07/12/16

Comey Indicts Hillary Clinton—But Recommends No Indictment

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Back in March, when it appeared that FBI Director James Comey might call for the indictment of Hillary Clinton, I laid out the stark consequences of failing to bring criminal charges against the now presumptive Democratic presidential candidate: “Now the administration faces its biggest challenge, which will determine whether the U.S. has become a banana republic: Will Hillary Clinton be indicted?”

The day when our Republic has succumbed to corruption, politicization and cronyism has arrived. In light of the decision last week by Director Comey and his rationale for it, we may have become that banana republic.

The idea that Hillary Clinton broke no laws while secretary of state is offensive to anyone who believes in equal justice for all. Even Director Comey, during his July 5statement to announce that the FBI will not recommend prosecution, did not argue that Mrs. Clinton and her staff weren’t in the wrong. Rather, he said that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” against Mrs. Clinton. But a number of very reasonable former prosecutors have since said otherwise: Rudy Giuliani, Joe diGenova, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and Andy McCarthy, to name a few. Yes, they’re all Republicans, just like Comey. But Comey owes his appointment as FBI director to President Obama, whose knowledge of Hillary’s use of an unsecured server implicates his own office in this ongoing scandal. This may well explain why Obama has had his thumb on the scale, long ago declaring Hillary’s actions as merely “careless” and not jeopardizing national security, while claiming no knowledge of the investigation beyond what was in the media.

Comey said investigators “did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,” but they did find evidence “that [Clinton and her aides] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Despite Comey’s assertion that such a prosecution would be unprecedented because Mrs. Clinton didn’t, in his view, intend to break the law, Sarah Westwood of The Washington Examiner has found several examples where negligence, or carelessness, in handling classified materials—far less egregiously than Clinton—resulted in charges.

There was, for example, the case of the Marine Corps officer forced out of the service for mishandling classified materials. His crime: “sending a warning to deployed colleagues about an Afghan police chief whose servant later killed three Marines” and that the police chief “was corrupt and sexually abusing children,” according to The Washington Post.

Two days after Comey’s announcement, he went before a congressional committee to answer questions about his decision. During questioning from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Comey acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton had lied about whether she had sent or received any emails marked classified; whether she had emailed classified material that was classified at the time, whether marked or not; whether she had done this email set up so she could do all of her emailing using just one device (Comey acknowledged that she had used multiple devices); the fact that she had turned all of her work related emails over to the State Department (Comey acknowledged there were “thousands” that had not been turned over); and she lied when she said that no work related emails were deleted or wiped from her server. You can watch that exchange here:

But the events leading up to and throughout the Fourth of July weekend revealed a staged event, or at least one in which the principal players must have known Comey’s bottom line. About the time it was announced that Hillary was finally going to be interviewed by the FBI for three and a half hours, it accidentally came to light that there had been a meeting on a plane between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Clinton had appointed Lynch to her position as U.S. Attorney when he was president. In addition, a message came from the Clinton camp via The New York Times that Ms. Lynch would be getting strong consideration to stay on as attorney general in a Hillary Clinton administration. And we heard from CNN and others citing sources “familiar with the investigation” indicating that no indictment was likely. The fix was in; the media should have instead been asking the hard questions about Mrs. Clinton’s reckless disregard of the law.

Then, less than three days after the FBI interview was completed—an interview that Comey later said was not under oath, and apparently not recorded—he announced that he was recommending no indictment, and that no reasonable prosecutor would do otherwise. It would have been impossible to compare her statements in the interview to her public record to determine if she had lied to the FBI. Comey even acknowledged that her testimony was not compared at all to what she told the Select Committee on Benghazi last October.

On the same day as Comey’s announcement, President Obama and Mrs. Clinton traveled together on Air Force One to a campaign stop where she spoke in front of the presidential seal. In other words, the outcome was apparently known before Comey made his announcement, in spite of his declaring that that was not the case.

As former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has previously noted, “’malicious intent’ is not required to prove felonious mishandling of classified information.” Rather, McCarthy writes, “gross negligence would do, so if there really is even ‘scant’ evidence of malicious intent, that suggests it would be fairly easy to prove the crime.”

Even Director Comey concurs that Mrs. Clinton and her staff were willfully reckless. Do her actions not qualify at least as “gross negligence?”

“Mrs. Clinton has asserted that she did not send or receive any information marked classified at the time it was sent,” reports The New York Times. “But about two dozen emails were designated ‘top secret,’ the highest level of classification, and Mrs. Clinton’s critics say she jeopardized national security.”

In other words, Mrs. Clinton lied.

“To be clear,” said Comey at his announcement, “this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that’s not what we’re deciding now.”

Yet there will be few consequences for Hillary Clinton for her misconduct outside the political domain. And Comey’s actions constitute little more than a politicized decision.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly acted in ways that benefitted her and her family and her family’s foundation, in obvious quid pro quo situations, and most importantly in her handling of classified information on her private unsecured server. When there were problems with the secure fax, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her staff could turn secure information “into nonpaper with w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” thereby stripping classified markings. Mrs. Clinton also authored 104 classified emails sent through her private email server.

Clinton apologists and the media have claimed that the information Mrs. Clinton sent through her private email server was largely up-classified retrospectively. However, the classified information that Mrs. Clinton jeopardized was far from inconsequential—and some of it was highly classified at the time. One of Mrs. Clinton’s emails regarding the “movement of North Korean nuclear assets” was “initially flagged by the inspector general of the intelligence community in July as potentially containing information derived from highly classified satellite and mapping system of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,” according to The Washington Times.

The degree to which Mrs. Clinton broke classification laws shows arrogance and contempt for the American people. It was not merely carelessness: it was willful. And, as Comey said, Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server was widely known by those in government.

This is a dark day in American history, although the media certainly won’t report it that way. We must wait to see if Joe diGenova was right when he said in January that there would be a revolt inside the Bureau if there is no indictment, because failing to prosecute Mrs. Clinton means that the government can never again credibly indict someone for mishandling of classified material.

As far as the other investigation regarding public corruption, in regard to the intersection of Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state with matters related to the Clinton Foundation, it came up at the House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, but Comey refused to comment. Asked by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chair of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, “Did you look at the Clinton Foundation?” Comey replied, “I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any other investigations.”

Some see this as an unintentional favor to the GOP and those who believe that electing Mrs. Clinton president would be a disaster in terms of rewarding someone who was so deceitful and reckless with America’s national security secrets. She may also be vulnerable to blackmail from countries and individuals who may have successfully hacked her server. Mrs. Clinton is a badly weakened candidate, the theory goes, and was clearly treated as someone above the law. Comey, whether wittingly or unwittingly, made the case for how corrupt and deceitful Mrs. Clinton had acted, but left her to twist slowly in the wind.

Roger Aronoff

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

07/12/16

WATCH: Obama called Philando Castile’s mother (video)

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Philando Castile’s mother Valerie

President Obama reached out to Philando Castile’s mother in the wake of his untimely death in Falcon Heights, Minnesota on 5 July 2016 at the hand of a law enforcement officer who was seeking to identify two robbery suspects.

Unsurprisingly, Philando Castile has been painted as a martyr for the Black Lives Matter movement before the circumstances of the shooting have been revealed, continuing an ongoing trend for the communist terror organization. The case was thrust into the social media spotlight when Philando Castile’s girlfriend Diamond Reynolds posted a video of Castile after he had been shot.

On Monday, Diamond Reynolds made the talk show circuit, claiming that she and her boyfriend were profiled by Officer Jeronimo Yanez.

“I would like for people to understand that we don’t bring these types of situations upon ourselves,” Reynolds said, “and even still we can’t result to violence and outrage… if we were Caucasian or not minority we would have not been stopped.”

If character matters, one should consider that another video posted by Diamond Reynolds shows her bragging about smoking weed, with a painfully unhappy little girl in the back seat:

Read more here…

07/12/16

Trump: The Russian Connection

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

America has now boxed herself into a corner and doesn’t even realize it. If Hillary Clinton is elected, you will retain the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House. If Trump is elected, you will have the Russians and the Chinese in the White House. Trump’s advisers are very connected to Vladimir Putin and Russia. Trump himself has many ties as well and is friends with Putin. This is why Putin will try to sabotage Clinton with leaked emails etc. He’s got WikiLeaks and Assange doing his dirty work, with Edward Snowden as backup.

Trump has surrounded himself with people connected in one way or another to Russia and mobsters.

Carter Page

Donald Trump’s foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, has deep ties to Russia and the Kremlin’s Gazprom. Page is a globe-trotting investment banker who has built his creds on deals with Russia and its state-run gas company. It would do George Soros proud. Page’s business suffered a major hit when sanctions were imposed on Russia because of the Ukraine encroachment. When Trump selected him as a foreign policy adviser, he was inundated by his Russian contacts who were thrilled. That should be your first warning sign.

Trump has been putting forth the Russian idea to reduce NATO or do away with them altogether. He does not support the Ukraine either. He has called Putin a ‘strong leader’ and both have talk glowingly about each other. Flexible doesn’t quite cover it this time around. Page portrays US policymakers as stuck in an outdated Cold War mindset, which is really laughable as the Cold War never ended… it shifted.

Page is a self-serving business shark. He has no political experience, but he’s killer when it comes to negotiating a deal. Trump calls it “real world” experience. I call it corruption. Page has a lifelong fascination with Russia and Central Asia, and a determination to drum up business there even in the face of political headwinds. He has no loyalty to America or her constitution… his loyalty lies in business and profits. In that, Trump and Page share a common viewpoint. After all, even if it smacks of mob tactics, it’s just business.

Page traveled to Moscow last week and criticized the United States and other Western powers for their “hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” in other countries. He praised Russia and China for being ‘progressive’ and forward thinking, while nailing the US as interventionist and two-faced. Gee, he sounds more like Putin’s man than Trump’s. He praised Russia and China for embracing foreign policies built on “non-interference,” “tolerance” and “respect.” Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

From The Washington Free Beacon:

“The United States and other developed powers, including in the EU, have often criticized [China, Russia, and Central Asian nations] for continuing methods which were prevalent during the Cold War period,” Page said. “Yet ironically, Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change.”

He also accused Western powers of approaching Russia and Central Asian nations with a “nearly universally critical tone” despite their “advancements.” This he said, may “understandably advance a certain level of insecurity.

The remarks, delivered at an event hosted by the New Economic School, were hardly out of character for Page, who has a history of criticizing US foreign policy and portraying Russia in a favorable light. In online writings, Page has defended Moscow’s involvement in the takeover of government buildings in Ukraine by pro-Russian forces in 2014 as “minor,” attributed the crisis in Ukraine to US policy, and accused NATO of “meddling in the affairs of Eastern Europe.”

Page has criticized NATO as “obsolete” and disparaged them for what he terms “illegal torture techniques.” He has long criticized US foreign policy.

He spent three years living in Moscow in the early 2000s, where he worked as an investment banker for Merrill Lynch and as an adviser on transactions for Gazprom and RAO UES, a Russian electric power company.

On Friday, Page also delivered remarks at the graduation for the New Economic School, whose board of directors includes Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich and Economic Minister Alexei Ulyukayev. Page blamed the United States for “mistakes” that have damaged US-Russian relations during that speech.

Back in 2014, Page criticized Obama’s decision to deny a visa application to Hamid Aboutalebi, who is an Iranian diplomat and a UN ambassador. He was a translator for Iranian militants who seized the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979, where American hostages were held for over a year until Ronald Reagan came along. It was one of the few things that Obama has made the right call on. Ted Cruz even praised Obama over the move. Yet, Trump’s man was all for that visa. “Avoiding the punishment of a distinguished diplomat whose most heinous charge is previous service as a translator would be an excellent step toward not remaining trapped in the past,” Page wrote in a blog post.

Just one month after that, Carter Page vigorously defended Russia’s military encroachment in the Ukraine. He compared it to the United States’ support for the ouster of Ukraine’s Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovych. “While US officials have protested the Russian government’s influence in current events, Moscow’s impact remains minor when compared to Washington’s fundamentally important encouragement at the national level which started the crisis in the first place,” Page asserted. He even went so far as accusing the US of instigating the crisis in the first place.

More from the Free Beacon:

In September 2014, during a NATO summit where the alliance agreed to increase its presence in Eastern Europe after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Page accused Western powers of “meddling in the affairs of Eastern Europe” and characterized Russia’s actions as “defensive.” He suggested that NATO was “banging on Russia’s door” and, like Trump, characterized the alliance as unnecessary.

“As most vividly seen in Ukraine, recent results of the North Atlantic Alliance’s unsuccessful interventionist strategy may largely speak for themselves. But another benefit of reconsidering past precedents from the end of the first Cold War is that this historic context helps highlight the extent to which elements of the legacy NATO framework have become severely antiquated,” he wrote.

In February 2015, Page likened Western nations to “football team bullies” for their “condescending mistreatment” of Russia, Iran, China, and other emerging nations. He also compared their actions to slave owners’ treatment of slaves. Page asserted that Western policies had spurred “economic disaster” in Russia and Ukraine.

“From US policies toward Russia to Iran to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems seen worldwide today,” Page wrote.

Does that sound like someone who has our national security at heart? Does it even sound like someone who believes in American exceptionalism?

Page is infuriated over sanctions imposed and views it as the US bullying Russia. Not as a consequence of aggressiveness by the Russians and their land-grabbing, country seizing tactics. He has compared US policy to American slavery and high-profile police shootings.

Not even kidding here:

He has also compared US policy towards Russia to high-profile police killings of unarmed black men. “The deaths triggered by US government officials in both the former Soviet Union and the streets of America in 2014 share a range of close similarities,” he wrote.

“While the loss of Michael Brown and Eric Garner has received intense media coverage and perfunctory federal government investigations, the economic injustice unleashed upon the millions of people residing in Russia, Ukraine, and the former Soviet Union by misguided Western policies has met limited recognition.”

Page also has a soft spot for the communist Chinese. He favorably quoted a propaganda arm of the People’s Republic of China, which wrote “After examining America’s staggering racial disparity, one cannot help wondering whether the US accusation of the Chinese government this time was another political tactic of shunning criticism at itself.”

Bluntly put… Carter Page is a Russian agent in my viewpoint:

Page’s appointment drew fire from experts who said his work sounded more like Internet conspiracy theories or foreign government propaganda than the counsel one would expect of a US president’s top aides.

“The very fact that a senior adviser to the leading Republican candidate for president seems to truly believe that a few individuals in the US government are responsible for certain international events puts him firmly in the realm of conspiracy theorists,” said Hannah Thoburn, a Russia policy expert with the Hudson Institute.

“Many of [Page’s] public remarks on Russia and Ukraine seem as though they have been lifted directly from the broadcast scripts of Russia Today,” the Kremlin’s US propaganda arm, Thoburn said in an email.

Page has also been highly supportive of international climate talks in Paris this last year, despite Republican concerns about international agreements that they say could hike energy prices and force American taxpayers to foot the bill for fossil fuel restrictions abroad.

“The political gathering has substantially raised attention to climate, environmental and future energy issues while leveraging the growing levels of concern amongst societies worldwide,” Page wrote. “But for both citizens and leaders alike, real action in the future will be a far more essential driver to the future direction of progress in comparison to the many words which will be spoken and to a lesser extent heard over the coming weeks.”

He wants the US to more fully collaborate with Russia… sharing more technology and capital market access. His speeches given this last week are being used as propaganda on Russian media. Russia Today loves him… just as they love those such as Alex Jones, Edward Snowden and others who are less than stellar in the credibility department.

Page’s remarks come at a time of heightened tension between the United States and Russia. NATO members agreed on Friday to send four multinational battalions to the Baltic states and Poland on a rotational basis in the face of increased Russian provocations. As American diplomats are being beaten in Russia, in front of our embassy no less, and America is expelling Russian diplomats in return… Carter Page has nothing but praise for the Russkies and condemnation for his own country. I’m sure Trump will fix all that – he’s even more flexible than Barack Obama. FSB/KGB tactics/attacks on a US diplomat were employed – they broke his shoulder. They have also broke into homes of embassy staff, rearranged furniture and even killed a family pet. Is this Russian aggression that Page approves of? Where is Trump on this? Crickets, that’s where.

Paul Manafort

Trump’s top adviser, Paul Manafort, has spent much of his recent career working for pro-Russian forces in the Ukraine and has negotiated complex deals for an oligarch with close ties to Putin. And while one senator has already charged Trump is not responsible enough to receive secret information, Manafort’s deep relationships with top pro-Russian figures raise special concerns.

Manafort managed the 2010 campaign of Viktor Yanukovych… you know, the Ukrainian politician who was ousted as president when Putin proceeded to invade the Ukraine. He has, according to court documents, managed tens of millions of dollars for Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch denied entry to the US reportedly for ties to organized crime, but so close to Vladimir Putin that top Russian officials fought (unsuccessfully) to get him a visa. Don’t you just love Russian mob ties?

None of these people with Trump have been subjected to background checks. And after Trump’s selection of advisers and cronies, it’s obvious he should be subjected to one as well. One former Republican national security official put it bluntly: “He’s an intelligence classification vetting nightmare scenario.”

I find it beyond convenient that Manafort has tied himself to Trump considering who his clients are. Once again, I would say that Manafort is a Russian agent. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

“We joke in Ukraine that it is a bad sign for Trump that he hired Manafort. Because his client Yanukovych was ousted and fled to Russia, to the city of Rostov. So Trump could also end up in Rostov. It is almost like an anecdote.” — Ukrainian political expert Oleg Kravchenko

Manafort was hired more than a decade ago by the Ukraine’s wealthiest businessman, Rinat Akhmetov. He’s a steel and iron ore magnate and is worth an estimated $2.8 billion, according to Forbes. Manafort was a protege of Oleg Deripaska, a Russian businessman with an estimated net worth of $3.5 billion.

Experts say Manafort was unofficially invited to consult on Yanukovych’s first presidential campaign in December 2004, in the days of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Yanukovych was competing with pro-Western opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, who was poisoned by dioxin during the campaign. Manafort was asked to save Yanukovych’s campaign.

He was kept around to help improve Yanukovych’s image and get him close to Obama. Manafort described his role in Ukraine as helping align Yanukovych and his administration with Western interests. “The role that I played in that administration was to help bring Ukraine into Europe, and we did,” Manafort said. “We succeeded.” Manafort worked in Ukraine under the umbrella of his lobbying firm, Davis Manafort & Freeman, Inc. He worked with a group of American political advisers in Ukraine, including expat Philip Griffin, top John McCain adviser Richard H. Davis, and former Ronald Reagan advance man Rick Ahearn. “I am not here just for the election,” Manafort said in 2007 in Ukraine. “I am trying to play a constructive role in developing a democracy. I am helping to build a political party.”

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn

Now we come to Trump’s latest favorite, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Rumors were swirling that he would be the VP pick, but that looks unlikely now. People started digging into his background and that didn’t go well.

First off, he’s a Democrat. On the good side, he was fired because he spoke out against radical Islam. But other than that, this guy is bad news.

Flynn, who is a former Defense Intelligence Agency chief, also favors Russia heavily and is advising Trump on foreign policy. Can I just ask, is there anyone that Trump has selected that isn’t pro-Russian? He’s not a supporter of Israel… he’s leaning pro-abortion and for same-sex marriage as well. Last time I looked, these were not conservative stances.

From FoundersCode.com:

Flynn raised eyebrows among some US foreign policy veterans when he was pictured sitting at the head table with Putin at a banquet in Moscow late last year celebrating Russia Today, an international broadcasting network funded by the Russian government. Flynn told Russia Today in an interview published on Dec. 10 that the United States and Russia should work together to resolve the Syrian civil war and defeat Islamic State.

The Obama administration has protested Russia’s military intervention on behalf of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, accusing Moscow of hitting opposition forces rather than ISIS.

Flynn has been advising Trump on foreign policy issues since at least February and has previously hinted that he’d be open to taking the No. 2 job. And an early July Politico piece described him as “Trump’s favorite general.”

Flynn has an odd affection for Russia and its authoritarian government. He has spent much of his time since retirement cozying up to the Putin regime and he’s a frequent guest on its English-language propaganda channel, RT.

Flynn’s argument supporting Russia takes their claim that it is fighting “terrorists” in Syria at face value, when in reality Russia’s intervention is aimed at propping up dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Russian bombs have actually targeted US-aligned Syrian rebels and have directed a relatively small percentage of munitions toward ISIS.

From RT:

Americans must understand that Russia also has a foreign policy and a national security strategy, and that Moscow launched the campaign against ISIS in Syria after its “unstated red lines were crossed,” retired US Lieutenant General Michael Flynn told RT.

Russia and the US have to work together in their fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), and an international coalition needs to be brought together to facilitate this, said Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

In reality, what is going on here is that Russia is using ISIS to do its dirty work and the US is being used and played for a fool.

From Cliff Kincaid:

The term “military intelligence” is mostly a reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), whose former director, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, has come under fire for his close relationship with the Russia Today (RT) propaganda channel.

AIM was the first to report that Flynn, after stepping down from DIA, went to Moscow to participate in the 10th anniversary celebration of the Moscow-funded and English-language channel known to its critics as KGB-TV. He sat at a dinner table with Putin and RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan.

In a major embarrassment for Flynn, a recent article in Politico by Michael Crowley cited Flynn’s relationship with RT as “the most intriguing example of how the Russians have gone about recruiting disaffected members” of the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment.

The term “recruiting” suggests using Flynn for anti-American propaganda purposes.

Crowley, senior foreign policy writer at Politico, said that Flynn’s attendance at the RT gala, which also included remarks on world affairs, “appeared to inaugurate a relationship with the network—presumably a paid one, though neither Flynn nor RT answered queries on the subject. Flynn now makes semi-regular appearances on RT as an analyst, in which he often argues that the U.S. and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syria’s civil war.”

In addition to his relationship with RT, Flynn has described himself as an informal adviser to Trump, who already has several pro-Russian aides and advisers.

“We weren’t focused on Russia when I came in three years ago because we were still trying to cast a paradigm that brought Russia into the fold of Western values,” said Breedlove, in an attempt to explain why the Pentagon was caught off-guard by Russia. He said, “Russia chose a different path or they were on that path and we didn’t recognize it.”

What he is describing is a massive intelligence failure that could stem from the work of agents of influence for Russia, or actual Russian spies.

Trump, however, continues to preach cooperation with Russia.

The scope of the intelligence failure regarding Russia was addressed recently by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), who admitted to CNN’s Jake Tapper on April 12 that the U.S. government has badly “misjudged” the intentions of Putin “for many, many years.” He declared, “The biggest intelligence failure that we have had since 9/11 has been the inability to predict the leadership plans and intentions of the Putin regime in Russia.”

After the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, Rep. Nunes noted, the U.S. continued to engage diplomatically with the Russians, and “we continued to talk to the Russians, and then they invaded Eastern Ukraine.” “We missed that,” he said. “And then we completely missed entirely when they put a new base, a new base with aircraft into the Mediterranean, into Syria. We just missed it. We were blind.”

While Trump’s speech was given to an audience of foreign policy experts, including Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak — who was sitting in the front row — the former DIA director’s pro-Moscow actions and statements are also generating controversy. The Politico article on Flynn’s visit to Moscow said, “At a moment of semi-hostility between the U.S. and Russia, the presence of such an important figure at Putin’s table startled current and former members of the Obama administration. “

Politico’s Michael Crowley quoted a former Pentagon official as saying about Flynn, “It was extremely odd that he showed up in a tuxedo to the Russian government propaganda arm’s party.”

Flynn is a strongman that Trump would use for law and order, not only abroad, but here at home. Not good.

Conclusion

In closing, I will just ask Americans this… do you really think someone so deeply tied to Russia, a stone-cold enemy, should be president? For eight years we have been led by an enemy within. With the choices we have from both parties currently, we are poised to elect an even greater enemy from within… and many so-called conservatives are cheering it.

All you have to do is connect the dots. Look at Trump’s connections. Putin is not our friend. He wants to bring us down. If he can do it from within the US, that would be his ideal scene. If he has to weaken us to the point of invasion, he’ll go for that as well. Trump’s Russian connections are beyond alarming… they are existential in nature. The failures in the intelligence community regarding Russia and the alleged penetration of the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment by Russian agents seem like topics that need to be addressed by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. They certainly should be addressed when selecting a candidate for the highest office in the land. Unless of course, you relish learning Russian or Chinese.