had been moved to Obama’s new library, where they will most likely remain sealed for at least five years.

The move has led many critics of the Obama administration to conclude that the records were purposely moved to prevent their timely release.

Judicial Watch noted that additional requests for documents on various related subjects would also not be met:

The agency also informed Judicial Watch that it would not turn over communications with any Intelligence Community member or agency concerning the alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election; the hacking of DNC computers; or the suspected communications between Russia and Trump campaign/transition officials.

“Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library,” the NSC told Judicial Watch in a letter dated May 23. “You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office.”

In all, Judicial Watch said it has filed a half-dozen FOIA lawsuits that are tied to the surveillance, unmasking and illegal leaks of information to the media that specifically targeted President Donald J. Trump and members of his administration. (RELATED: Obama admin spied on THOUSANDS of Americans in months leading up to 2016 election)

“The records sought in this request pertain to actions by the former National Security Advisor that demonstrate a much higher degree of independent authority than was contemplated by the court; specifically, the issuance of directives to the Intelligence Community related to the handling of classified national security information,” Judicial Watch said in a statement.

“The recent revelations of the role of Susan Rice in the unmasking the names of U.S. citizens identified in the course of intelligence collection activities and the potential that her actions contributed to the unauthorized disclosure of classified national security information are matters of great public interest,” the group added.

In late March, Fox News reported that a government source claimed a person “very high up” in the intelligence community was responsible for requesting that Trump associates be unmasked:

Intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now knows who is responsible — and that person is not in the FBI.

That report did not identify the person. But a few days later, independent investigative journalist Mike Cernovich reported exclusively that Rice had “been identified as the official who requesting the unmasking of incoming Trump officials,” so their identities could be spread around the various intelligence agencies, where they were certain to be leaked (which is precisely what happened).

Cernovich said the White House Counsel’s office is who identified Rice as the person who requested the unmasking; Rice has denied that she or the Obama White House ‘inappropriately’ unmasked Team Trump officials.

The first Team Trump member to be unmasked, and whose identity was then leaked to the media, was Trump’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn, regarding communications he had with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak Dec. 24.

Flynn resigned following publication of some details surrounding that communication, though not because he did anything illegal or improper, but because he misrepresented the conversation to Vice President Mike Pence.

This article originally appeared at