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?

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?

MASSIVE: The bogus ‘Trump dossier’ funded by Hillary’s campaign WAS used to obtain fraudulent FISA warrant to SPY on TEAM TRUMP

(National SentinelPoliticized: Members of the Obama Justice Department and FBI enforcement apparatus used a 35-page opposition research document paid for in part by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to obtain a counterintelligence surveillance warrant so they could spy on President Donald J. Trump’s campaign.

The so-called “Trump dossier,” commissioned by Washington, D.C.-based firm Fusion GPS and also paid for in part by the Democratic National Committee, contained highly charged allegations of Team Trump “collusion” with the Russian government during the election, but have yet to be publicly verified by the FBI or Justice Department — meaning use of the document to obtain a warrant from the secretive FISA court was done so under false pretenses.

As reported exclusively by investigative correspondent Sara Carter of Circa News, “The unverified dossier alleging connections between President Trump’s campaign and the Russians was used as evidence by the FBI to gain approval from a secret court to monitor members of Trump’s team.”

Much of the so-called ‘evidence’ contained in the dossier was gathered by former British spy Christopher Steele has either been discounted outright or is still unsubstantiated.

Nevertheless, Carter reported, the FBI under Obama “gained approval…to surveil members of Trump’s campaign and ‘it’s outrageous and clearly should be thoroughly investigated,’ said a senior law enforcement source, with knowledge of the process.”

Carter said multiple sources told her that the dossier was used, along with other evidence, to obtain the warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC.

Sources also stressed to her that in the coming week more information regarding systemic “FISA abuse” will be forthcoming.

Federal judges who serve on the FISA court meet in secret. They serve single seven year terms and do not have to have any particular knowledge of the U.S. Intelligence Community or intelligence functions. Their only ‘client’ is the U.S. government. They seldom turn down government agency requests for counterintelligence surveillance warrants because they don’t want to be seen as impediments to legitimate intelligence collection.

“(The dossier) certainly played a role in obtaining the warrant,” added another senior U.S. official, with knowledge of the dossier. “Congress needs to look at the FBI officials who were handling this case and see what, if anything, was verified in the dossier. I think an important question is whether the FBI payed anything to the source for the dossier.”

Carter said that on Wednesday, Fox News host Sean Hannity said that he has also independently verified that the dossier was improperly used to obtain the FISA surveillance warrant from three separate sources.

On Monday, The Daily Caller reported that the House Intelligence Committee had finally received all of the documents it subpoenaed last August pertaining to the Trump dossier from the FBI and Department of Justice.

In October, the Washington Post reported that Clinton and the DNC paid for a large portion of the dossier, which was initially opposition research but somewhere along the way became an ‘intelligence document.’

Fred Fleitz, vice president for Policy and Programs told One America News Network‘s Liz Wheeler in November that the dossier was something other than what has been portrayed.

“This was a foreign intelligence officer paid by the Democrats to work with the Russians to prepare a dossier to smear a presidential candidate from the other party,” he said, in reference to Steele.

“This is not ‘opposition research,’ and if they somehow got the FBI involved into investigating members of the other party…Liz, think what would have happened if Trump had did this,” Fleitz said.

Some have said if the FBI relied on the phony dossier to obtain a FISA warrant, that could have negative implications for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump-Russia collusion.

In July last year, the Washington Times reported that some Democrats widely circulated the dossier on Capitol Hill.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

NY Times in full COVER-UP mode to help DEMS save their ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ narrative as House closes in on FBI’s improper use of ‘dossier’

(National SentinelDeep State Corruption: A report over the New Year’s holiday weekend by The New York Times claiming that a once-minor figure in the presidential campaign of President Donald J. Trump is really responsible for the FBI’s counterintelligence probe of Team Trump is getting pushback from a former Justice Dept. prosecutor who says the story sounds like political cover for Democrats.

Andrew McCarthy, writing in National Review Online, said that the paper is attempting to save the “Trump-Russia collusion” narrative with “Collusion 2.0,” “in which it is George Papadopoulos — then a 28-year-old whose idea of résumé enhancement was to feign participation in the Model U.N. — who triggered the FBI’s massive probe by . . . wait for it . . . a night of boozy blather in London.”

The Times initially claimed in an April 2017 piece that former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page triggered the FBI’s counterintelligence probe after a June 2016 visit to Moscow. The FBI reportedly obtained a warrant from the secretive FISA court in order to launch surveillance of the entire Trump campaign a few months before the November 2016 election.

But, as McCarthy noted in his column, the change of narrative appears to be linked to ongoing revelations surrounding the now-infamous “Trump dossier,” a piece of opposition research commissioned by a Democrat-leaning firm, Fusion GPS, and paid for in large part by the campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

Republicans in Congress, and in particular House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes of California, increasing believe that the FBI used the dossier as a quasi-intelligence document to obtain the FISA warrant without ever the dossier’s salacious claims of espionage.

“[I]t turns out the Page angle and thus the collusion narrative itself is beset by an Obama-administration scandal: Slowly but surely, it has emerged that the Justice Department and FBI very likely targeted Page because of the Steele dossier, a Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed disguised as intelligence reporting,” McCarthy wrote.

“Increasingly, it appears that the Bureau failed to verify Steele’s allegations before the DOJ used some of them to bolster an application for a spying warrant from the FISA court.”

He’s not the only one who thinks so. House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said the same thing last month.

“The easiest way to clear it up is tell us what’s in that application and who took it there,” Jordan said in an interview following the committee’s attempt to get an answer to that question from senior FBI and Justice Department officials.

It is due to the persistence of Nunes and Republicans that the dossier story won’t go away, McCarthy said, prompting the need for Democrats and their allies in the media to craft another version of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, to deflect attention away from the possible misuse of the document.

McCarthy noted further:

First, we were led to believe the dossier was no big deal because the FBI would surely have corroborated any information before the DOJ fed it to a federal judge in a warrant application. Then, when the Clinton campaign’s role in commissioning the dossier came to light, we were told it was impertinent to ask about what the FBI did, if anything, to corroborate it since this could imperil intelligence methods and sources — and, besides, such questions were just a distraction from the all-important Mueller investigation (which the dossier had a hand in instigating and which, to date, has turned up no evidence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy).

Lately, the story has morphed into this: Well, even if the dossier was used, it was only used a little — there simply must have been lots of other evidence that Trump was in cahoots with Putin. But that’s not going to fly: Putting aside the dearth of collusion evidence after well over a year of aggressive investigation, the dossier is partisan propaganda. If it was not adequately corroborated by the FBI, and if the Justice Department, without disclosing its provenance to the court, nevertheless relied on any part of it in a FISA application, that is a major problem.

The Times assigned a half-dozen top reporters and a researcher to the Page story, the former federal prosecutor noted, which meant the paper gave the story top priority. He noted further that despite the effort the paper put into the story, which allegedly included information gleaned from several insider sources, “the name George Papadopoulos” never appeared in the report about Page.

“It is an explosive problem, this use of the dossier by the Obama Justice Department and the FBI in an application to the FISA court for authority to spy on Trump’s associates. Politically, it suggests that the collusion narrative peddled by Democrats and the media since Trump’s victory in the November election was substantially driven by partisan propaganda,” wrote McCarthy.

He also said there were legal implications for the misuse of the dossier.

“Legally, it raises the distinct possibilities that (a) the FBI did not adequately verify the claims in the dossier before using them in an application to the secret federal court; and (b) the Justice Department of the then-incumbent Democratic administration did not disclose to the court that the dossier was produced by the Democratic presidential campaign for use against the rival Republican candidate,” he wrote.

CNN reported in April 2017 that the FBI did indeed use the dossier to obtain the FISA warrant.

“[N]ow, with the Page foundation of the collusion narrative collapsing, and with the heat on over the Obama administration’s use of the dossier, it is apparently Papadopoulos to the rescue,” McCarthy wrote.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Rosenstein REFUSED to say whether FBI paid for infamous ‘Trump dossier’

(National SentinelNOversight: During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer a congressman’s direct question as to whether the FBI helped pay for the now-infamous “Trump dossier.”

In response to the question from Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., Rosenstein suggested he knew the answer but would not say for certain.

“Did the FBI pay for the dossier?” DeSantis asked.

“I’m not in a position to answer that question,” Rosenstein responded.

“Do you know the answer to the question?” the Republican DeSantis followed up.

“I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee…” Rosenstein began.

That led DeSantis to interject that his panel “had every right to the information” about payments related to the dossier, especially since the Judiciary Committee has oversight over the Department of Justice, which the FBI falls under.

Congressional Republicans have long sought information about who created and helped finance the dossier.

Earlier reports have noted that the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton helped finance at least some of it.

The dossier was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Earlier this year reports noted that “Steele and the FBI struck an informal agreement that he would be paid to continue his investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia,” The Daily Caller reported.

“It has been reported that Steele was never paid for his work, though the FBI and DOJ have not publicly disclosed those details.”

Earlier as well, CNN reported that Steele was compensated at least partially for his work investigating Trump.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Jarrett: Mueller’s ‘house of cards’ is collapsing as GOP pieces together scandal of Trump ‘collusion’ investigation (Video)

(National SentinelDeep State: Thursday evening Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett told “Hannity” host Sean Hannity that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between the campaign of President Donald J. Trump and the Russian government is rife with corruption and impropriety.


Noting that congressional Republicans are beginning to piece together what appears to be politically biased actions and behavior by several people associated with Mueller’s investigation, Jarrett said the special counsel’s ‘house of cards’ is beginning to collapse.

“Is the house of cards going to blow down?” host Hannity asked Jarrett.

“I think so. And it’s a shame,” he responded.

“Because there are so many highly qualified experienced lawyers who don’t have a political ax to grind that Robert Mueller could have selected. He did not do it. It was deliberate. It was by design. Instead he stacked it with people with egregious political biases,” Jarrett added.

Continuing, Jarrett noted that in one case, Mueller selected a lawyer for his probe who “defended the Hillary Clinton Foundation,” while another “defended her top IT aide” against charges of corruption.

“I mean, these are people who should be nowhere near this investigation of Clinton’s opponent, Trump,” he said.

Circa News investigative reporter Sara Carter, who also appeared on the program, noted further that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was cleared by the House Ethics Committee of charges that he improperly disclosed classified information, a charge Nunes said was politically motivated.


The probe took an unprecedented amount of time — eight months — to conduct, during which time Nunes, who was forced to recuse himself from the panel’s investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion, was taken out of the picture.

Carter said according to sources in Congress she spoke to, that has never happened before.

Watch the exchange here:

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Attorney Gregg Jarrett: ‘Mueller investigation illegitimate;’ FBI acting ‘like KGB’

(National SentinelSpecial Corruption: Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett told “Hannity” host Sean Hannity on Wednesday that he believes special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion is “illegitimate and corrupt,” and that certain elements within the FBI are behaving more like the old Soviet-era secret police.

“The Mueller investigation is illegitimate and corrupt and Mueller has been using the FBI as a political weapon,” he said.

“The FBI has become America’s secret police. Secret surveillance, wiretapping, intimidation, harassment and threats. It’s like the old KGB that comes for you in the dark of the night banging through your door,” Jarrett continued.

The lawyer and legal analyst talked about how the FBI went after former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, knocking his door down during a heavily armed early morning raid why he and his wife were in bed.

“The FBI is a shadow government now. It has become highly politicized. Peter Strzok is the perfect example of it and he led both the Hillary Clinton investigation and until recently the Mueller investigation. This is a guy who has corrupt political motives,” said Jarrett.

He also mentioned Andrew Weissmann, an anti-Trump lawyer on Mueller’s team who praised former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’ decision not to defend the president’s first travel ban.

Also, in recent days it’s been learned that Mueller’s former top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, was dismissed over the summer after exchanging anti-Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton messages with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

In the past Garrett and other critics of Mueller have also noted that the special counsel has filled his staff with attorneys who would appear to be natural political opponents of the president, with many of them having financially supported Democratic congressional candidates or the Clintons.

J. D. Heyes, editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel, also pointed out that the FBI was behaving more like the KGB in a Wednesday column for NewsTarget.

As evidenced by the level of corruption seen in the investigation and outing of former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, “the FBI has been transformed into the kind of political secret police force that used to terrorize Soviet citizens: The KGB.

“In addition to the FBI, the Office of Special Counsel and the Justice Department have also been shown to be utterly corrupt,” he added.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Former asst. FBI director says Mueller has ‘huge conflict of interest’

(National SentinelDeep State: A former assistant director of the FBI said Sunday that special counsel Robert Mueller has a “huge conflict of interest” in handling the investigation into the Trump administration’s alleged activities including obstruction of justice and Russian collusion.

“Bob Mueller should have never been offered nor accepted the job as special counsel as he has a huge conflict of interest,” said Jim Kallstrom in an interview with Breitbart News. “He should have recused himself.”

Kallstrom said that Mueller’s primary conflict is that part of his investigation is tied to fired FBI Director James Comey, who was let go by President Donald J. Trump reportedly for botching the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails.

It’s known in Washington circles that Mueller and Comey, once associates in the Justice Department, are also close or even best friends. Kallstrom said it is difficult to imagine how Mueller can maintain objectivity in that situation, especially when he has hired several lawyers who have contributed to or otherwise supported anti-Trump Democrats (including Clinton) in the past as part of his special counsel probe.

In addition, Kallstrom told Breitbart he sees potential legal problems for Mueller in terms of how investigators obtained some of their information and what constituted probable cause in order to get it.

“The Obama administration apparently, had the advantage of using electronic surveillance, collecting information on the Trump campaign,” Kallstrom said. “That collection, in my view, may be found to be unlawful.”

Should investigatory methods used by the Obama administration to put Trump’s campaign under surveillance prove to be dubious or even unlawful, Mueller would be put in the position of having to scrutinize a former close associate.

“If they used the phony dossier as the predicate for the FISA order they obtained, that could be a huge problem,” said Kallstrom. “If they knew the information was phony, that is a felony. If they did not know it was phony, they were incompetent.”

Congressional committees including the House and Senate intelligence committees are trying to determine if the FBI, under Comey, used the dossier to obtain a secret FISA court warrant for surveillance of Trump and his campaign officials.

Also, Republicans want to know if Comey’s FBI was paying or wanted to keep Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, on the FBI’s payroll, perhaps to continue gathering potentially damaging information on the Trump campaign and transition team.

“This whole matter with the dossier and the investigations that ensued, including FISA surveillance and the unmasking of hundreds of names, in my view, will prove to be violations of the rules set down by the Congress for unmasking, or worse, will be found to be violations of federal law,” Kallstrom noted.

“The Justice Department should find out if the FBI paid for this phony dossier and should inspect the affidavit that was given to the FISA court to determine the accuracy of their probable cause.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

WSJ to special counsel Robert Mueller: ‘Resign’

(National SentinelCompromised Investigator: The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal has called on special counsel Robert Mueller to resign from his investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election because he lacks the “critical distance” to analyze recent revelations about the FBI’s role in the story.

“It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years,” the Journal’s editorial board wrote. “He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.”

The editorial concerned revelations this week that suggest the FBI, under his directorship, had uncovered evidence in 2009 of Russian bribery and money laundering in the United States ahead of a decision in 2010 by the Obama White House to give approval of the partial sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Rosatom, a Russian energy firm with ties to the Kremlin.

The deal gave Moscow control over 20 percent of U.S. strategic uranium. At the time of the sale, Hillary Clinton — who had a role in approving it — was Obama’s secretary of state. Other reports noted that millions of dollars flowed to her and her husband Bill Clinton’s foundation, as well as the former president directly, from Russian and Canadian interests tied to the sale.

Breitbart News reported:

Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer broke the Uranium One scandal in his book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. He reported that Clinton’s State Department, along with other federal agencies, approved the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia and that nine foreign investors in the deal gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The controversy re-emerged last week after The Hill reported that the FBI uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering” to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009.

However, neither the FBI under Mueller nor the Justice Department told Congress — or the American people — about Russian operatives’ racketeering charges.

“The FBI also reportedly found evidence that Russian officials routed ‘millions of dollars’ to the U.S. to be funneled into the Clinton Foundation — at a time when Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state and served on the government body that approved the deal,” Breitbart noted.

And yet, Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — an Obama appointee — to investigate alleged collusion between President Donald J. Trump’s campaign and Russia.

WSJ editors are now that because of recent revelations, the FBI’s role in hiding what it knew about Russian operatives involved in the Uranium One deal should be investigated, but obviously, Mueller can’t do it because he was likely involved. He ran the FBI from 2001-2013.

Also at issue is the infamous Trump dossier, which the FBI may have used to justify obtaining a FISA warrant to put members of Trump’s campaign — and perhaps the president himself — under surveillance by a political rival at the height of a presidential campaign.

“The more troubling question is whether the FBI played a role, even if inadvertently, in assisting a Russian disinformation campaign. We know the agency possessed the dossier in 2016, and according to media reports it debated paying [dossier created Christopher Steele] to continue his work in the run-up to the election. This occurred while former FBI Director James Comey was ramping up his probe into supposed ties between the Trump campaign and Russians,” the WSJ noted.

“All of this also raises questions about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The Fusion news means the FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated—even as the FBI and Justice insist that Mr. Mueller’s probe prevents them from cooperating with Congressional investigators,” the paper said.

What are your thoughts?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Dossier proves there WAS Russian collusion in last year’s election — by Clinton

(National SentinelHouse of Cards: The creation of the now-infamous “Trump dossier” containing information fed to a former British spy by Russian operatives and the fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign helped pay for it means that indeed there was “Russian collusion” in last year’s election.

But it didn’t involve the campaign of GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, as Americans have been told now for more than a year, the Washington Times noted Friday.

The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS to create the dossier. The firm then contracted with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who assembled the dossier.

“The irony: Virtually all of Mr. Steele’s sources are Russian, meaning Democrats have been indirectly colluding with Moscow disinformation to bash the Trump team for purportedly doing the same thing,” the Times noted.

The dossier began making its rounds in Washington, D.C., and NYC political and media circles in June 2016, but none of its core collusion charges against Trump have been proven. What’s more, there hasn’t been any confirmation by public pronouncement or congressional leak from either of Congress’ two intelligence committees or from special counsel Robert Mueller validating those charges.

“That did not stop the Clinton campaign from attacking Mr. Trump,” the Times wrote. “Neither has it stopped congressional Democrats, especially members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, from reading the dossier’s sensational charges into the Congressional Record and on the network news. Based on the dossier, they publicly accused people of felonies while knowing the document remained unverified.”

“It also did not matter that the Democrats’ targets — Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and the president, to name a few — all called the dossier fiction,” the Times reported.

Or that veteran Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward called the document “garbage” or that former CIA acting Director Michael Morell said that the gossip contained in the dossier came from paid Kremlin figures who would say anything for a dollar.

Or that three people accused of crimes in the dossier have filed libel lawsuits.

“As reasonable, intelligent people have understood for some time, the ‘Dodgy Dossier’ was nothing more than a political stunt designed to undermine the Trump campaign and damage the ‘deplorable’ members of the Trump movement who supported it,” Mr. Page, who has filed a lawsuit, told The Washington Times.

The news site Buzzfeed, without substantiating anything in the dossier, published it in full. That site is also now being sued.

“If voters knew the truth in early November 2016, which they began to more fully understand this week regarding the actual interference in last year’s election, President Trump’s victory would have unquestionably exceeded 400 [votes] in the Electoral College,” said Mr. Page.

Nevertheless, Democrats and many in “the Left-wing press” continue to vouch for the dossier, “some to this day,” the Times noted.

What are your thoughts?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here


Congress looking into whether Obama DoJ used bogus ‘Trump dossier’ to obtain secret surveillance warrants

(National SentinelCorruption: Republicans in the House and Senate are trying to find out if the corrupt, politicized Obama Dept. of Justice took a bogus “dossier” on then-GOP presidential contender Donald J. Trump before a secret court in order to justify spying on the Trump campaign.

The Daily Caller reports that GOP leaders in both chambers want to know if the phony dossier was used as real “evidence” to obtain surveillance warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, which meets in secret and whose proceedings are not publicized:

The FBI used the dossier to secure permission to monitor the communications of Trump associate Carter Page, based on U.S. officials briefed on the Russia investigation, CNN reported in April.

The latest inquiries began Oct. 4, when the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence subpoenaed Fusion GPS, a political opposition research firm based in Washington, D.C., to appear before the committee and turn over bank documents. The committee is also seeking all Justice Department applications before the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, also called the FISA court, to determine if any of the applicants rely on information from the dossier.

On Oct. 4, Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked FBI Director Chris Wray if his agency, well before his arrival as its head, may have improperly presented the dossier before the FISA court. At the time, FBI Director James Comey presided over the bureau and Attorney General Loretta Lynch oversaw the Justice Department.

Behind the dossier’s creation was Fusion GPS, a Democrat-aligned opposition research firm that hired ex-British spy Christopher Steele to gather data on Team Trump. The resultant 35-page dossier was full of salacious and outrageous claims, none of which have ever been substantiated.

In fact, Steele himself has said none of the data can be verified.

Politicizing the FBI, Justice Department, State Department and other federal agencies charged with federal law enforcement and intelligence-gathering to this extent is unprecedented in the modern era and is a huge scandal that, of course, the so-called “mainstream” media is ignoring because…Obama.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

House Intel Committee steps up probe of Obama-era unmasking, Dem-aligned Fusion GPS

(National SentinelObama Corruption: The House Intelligence Committee is ramping up its investigation into the “unmasking” and publicization of officials tied to President Donald J. Trump’s campaign who were incidentally surveilled in meetings with foreign officials, reports The Daily Caller.

In addition, the panel is diving deeper into the actions of Fusion GPS, the Democrat-aligned opposition research firm based in Washington, D.C., that produced the bogus “Trump dossier” that has long since been debunked.


Over the next two weeks the House committee is expected to privately interview former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, who reportedly unmasked or identified as many as 260 Americans, primarily Trump campaign or transition officials.

Power was so aggressive in her efforts to unmask Trump aides, she asked U.S intelligence officials on nearly a daily basis to “unmask” or identify Trump officials who had passing contacts with foreign officials, according to a Fox News report on Sept. 20.

Power was trying to compile the information on behalf of other Obama intelligence officials, former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova told TheDCNF. “Her aggressive use of unmasking requests sends a very, very suspicious signal that she was working hand in glove with somebody to get information,” he said.

The committee previously subpoenaed documents from Power, but the former Obama ambassador has voluntarily agreed to testify in private, according to congressional officials with knowledge of the committee’s activities.

The committee is also preparing to introduce a proposed “legislative fix” within the next few weeks to ban or extremely limit future unmasking of American citizens, the congressional officials said.

Beginning 2011, Obama loosened the rules to make it easier for intelligence officials and his own political aides to request that the names be unmasked so they could better understand raw intelligence being gathered overseas, The Hill reported. The change has been criticized by liberal groups like the ACLU and conservatives like Nunes because of the privacy implications.

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, wrote Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats earlier this year that he believed Obama administration officials were improperly unmasking Trump campaign officials.


“We have found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information,” he said in his letter.

This is the biggest political scandal — no, really — since Watergate, but you couldn’t tell that because the disgustingly biased establishment media is burying it because it involves their Democratic allies and demi-god Obama.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Roger Stone releases statement ahead of his congressional appearance, says many members have made ‘false, irresponsible’ claims

(National SentinelWitch Hunt: Roger Stone, a longtime political advisor to President Donald J. Trump, has released his opening statement ahead of his scheduled appearance before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, claiming that a number of comments made by Democrats on the panel are “false” and “irresponsible.”

As reported by The Daily Caller, which received the statement from Stone, the committee is one of the congressional panels investigating alleged collusion between Team Trump and “the Russians” during last year’s election.

“I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, the Trump Campaign and the Russian state,” he wrote.

“I view this as a political proceeding because a number of members of this Committee have made irresponsible, indisputably, and provably false statements in order to create the impression of collusion with the Russian state without any evidence that would hold up in a US court of law or the court of public opinion.”

Stone, a famed political operator known as a “dirty trickster,” went onto note, “There is one ‘trick’ that is not in my bag and that is treason.”

The statement also includes rebuttals to specific committee members, especially Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. During one hearing, Schiff asked, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that [his] private emails would be exposed?”

Stone never made such a prediction, however, tweeting only, “Trust me, it will soon be the Podesta’s time in the barrel.”

“Note, that my Tweet of August 21, 2016, makes no mention, whatsoever, of Mr. Podesta’s email, but does accurately predict that the Podesta brothers’ business activities in Russia with the oligarchs around Putin, their uranium deal, their bank deal, and their Gazprom deal, would come under public scrutiny,” Stone says in the statement. “Podesta’s activities were later reported by media outlets as diverse as the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg.”

Yahoo News columnist Michael Isikoff noted further:

Then, just a few days before the WikiLeaks release of Podesta’s emails on Oct. 7, Stone tweeted:

“Wednesday@HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.”

That was followed on Oct. 3 by this: “I have total confidence that @WikiLeaks and my hero Julian Assange will educate the American people soon.”

Then, on Oct. 5, Stone tweeted: “Libs thinking Assange will stand down are wishful thinking. Payload coming.”


When Isikoff tried the “gotcha” question — ‘How did you know, Roger?’ — Stone said he learned it from a journalist who is close to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

“I ask a friend who is a journalist who I know is — has interviewed Assange, has a relationship with him,” Stone said. “And he comes back and says, ‘Yes. It’s confirmed. They have this material. And they’ll probably release it in October,’ which is what I said,” Stone responded.

U.S. intelligence agencies may have strong evidence that Russia attempted to influence the last election, but: 1) Russia has regularly attempted to influence American elections dating back to the Cold War; and 2) There is no evidence whatsoever of Team Trump-Russia “collusion,” and even U.S. intelligence officials and some Democrats have admitted that.

Update: Stone, during his opening statement, called the Intel Committee “cowards” for refusing to have an open hearing.

Now however, you deny me the opportunity to respond to these charges in the same open forum. This is cowardice.”

“What is it you fear? Why do you oppose transparency? What is it you don’t want the public to know?” Stone asks. “I can assure each of you, I will not let myself be a punching bag for people with ill intentions or political motives.”

Like all cockroaches, Roger, they fear the light of day.

Insert LOL emoji here –> 

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Sharyl Attkisson roasts legacy media for doing its best to ignore Obama’s weaponization of intelligence agencies

(National SentinelCorrupt Media: As an ace investigative reporter for CBS News, Sharyl Attkisson got too close too often to the truth of just how corrupt the Obama administration (including the president) really was, and for that, she was targeted by a U.S. intelligence apparatus that Obama “weaponized” to quell opposition.

And the U.S. legacy media did its best to look the other way. And still is

In a new critique of the legacy media of which she used to be a part, she says they are “diving deeply into minutiae” to avoid recognizing and accurately reporting what President Donald J. Trump alleged in March: That yes, members of his campaign were “wire tapped,” and likely so for political, not national security, reasons.

As The Washington Times reports:

Ms. Attkisson has warned of the weaponization of intelligence agencies since her laptop for CBS News stories was hacked on multiple occasions in 2013. An op-ed she wrote for The Hill on Wednesday presented an extensive case that U.S. intelligence agencies under former President Barack Obama were manipulated for political purposes — and that pundits are willfully ignoring it.

She highlighted reports that the FBI did monitor the communications of Mr. Trump’s then campaign head Paul Manafort prior to the 2016 election, along with what seems to be at least six associates.

“Officials involved in the surveillance and unmasking of U.S. citizens have said their actions were legal and not politically motivated. […] But look at the patterns,” Ms. Attkisson wrote in a piece for The Hill. “It seems that government monitoring of journalists, members of Congress and political enemies — under multiple administrations — has become more common than anyone would have imagined two decades ago. Those deflecting with minutiae are missing the point. To me, they sound like the ones who aren’t thinking.”

Attkisson, who now hosts Sinclair Media’s Sunday TV program “Full Measure,” observed:

  • Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates acknowledged the secret review of communications of political figures under Obama.
  • Mr. Clapper “falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting ‘any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.’”
  • “The government subsequently got caught monitoring journalists at Fox News, The Associated Press, and, as I allege in a federal lawsuit, my computers while I worked as an investigative correspondent at CBS News.”

She also said that her lawsuit continues to produce evidence that her cyberattack, which involved the deep planting of some sensitive documents she would have been arrested for possessing, was not a “random event.”

“Then, as now, instead of getting the bigger story, some in the news media and quasi-news media published false and misleading narratives pushed by government interests,” she wrote. “They implied the computer intrusions were the stuff of vivid imagination, conveniently dismissed forensic evidence from three independent examinations that they didn’t review. All seemed happy enough to let news of the government’s alleged unlawful behavior fade away, rather than get to the bottom of it.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Don’t look now, but former DNI James Clapper may be lying – again – over Team Trump wiretap order

(National SentinelDeep State: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, a known liar who has given false testimony to Congress and should have been charged for that crime, may be, um, bending the truth once again regarding the well-established fact that the Obama administration was “wire tapping” Team Trump.

As reported by The Daily Caller, in an interview with CNN‘s Don Lemon last night, Clapper, now a network contributor to the Fake News Network, was asked whether he knew about the FISA warrant authorizing the FBI and who knows who else to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

“Did you know about a FISA warrant against Paul Manafort at the time?” Lemon asked.

“I did not,” Clapper replied.

Really, Jim? Because a couple of months back, you said something completely different.

As The Daily Caller reminds all of us:

In a March 5 interview on “Meet the Press,” Clapper said that he would have been aware of a FISA warrant on a member of the Trump campaign, even one granted to the FBI. And asked if such a warrant had been obtained, Clapper directly denied it.

“There was no such wire tap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign,” Clapper told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd.

Asked by Todd if he would have been aware of a FISA order issued for someone affiliated with the Trump campaign, Clapper said “absolutely.”

Clapper unequivocally denied that a wiretap order was granted.

Which is it, Mr. Clapper? You knew and would know, or you didn’t and couldn’t know? After all, you were the director of national intelligence.

You don’t have to respond; we already know the answer.

Day by day, as Trump’s tenure in office grows, we are reminded just how deep, wide, and disgustingly nasty the Washington swamp we sent the president to drain really is.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here