09/24/20

The Anti-Trump FBI’ers Bought Liability Insurance, no REALLY

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Hoorah for Sidney Powell. Text messages sure tell interesting facts.

Professional liability insurance? Really?

The Federalist: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team.

“[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance,” one agent texted on Jan. 10, 2017, the same day CNN leaked details that then-President-elect Trump had been briefed by Comey about the bogus Christopher Steele dossier. That briefing of Trump was used as a pretext to legitimize the debunked dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by a foreign intelligence officer who was working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch.

“Holy crap,” an agent responded. “All the analysts too?”

“Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency as well.”

“[C]an I ask who are the most likely litigators?” an agent responded. “[A]s far as potentially suing y’all[?]”

“[H]aha, who knows….I think [t]he concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the NYT among others was going to do a piece,” the first agent said.

While the names of the agents responsible for the texts are redacted, the legal filing from Powell, quoting communications from the Department of Justice (DOJ), states that the latest document production included handwritten notes and texts from Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and FBI analysts who worked on the FBI’s investigation of Flynn.

Agents also said they were worried about how a new attorney general might view the actions taken against Trump during the investigation. Shortly after then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was confirmed to be Trump’s new attorney general, congressional Democrats, media, and Obama holdovers within DOJ immediately moved to force Sessions to recuse himself from overseeing the department’s investigations against Trump.

“[T]he new AG might have some questions….then yada yada yada…we all get screwed,” one agent wrote.

The FBI agents also discussed how the investigation’s leadership was consumed with conspiracy theories rather than evidence.

“I’m tellying [sic] man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked,” one agent wrote. “[A]nd a great deal of those will be related to Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic[.]”

“[REDACTED] is one of the worst offenders of the rabbit holes and conspiracy theories,” an agent texted. “This guy traveled with that guy, who put down 3rd guy as his visa sponsor. 3rd guy lives near a navy base, therefore…[.]”

Several texts show that the order to close the criminal investigation against Flynn came as early as Nov. 8, 2016, the same day as the 2016 presidential election. It was later re-opened in early January of 2017.

“We have some loose ends to tie up, and we all need to meet to discuss what to do with each case (he said shut down Razor),” one agent texted, referring to Crossfire Razor, the FBI’s internal code name for the investigation of Flynn.

“[S]o glad they’re closing Razor,” an agent responded.

The new disclosures made by DOJ also show that the FBI used so-called national security letters (NSLs) to spy on Flynn’s finances. Unlike traditional subpoenas, which require judicial review and approval before authorities can seize an innocent person’s property and information, NSLs are never independently reviewed by courts. One of the agents noted in a text message that the NSLs were just being used as a pretext by FBI leadership to buy time to find dirt on Flynn after the first investigation of him yielded no derogatory information.

“[T]he decision to NSL finances for Razor bought him time,” one agent said nearly two weeks after the initial order to shut down the anti-Flynn case. It is not known to whom the agent was referring in that text.

“What do we expect to get from an NSL[?]” an agent texted on Dec. 5, 2016. “We put out traces, tripwires to community and nothing.”

“[B]ingo,” another FBI agent responded. “[S]o what’s an NSL going to do – no content.”

“Hahah this is a nightmare,” an agent said.

“If we’re working to close down the cases, I’m not sure what NSL results would do to help,” one agent wrote.

“[E]xactly that makes no sense,” an agent wrote back.

The explosive new text messages also show agents believed the investigation was being run by FBI officials who were in the tank for Hillary Clinton.

“[D]oing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a [C]linton presidency,” one agent wrote on Aug. 11, shortly after the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation against Trump.

In one series of texts sent the same day as the infamous Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting between Obama, Biden, Comey, Sally Yates, and Susan Rice, one agent admits that “Trump was right” when he tweeted that the FBI was delaying his briefings as incoming president so they could cook up evidence against him. As The Federalist first reported last May, that Jan. 5 meeting was the key to understanding the entire anti-Trump operation run out of Obama’s FBI.

“The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case,” Trump tweeted on January 3. “Very strange!”

“So razor is going to stay open???” an agent wrote on Jan. 5.

“[Y]ep,” another FBI agent responded. “[C]rimes report being drafted.”

“F,” the first agent wrote back.

“[W]hat’s the word on how [Obama’s] briefing went?” one agent asked, referring to the Jan. 5 meeting.

“Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad house,” an FBI agent responded.

“[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with people[?]?

A week later, the FBI agents also wrote that they suspected that the illegal leak of top secret information about Flynn’s phone calls with Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak to the news media came directly from the White House.

“FYI – someone leaked the Flynn calls with Kislyak to the WSJ,” the agent wrote.

“I’m sorry to hear that,” another FBI agent responded sarcastically. “I’ll resume my duties as Chief Morale Officer and rectify that.”

“Published this morning by Ignatius,” an agent said, referencing the Jan. 12 column from Washington Post writer David Ignatius that included leaked top-secret information about Flynn’s calls with Kislyak.

“It’s got to be someone on staff,” an agent wrote. “[Presidential Daily Briefing] staff. Or WH seniors.”

To date, not a single person has been charged with illegally leaking that information to the Washington Post as a way of damaging Flynn and the incoming Trump administration.

Following a review of the federal government’s investigation by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen, which was ordered by Attorney General William Barr, the government moved to dismiss all charges against Flynn that had been previously brought by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Documents unearthed during Jensen’s review showed that before the FBI was tasked by the Obama White House in early 2017 with re-targeting Flynn, the agency closed a previous investigation against him because there was no proof of any criminal wrongdoing. Jensen’s review also uncovered evidence that the FBI’s interview of Flynn, which later led to charges that he lied to FBI investigators, had no legal basis and that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that he had lied.

Contrary to claims by Mueller’s office that Flynn had lied about discussing financial sanctions against Russia during post-election phone calls with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, declassified transcripts of those conversations confirmed that Flynn spoke to Kislyak only about expulsions of Russian diplomats and that the two men never discussed financial sanctions against Russia that had previously been levied by the Obama administration. Jensen’s review of Flynn’s case file also revealed handwritten notes from the FBI’s top counterintelligence official that admitted a primary goal of the FBI’s anti-Flynn operation was “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence that Flynn did not lie to agents, the FBI had no legal basis to interview him, that the FBI later hid exculpatory documents from Flynn’s defense team, Flynn did not discuss financial sanctions during his phone calls with Kislyak, and the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied, federal trial Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has refused to dismiss the case against Flynn.

Instead, Sullivan personally appointed a left-wing shadow prosecutor, whose partners represent former DOJ official Yates, to smear Flynn and attempt to continue the baseless criminal case against him. At one point last April, Sullivan even tried to order the DOJ to stop producing and publicly filing exculpatory evidence for Flynn or evidence of FBI misbehavior during its investigation of Flynn.

Sullivan, who called Flynn a traitor during court proceedings and suggested that Flynn — a decorated Army combat veteran — be charged with treason, has refused to recuse himself from the case despite his obvious personal animosity toward Flynn.

09/24/20

Should the Nation Mourn Ginsburg?

By: Cliff Kincaid

The New York Times headline, “As Nation Mourns Ginsburg, Trump Vows Nomination,” has two distortions. First, while many people are sorry to see her passing, the expression of deep sorrow is not something pro-life people would feel about someone whose rulings denied the humanity of the unborn. Second, the Times’ contrast of the “mourning” for Ginsburg with Trump’s vow to nominate a successor is designed to convey the notion that Trump is hard-hearted. But one could argue that “women’s rights,” as taken to an extreme by Ginsburg and other feminists, have been used to sanction the deliberate and savage murder of a human being.

Trump issued a “Proclamation on the Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg” and visited the Supreme Court to pay respects. But Senator Jesse Helms called her “callous” toward the unborn when she was up for a confirmation vote in 1993. His warning wasn’t taken seriously by most fellow Senators. Indeed, he was one of only three to vote against her confirmation. Since then, 30 million abortions have taken place, making a total of more than 60 million since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.

Ginsburg, known as RBG, is being promoted by the Times as a cult figure, as a result of fighting sexist bias when she was on her career path. She did achieve her dream. The problem is that she denied the American dream to millions of Americans. Many cannot excuse or forgive her.

In her book, The Supremacists, Phyllis Schlafly noted that Ginsburg even endorsed funding of abortions as a constitutional right. That was too extreme for the Supreme Court, which rejected that idea in the 1980 decision, Harris v. McRae.

A major tragedy in the career of Ginsburg is her failure to understand the religious principles that she claimed to be following.

Liberal Fox News commentator Leslie Marshall said that Ginsburg, who was Jewish, “died on one of the holiest days in Judaism, Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year. One of the themes of the holiday suggests that very righteous people would die at the end of the year because they were needed until the very end.”

But Thomas Jacobson of the Global Life Campaign notes that while Ginsburg quoted the Torah on the duty to do justice, she contradicted the Torah by supporting “the innocent bloodshed of babies in the womb, violating the justice requirements of the Law of God and the U.S. Constitution.” He added, “In God’s eyes, our greatest national sin may be the innocent bloodshed of more than 61.3 million babies. Can you imagine standing before the Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge of the world and being held to account in part for that? It is our prayer that she did repent before her death, and received mercy and forgiveness from Jesus Christ.”

Randy Engel, the traditionalist Catholic writer and founder and director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, said, “One can always pray for her immortal soul and wish her the same merciful judgment that we all desire from God at our own death. However, I believe that judgment will likely be tempered by the ritual lack of mercy she showed to the millions of unborn children who met their untimely death under Roe v. Wade which Ginsburg faithfully worshipped.”

Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, of course, won’t be commenting directly on the Roe v. Wade decision which led to their deaths. The ruling will be treated as a “precedent” of the Court that a judge must address objectively. Yet, a recorded conversation with possible Trump nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett about raising a family and adopting children makes the pro-life case. “What greater thing can you do than raise children?” she says. “That’s where you have your greatest impact in the world.”

A campaign has already been started to portray Barrett as a religious zealot with too many children and too devoted to “Catholic values.” As if that wasn’t enough, the media have “discovered” she belongs to a Christian group, and this has now become a “scandal.”

While commentators praise Ginsburg for her Jewish faith, Christian judges like Barrett,  a Notre Dame Law School alumna and member of the Law School’s faculty since 2002, are being opposed for having pro-life tendencies and favoring adoption over abortion.

Francis Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois, goes further, asking, “Has Barrett taken any kind of pledge that’s relevant to her being on the Court? She is being positioned for the Supreme Court to do a job and overturning Roe v. Wade will be part of it.”

He says that when he interviewed with Notre Dame Law School, which describes itself as the nation’s oldest Roman Catholic law school, he was told by the dean that law professors took a required pledge that they had to conduct themselves consistent with Catholic values, “which I took to mean I would not teach, write or advocate in favor of abortion rights.”

But even belonging to a pro-life group is grounds for suspicion. In 2018, Senator Kamala Harris, now the Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee, questioned whether Brian C. Buescher should be seated as a federal district judge because he was a member of the pro-life Catholic group the Knights of Columbus. (He was confirmed 51-40).

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the Catholic Catechism declares. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Harris’ running mate, Joseph Biden, claims to be Catholic but was denied communion at a Catholic church in South Carolina over his pro-abortion stance. The 2020 Democratic Party platform declares they believe in “safe and legal abortion” and full federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. It was founded by Margaret Sanger, a revolutionary socialist and anti-Christian activist who favored government programs to eliminate what she called “human weeds.”

Father James Altman, pastor of St. James the Less Catholic Church in La Crosse, Wisconsin, comments, “You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period. Their party platform absolutely is against everything the Catholic Church teaches. So just stop pretending that you’re Catholic and vote Democrat.  Repent of your support of that party and its platform or face the fires of hell.”

The Altman video, in which he seems to suggest that Catholics who vote Democrat will go to hell, has gone viral.

His popularity with traditional Catholics suggests that attacks on Barrett’s Catholic faith if she is the nominee, may backfire and drive more Catholics who take their faith seriously into the arms of President Trump.

*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org.

09/24/20

What Has Happened to our Senior Military Officers?

By: Retired General Paul Vallely | CCNS

The anti-Trump political moves by disloyal left-wing (Democrats) retired Generals and Admirals are wrong and should not be tolerated. These are the same senior officers that could not win a war. America lost so many of its proud soldiers, sailors, and airman and thousands wounded because of their flawed war-fighting strategies and policies (all documented). They have destroyed their reputation and credibility among the ranks and the Constitutional Patriots of America.

It became clear to many of us that the Obama administration (with some help from Bill Clinton’s presidency) had seeded the Pentagon with leftist generals whose allegiance was to the Deep State, to cultural leftism, and to the infamous and profitable “military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned about in 1961. In only five years, Obama had conducted a major Pentagon purge, firing almost 200 senior officers who held the old-fashioned belief that the military exists to protect America and should not be a social justice institution with limited firepower.

The upper-level officers who remained were hardcore Democrats. Several were assigned to our Military academies at US Military Academy at West Point, The Naval and Air Force Academies. bringing their liberal, left-wing philosophies with them. All the above says there is something rotten happening in the Pentagon. The implications are not just in the past. They are also in the future. Michael Anton has written the best article spelling out the fact that the Democrats are openly planning a coup if Biden doesn’t win. One of the crucial points about this planned coup is that the Democrats have been explicit about military involvement.

The statement “using the military to fight Americans” was clearly misstated and misinterpreted by a few of these senior officers, especially General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cities, businesses, private property, and innocent civilians were being attacked and citizens being maimed and murdered by Antifa forces and other insurrectionists. The Governors and Mayors backed down as well as senior police chiefs and were not enforcing the laws. Cowards and lambs to say the least! The President simply said to America that if the Governors and Mayors could not control the insurrections, he would take action to Federalize the National Guard and insert Active Duty Forces to quell and neutralize the insurrections and criminals. By the way, the President of the United States has all the right and duty to protect the American people.

Consider the options the President had to assist the Governors and Mayors and local police. What would you do if you were in his position? Stand by, do nothing, or plan and execute viable solutions to neutralize the insurrectionists? If the local police and sheriffs could not control the situation, the President’s duty would be to provide Active, Reserve, and Federalized National Guard units/troops to assist State and Local Police. Believe me, the outcomes would be different, and the insurrections of 2020 would be neutralized.

Some charged that The Constitution was under threat from the President. Another General stated Trump was a threat to National Security when in fact, the President was trying to enforce National Security. Even weak and RINO Republicans jumped on the bandwagon to attack the President. One said, “our Republic is under attack from the President” and that President Trump was working to destroy the nation.” Fabrication and deception by the media and Socialists were prevalent, thus, adding confusion among the American people. Do not believe for a moment that our international enemies were not looking on and would take advantage of a weakening America. And why would General Milley need to apologize for accompanying POTUS to a Church that was set on fire by rioters in walking-distance from the White House?

The press would blather about racial injustice when it was the rioters and insurrectionists who set the fires and destroyed millions of dollars of personal and government properties. The President and his national security team were tasked with the mission to develop solutions to the crisis. They call it “crisis planning and management.”

“Enough is enough” America! The Deep State is still filled with anti-Trump political appointees, senior Generals and Admirals, and staffers, who need to be removed from the ranks. Patriotic Americans know in their hearts what is needed to keep the Republic from crumbling. We have a President now who fights for them and this great country and will not permit anarchists and Socialists to destroy what our forefathers created.

We recommend that the President convene a meeting immediately at the Pentagon to be attended by the senior Defense leaders, Secretaries, and four-star Generals and Admirals. The President can then determine and sound out their concerns. He can, then, determine their loyalty and commitment to the Trump team. Those that cannot commit to the President should be asked to submit their resignations by close of business. Selected Retired Generals and Admirals who are apart of a Trump coup should be called back to Active Duty and tried by Court Martial.

The laughable Atlantic article about Trump disrespecting the military was intended not just to get military votes on November 3, but to get military coup participants after November 3. Critical Race Theory training and eight years of Obama’s social justice policies appear to have shifted many of the enlisted ranks from strong conservatives to equally strong Democrats.#

Gen. Paul Vallely is a member of the Citizens Commission on National Security

Released by the Stand Up America US Foundation.

Contact: [email protected]

Website: standupamericaus.org

09/24/20

9/11 Remembered

By: Steve Emerson | CCNS

Nineteen years later, this day is still considered a watershed moment in the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. We still remember the 2,977 innocent souls in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania who died at the hands of Islamic extremists operating underneath the loose radar and wide cracks dividing our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

In those 19 years, we have tried to fix the scandalous technical holes and gaps that existed in the very agencies designed to protect us. Looking back, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security’s record stopping Islamist terrorist attacks—although far from perfect – has stymied the dreams of al-Qaida, ISIS, and others to execute an attack of a similar magnitude.

At the same time, there remains an unwillingness within the media, law enforcement, and other government agencies to speak candidly about the ideological motivation driving the threat – radical Islamism – and an unhealthy embrace of activist groups that whitewash that threat.

This country is playing with fire. For if you can’t even mention who your enemy is, then you will never defeat it. Yes, we all recognized what al-Qaida stands for and stated that it was our enemy. We defeated the core group and took out its leader. The same with ISIS.

After 9/11, I re-released my documentary, “Jihad in America: Terrorists Among Us” in memory of all those who perished. I chose today to release it on our website, as a reminder that the seeds of the attack were planted years before any hijackings. May the memories of those who perished on Sept. 11, 2001, and in all subsequent terrorist attacks, be forever remembered as our nation’s heroes.

Jihad in America: Terrorists Among Us –

This film tracks down a network of Islamic Extremists among us in New York, Boston, New Jersey, Texas, California, Oregon, Florida, and Kansas, detailing their hatred and violent intentions against Christians, moderate Muslims, and Jews in the United States.

Listen to Islamic radicals, telling their followers to carry our Jihad on U.S. soil.

See the fundraising structure in America that supports terrorists and the legitimization of radical Islamic groups. hiding behind “charitable” fronts.

This video is an educational call to action for the American public, to provide U.S. law enforcement authorities with the tools they need to deal with this real threat to the American way of life.

The Islamic extremists who promote and carry out Jihad, are as great a threat to moderate Muslims as they are to Christians, Jews, and to all Americans.

This article was originally published at The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Steve Emerson is a member of the Citizens Commission on National Security.

09/24/20

Video: 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran – Interviews with Clare Lopez

By: Citizens Commission on National Security

Disturbing – and frightening – revelations come to the surface.

With the 19th anniversary of 9/11 having just passed, Frontpage Mag editors have deemed it vital to run the special Glazov Gang episode in which Clare Lopez unveils how 9/11 Came From Riyadh & Tehran, revealing the many highly disturbing and frightening facts that we are simply not allowed to know.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch our 2-Part-Special with Clare on Post-9/11 – Helping Saudis Slip Away and Revealed: Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran.

[1] Post-9/11 – Helping Saudis Slip Away.

[2] Revealed: Osama’s Post-9/11 Safe Haven in Iran.

These were originally posted at FrontPage Mag