Robert Mueller’s Questionable Past

Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Trump, was born, bred, and married into deep state spy families. As S. T. Patrick points out, “some of the more interesting reasons” to question Mueller’s current role may be historical, involving his or his family members’ role in deep state events from the Bay of Pigs, JFK assassination, and Pan Am Flight 103 to 9/11’s Dancing Israelis, the Israeli “art students,” and many others. 

By S. T. Patrick

Robert Mueller is the special counsel tasked with investigating potential Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This appointment has also given Mueller significant leeway in exploring any possible links between the Trump campaign and the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Much has been written about Mueller’s conduct, as well as his methods, but some of the more interesting reasons for questioning Mueller’s role may be historical.

Mueller was born into and then married into a family with high-level ties to covert CIA operations.

Since 1966, Mueller has been married to Ann Cabell Standish. The Cabell family includes Charles Cabell, the deputy director of the CIA under Allen Dulles. As part of the fallout of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Cabell was forced to resign by President John F. Kennedy in January 1962. His brother, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas in 1963 where and when Kennedy was assassinated. The 2017 JFK document releases have also proven that Mayor Cabell was a CIA asset.

Kingdom Identity

Mueller, himself, is a relative of Richard Bissell, the CIA’s director of plans at the time when it utilized the U-2 spy plane, formed closer ties to the mafia, planned assassination plots against Castro, and directed the Bay of Pigs invasion.

During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush, Mueller supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs Volume, Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy.* Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain. Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when U.S.  intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Rogue Spooks, by Dick Morris
Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War on Donald Trump, is available from the AFP Online Store in print and audio versions.

In 1995, Mueller worked under Eric Holder as the senior litigator in the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney’s Office. When Holder was appointed to the position of deputy attorney general under Janet Reno in 1997, he urged President Bill Clinton to make Mueller the U.S. attorney for San Francisco.

As the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California in 2000, Mueller “strongly opposed” Patty Hearst’s application for a presidential pardon. Mueller wrote, “The attitude of Hearst has always been that she is a person above the law and that, based on her wealth and social position, she is not accountable for her conduct, despite the jury’s verdict.”

As author Brad Schreiber noted in Revolution’s End, the 1974 kidnapping of Hearst was an eventual effect of the CIA-created Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). By vehemently arguing that Hearst was responsible for her association with the SLA—rather than being a victim in a FBI Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) operation gone haywire—Mueller protected the FBI from bearing any responsibility for the SLA’s origin or actions.

Shortly after his inauguration, President George W. Bush chose Mueller to head the FBI. As news organizations were vetting Mueller in 2001, The New York Times stumbled upon former associates who remembered Mueller’s reactions to critics who had questioned the FBI’s actions at Ruby Ridge. During an 11-day siege, officers of the U.S. Marshals and FBI killed Randy Weaver’s wife and 14-year-old son.

“Associates recall his anger at members of Congress and others for criticism of the FBI’s 1992 siege of a separatist family at Ruby Ridge in Idaho,” reported Neil A. Lewis. The New York Times further reported the popularity Mueller garnered from officers at both the FBI and the IRS.

Mueller was at the helm of the FBI on Sept. 11, 2001. Many independent researchers have questioned Mueller’s handling of the “five dancing Israelis” who worked for Urban Moving Systems. Callers to the FBI office in New Jersey reported five dancing Middle Eastern men watching and celebrating in clear view as the World Trade Center was destroyed. The Forward, a Jewish weekly publication, later reported that the FBI concluded that at least two of the five Israelis were Mossad agents. It was also concluded that Urban Moving Systems was a Mossad front operation. Unfathomably, the Israeli agents were quietly released from detention.

Also downplayed was the story of the Israelis who claimed to be capitalistic art students. They were traveling the country in hopes of hawking their questionably artistic wares at top-secret facilities and at the homes of those who worked at sensitive security locations. Though the “students” had been reported by the U.S. Marshals, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Air Force, the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the FBI itself, the issue was largely ignored in the FBI’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission and by Mueller himself.

Mueller’s history goes deeper than partisanship or personal grudges. He is the consummate establishment insider, a role into which he was born and then married. His résumé has been built upon pleasing those whose career trajectories, family histories, and loyalty to the deep state guide their assignments, associations, and maneuvers. Any hope that Mueller will conduct an impartial investigation of the Trump campaign staff seems whimsical, at best.

The apparent tactics of Mueller’s office seemingly reside in the faulty “There’s the man. . . . Now go find the crime” strategy. If there is fault, it will lie at the feet of individuals, not institutions. This is Mueller’s history and the modus operandi of a career insider who has flourished protecting the interests of his most loyal allies.

*Victor Thorn’s Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs Volume—Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy is available from the AFP Online Store for $30. Order online or send cash, check, or money order to AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Ave., Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, Md. 20774. To order by credit card or cryptocurrency, call 888-699-6397, Mon.-Thu. 9-5.

S. T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent ten years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.




Is That Russia Troll Farm an Act of War?

President Trump says Russians are laughing at the “revelations” from Mueller’s investigation that a Russian “troll farm” used social media to influence the 2016 election–through never in support of Hillary Clinton. Yet Democrats are screaming these shenanigans are the “equivalent of Pearl Harbor.” Never mind that U.S. intelligence continues to do what it wants to influence other countries’ elections “in support of democracy.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

According to the indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Russian trolls, operating out of St. Petersburg, took American identities on social media and became players in our 2016 election.

On divisive racial and religious issues, the trolls took both sides. In the presidential election, the trolls favored Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Donald Trump, and almost never Hillary Clinton.

One imaginative Russian troll urged Trumpsters to dress up a female volunteer in an orange prison jump suit, put her in a cage on a flatbed truck, then append the slogan, “Lock Her Up!”

How grave a matter is this?

This Russian troll farm is “the equivalent (of) Pearl Harbor,” says Cong. Jerrold Nadler, who would head up the House Judiciary Committee, handling any impeachment, if Democrats retake the House.

When MSNBC’s Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians “are destroying our democratic process.” While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence, said Nadler, in its “seriousness, it is very much on a par” with Japan’s surprise attack.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

Trump’s reaction to the hysteria that broke out after the Russian indictments: “They are laughing their (expletives) off in Moscow.

According to Sunday’s Washington Post, the troll story is old news in Russia, where reporters uncovered it last year and it was no big deal.

While Mueller’s indictments confirm that Russians meddled in the U.S. election, what explains the shock and the fear for “our democracy”?

Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election? Is this generation ignorant of its own history?

Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels of American culture and government.

The Hollywood Ten, who went to prison for contempt of Congress, were secret members of a Communist Party that, directed from Moscow, controlled the Progressive Party in Philadelphia in 1948 that nominated former Vice President Henry Wallace to run against Harry Truman.

Soviet spies infiltrated the U.S. atom bomb project and shortened the time Stalin needed to explode a Soviet bomb in 1949.

As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike?

Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland of State egged on the Maidan Square crowds in Kiev that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. When the democratically elected regime of Mohammed Morsi was overthrown, the U.S. readily accepted the coup as a victory for our side and continued aid to Egypt as tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members were imprisoned.

Are the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy under orders not to try to influence the outcome of elections in nations in whose ruling regimes we believe we have a stake?

 

“Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries’ elections?” Laura Ingraham asked former CIA Director James Woolsey this weekend.

With a grin, Woolsey replied, “Oh, probably.”

“We don’t do that anymore though?” Ingraham interrupted. “We don’t mess around in other people’s elections, Jim?”

“Well,” Woolsey said with a smile. “Only for a very good cause.”

Indeed, what is the National Endowment for Democracy all about, if not aiding the pro-American side in foreign nations and their elections?

Did America have no active role in the “color-coded revolutions” that have changed regimes from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?

When Republicans discuss Iran on Capitol Hill, the phrase “regime change” is frequently heard. When the “Green Revolution” took to the streets of Tehran to protest massively the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, Republicans denounced President Obama for not intervening more energetically to alter the outcome.

When China, Russia, and Egypt expel NGOs, are their suspicions that some have been seeded with U.S. agents merely marks of paranoia?

The U.S. role in the overthrow of Premier Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, and of President Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon in 1963 are established facts.

When the democratically elected Marxist Salvador Allende was overthrown in Chile in 1973, and committed suicide with an AK-47 given to him by Fidel Castro, the Nixon White House may have had no direct role. But the White House welcomed the ascendancy of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to produce evidence of collusion.

Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele, paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin agents to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the candidacy of Donald Trump. And the FBI used this disinformation to get FISA Court warrants to surveil and wiretap the Trump campaign.

Why is this conspiracy and collusion with Russians less worthy of Mueller’s attention than a troll farm in St. Petersburg?

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Nunes Duels the Deep State

Given the assorted cover-ups, lies, omissions, obfuscations, and now demotions and firings at the FBI, is it any wonder Americans have quit trusting the bureau . . . and pretty much every other political entity in the country? 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

That memo worked up in the Intel Committee of Chairman Devin Nunes may not have sunk the Mueller investigation, but from the sound of the secondary explosions, this torpedo was no dud.

The critical charge:

To persuade a FISA court to issue a warrant to spy on Trump aide Carter Page, the FBI relied on a dossier produced by a Trump-hating British spy, who was using old Kremlin contacts, while being paid to dig up dirt on Donald Trump by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Not only were the Clinton campaign and DNC paying the spy, Christopher Steele, for his dirt-diving, the FBI put Steele on its own payroll, until they caught him lying about leaking to the media.

In their requests for search warrants, the FBI never told the FISA court judge their primary source was a 35-page dossier delivered by Steele that their own Director James Comey described as “salacious and unverified.”

IRS Loses Cases

From the Nunes memo, there was, at the highest level of the FBI, a cabal determined to derail Trump and elect Clinton. Heading the cabal was Comey, who made the call to exonerate Hillary of criminal charges for imperiling national security secrets, even before his own FBI investigation was concluded.

Assisting Comey was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, running for a Virginia state senate seat, received a windfall of $467,000 in contributions from Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Last week, McCabe was discharged from the FBI. Seems that in late September 2016, he learned from his New York field office that it was sitting on a trove of emails between Anthony Weiner and his wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, which potentially contained security secrets.

Not until late October did Comey inform Congress of what deputy McCabe had known a month earlier.

Other FBI plotters were Peter Strzok, chief investigator in both the Clinton email server scandal and Russiagate, and his FBI girlfriend, Lisa Page. Both were ousted from the Mueller investigation when their anti-Trump bias and behavior were exposed last summer.

Filling out the starting five was Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general under Loretta Lynch. In 2016, Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the oppo research arm of the Clinton campaign, and Bruce was in direct contact with Steele.

Now, virtually all of this went down before Robert Mueller was named special counsel. But the poisoned roots of the Russiagate investigation and the bristling hostility of the investigators to Trump must cast a cloud of suspicion over whatever charges Mueller will bring.

Now another head may be about to fall, that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

If Mueller has given up trying to prove Trump collusion with the Kremlin and moved on to obstruction of justice charges, Rosenstein moves into the crosshairs.
For the heart of any obstruction scenario is Trump’s firing of James Comey and his boasting about why he did it.

But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify what the president had decided to do.
How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller’s investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in the firing of James Comey?

The Roman poet Juvenal’s question comes to mind. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?

Consider where we are. Mueller is investigating alleged Trump collusion with Russia, and the White House is all lawyered up.

The House intel committee is investigating Clinton-FBI collusion to defeat Trump and break his presidency. FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz is looking into whether the fix was in to give Hillary a pass in the probe of her email server.

Comey has been fired, his deputy McCabe removed, his chief investigator Strzok ousted by Mueller for bigoted anti-Trump behavior, alongside his FBI paramour, Page. Bruce Ohr has been demoted for colluding with Steele, who was caught lying to the FBI and fired, and for his wife’s role in Fusion GPS, which was being paid to dig up dirt on Trump for Clinton’s campaign.

If Americans are losing confidence in the FBI, whose fault is that? Is there not evidence that a hubristic cadre at the apex of the FBI — Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them — decided the Republic must be saved from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?

To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Bookstore.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



In a Trump Hunt, Beware the Perjury Trap

Robert Mueller is on a “Trump hunt,” says Pat Buchanan, and the president’s legal team should not allow him to testify in what has become an obvious “perjury trap.”
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Asked if he would agree to be interviewed by Robert Mueller’s team, President Donald Trump told the White House press corps, “I would love to do it . . . as soon as possible. . . . under oath, absolutely.”

On hearing this, the special counsel’s office must have looked like the Eagles’ locker room after the 38-7 rout of the Vikings put them in the Super Bowl.

If the president’s legal team lets Trump sit for hours answering Mueller’s agents, they should be disbarred for malpractice.

For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a “witch hunt.” It is a Trump hunt.

After 18 months investigating Trumpian “collusion” with Putin’s Russia in hacking the DNC’s and John Podesta’s emails, the FBI has hit a stone wall. Failing to get Trump for collusion, the fallback position is to charge him with obstruction of justice. As a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the tactic is understandable.

Mueller’s problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction case, Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.

IRS Loses Cases

Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets.

The first draft of Comey’s statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses, and Hillary, were even interviewed.

Comey’s initial draft charged Clinton with “gross negligence,” the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent drafts to read, “extreme carelessness.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.

Also edited out of Comey’s statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the public did.

A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, “What did you know, sir, and when did you know it?”

More information has also been unearthed about FBI collusion with British spy Christopher Steele, who worked up—for Fusion GPS, the dirt-divers of the Clinton campaign—the Steele dossier detailing Trump’s ties to Russia and alleged frolics with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.

Books from Pat BuchananWhile the Steele dossier was shopped around town to the media, which, unable to substantiate its lurid and sensational charges, declined to publish them, Comey’s FBI went all in.

Not only did the Steele dossier apparently trigger a wider FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, it served as the basis of FBI requests for FISA court warrants to put on Trump the kind of full-court press J. Edgar Hoover put on Dr. King for the Kennedys and LBJ.

Amazing. Oppo-research dirt, unsourced and unsubstantiated, dredged up by a foreign spy with Kremlin contacts, is utilized by our FBI to potentially propel an investigation to destroy a major U.S. presidential candidate. And the Beltway media regard it as a distraction.

An aggressive Republican Party on the Hill, however, has forced the FBI to cough up documents that are casting the work of Comey’s cohorts in an ever more partisan and sinister light.

This cabal appears to have set goals of protecting Obama, clearing Hillary, defeating Trump, and bringing down the new president the people had elected, before he had even taken his oath.

Not exactly normal business for our legendary FBI.

What have these people done to the reputation of their agency when congressmen not given to intemperate speech are using words like “criminal,” “conspiracy,” “corruption” and “coup” to describe what they are discovering went on in the FBI executive chambers?

Bob Mueller, who inherited this investigation, is sitting on an IED because of what went on before he got there. Mueller needs to file his charges before his own investigation becomes the subject of a Justice Department investigation by a special counsel.

As for Trump, he should not sit for any extended interview by FBI agents whose questions will be crafted by prosecutors to steer our disputatious president into challenging or contradicting the sworn testimony of other witnesses.

This a perjury trap.

Let the special counsel submit his questions in writing, and let Trump submit his answers in writing.

At bottom, this is a political issue, an issue of power, an issue of whether the Trump revolution will be dethroned by the deep state it was sent to this capital to corral and contain.

If Trump is guilty of attempted obstruction, it appears to be not of justice, but obstruction of an injustice being perpetrated against him.

Trump should be in no hurry to respond to Mueller, for time no longer appears to be on Mueller’s side.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Bookstore

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

 




The Times Rides to Mueller’s Rescue

The New York Times has explained it was not the “dirty dossier” from former spy Christopher Steele, paid for by the Democrats, that led to the FBI’s endless investigation of President Trump for supposedly colluding with Russia to steal the election. Rather, a drunken disclosure of information to the Australian ambassador to the U.S. prompted the massive counterintelligence investigation during the campaign. But Pat Buchanan raises numerous questions about this new “disclosure.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the Trump presidency?

As James Comey’s FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove Donald Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting this investigation?

What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump’s team?

Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as Mueller’s men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.

Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap warrants of Trump’s team are said to have been issued on the basis of a “dirty dossier” that was floating around town in 2016—but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could not validate its lurid allegations.

Who produced the dossier?

Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC.

Writes the Washington Times, Steele “paid Kremlin sources with Democratic cash.”

 

Yet, if Steele’s dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier’s contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem.

Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his investigation discredited.

Fortunately, all this was cleared up for us New Year’s Eve by a major revelation in The New York Times. Top headline on page one:

“Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry”

The story that followed correctly framed the crucial question:

“What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?”

The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for:

“It was not, as Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.”

The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an “upscale London Bar” in the West End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton’s emails.

Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June, Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government, which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.

The Times’s story pounds home this version of events:

“The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Trump’s associates conspired.”

This, the Times assures us, “answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year.”

Well, perhaps.

But if Papadopoulos’s drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017?

According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he had learned from the Russians.

And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.

If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him—as compared to Steele?

Yet another major question remains unanswered.

If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking “into Russian attempts to disrupt the elections,” why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?

If Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation?

Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign’s ties to Russian agents than to Trumpian “collusion” that is yet unproven?

Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished:

They have kept alive a special counsel’s investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI’s reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government.

Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Bookstore

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Was the Democrat-funded Steele dossier a basis of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation?

 

By Robert Romano

It was not the Democratic National Committee- and Hillary Clinton campaign-funded Fusion GPS-Christopher Steele junk dossier in 2016 that caused the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, but George Papadopoulos’s meetings with supposed Russian agents to obtain “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

That is the narrative now being fed by the mainstream media. According to The New York Times’s “bombshell” report published on Dec. 30, 2017, “when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.”

So, let’s take a look at the timeline.

The Democratic National Committee emails began appearing on WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016.

Part of the Steele dossier named former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page as one of the top Russian colluders on July 19, 2016.

Page had appeared on YouTube published July 7, 2016, speaking at the New Economic School’s commencement ceremony in Moscow, which appeared to form part of the basis for Steele’s assertion.

So, by the time Australia tipped off the U.S. about Papadopoulos, Steele had already fingered Page in his own investigation on Trump-Russia collusion.

IRS Loses Cases

Later, after WikiLeaks published on July 22, 2016, Steele alleged then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was at the heart of the conspiracy to work with Russia to put the emails onto WikiLeaks, with Page as the intermediary. According to the dossier, it was “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries.”

Steele defined the conspiracy explicitly: “The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the WikiLeaks platform. The reason for using WikiLeaks was ‘plausible deniability,’ and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team. In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue. . . .”

Eventually, at some point, a FISA court warrant was taken out on Page, perhaps based on the dossier.

What is controversial is not whether Australia tipped off the U.S. about Papadopoulos before or after the Page warrant was ordered. It is whether Page’s civil rights were violated and a national security investigation via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court was ordered into the Trump campaign using a Democrat-funded political hit piece. Why?

Because according to the law, to get a warrant on Page, there needed to be probable cause that he specifically was acting as a foreign agent. Besides the Steele dossier, what evidence has been presented that he was acting as an agent? Was that the basis for the FISA court warrant?

What if it was inaccurate, and Manafort and Page were never coordinating with Russia on helping the DNC emails appearing on Wikileaks at all?

Plot to Scapegoat Russia book cover
For more on this topic, consider this related book, from the AFP Bookstore.

Then what you have are not only Steele’s sources being in question, if they even existed, but, Papadopoulos or no, you have the Democrats paying a British former spy to produce an intelligence dossier to pin their own troubles, that is, embarrassing emails being published in the news, on Trump in an outlandish foreign conspiracy theory.

Next, the Obama administration used that allegation to justify a full-scale counterintelligence investigation into the opposition party in an election year, which is now leading to prosecutions for anyone unfortunate enough to have been questioned by the FBI without having an attorney present.

It should not be overlooked that once campaign officials like Page or Manafort had FISA warrants into them, all their contacts with the campaign would have been subjected to surveillance as well.

Nothing in the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s guilty plea deal with Papadopoulos for lying to investigators will make any of that any better. Again, FISA court warrants are only supposed to be issued on individuals for probable cause that that individual specifically is acting as a foreign agent.

So even if Papadopoulos had communicated with Russian or other foreign contacts, that generally could not have been used to secure a warrant against Page for the same, unless those contacts had actually implicated Page like the dossier did.

Therefore, The New York Times’s “bombshell” appears to be more designed to deflect attention away from the egregious violation of rights and abuse of the nation’s intelligence powers that using the Democrat-funded dossier on Page and others would entail than it suggests that Papadopoulos’s foreign contacts somehow justified how the rest of the investigation was carried out.

There are other troubling questions. For starters, Papadopoulos was not questioned by the FBI until 2017, after the election had occurred. Was there a warrant to investigate his emails, which formed the basis for the guilty plea that he lied to investigators? If so, when was it obtained? When was Page’s warrant obtained?

Finally, was the Democrat-funded dossier, or information from the dossier, used to obtain FISA court warrants against Trump campaign and then transition officials?

Papadopoulos’s limited involvement in this whole affair does not begin to justify the breadth of the investigation that was undertaken by the Obama administration into the Trump campaign. They needed more. And the Steele dossier might have been just the thing that did the trick.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.




Jail for Hillary?

As the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee continues its investigation of the FBI and its former director, James Comey, a new letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson to the director of the FBI has brought to light “arguably criminal actions of main FBI insiders” in the agency’s investigation, and exoneration, of Hillary Clinton, who illegally shared classified information using a private server. Is prosecution on the horizon? 

By John Friend

More evidence is coming to light demonstrating how top officials and bureaucrats working in the FBI covered for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election, ensuring this career criminal would not be punished for gross negligence and other blatant criminal acts committed during her long tenure in public office. But an ongoing congressional investigation could put an end to that and finally force the prosecution of the Clinton crime family.

In a Dec. 14 letter submitted to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who serves as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, details key edits made by FBI officials and bureaucrats to former FBI Director James Comey’s public statements declaring the exoneration of Mrs. Clinton for transmitting classified information via an unsecured, private email server, which sparked much controversy at the time.

Mrs. Clinton had been accused of not only illegally transmitting classified information via her own private email server but also of covering up these criminal actions by destroying evidence and manipulating top officials and bureaucrats investigating the matter.

Johnson’s letter sheds more light on the arguably criminal actions of main FBI insiders, who were determined to protect then-candidate Clinton while undermining GOP candidate Donald Trump, who was and remains a vocal critic of Mrs. Clinton’s criminal actions.

Liberty Stickers

Johnson’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is currently investigating the FBI and its former director, James Comey, focusing particular attention on the manner in which it conducted the inquiry into Clinton’s many criminal actions.

The letter details a coordinated effort by pivotal FBI officials and insiders who worked under Comey to essentially decriminalize Mrs. Clinton’s blatant and demonstrably criminal actions by editing key legal terms and phrases, withholding important information, and downplaying the central role various intelligence agencies played in the investigation into Clinton’s email scandal. Some legal experts have gone so far as to argue that the congressional probe could lead to charges being filed against Mrs. Clinton.

As part of Johnson’s investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation and ultimate exoneration of the former Democrat presidential candidate, the FBI submitted documents to the Senate committee, including an early draft of Comey’s public statement, which was eventually delivered on July 5, 2016, “clearing Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in her use of a private email server,” the letter reads.

Johnson’s letter explains how senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, and Jonathan Moffa, edited the legal language in Comey’s draft statements to “change the tone and substance of Director Comey’s statement in at least three respects.”

The edits were designed to “reduce Secretary Clinton’s culpability in mishandling classified information” as well as to entirely remove references to “the intelligence community’s role in identifying vulnerabilities related to Secretary Clinton’s private email server” and “downgrade the likelihood that hostile actors had penetrated Secretary Clinton’s private server.”

Critical legal language was edited as well, including removing the use of “gross negligence” when describing Clinton’s actions and substituting that phrase with “extremely careless.” Gross negligence is a legal term often invoked by prosecutors when charging an individual with criminal wrongdoing.

John Friend is a freelance author who lives in California.




Obama DoJ Funneled Money to Leftists

Emails written by President Obama’s Department of Justice confirm the administration forced predatory banks to pay $1 billion, which was then funneled to the Clinton Foundation and some of the administration’s favorite radical groups.

By Allen West

The House Intelligence Committee announced recently that it would be conducting an investigation of “Uranium One,” as the issue is being called. To summarize: Somehow the Obama administration, through the Hillary Clinton State Department, approved the sale of 20% of the U.S.’s uranium stock to a Russian company that was being investigated. Suspiciously, some “interesting” monetary deposits were made to the Clinton Foundation, along with a $500,000 speaker’s fee to Bill Clinton, coinciding with the uranium sale.

But what if “Uranium One” wasn’t just the Clinton Foundation running a pay-for-play scheme in conjunction with the Obama administration? What if the Obama administration itself, through its Department of Justice (DoJ), was running a shakedown scheme?

As reported by the Daily Caller:

Emails written by Obama administration Department of Justice officials confirm reports the agency engaged in a systemic effort to funnel money to liberal advocacy organizations from settlements reached with big banks.

The documents, obtained by the House Judiciary Committee as part of an ongoing investigation, reveal the Obama Justice Department effectively skirted Congress’s budgetary authority by requiring that major financial institutions donate to a group of affordable housing nonprofits and legal advocacy organizations as part of settlement agreements resulting from predatory mortgage lending practices.

The internal DoJ documents represent the latest revelation in a two-year investigation spearheaded by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

The investigation has thus far yielded evidence implicating the Obama DoJ in using mandatory donations to funnel roughly $1 billion in settlement money to activist groups, including the National Council of La Raza, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the National Urban League. The list of third party organizations were unrelated to the legal settlements, except through general claims that they would use the funds to aid the low-income Americans most severely harmed by predatory lending practices.

IRS Loses Cases

Let’s have a little history lesson here. First of all, the whole mortgage meltdown of 2008 can be traced back to President Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, based on his belief that every American has a right to own a home—another example of government interjecting itself in our lives, not to allow us to “pursue our happiness” but instead trying to “guarantee our happiness.” The end result was government forcing itself into a private-sector market, in this case the mortgage industry, as well as enacting punitive measures against private-sector lending institutions that did not comply and conduct risky business endeavors.

Yes, the private sector lending institutions did wrong in creating the mortgage-backed securities that were sold, knowing they weren’t strong or profitable. The end result was the sub-prime mortgage-lending crisis and the revelation that these mortgage-backed securities were worthless. However, this crisis could have been averted had the government never ventured into the mortgage industry in the first place. The same government also used its power to attempt to force lending institutions to take on highly risky endeavors. And yes, many lending institutions that believed they could make money enacted even worse practices, what the government termed “predatory lending.” The whole scheme, crafted by government in the first place, should never have been unleashed.

Along comes Barack Obama, who adeptly used his bully pulpit to demonize lending institutions instead of telling the whole truth, willingly aided by a compliant ally, the liberal progressive media. Obama and his lead henchman at DoJ, Eric Holder, levied fines against these financial lending institutions, not in an attempt to correct the wrong but for far more nefarious purposes.

The community-organizer-in-chief then funneled funds from the penalties levied against these financial institutions to his administration’s preferred progressive socialist organizations. While this has previously been suspected, it is now confirmed.

Bottom line: The Obama administration was running a shakedown of financial institutions that sought to settle instead of going through the legal “kangaroo court” of Holder’s DoJ. One is reminded of when, during his election night victory speech, Obama infamously said: “Chicago is coming to Washington, D.C.” Now we truly know what that meant: The same style of gangster mentality that once ruled the streets of Chicago, Al Capone-style, was heading to our nation’s capital.

It seems safe to assume this story won’t be receiving much, if any, attention from the liberal progressive media. For them, this isn’t anything upsetting—just another example of their cronyism, elitism, and corruption and why we can never allow the progressive socialists of the Democrat Party to have control and power in our government.

Americans can never accept this type of behavior, which is reflective of a Third-World banana republic, not our constitutional republic. Anyone who engages in this type of disgusting behavior is indeed a threat to the country and to the rule of law.

Allen Bernard West is an American political commentator, retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and former member of the House of Representatives.




Five Things to Remember For Comey’s Testimony Tomorrow

Here, American Free Press provides a bit of comprehensive background, not commonly offered by the mainstream media, to remind readers of some of the events that have led up to the present state of affairs, in order to be able to put in context tomorrow’s highly anticipated testimony of former FBI Director James Comey on the “Russian election hacking scandal.” 

By AFP Staff

James Comey, the FBI director who was fired by President Donald Trump on May 9, is scheduled to testify at 10 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow, June 8, before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The mainstream media has been promoting Comey’s appearance before the Republican-led committee, hoping that what he will drop bombshells concerning allegations that Russia had hacked U.S. voting systems before last year’s presidential election in an effort to help Trump and undermine Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Here are five things that everyone should know before Comey speaks tomorrow.

  1. While the Senate Intelligence Committee is run by Republicans, it is hardly friendly to Trump. Establishment Republicans have never been friendly to Trump, because, while campaigning, Trump was able to tap into anger among rank-and-file Republicans and humiliated Beltway insiders, including many neoconservative Republicans. This was demonstrated during the May 7 Senate Intelligence hearing, when Republican and Democrat senators grilled top intelligence figures not over the U.S. war on terror or the recent terror attacks in Europe; rather, they repeatedly pressed the officials over unfounded charges of Russian hacking and interference in U.S. elections.
  2. Despite the nearly constant reporting on allegations of Russian hacking and interference in the recent presidential election, neither Democrats nor Republicans have been able to provide any evidence to support their claims. Americans are asked to simply “trust” them that somewhere, out there in Washington, some anonymous intelligence official has something damning on Trump and his associates.
  3. Comey was already on his way out when Trump fired him on May 9. Before Comey became the darling of the Washington press corps and the Democrats, he was hated by the liberal establishment for spilling the beans on Hillary Clinton and her illegal activities. In his now-infamous statement on July 5, 2016, Comey said Mrs. Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” and irresponsible with secret emails, but that “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.. . . ” On June 8, the media expects Comey will provide key revelations and advance the calls for impeaching Trump, something that the establishment in Washington has wanted since Trump took office on Jan. 20.
  4. Early reports indicate that Comey will admit that Trump asked him to let the investigation of Trump’s former national security advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, go. In February 2017, Flynn resigned following news reports that Flynn had not told White House officials about a phone conversation he’d had with the Russian ambassador. The National Security Agency had reportedly eavesdropped on that conversation, and Flynn’s name was outed to Obama administration officials. Flynn’s name was then leaked to the press by someone inside the intelligence community. Flynn has so far complied with subpoenas from House and Senate investigators. On June 6, he turned over 600 pages of documents related to his business dealings. However, it’s worth noting that, even after months of investigation, Flynn has still not been accused of—let alone been indicted for—committing any crimes.
  5. Finally, it’s worth remembering that the whole Russia-Trump investigation led by Comey started thanks to the now-discredited opposition research document penned by former British spy Christopher Steele, which Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) turned over to the FBI. This is the research document that alleged Trump and his associates repeatedly met with Russian agents during the presidential campaign and that the Russians had incriminating intelligence on Trump that they could use to blackmail him. The FBI reportedly wasted millions of taxpayers’ dollars investigating the spurious claims in the dossier, only to dismiss it. Since then there have been multiple lawsuits filed by people named in the document against news organizations that promoted it.