Saturday 8th of August 2020

the US government has acknowledged that the obama administration lied...

poot, dumb-dumb and obamoochpoot, dumb-dumb and obamooch

The case that Obama’s team concocted Russiagate in order to weaken Trump if Trump were to win the Presidency has just received an important admission. The Government has acknowledged that the Obama administration lied to the FISA Court in order to get permission to investigate Trump for possible collusion with Russia.

This information came from the DNC’s own lawyer, to the current U.S. Justice Department, in the case of United States of America v. Roger J. Stone Jr.

In response to Trump operative Roger Stone’s defense effort against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s charges, the “Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Unredacted Crowdstrike Reports” (available here – choose “txt” if you want to download it) acknowledges that [our emphasis]: 

On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. … [But,] According to counsel [from DNC — this comes from what the DNC has communicated to the U.S. Department of Justice and is now being made public in the “Government’s Response” to Stone’s filing], no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.” 

And, since all the rest, the unredacted information, likewise didn’t “concern the attribution of the attack to Russian actors” (as everyone now knows after reading the Mueller Report, because it admits this), the Obama Government actually had nothing that could be presented to the FISA Court without lying, in order for the Obama regime to be able to win that Court’s permission to investigate Trump as being a possible Russian agent.

In other words: Obama’s preparation, just in case Trump might defeat Hillary Clinton, included DNC-Clinton campaign fabrication of ‘evidence’ (via the DNC-hired CrowdStrike) to implicate Trump in treason with Russia, so as to get the FISA Court’s okay and then proceed to cripple Trump’s Presidency.

This was an internal U.S. Government war against then-candidate Trump, in order to cripple his Presidency, in the event that Trump might win — as he did.

However, can the previous President be brought up on any criminal charges at all for initiating an action to cripple his successor’s Presidency? 

This is a legal question with no precedent other than, perhaps, the Watergate burglary case that — irony of ironies — drove Roger Stone’s own friend and hero Richard Nixon out of office. Perhaps Obama was even worse than that President. (Also ironically, Obama tried even more mightily than Nixon did to empower international corporations as the coming dictatorial government of the entire world.)

Here is the full key paragraph in the Government’s just-released reply to Stone:

By May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”) became aware that their computer systems had been compromised by intrusions, and they hired the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to identify the extent of the intrusions and mitigate the threat. 

On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. See, Washington Post, “D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump”, June 14, 2016, available at

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. 1 Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. 2 At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

It, therefore, seems that if House Democrats initiate impeachment against Trump, he will initiate very serious criminal charges — perhaps even an extraordinary case of treason — against Obama, for concocting Russiagate against him. 

Consequently, one may reasonably infer that Pelosi and Trump have agreed that there will not be impeachment proceedings, and that there will also not be prosecution against Obama.

However, if Trump does get impeached, then there will be virtually a civil war between Republicans and Democrats, as both cases proceed. 

There is no impeachment by the House that would result in a Republican Senate’s replacement of Trump by Pence: defenestration of Trump. Trump would remain as President. 

Meanwhile, the case against Obama would be proceeding full force (because the House had impeached him), and the thorough corruption that rules the Democratic Party would then become exposed to the public. 

The formation of a new major U.S. political party could then become likelier than at any time since the Republicans replaced the Whigs in 1860. 

However, this time around, the cause wouldn’t be slavery, but instead the fact that, in today’s America, it’s only the billionaires who are in control over both Parties. 

In other words: the impetus for a third political Party to become financed by one or more billionaires would be the intolerable stranglehold that corruption — control of the Government by the billionaires — has over our country. 

We then would have two major political parties plus a third that would then serve as the kingmaker taking bids from each of the other two in order to determine which one to throw its support to. It would be the tie-breaker.

So, the kingmaker-party would be little more than another party controlled by billionaires. They would make deals to determine which one of the other two will rule the country. American ‘democracy’ wouldn’t be fundamentally affected, because it doesn’t exist anyway, except in our schoolbooks, ‘history’ books, ‘news’ reports, and the public speeches by politicians.

It’s all a fraud. And this is why the U.S. regime wants to get rid of people such as Julian Assange.


Read more:



Toon at top first published on this site by Gus Leonisky at 30 Dec 2016 - 1:29pm

blaming others for the mess...


he does not appear as sharp as he was then...

“This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years,” fretted Barack Obama’s man David Axelrod. “And he does not appear as sharp as he was then.”

That’s not to say Mueller did nothing for Democrats. He said President Trump was not “exculpated” by his report. He raised the specter of falsified documents and all but said that he punted on obstruction of justice only because a sitting president cannot be indicted under existing Justice Department guidelines. He gamely testified his investigation was no “witch hunt.” And some of his seeming confusion was likely strategic: he was trying to avoid giving partisans easy footage confirming their talking points.

But Democrats wanted much more. Ever since Attorney General William Barr released his summary, they have wanted to challenge his framing of the report. His testimony, like that 448-page document, contained plenty of damning information. The bottom line—that Mueller could not prove a Trump-Russia conspiracy to swing the 2016 presidential election and lacks a convincing explanation for his obstruction equivocation—remains unchanged.

While Democrats have not totally given up on “collusion,” moving the goalpostsaway from Hillary Clinton’s detailed explanation of how the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the election toward vaguer references to “contacts” and “foreign help,” obstruction of justice was the name of the game. Mueller acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump campaign with collusion-related crimes, even if he stopped short of calling that an exoneration of the president. Paul Manafort, George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Roger Stone—these were not criminal masterminds. In fact, they were all incredibly sloppy. If they had colluded, they all could easily have been charged.


Read more:



Read from top. Unfortunately/fortunately impeachment of Donald Trump would mean to expose the shenanigans of the Obama administration fabricating "evidence" and by SPYING ON TRUMP'S ELECTORAL TEAM, which of course was totally illegal.

a conspiracy of premature impeachment...


Any hope that the interrogation of prosecutor, Robert Mueller, would provide some closure to the endless spectacle of Russiagate was dashed. As long as Donald Trump is in power, the show must go on.

When Mueller, 74, was led into the lion’s den of the congressional coliseum on Wednesday to defend his 22-month, multi-million-dollar investigation from the slings and arrows of partisan power-brokers, the temptation to feel some pity for the man was surprisingly strong.

The former special counsel appeared frail, disheveled and, as many others have acknowledged, well past his prime. His demeanor resembled that of a powerful official who had just been yanked from bed at gunpoint to appear before a midnight military tribunal. The flimsy shield he hid behind when confronted with any serious question regarding his 448-page report was deference to “the ongoing investigation.”

The Republicans drew blood early. Jim Jordan, veteran House member and former wrestling champ, maneuvered Mueller into an inescapable lock-hold. Jordan pressed Mueller as to why the ‘witch hunt’ hauled away half a dozen Trump-connected cohorts to prison – including Roger Stone, a former adviser to the president, who was arrested in a crack-of-dawn FBI raid that was all-too conveniently filmed by a CNN camera crew – yet nobody affiliated with the Democratic Party suffered equally harsh measures.

Jordan reminded the mute Mueller that the FBI, with the blessing of the Democratic Party, had pulled off a historic first when they spied on two members of the Trump campaign, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. That brazen act of espionage should have been at the heart of Mueller’s probe, but strangely it went missing in action.

Here’s where things get really dark. In the course of the FBI’s undercover work, a mysterious Maltese professor by the name of Joseph Mifsud – who purportedly lied three times to investigators – passed along ‘secret information’ to Mr Papadopolous that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Papadopolous then informed a diplomat about the claim, which was then – thanks to the notoriously bad plumbing inside of the nation’s capital – leaked to the media. That single drop of fake news put into motion not only the bogus Steele dossier, complete with a bizarre reference to golden showers in Moscow, but the entire Russiagate hoax.

Jordan demanded to know why Mifsud, who was once photographed alongside Boris Johnson, the newly elected British prime minister, was not dragged in for questioning as were so many Republicans. Mueller’s silence on the matter was deafening.

There were other glorious moments for the Republicans in this made-for-TV reality show. Rep. Mike Turner, for example, resorted to props as he argued over a single word that appeared at the end of the Mueller Report: “exonerate.” The term was found in the very last sentence of the report: “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That controversial statement has attracted much ire from the Republican camp, not to mention Trump himself.

Turner, with law books piled high on his pulpit, together with a copy of the US Constitution, lectured Mueller that neither he nor the attorney general has any power to exonerate the president of the United States, since ‘exonerate’ is not a legally binding term. The inclusion of that word, Turner argued, “colored the report,” thereby allowing US news channels to run with the ‘breaking news’ that “Trump was not exonerated.” It was a very clever way of demonstrating how the mainstream media can frame a story according to its political bias, which is known to lean heavily liberal and Democrat.

Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, echoed those sentiments when he said “the Russia investigation was never about finding the truth. It’s always been a simple media operation… this operation continues in this room today.”

The Democrats, meanwhile, were also fixated with words, first and foremost ‘obstruction.’ Since they failed to nail Trump to the cross of collusion, their next best approach was to accuse him of preventing Mueller from carrying out his assigned duties, which is a federal offense.

When asked by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler if “the report did not conclude that [the president] did not commit obstruction of justice,” Mueller responded: “That is correct.”

It was obvious to everyone watching where Nadler’s line of inquiry was leading, and that was to the explosive I-word: impeachment. Yet no amount of coaxing and fawning by the Democrats could get Mueller to spit out the one word that has been the wet dream material of every liberal voter since the debacle of the 2016 presidential election. So now the Democrats, if they decide to press forward with impeachment proceedings, will have to do so without the solemn consent of Robert Mueller, a veteran Washington insider with considerable standing and influence in the swamp. That makes the idea of impeaching Trump downright risky to the point that it has reportedly unhinged the Democrats down the middle.

According to Politico, Nadler suggested that several House committee chairs could start “drafting articles of impeachment against Trump.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, called the idea “premature,” according to anonymous sources.


So now the Democrats find themselves in a very precarious situation as the United States prepares to enter what promises to be one of the most momentous, not to mention tempestuous, presidential election seasons of all time. If they proceed with impeachment proceedings against Trump, they risk alienating a large segment of their constituents, many of whom are suffering ‘probe fatigue’ and are anxious to turn the page.

At the same time, however, many high-ranking Democrats may feel they have no choice but to make a major effort to dislodge Trump from the Oval Office due to one nagging consideration: Attorney General William Barr is actively investigating the many players involved in the ‘Russiagate’ saga and what he may unearth – specifically as to who was responsible for launching the greatest conspiracy theory of modern times – has certainly got a lot of Democrats extremely concerned. 

If Barr discovers that there was no legal basis for spying on the Trump campaign, some very influential people may find themselves – like Roger Stone – the target of early morning FBI raids at the behest of a Republican inquest.  

What this means is that the Democrats, by pushing for the impeachment of Trump, are in reality engaging in their own form of obstruction of justice, and that is justice over their own possible crimes.

In other words, fasten your seat-belts and start the popcorn because ‘Russiagate’ is not over; in fact, it has only just begun.



Read more:


Read from top

running a secret counterintelligence operation against trump...

Newly-obtained documents reveal that the agency, while under James Comey's command, was running a secret counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 and repeatedly deceiving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), Fox News reported Monday.

The US-based broadcaster said that after a year of litigation, a US federal court issued an order that forced the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce the records also known as the “302 reports”. These documents are reportedly a summary of interviews that FBI agents conducted with Bruce Ohr, a top DOJ official.

In particular, the 302 reports note that the FBI and DOJ had been warned repeatedly by Ohr that ex-British spy Christopher Steele was biased against Trump, according to Fox News.

The FBI and DOJ ignored warnings of bias and actively concealed it from the FISC, never advising the judges that the information contained in the “dossier” was “unverified”.

According to Fox News, the FBI and the DOJ concealed from judges that the Steele investigation was funded by the 2016 Clinton election campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Fox News concluded, citing legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, that the 302 reports reveal that the FBI knew Steele's dossier was 'phony' from the start.

According to US-based media reports, Steele's dossier prompted the FBI’s Russia investigation, referred to in US media as Russiagate.

US Special Counsel Robert Mueller in April issued a final report on an investigation observing that the probe found no evidence of collusion between Trump and his campaign with Russian officials in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election. However, Mueller described ten instances that may constitute obstruction of justice by the US president and his campaign staff.

After reviewing the facts, US Attorney General William Barr concluded that Mueller's evidence failed to establish that Trump committed an obstruction of justice offense.

Trump repeatedly slammed the Mueller investigation as a political witch hunt. Russia has consistently denied claims of alleged interference in the US political system, saying the allegations were made up to excuse the election loss of Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton and deflect public attention from actual instances of election fraud and corruption.

Read more:



Read from top.