Is The “Alt-Left” Going To Destroy

Our President And Country?

The 2017 Trump

Presidency - 9 May 30th, 2017 – June 22, 2017

See How The Main Stream Media, The

Neocons, & the Deep State Are Trying To
Destroy The Trump Presidency
And United States of America
A
Arrttiicclleess C
Coom
mppiilleedd FFrroom
mT Thhee IInntteerrnneett iinn O
Orrddeerr B
Byy D
Daattee
BByy FFrreedd JJaam
meess
 PRINTED FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY

Not For Sale

____ of 10 Copies

[Articles and Pictures & Cartoons Found On The Net]

Disclaimer: We encourage all comments and feedback on our articles as we value free speech and
everyone's right to express themselves. We also will not tolerate abusive language, threats or other
behavior that could be considered unlawful. Anything to the contrary will be deleted.

©2017
WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS:
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code)
governs the making of photo copies or other reproductions of copyrighted material.
Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries and archives
are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction.
One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be
"used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research."
If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction
or purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement.

This printing typeset / compiled by Fred James

F.R.E.D. Productions
June 2017
FIRST EDITION
0987654321
 CONTENTS
Left’s Delusional “Conspiracy Theories” About Russia Are OK On Twitter, But Not The Seth Rich
Conspiracy Analysis xxx
CNN’s Camerota Scoffs At Being Called Out For ‘Collusion’ Agenda: ‘I Don’t Have A Version Of Events!’
White House Slams "False & Unverifiable" CNN Claims Of Intercepted Russian Trump Threats
'You Pay FAR LESS Than You Should - This WILL Change' Trump's Extraordinary Merkel Attack
Germany's Schulz: "Trump Is A Destroyer Of Western Values, We Must Stand In His Way"
Trump Holds A Trump Card: The Power To Pardon
Is This Supposed To Be Funny?: Trump’s Severed Head Featured In New Kathy Griffin Photo Shoot
***GRAPHIC IMAGERY*** xxx
CNN, Call Your Office: Kathy Griffin Channels ISIS, Holds Up Fake Severed Trump Head
Salon Delivers Incredibly Depressing News For Democrats
Kathy Griffin Sums Up The Deranged, Violent, Lunatic Left With Video Of The Bloody, Decapitated Head
Of President Trump xxx
NBC: Don’t Worry, After Trump Trip, ‘We’re Back To The Same Story Lines’ On Russia
After A Day Of Outrage, Kathy Griffin Apologies For Trump Beheading Image
Bozell & Graham Column: What If The Collusion Probe Finds Nothing?
Putin: "Russian Meddling Is A Fiction Democrats Invented To Divert Blame For Their Defeat"
NEO – Will Firing Comey Blow Up In Trump’s Face?
Molly Ball Can’t Care: Trump Family Just Playing ‘Victim’ With Beheading Photo
Bizarre Trump Midnight Tweet Sparks Twitter Trolling, Bewilderment, Mockery
Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Brother Suspected Of Burying Seth Rich DC Murder Case
CBS Only Manages Seconds On Kathy Griffin, Obsessed Over GOP Staffer
Suppose Trump Had Hillary’s Incredible Russian Connection?
Mika Brzezinski Complains Kathy Griffin Story Is 'Gross' and 'Not Worth Doing'
Take-Down of Kathy Griffin
NY Attorney General Vows To Fight Trump Over Reported Paris Climate Deal Exit
Breakup of the West?
Bogus “Trump-Russia Collusion” Story Nothing But A Political Hatchet Job Cooked Up By Obama
Loyalist John Brennan xxx
Clapper: Russians ‘Genetically Driven’ To Interfere In Elections
BREAKING DOJ Has Obtained FISA Warrant To Spy On DC Journalists: Result 3 White House Leakers
Caught xxx
Anti-Russia Spin Pushed By Those Who Lost US Election & Can't Face Reality – Putin To Le Figaro
RT Editor-In-Chief Mocks Clapper Over Claim Of RT's US Election Meddling
CNN Terminates Kathy Griffin After Trump Rages At "Sick" Comedian's Stunt
House Intelligence Committee Issues Subpoenas In “Russia Investigation,” Demands To Know Who
Unmasked Team Trump Officials xxx
Donald Trump Reopens Undiplomatic Twitter Spat With Germany
By Firing Jihadi Murder Advocate Kathy Griffin, CNN Avoids Being Labeled An ISIS Sympathizer
Comey Expected To Testify About Trump Conversations As Early As Next Week
Kathy Griffin Is Toast. Good.
NSA Won't Release Clinton/Lynch Tarmac Tape - Claims "National Security"
‘Fake News!’ Farage Laughs Off Claim He’s A ‘Person Of Interest’ In FBI’s Russia-Trump Probe
Impeachment Advocates Beware: Trump Holds A Trump Card: The Power To Pardon
5 Things You’re Missing While The Internet Obsesses Over ‘Covfefe’ And Kathy Griffin
Dershowitz: Comey Testimony Will Help Trump Legally [VIDEO]
The Alt-Left’s Latest Cultural Target: Destroying Respect For The Institution Of The Presidency
Exclusive: Bilderberg Schemes To Overthrow Trump

As Trump Struggles To Control Leaks To Media, Majority Of Americans Say Publishing Classified Info Is Treason

Trump: 'Big Story' Is Unmasking, Surveillance During Obama Administration

Hey Congress, Voters Are Blaming YOU (And The Media), Not Trump, For Holding Up The President’s Agenda
2 D.C. Hospitals Shut Down Questions About Seth Rich Murder
Seth Rich Murder Case Just Took Stunning Turn –
Jim Carrey Advises Kathy Griffin To Double Down With Trump’s ‘Severed Leg’

'I Represent The People Of Pittsburgh NOT Paris': Trump Pulls U.S. Out Of Climate Accord Saying It Is A Foreign
Attempt To Seize American Jobs And American Wealth - And Is Immediately Attacked By Obama

LOSING IT: Total Liberal MELTDOWN Over Trump’s Paris Climate Accord Nullification Demonstrates Extreme
Derangement Of Climate Change Cultists

List Of Democrats Who Took Money From Violent Sicko Kathy Griffin Who Promotes The Blood Beheading Of
President Trump

Trump Pulls U.S. Out Of “Non-Binding” Paris Climate Accord — Here’s Why He Was Right To Do It
Liberals Lose Their Minds Over Climate Exit: ‘Go F**k Yourself!’
Nets Lose It: ‘The World Will Be A Mess’ With Trump Pulling U.S. From Paris Accord
France Confirms No Traces Of Russian Hackers In Macron Campaign Cyber-Attack

'They Go Low, We Go High': MSNBC's Deutsch Says 'Dangerous Little Man' Trump Is Backward, Uneducated

CRYBULLY MASTERY: After Depicting Deadly Violence Against The President, Kathy Griffin Plays VICTIM Card,
Claiming Trump Bullied Her

Dan Rather’s Grave Diagnosis: President Trump 'Psychologically Troubled'

Kathy Griffin Abandons Accountability, Slams Trump & Family For "Personally Ruining [Her] Life

Bozell Lambastes Childish Media, Kathy Griffin Over Trump Attacks; Wonders If Scarborough Is A Good Man

Trump Didn’t Kill The Paris Agreement — It Was Already Dead

Trump-Griffin Scandal Underscores American Celebrity-Obsessed Culture

Huckabee On Griffin Blaming Trumps: 'Look In The Mirror - That's Who Ruined Your Career'

New Seth Rich Details Emerge- Threatens Hillary, DNC Pizzagate Style (VIDEO)

Help Destroy The “Russiagate” Psyop Once And For All- Sign Petition Asking White House To Investigate The Seth
Rich Murder (VIDEO)

The Trump Collapse Scapegoat Narrative Has Now Been Launched

ABC, CBS Salivate Over Upcoming Senate Hearing With James Comey

CONFIRMED: DNC Paid The ‘Russian’ Founder Of Crowdstrike To Hack Its Server So It Could Be Blamed On
Russia!

MSNBC’s Katy Tur Rails Against President Trump, Insists He Isn’t Trustworthy

MRC's Bozell Condemns Aslan’s Dishonest Apology, Issues Open Letter Demanding CNN Sever Ties

FBI Committed TREASON Under COMEY: Surveillance On Americans Illegally Leaked To Other Nations

Breaking: A Hillary Conviction Is Being Offered Up In Deal Between Deep State And Trump
CNN's Comey Countdown Clock Ticks Down The Seconds To Testimony Time
'Bigger Than Snowden': Whistleblower Says Comey Covered Up Illegal Spying On 20M Americans
Matt Lauer: Trump Guilty Of ‘Emotional Definition’ Of Obstruction Of Justice?
Questions Linger About Seth Rich Murder Details
CNN Corrects 'Fake News' Story On Comey-Trump
Lawyer Says Trump Feels 'Completely And Totally Vindicated' By Comey's Testimony
Statement for The Record: James Comey

Even If Everything James Comey Is Claiming Is True, There Is Still No Evidence That Trump Is Guilty Of Any Crime

Trump To Monitor Comey From A White House Dining Room

Wapo Takes Anonymous Sourcing To A Whole New Level In Latest Obstruction Story
James Comey Hearing Destroys Obstruction Of Justice Case Against Trump
‘Truth Bomb’: Comey Statement Provides No New Info That Proves A Crime
Comey Slams NY Times' Fake News On Russia Probe: "Story Was Almost Entirely Wrong"
Comey: Trump Has Right To End Investigation [VIDEO]
Distortion of Comey’s Prepared Remarks by NYT Editors
Everything We Know About The New York Times’ Secret Comey Source
Comey Testimony More Spectacle Than Substance
Left’s Delusional “Conspiracy Theories” About Russia Are
OK On Twitter, But Not The Seth Rich Conspiracy Analysis
By: JD Heyes
Date: May 30, 2017
There is an all-out war being conducted against the
alternative media by Left-wing speech Nazis in the so-
called “mainstream media” and their social media
enablers. That’s the only way to explain the continual
censorship of important stories by “free speech” platforms
like Facebook, Google Plus and Twitter.
The latter is the most recent offender of the First
Amendment’s speech guarantees, as evidenced by the
censorship of an explosive story that broke last week, for a
time, before it was tamped down by forces unseen and
unknown.
That story involves the alleged murder of Seth Rich, who,
at the time he was gunned down in the early morning hour
of July 10, 2016, may have been acting as a conduit of
stolen emails from his employer, the Democratic National
Committee, to WikiLeaks. The whistleblower site would
soon begin publishing a series of damaging documents that
led to the ousting of then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman
Schulz and exposed how the part had skewed the
nomination process to favor Hillary Clinton and shut out
her primary challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Citing sourced information, WorldNetDaily reported
exclusively a week ago that former interim DNC
Chairwoman Donna Brazile allegedly called Washington
Metropolitan Police and Rich’s family “and demanded to
know why a private investigator was ‘snooping’ into
Rich’s death.”
That report built on an earlier story, also an exclusive, by
Fox News, which claimed — based on sources — that Rich
was responsible for sending stolen DNC emails to
WikiLeaks, perhaps because he was upset over the way the
party was treating Sanders.
That Fox News story has since been retracted, but Internet
entrepreneur and legendary hacker Kim Dotcom has since
confirmed that Rich was the source for the emails and he
has offered to provide proof to congressional investigators,
not Russian hackers.
In any event, when WND attempted to publicize its report
on Twitter, a strange thing happened: The social media site
suspended WND’s account for 12 hours claiming the news
site had somehow violated Twitter’s rules.
As reported by Zero Hedge, Twitter notified WND it
wanted the tweet deleted, again citing a rules violation.
When the news site refused to take the tweet down, Twitter
took action to suspend, temporarily, WND’s account.
“We have determined that you have
violated the Twitter Rules, so we’ve
temporarily limited some of your account
features,” the announcement to WND said.
“While in this state, you can still browse
Twitter, but you’re limited to only sending
Direct Messages to your followers — no
Tweets, Retweets, or likes.”
In typical fashion, Twitter did not specify which rule WND
had broken. I did a quick once-over of the rules and I must
admit, I don’t know which one was broken.
“But that’s not really the point, is it?” Zero
Hedge noted. “Perhaps the reason we can’t
find the ‘rule’ that was violated is because
Twitter doesn’t overtly publish their policy
which demands the censoring of all media
which conflicts with their ‘progressive’
worldview.”
Of course that’s right, and such outright censorship
happened to Natural News recently as well: Google
delisted more than 140,000 pages of content from
NaturalNews.com, again based on an obscure “rule” that, if
applied equally, would have hit many of the “mainstream”
media publishers espousing globalist, Left-wing
authoritarian policies of command and control, the site’s
founder and editor, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger,
discovered.
As for Twitter, it had no problem censoring WND’s
bombshell report while allowing the “establishment”
media to publish serial fake news stories about the Trump
administration, “Russian” collusion, and stories about that
phony Trump “dossier” that has never been substantiated.
(Related: Read “Mainstream” Media Lives In
ALTERNATE Universe Where Obama Never Did
Anything Wrong And Seth Rich Wasn’t Murdered For
Leaking DNC Emails To Wikileaks.)
.
As Adams notes further, there are better choices for news
consumers looking for unfiltered content, which begins
with GoodGopher.com, the non-corporate-owned search
engine for independent news and information. Also, he
recommends checking Censored.news throughout the day,
everyday, for continually updated and breaking news from
the unfiltered alternative media.
We can’t stop the Alt-Left globalist-leaning
“establishment” media from attacking the current president
and censoring any and all information that is harmful to
their political allies. But we can make them far less
relevant by choosing search and news content alternatives.
 CNN’s Camerota Scoffs At Being Called Out For
‘Collusion’ Agenda: ‘I Don’t Have A Version Of Events!’
By Kristine Marsh
May 30, 2017 | 12:03 PM EDT

JOHN SUNUNU: I'm not even sure what would have

happened. First of all, Putin wasn't there. Look, you're
asking hypotheticals on hypotheticals.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Well I'm trying to actually take your

temperature. I’m trying to gage your comfort level with all of
this.

SUNUNU: My comfort level? The only discomfort I have

is with folks in the media trying to create a veniality
without having the courage to specifically tell me what
Even though the media has been pushing hard the Russia- the veniality that I should be concerned about is. I have
Trump collusion narrative for over six months now, CNN not identified a veniality. Have you?
is still denying that the media has any agenda on the
matter. Despite the investigation turning up no evidence,
CNN has been particularly obnoxious in ignoring this fact.

On New Day Tuesday morning, host Alisyn Camerota

scoffed after former George H.W. Bush White House
Chief of Staff, John Sununu, accused her network of
reporting their own “version of events” that assumed
collusion, without showing any evidence that actually
transpired.

After Camerota’s co-host Chris Cuomo called stating the

facts of the case “sabotage,” just last week, Camerota
continued carrying the anti-Trump torch. The tense CAMEROTA: Well. You should be concerned if there
interview with Sununu escalated after he called out was collusion and that’s what--
Camerota for reporting on her “version of events” that
relied on “hypotheticals.” SUNUNU: I don't see any evidence of collusion. Do
you?
After she berated the former governor of New Hampshire
for not being “concerned” enough about possible CAMEROTA: No.
“collusion,” Sununu asked Camerota outright:
SUNUNU: Okay. So that should end your reporting
“If Mueller comes out and says my right there.
version is correct and yours isn't, how
much crow are you going to eat?” CAMEROTA: Well, but we're at the beginning of the
investigation.
An offended Camerota responded,
SUNUNU: You should put an exclamation point right there,
“I don’t have a version of events!” after ‘No.’

CAMEROTA: Understood. But we’re at the beginning of the

investigation. So what--
 SUNUNU: You're seven months into the investigation.
CAMEROTA: Not exactly. Robert Mueller has just taken
over.
SUNUNU: So it is a new investigation?
CAMEROTA: Well no, look that's not exactly fair, governor.
As you know, congress people have been calling for--
SUNUNU: The Obama investigation went on for the last --
.
CAMEROTA: A special counsel to do this, to handle this so
it gets away from all the partisan bickering. It’s just starting
in that regard.
SUNUNU: Can I ask a question? If Mueller comes out
and says my version is correct and yours isn't, how
much crow are you going to eat?
CAMEROTA: Governor, I don't have a version of
events.
SUNUNU: Of course you do. The whole half hour I’ve
listened to you is a version.
 White House Slams "False & Unverifiable"
CNN Claims Of Intercepted Russian Trump Threats
By Tyler Durden
May 30, 2017 11:11 AM
Seemingly dredging up old 'fake' news as new bombshells,
CNN reports that Russian government officials
reportedly talked about having possibly "derogatory"
information about President Trump and some of his top
aides during the 2016 presidential race.
As The Hill details, the officials' discussions were
intercepted by U.S. intelligence, CNN reported, citing two
former intelligence officials and a congressional source.
A source told CNN the information was
related to finances.
Russians appeared to think "they had the
ability to influence the administration
through the derogatory information," the
source said.
However, not only is The White House slamming the
suggestions...
"This is yet another round of false and
unverified claims made by anonymous
sources to smear the President," a White
House spokesman told CNN.
.
"The reality is, a review of the President's
income from the last ten years showed he
had virtually no financial ties at all. There
appears to be no limit to which the
President's political opponents will go to
perpetuate this false narrative, including
illegally leaking classified material."
The spokesman said the story plays "into
the hands of our adversaries and put
our country at risk."
But CNN itself admits this is all bluster...
...sources said the Russians claims
"could have been exaggerated or even
made up."
Sources declined to say specifically which aides were
being discussed.
"The Russians could be overstating
their belief to influence," said one of the
sources.
Still, when has anonymous sourcing of unverifiable claims
held the liberal media back from penning another
Democrat narrative-confirming article to spoon-feed to the
echo-chamber?
 'You Pay FAR LESS Than You Should - This WILL
Change' Trump's Extraordinary Merkel Attack
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump Has Hit Out At Germany For Having A
"Massive" Trade Deficit With The US And The Amount It Spends On
NATO After Angela Merkel Questioned The US' Reliability As An Ally.
By Alix Culbertson
PUBLISHED: 12:03, Tue, May 30, 2017 | UPDATED: 17:15, Tue, May 30, 2017
Using his favourite form of communication, Mr Trump
tweeted today:
"We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with
Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than
they should on NATO & military.
"Very bad for U.S. This will change."
The billionaire leader did not clarify how that would
change.
Getty•Twitter - Donald Trump tweeted out his indignation for
Germany after meeting Angela Merkel
On Monday Chancellor Merkel underlined her doubts
about the reliability of the United States as an ally.
She vented European frustrations with Donald Trump after
back-to-back summits last week, but said she was a
"convinced trans-Atlanticist".
Speaking in a packed beer tent in Munich on Sunday, after
a Group of Seven summit in Sicily and a NATO meeting
in Brussels - both dominated by tensions with Mr Trump -
Mrs Merkel spoke with surprising frankness.
She said:
"The times when we could fully count on
others are over to a certain extent. I have
experienced this in the last few days.
Getty - Donald Trump and Angela Merkel were not on the best of
terms at the G7 summit in Sicily
"We Europeans must really take our
destiny into our own hands, of course in
friendship with the United States, in
friendship with Great Britain, with other
neighbours wherever possible, also with
Russia," she continued.
"But we must know that we need to fight for
our future ourselves, as Europeans, for our
destiny."
Her comments over the weekend sent shockwaves through
Washington.
Mr Trump backed a pledge to fight protectionism at the
end of a summit of the G7 group of wealthy nations on
Saturday.
However, he refused to endorse the climate pact, saying he
needed more time to decide.
Martin Schulz, former President of the European
Parliament and chairman of Mrs Merkel's coalition partner
party the SPD, backed the German Chancellor, accusing
Mr Trump of being an "autocratic leader" who was trying
to "humiliate" her.

Mrs Merkel added ties with the United States were of
"paramount importance", but she otherwise stuck to the
thrust of her Sunday message from a packed Munich beer
tent.
At a conference on sustainable development, she said:
“It became clear at the G7, when there was
no agreement with the USA, how long and
rocky this path would be.
"I think it was good not to gloss over the
differences."
Mrs Merkel indirectly warned Mr Trump he risked
isolating the United States.
She said:
"Anyone who today puts on national
blinkers and no longer has eyes for the
world around him is, I am convinced,
ultimately out on a limb."
Getty - Mrs Merkel hit out at Mr Trump on Sunday during a beer
festival
.
Getty - The G7 meeting was "very unsatisfactory", Mrs Merkel said
Her spokesman, Steffen Seibert, told reporters Mrs Merkel
felt it was right to flag differences in Germany's ties with
the United States in order to maintain healthy relations.
He said:
”Because trans-Atlantic relations are so
important to this chancellor, it is right from
her viewpoint to speak out honestly about
differences.”
Mr Seibert, added, the trans-Atlantic ties
"are a firm pillar of our foreign and security
policy"
Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere stressed Germany's
"excellent" security ties with the United States.
Nonetheless, Merkel's plans to meet Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang this week
reflect Berlin's willingness to work with other countries if
Washington proves problematic on climate and trade
policy.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the West
had become weaker as Washington increasingly puts US
interests first.
He said Mr Trump's administration, for example, was
unlikely to do much to tackle the causes of the migrant
crisis - climate change, wars and persecution.
He referred to the "loss of the US as an important nation"
and said that while it was important to maintain dialogue
with Washington, Europe needed to become stronger and
Germany needed to be more prepared to work with its EU
peers.
 Germany's Schulz: "Trump Is A Destroyer
Of Western Values, We Must Stand In His Way"
By Tyler Durden
May 30, 2017 10:15 AM
Martin Shulz
For all the criticism of Trump's first foreign trip, he seems
to have achieved something quite unprecedented: he has
united Germany's political parties in a common fury (to
avoid using a harsher word) aimed squarely at the US
president.
First, it was Angela Merkel, who was stunned after Trump
refused to endorse the G-7 communique on climate
change, and one day later warned that Germany may no
longer rely on the US (and UK), and that Europe would
have to become self-sufficient going forward, perhaps
envisioning much closer ties with France. Now, it is the
turn of her biggest challenger in the upcoming German
elections, social democrat Martin Shulz who is challenging
.
Merkel for the chancellorship, and who accused Donald
Trump of destroying Western values and undermining
international cooperation.
Speaking to reporters in Berlin, Schulz was
quoted by Reuters as saying Trump was
"the destroyer of all Western values",
adding that the U.S. president was
undermining the peaceful cooperation
of nations based on mutual respect and
tolerance.
"One must stand in the way of such a
man with his ideology of rearmament,"
Schulz added.
Trump criticized Germany earlier on Tuesday for its trade
surplus and military spending levels, a day after
Chancellor Angela Merkel rammed home her doubts about
the reliability of the United States as an ally.
In a tweet, Trump said:
"We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with
Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than
they should on NATO & military. Very bad
for U.S. This will change."
 Trump Holds A Trump Card: The Power To Pardon
Impeachment Advocates Beware
By: Dave Lindorff
May 30, 2017 - 4:11pm
US Constitution, Article II, Section 2 on
pardon power of the president: 'The
President shall...have Power to Grant
Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses
against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.'
Whatever the truth regarding Deep State and Democratic
Party charges of alleged Russian “meddling” in last year’s
election (and I’m definitely in the camp that says there has
been no hard evidence presented to show Russia hacked
DNC emails), Donald Trump and his administration are
now ensnared in a serious investigation by an independent
prosecutor, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, into
obstruction of justice and other crimes that could
technically lead to indictments of Trump aides and to
Trump’s impeachment.
But don’t forget: Trump has one unassailable power as
president -- the power to pardon -- and I predict he will
wield it.
The US Constitution gives a president the almost absolute
power to pardon, including to pardon someone before he
or she has been convicted of a crime or even indicted. As
President Gerald Ford proved, such pardon power can even
be used to pardon someone -- in his case the disgraced and
resigned ex-President Richard Nixon -- before he had even
been charged with a crime.
The only limitation on that presidential pardon power is
that it cannot be used if the president is impeached, or to
interfere with the impeachment process.
What this means is that as long as there has not been an
impeachment of the president, or at least the launching of
impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives,
there is no constraint on President Trump’s use of his
pardon power. He can, according to many legal experts,
even pardon himself, though in that case he could still be
impeached and removed from office, just not prosecuted
for any crimes (impeachment is not a criminal proceeding,
but is simply a process for removing a person from office).
I believe it is likely therefore, that Trump, for whom
appearances, tradition, propriety, and the good of the
country are all meaningless notions, will use his pardon
power to block investigations into, and block indictments
of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and
his top advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner, and anyone
else who gets caught up in the investigation into crimes
committed by him and his administration, his transition
team and his campaign.
While such actions -- even more shocking than Nixon’s
abrupt firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox during
the Watergate scandal -- would likely stun the public and
would, by most Americans, be viewed an admission of
Trump’s guilt, it would effectively eliminate any chance
for Mueller to prosecute or even to investigate anyone in
the Trump administration. People who are pardoned
cannot be pressured by fear of indictment and a promise of
immunity into turning state’s evidence.
Trump would no doubt present his pardons as being an
appropriate action to kill an investigation that he is already
characterizing as a “witch hunt’ based upon lies and “fake
news” -- a view shared by most of his ardent backers
around the country.
How such a bold stroke would play out at that point is hard
to say. Establishment Democrats would likely be
encouraged by Trump pardons to push harder for his
impeachment, but this approach could work to their own
detriment. We’ve already seen in the last election how
disenchanted much of white, working-class America is
with the Congressional Democrats and their focus on
inside-the-beltway fighting as well as their lack of interest
in the daily struggles of ordinary people, white and non-
white. This sentiment will be all the stronger because most
of Americans really aren’t really concerned about Russia
as any kind of threat these days.
At the same time, Republicans, who have shown a
shameless lack of concern with ethics, morals and basic
decency in supporting Trump no matter how obscene,
selfish, brutish or narcissistic he behaves, could lose
support, particularly among independent voters and
erstwhile Democrats, if they were to go along with
Trump’s use of pardons to protect his own ass.
It is really a no-win situation for both parties, which
benefits Trump, who doesn’t really seem to care much
about his place in history.
 Is This Supposed To Be Funny?: Trump’s Severed Head
Featured In New Kathy Griffin Photo Shoot
***GRAPHIC IMAGERY***
Daniel Lang
May 30th, 2017
Over the past few months, we’ve all seen plenty of has-
been celebrities make ugly, and often violent statements
toward President Trump. But what you’re about to see
takes the cake.
On Tuesday, images of a photo shoot involving
“comedian” Kathy Griffin surfaced, which show her
holding up a fake bloody Trump head. The photos were
taken by Tyler Shields, who is known for producing
shocking images. Since then, both liberals and
conservatives have condemned the stunt, and many Trump
supporters have called for her arrest.
It’s hard to fathom the kind of warped mind that would
think this is provocative, edgy, or funny. It’s just gross.
This is yet another example of an anti-trump celebrity who
has no sense of class or self-awareness.
But let’s not get carried away. All of these Trump
supporters who are calling for her arrest are being a bit too
.
16
sensitive. That’s exactly the sort of thing that the
regressive left is often guilty of. They’re the ones who
have a reputation for being hypersensitive, and calling for
the arrests of people they disagree with (it should be noted
that neither Kathy Griffin nor Tyler Shields have actually
called for Trump’s death).
Instead, Trump supporters should be focusing on the
hypocrisy of this. What would have happened if a
conservative publicly held up a bloody head of President
Obama? In all likelihood the Left would be foaming at the
mouth. That person would be called a racist and a fascist,
and the public outcry would probably ruin his career. The
braying leftists would demand an apology, which he would
give, even though it probably wouldn’t fully repair his
career. He would be slammed with death threats. And yes,
people would call for his arrest.
Instead of freaking out about this, Trump supporters need
to calmly call this out for what it is. It’s disgusting and sad.
It’s a desperate cry for attention and relevance. And it’s a
perfect example of how leftists are painfully unfunny.
Here’s what’s really going on with this stunt: When you
come to hate someone with a burning passion, you lose all
sense of proportion and civility, and it becomes impossible
to have a sense of humor about the person you hate. That’s
because real comedy never comes from a place of hatred,
which explains why the far-left is teeming with a bunch of
humorless killjoys. They’re so consumed with hatred and
self-righteous rage that they can neither take a joke, nor
make a joke.
What Kathy Griffin just did, is basically the left’s reaction
to Trump’s presidency in a nutshell.
 CNN, Call Your Office: Kathy Griffin
Channels ISIS, Holds Up Fake Severed Trump Head
By Curtis Houck
May 30, 2017 | 2:50 PM EDT
In a photo shoot leaked on Tuesday afternoon by TMZ,
far-left lewd comedian Kathy Griffin posed with a
bloodied, fake severed head of President Donald Trump in
the same vein ISIS fighters would in videos showing the
beheading of their prisoners.
Griffin has hosted CNN’s New Year’s Eve program since
2007 with AC360 host/friend Anderson Cooper.
Whether it’s making oral sex references in 2008, kissing
Cooper’s crotch moments into 2013, stripping down to
lingerie in 2015, or inviting Megan Mullally and Nick
Offerman to have sex with her during the most recent
installment, CNN’s dislike of the ratings-driven President
is rather hypocritical.
It’s obvious that CNN isn’t a fan of President Trump as
full-fledged cheerleaders of The Resistance, but it’s fair to
say that this goes too far.
Care to comment on this, CNN Public Relations? How
about you, CNN Media team? Will you pressure your own
.
17
network to drop Griffin following this photo shoot
depicting a beheaded President?
One will think they’d comment, but nothing is really
surprising anymore. However, it’s a safe bet all of these
groups would if Griffin had done this with a fake Obama
head.
During the 2016 presidential election, Griffin had a few
desperate screams for attention that drew eyeballs. Griffin
appeared on PBS in November 2015 and told host Tavis
Smiley that there was no way she would let then-GOP
candidate Dr. Ben Carson “give me a pap smear.”
Griffin appeared in a series of October 2016 YouTube
videos in which she seized on a line Michelle Obama used
about “when they go low, we go high” to instead inform
viewers that “when [Trump] goes low, I go lower.” One
could go on and on, but it’s best to be judicious with the
attention she receives.
Early in the hours of March 1, Griffin joined MSNBC and
a sleepy Chris Matthews following Trump’s Joint Address
to Congress, telling his measly viewership that Trump and
his entire ship were “going to go down” in the
impeachment flames.
She also linked the President to drug addicts:
But this administration, cabinet is like the final scene in an
episode of Intervention. But this time the interventionist
says — okay, the interventionist says — “Okay, Donald,
you are not just going to rehab, we are going to send
everybody. Bannon, you gotta go. Kellyanne, you are next.
Steve Miller, all the Millers gotta go.”
Editor's Note: This post has been updated to include more
instances of Griffin's chicanery on CNN and some of her
statements during and after the 2016 election.
18
 Salon Delivers Incredibly
Depressing News For Democrats
By P.J. Gladnick
May 30, 2017 | 6:57 PM EDT
Warning! Please do not show this Salon article to your
liberal acquaintances. It could cause severe, irreversible
depression in them.
The reason why the May 27 article by Salon's executive
editor, Andrew O'Hehir, could be so horribly depressing
for them is that it tells several highly unwelcome truths
that burst liberal fantasies. The fact that this unwelcome
news for Democrats appears in leftist Salon just adds to
the credibility of the article whose very depressing title
must make liberals want reach for the Prozac, Wake up,
liberals: There will be no 2018 “blue wave,” no
Democratic majority and no impeachment:
We received a message from the future
this week, directed to the outraged liberals
of the so-called anti-Trump resistance. It
was delivered by an unlikely intermediary,
Greg Gianforte, the Republican who won a
special election on Thursday and will soon
take his seat in Congress as Montana’s
lone representative. (Here’s a trivia
question to distract you from the doom and
gloom: Without recourse to Google, how
many other states can you name that have
only one House seat?)
If you found yourself ashen-faced and dismayed on Friday
morning, because you really believed the Montana election
would bring a sign of hope and mark the beginning of a
return to sanity in American politics, then the message
encoded in Gianforte’s victory is for you. It goes
something like this:
Get over Montana already — and stop
trolling yourself with that stupid special
election in Georgia too. They don’t mean
anything, and anyway — that dude Jon
Ossoff? He’s about the lamest excuse for a
national progressive hero in the entire
history of Democratic Party milquetoast
triangulation. Oh, and since we’re on the
subject: Forget about the “blue wave” of
2018. Forget about the Democratic
majority of 2019. Forget about the
impeachment of President Donald
Trump. Have you even been paying
19
attention? Because none of that stuff is
happening and it’s all a massive
distraction.
Ouch! O'Hehir goes on to describe the special elections
fantasy currently held by hopeful Democrats.
First you chip away at Republican triumphalism, and the
House majority, with a couple of special-election victories.
Then it’s about organizing, recruiting the right candidates
for the right seats, registering voters and ringing doorbells,
right? Democrats picked up 31 seats in the George W.
Bush midterms of 2006 — and will need 24 or so this time
— so, hey, it could happen. For that matter, Republicans
gained an astounding 63 seats in the Tea Party election of
2010, and many observers have speculated that Trump-
revulsion might create that kind of cohesion on the left. So
we sweep away Paul Ryan and his sneering goons, give
Nancy Pelosi back her speaker’s gavel after eight long
years, introduce the articles of impeachment and begin to
set America back on the upward-trending path of political
normalcy and niceness.
I suspect it’s pointless to list all the
things that are wrong with that scenario,
because either you agree with me that
it’s a delusional fantasy built on seven
different varieties of magical thinking or
you don’t, and in the latter case I am not
likely to convince you.
Before I chug down my bottle of Prozac, please tell me
what is wrong with that fantasy scenario.
...the extreme and ingenious
gerrymandering of congressional
districts locked in by Republican state
legislators after the 2010 census
virtually guarantees a GOP House
majority until the next census and at
least the 2022 midterms.
Yes, the widely-hated health care law might put a few
Republican seats in play that weren’t before. But the
number of genuine “swing” districts is vanishingly small,
and it would require a Democratic wave of truly historic
dimensions to overcome the baked-in GOP advantage.
 As for the Senate — well, Democratic
campaign strategists will mumble and
look away if you bring that up, because
the Senate majority is completely out of
reach. Of the 33 Senate seats up for
election next year, 25 are currently held
by Democrats — and 10 of those are in
states carried by Donald Trump last
year. It’s far more likely that
Republicans will gain seats in the
Senate, perhaps by knocking off Joe
Manchin in West Virginia or Heidi Heitkamp
in North Dakota, than lose any at all.
Okay, maybe no winning back Congress in 2018 but don't
the Democrats have a better chance of impeaching
.
20
President Trump? Even without any proof of collusion
with the Russians all we see on television is news about
something that at least sounds nefarious so isn't there a
chance of impeachment? Huh? Huh?
Electing a Democratic House majority
(which is 95 percent unlikely to happen)
and impeaching Trump (which is 100
percent not going to happen) might feel
good in the moment, but wouldn’t actually
fix what is broken.
GOODBYE CRUEL WORLD!!!
 Kathy Griffin Sums Up The Deranged, Violent, Lunatic
Left With Video Of The Bloody, Decapitated Head Of
President Trump
By: Mike Adams
Date: May 30, 2017
And now the full lunacy of the deranged, violent Left is on
display for the world to see: “Comedian” Kathy Griffin
posted a video of a bloody, decapitated head of President
Donald Trump, providing yet more vile, hate-filled “fresh
meat” to the lunatic Left which is already deranged beyond
belief.
There’s no other way to say it:
Kathy Griffin and the deranged, lunatic Left
are mentally ill and pose a very real
danger to society. This wretched, terrorist-
style beheading video posted by Griffin
encourages deadly violence against
Trump supporters and sends a message
that murdering political opponents of the
intolerant Left is a normal, acceptable
activity.
That’s what the deranged Left already believes, of course.
Fanned into flames by a wildly dishonest, discredited
fakestream media, Trump Derangement Syndrome has
now escalated into a left-wing murderous rage that now
celebrates gruesome images of beheadings that were once
the sole domain of fanatical terrorists. What’s even more
disturbing about all this is that Kathy Griffin apparently
thought posting a video showing a bloodied, decapitated
Trump head in her fist would somehow be hilarious or
inspiring in some twisted way.
Indeed, it is rather inspiring to the insane, mentally ill
Leftists who now demonstrate that they have no capacity
21
to participate in a civilized society. What Kathy Griffin
has really accomplished is depicting exactly what the
insane, deranged Left now believes: Nearly all of them
want Trump to be murdered, including the mentally ill
bloggers and “journalists” who work for so-called
mainstream news outlets like the Washington Post and
New York Times. Even in those newsrooms, the mass
murder of Trump and his supporters is a wildly popular
notion. There’s no longer any tactic, any video, any level
of violence that goes too far with the deranged Left.
The Left-wing ZOMBIE assault: Kathy
Griffin just informed all patriotic
Americans that they have no remaining
choice but to defend themselves against
deranged, Left-wing aggressors who are
out for blood
It’s now obvious to every patriotic American that the
mentally ill Left is out for blood. The vile hatred,
aggression and lies of the left-wing media has turned Left-
wingers into mindless zombies seeking to murder and
destroy. Just look at the mindless, zombie expression on
Griffin’s face in the photo above: She’s emotionless,
hollow, soulless and deranged, with the full facial
expression of a sick-minded serial killer. It’s the perfect
depiction of the zombie mindset of millions of other hate-
filled deranged Leftists who are also calling for mass
violence against President Trump and his supporters.
To patriotic Americans who still believe in the rule of law
and honoring the outcome of elections, the underlying
message in Griffin’s grotesque, demented “hate stunt” is
unmistakably clear: We the People will sooner or later
have to exercise our lawful right to self-defense by
defending ourselves against deranged, Left-wing
aggressors who are literally out to kill us. Kathy Griffin’s
“joke,” you see, is not a joke at all. It is the direct
expression of the sick desires and hate-filled violence
that’s now routinely depicted by the extreme Left.
Kathy Griffin, in other words, just announced that there is
no remaining room for civil discussions with the insane
Left. There is nothing to negotiate anymore. There is no
common ground rooted in civility or law. When a cult-like
sect of society has been so utterly transformed into hateful,
violent zombies that they would celebrate the bloody
killing of the President of the United States of America,
their continued aggression and threats can no longer be
tolerated by those who seek to live in peace and harmony.
It really is time to start arresting and imprisoning people
exactly like Kathy Griffin. It is time to send in the National
Guard and conduct a mass arrest of crybully students who
are now resorting to left-wing terrorism tactics on colleges
campuses across America. It’s time for supporters of
President Trump to prepare for “Second Amendment
activation” which would involve the tactical defense of
this nation against the insane, violent coup attempt that’s
now being waged by the fascist media and its obedient
Democrat puppets.
If all of us who believe in law and order, free elections and
our Constitutional Republic just sit back and continue to
watch the psychotic Left openly advocate our murder, then
we will lose this nation to violent fascism. Google,
Facebook, Youtube and Twitter are already silencing
nearly all voices that don’t blindly support their totalitarian
info-fascism. Censorship against the independent media
has never been more extreme in the history of the internet.
JOURNO-TERRORISM: How the lying
left-wing media generates hatred and
promotes the murder of political
opponents
All that you are witnessing here is the result of the hate-
filled frenzy that has been deliberately generated by a
fascist “mainstream” media engaged in deliberate acts of
what I have dubbed “journo-terrorism.” Through a never-
ending series of deliberately false, hate-filled articles
quoting fictional “anonymous sources,” the Leftist media
has abandoned every last tenant of ethical journalism
and is now functioning as a fascist propaganda machine
that advocates murder.
As I wrote in 2016 in an article entitled JOURNO-
TERRORISM: The goal of the left-wing media has always
been to terrorize voters and hypnotically control them
using orchestrated fear programming:
Members of the leftist media smugly claim
they advocate love, compassion and
progressivism, but any honest analysis of
their content leads to the conclusion that
their reporters are journo-terrorists. They
deliberately fabricate falsehoods about
their political enemies to effectively
hypnotize their readers into being terrified
of them. FALSE FEAR is the mantra of the
journo-terrorists. This is exactly why there
was so much intense hatred on the left for
22
Donald Trump — the media whipped it up
on purpose by using false scare stories…
The goal of the left-wing media, of course, is to overthrow
the legitimate United States government, nullify the will of
the voters and set off a cultural war that’s now being
framed as deliberate genocide against Whites.
Any person who isn’t a Democrat is now being targeted by
the media, the universities and mentally ill Left-wing
extremism advocates (like Maxine Waters) who clearly
want to see all opposition against the Democrat fascist
agenda silenced (even by means of murdering people,
since the Left believes the ends always justify the means).
Left-wing journalists, in other words, are complicit in the
violence and genocide now being openly invoked by the
deranged Left.
As Paul Joseph Watson recently reported, an
anthropologist named Michael P. Oman-Reagan is now
openly calling for “white genocide,” stating it’s a “good
plan” because White people teach children to be “full of
hate.” (Yes, seriously, this is the demented logic of the
hate-filled Left. They label others “racists” while calling
for skin-color-based genocide in the very same sentence.)
The same academic then insisted that America is a “racist
nation” and therefore all White people should be murdered
to eliminate the racism. With full irrationality on display,
this is akin to arguing that the best way to stop people from
committing violence is to murder them before they can
become violent, thereby stopping the violence with
violence. It’s delusional, in other words, yet twisted
thoughts like this are now being seriously argued by
demented academics who are teaching the next generation
of obedient zombie youth how to engage in politically
correct hatred and genocide while shrouding mass death
and violence under the delusional banner of “tolerance”
and “equality.”
As yet another example of the insane, intolerant Left,
consider the recent clash between a racist student mob and
a white, liberal college professor: The insane student mob
— acting like terrorists — demanded that all white people
leave campus or they might face violence.
Watch more from Tucker Carlson:
 Colleges have now become terrorist
training camps for hate-filled, violent
Left-wing crazies
As is obvious from the video above, America’s college
campuses have become literal terrorist training camps for
the violent Left. This is precisely the subject of my recent
Natural News article entitled America’s universities have
become training camps for violent left-wing extremism,
which stated:
Over the last decade or so, we’ve all watch
in horror as America’s universities have
been turned into what can now clearly be
called extremism training camps for left-
wing fascists. Instead of teaching students
to be responsible adults with critical
thinking skills, colleges and universities
now focus on obedience training coupled
with deeply-ingrained hatred, intolerance
and violence toward those who have
opposing points of view.
What we’re witnessing in America today is far beyond
simple disagreement. The Left has demonstrated beyond
any doubt that it is unwilling to participate in a civilized
society and demands nothing less than a totalitarian, fascist
regime run by violent Leftists.
The Left respects no law, in other words, no institution, no
election outcome, no branch of government and no
executive decision that it does not agree with. When
elections produce outcomes the Left doesn’t like, its
members fabricate conspiracy theories to claim the
election was stolen. When the executive branch of
government is not controlled by the Left, its members say
the executive should have no power. When independent
thinkers, journalists and bloggers speak with reason and
intelligence against the insanity of the deranged Leftist
narratives, they are deliberately censored and silenced by
the tech giants which have no decided to memory hole all
content that doesn’t support the genocidal, hate-filled
narratives of the Left.
The Left, in other words, has become a dangerous, violent,
intolerant CULT of murder advocates and would-be serial
killers. They have abandoned all civility, all ethics and all
respect for law. They seek absolute power over all
legislation, unlimited genocide against Whites and
Christians, total obedience to insane Left-wing narratives
and unrelenting conformity — even cult-like worship —
from every member of society.
.
23
This is precisely why the Left has become the single
greatest threat to our Republic… and it’s why the radical
Left must be stopped.
A day is coming when patriots rise up
and defend their nation, their culture
and their borders against the mentally ill
Left as depicted by Kathy Griffin
Mark my words, friends: I see a day coming soon when
patriots across America rise up in defense of their nation,
their culture and their borders. I see a day when law-
abiding, armed, patriotic citizens make mass arrests of
deranged, child-molesting lawmakers and legislators who
are traitors to our country. I see a day when Left-wing
fascist propaganda publishers are occupied and overrun by
concerned citizens; where the tech giants are seized and
forced to end their fascist censorship; and where mayors of
“sanctuary cities” are arrested and incarcerated for aiding
and abetting violent criminals.
Kathy Griffin has just advertised a great warning to us all,
essentially saying that we are now down to the last resort
option to save our nation from the insane, violent, hate-
filled Left… and that if we don’t, they will cut off our
heads, murder us in the streets and overthrow the
government in order to install their own sick version of a
totalitarian police state.
Remember: The Left hates conservatives more than it
hates machete-wielding Muslim terrorists. The Left
would much rather see Islamic fundamentalists rule over
America than see Trump remain in the White House.
That’s how insane they’ve truly become.
If you are not yet arming up under the Second
Amendment, you are not at all prepared for the wave of
insane, zombie-like violence the Left is about to unleash
across this nation. You will be called soon to defend this
nation against violence and derangement. Make sure you
are fully prepared and ready to take all necessary, lawful
steps to defend your nation, your culture, your community
and your life. You will have the police, the National
Guard, the military and the President on your side. Your
enemies will be numerous but disorganized, untrained and
hopelessly outgunned. If you are willing to defend your
nation, you will succeed in doing so. But if you are more
interested in appeasing the conformist demands of those
who are violent, psychotic mental patients, then you will
lose everything (including your life, most likely).
Thank you, Kathy Griffin, for elucidating the remaining
options for American patriots who refuse to surrender this
nation to your deranged lunacy.
 NBC: Don’t Worry, After Trump Trip,
‘We’re Back To The Same Story Lines’ On Russia
By Kyle Drennen
May 30, 2017 | 4:22 PM EDT
Opening Tuesday’s NBC Today, co-hosts Matt Lauer and
Savannah Guthrie assured their liberal viewers that with
President Trump back from his overseas trip they were
going to guarantee that the Russia investigation was the
top headline. Guthrie welcomed the audience by
announcing:
“The President’s back from his
overseas trip, but some of these same
headlines persisting.”
Lauer followed up:
“That’s right, we’re back to the same
story lines in Washington as people
kind of get – shake off the holiday
weekend.”
Guthrie chimed back in:
“Absolutely. There’s some new
overnight developments to tell you
about regarding this Russia
investigation and the reports that Jared
Kushner, the President’s son-in-law, tried
to establish a secret back channel with
Moscow before the Inauguration.”
Beginning the first report of the show, correspondent Peter
Alexander touted
“new headlines emerging that raise
questions about Kushner’s contacts
with Russia.”
24
After briefly noticing the President’s Memorial Day
address honoring fallen military members,
Alexander hastened to add that “heading
into summer, the President and his team
are already feeling the heat” and
“fending off critical headlines.”
Following Alexander’s report, Lauer turned to MSNBC
host Nicolle Wallace and again emphasized:
“The President’s back from nine days
overseas, no place like home, that doesn’t
quite make sense. What’s gonna drive
headlines this week?”
Wallace agreed that the media narrative had already been
decided:
Listen, they even – right before I came on
they sent a note saying remind people
of the historic moves we made in the
Middle East. No one’s going to be
talking about any of the good things
about the trip.
They’ll be on the cleanup from the stop in NATO, which
was, you know, by people on both sides of the aisle
considered to be a debacle.
She then melodramatically proclaimed:
“...they have a sort of Def Con 4 political
crisis on their hands with the Russia
investigation. And it now goes not just to
the top echelons of the West Wing senior
staff, it goes to the deep inner circle of the
President’s family.”
Later in the panel discussion, which included former
Obama flack Josh Earnest, Wallace ranted:
“I think that what continues to trip up this
White House, they were so unprepared to
assume the office of the presidency....Their
 excuses are nonsensical....They make no
sense when you consider what was
happening.”
Wrapping up the segment, Lauer quipped:
“So what you’re both telling us, it’s going to
be another calm week in Washington?”
That prompted fits of laughter in the studio. Guthrie
remarked:
“Happy summer, everybody.”
Here are excerpts of May 30 coverage:
7:01 AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: The President’s back from his
overseas trip, but some of these same headlines persisting.
MATT LAUER: That’s right, we’re back to the same story
lines in Washington as people kind of get – shake off the
holiday weekend.
GUTHRIE: Absolutely. There’s some new overnight
developments to tell you about regarding this Russia
investigation and the reports that Jared Kushner, the
President’s son-in-law, tried to establish a secret back
channel with Moscow before the Inauguration. Now, we’ve
got complete coverage and we’ll start with NBC National
Correspondent Peter Alexander. Peter, good morning to
you.
PETER ALEXANDER: Hey, Savannah, Matt, good morning
to you. President Donald Trump and his advisers are
gearing up right now for an aggressive effort to push back
on allegations involving Russia and his presidential
campaign. Their plan, to establish a war room to deal with all
things Russia related. White House aides tell NBC News the
effort will be headed by Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, and
Reince Priebus, as some advisers here are encouraging
Kushner to lay low with these new headlines emerging that
raise questions about Kushner’s contacts with Russia.
25
America’s commander-in-chief, President Trump, briefly
putting politics aside, honoring the nation’s fallen military
heros.
DONALD TRUMP: I believe that God has a special place in
heaven for those who lay down their lives so that others may
live free from fear.
ALEXANDER: But heading into summer, the President and
his team are already feeling the heat. Mr. Trump fending off
critical headlines.
(...)
7:05 AM
MATT LAUER: Let’s turn to our political analysts Josh
Earnest and Nicole Wallace. Guys, good morning, good to
see you both. The President’s back from nine days
overseas, no place like home, that doesn’t quite make
sense. What’s gonna drive headlines this week?
NICOLLE WALLACE: Listen, they even – right before I
came on they sent a note saying remind people of the
historic moves we made in the Middle East. No one’s going
to be talking about any of the good things about the trip.
They’ll be on the cleanup from the stop in NATO, which was,
you know, by people on both sides of the aisle considered to
be a debacle. That the President didn’t affirm our
commitment to NATO, to protecting our allies. That’s the
foreign policy side. And on the domestic side, it’s what Peter
[Alexander] just laid out, they have a sort of Def Con 4
political crisis on their hands with the Russia investigation.
And it now goes not just to the top echelons of the West
Wing senior staff, it goes to the deep inner circle of the
President’s family.
(...)
7:08 AM
WALLACE: I think that what continues to trip up this White
House, they were so unprepared to assume the office of the
presidency that they had no staff. I find it hard to believe that
they couldn’t wait a few weeks to start engaging in foreign
policy. Their excuses are nonsensical and even their
attorneys are trying to get their arms around the set of facts
to see if these explanations and these excuses hold water.
They make no sense when you consider what was
happening. They had no cabinet, yet they had to urgently
rush into foreign policy negotiations secretly with Russia? It
makes no sense.
LAUER: So what you’re both telling us, it’s going to be
another calm week in Washington?
[LAUGHTER]
GUTHRIE: Happy summer, everybody.
(...)
 After A Day Of Outrage,
Kathy Griffin Apologies For Trump Beheading Image
By Nicholas Fondacaro
May 30, 2017 | 10:04 PM EDT
For much of Tuesday, the country joined in rare collective
outrage at the viral image of comedian Kathy Griffin
holding aloft a mock bloody severed head of President
Trump. Politicos from the left and right side of the
spectrum shared a sense of disgust over the image that
some equated to promoting violence, while one writer for
The Atlantic didn’t have a problem with it. But at roughly
eight o’clock PM Eastern time, Griffin finally spoke out
about the images and issued an apology.
In a 31 second long video posted to Twitter, Griffin started
off by saying that “I sincerely apologize. I’m just now
seeing the reaction of these images. I’m a comic. I crossed
the line. I move the line and then I cross it. I went way too
far.”
“The image is too disturbing. I understand how it offends
people. It wasn’t funny, I get it. I’ve made a lot of mistakes
in my career. I will continue,” she added. “I asked your
forgiveness. Taking down the image. Going to ask the
photographer to take down the image. And I beg for your
forgiveness. I went too far. I made a mistake and I was
wrong."
In addition to being a comedian, Griffin is also an
employee of CNN. She occasionally is asked to give her
opinion, but she’s more known for co-hosting the
network’s New Year’s Eve coverage with Anderson
Cooper. It took CNN until after nine o’clock Eastern to
26
finally release a statement. In a tweet by CNN’s media
reporter Dylan Bryer, the statement said:
We found what she did disgusting and offensive. We are
pleased to see she has apologized and asked that the photos
be taken down. We are evaluating our New Year’s Eve
coverage and have made no decisions at this time.
Griffin’s New Year’s Eve co-host, Anderson Cooper, also
took to Twitter to denounce her actions. “For the record, I
am appalled by the photo shoot Kathy Griffin took part in.
It is clearly disgusting and completely inappropriate,” he
wrote. Cooper did not make any reference to Griffin
during his two-hour-long program.
CNN had only aired one story about the mock Trump
beheading, which almost seemed forced by Jake Tapper
during his show The Lead. Not only did it take CNN
several hours to give a statement to the public, but they
had also been ducking their own reporters. In an online
report written up by CNN’s Sandra Gonzalez, before
CNN’s official statement was released, she wrote that
“Questions were also raised about whether the photos
would affect Griffin's relationship with CNN … CNN has
not yet responded to request for comment.”
In a time where the media likes to opine about how
President Trump is dividing the country, Griffin managed
to unite people around one cause: decency in political
satire, if you could even call it that.
Transcript below:
Kathy Griffin Video Tweet
Roughly 8:00 PM Eastern
KATHY GRIFFIN: Hey everybody, it’s me, Kathy Griffin. I
sincerely apologize. I’m just now seeing the reaction of these
images. I’m a comic. I crossed the line. I move the line and then I
cross it. I went way too far. The image is too disturbing. I
understand how it offends people. It wasn’t funny, I get it. I’ve
made a lot of mistakes in my career. I will continue. I asked your
forgiveness. Taking down the image. Going to ask the
photographer to take down the image. And I beg for your
forgiveness. I went too far. I made a mistake and I was wrong.
 Bozell & Graham Column:
What If The Collusion Probe Finds Nothing?
By Brent Bozell and Tim Graham
May 30, 2017 | 11:07 PM EDT
President Trump is back from his first foreign trip, and
CBS “welcomed” him back by suggesting again that he
can’t possibly win a long fight with the media.
On the May 28 CBS Evening News, reporter Errol Barnett
quizzed Face the Nation host John Dickerson:
“Now President Trump is back to tweeting
his unedited opinions this morning, telling
people among other things, quote, ‘Many of
the leaks coming from the White House are
fabricated lies, coming from the fake news
media.’ Are his supporters still buying that
same excuse?”
What excuse exactly? Every politicized story loaded up
with anonymous Trump-trashing government officials
must be the gospel truth. It doesn’t matter that people
leaking these stories are unquestionably driven by a
political agenda. Time and again, these leaked stories have
collapsed. None of that matters.
Dickerson replied in kind:
“His supporters that buy that line is a
shrinking group. A lot of the things he’s
calling and has called fake news are now
things that have either (A) been supported
by officials and members of both parties.
The things he said were fake and made up
are now the subject of a special counsel
investigation. It`s hard to make the case
that this is a fake set of inquiries.”
27
This is the weird kind of logic that suffices in Liberal
Land. A story is not “fake” if it’s still being investigated. If
we tell you it is raining, and you set out to investigate that
claim, and it is sunny, is our story not fake because you’re
still investigating it? It’s not a question of evidence as
much as a question of political power and momentum.
Ends justify means. Character assassination in order to
diminish, and hopefully eradicate the adversary is a good
thing.
Dickerson did not sound like this when the scandal
involved Hillary Clinton. A year ago, he declared her
private e-mail server a “stupid issue,” a deflection from
important policy matters like raising the minimum wage.
The CBS host also wasn’t going to pressed by his
colleague on whether all of these leaked stories turned out
to be true, or false. As we’ve noted before, the Washington
Post had two anonymously-sourced Jim Comey stories
proven false: that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein
offered to resign, and that the FBI asked for additional
resources for its search for Trump-Russia collusion. The
acting FBI director testified under oath that was not
true.
Democrats from Dianne Feinstein to
Maxine Waters have admitted there is zero
evidence so far of the Trump campaign
colluding with the Russian government in a
nefarious plot to “hack the election.”
But the unyielding spirit of the media was reflected in the
ladies of ABC’s The View begging former Defense
Secretary Don Rumsfeld to declare Trump’s impeachment
was imminent. Rumsfeld said he hadn’t seen any proof of
collusion, and Joy Behar yelled back
“If! If! If! If!”
Rumsfeld replied: “Why would I want to ‘if’
that?”
Despite their proclamations that they are the guardians of
facts, the liberal elite wants to fast-forward beyond the
evidence and see Trump’s ruin as inevitable. Sentence
first, verdict afterwards. After that, evidence...if any.
Former Gov. John Sununu told CNN there was no
collusion, and they’ve looked for months now. He asked
CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota,
“If [Robert] Mueller comes out and says my
version is correct and yours isn’t, how
much crow are you going to eat?”
.
The media refuse to envision that strong possibility.
Now the latest Washington Post story on Jared Kushner
pushing the Russians for a secret back channel is falling
apart. They’ll be saying Donald Trump is making
“excuses” again.

28
 Putin: "Russian Meddling Is A Fiction
Democrats Invented To Divert Blame For Their Defeat"
By Tyler Durden
May 30, 2017 9:49 PM
With McCarthyism 2.0 continues to run amok in the US,
spread like a virulent plague by unnamed, unknown, even
fabricated sources, over in France one day after his first
meeting with French president Emanuel Macron, the man
who supposedly colluded with and was Trump's pre-
election puppet master (but had to wait until after the
election to set up back-channels with Jared Kushner)
Vladimir Putin sat down for an interview with French
newspaper Le Figaro in which the Russian president
expressed the belief that Moscow and Western capitals “all
want security, peace, safety and cooperation.”
“Therefore, we should not build up tensions
or invent fictional threats from Russia,
some hybrid warfare etc.,” the Russian
leader told his French hosts. “What is the
major security problem today? Terrorism.
There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in
Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the
Middle East. This is the main concern.
But no, let us keep speculating on the
threat from Russia."
Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-
Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain
said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS.
“You made these things up yourselves
and now scare yourselves with them
and even use them to plan your
prospective policies. These policies have
no prospects. The only possible future is in
cooperation in all areas, including security
issues."
"Hacking" Clinton And the DNC
Even with the FBI special investigation on "Russian
collusion" with the Trump campaign and administration
taking place in the background,
Putin once again dismissed allegations
of Russian meddling in last year's U.S.
presidential election as "fiction"
invented by Democrats to divert the
blame for their defeat.
29
Putin repeated his strong denial of Russia's involvement in
the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails that
yielded disclosures that proved embarrassing for Hillary
Clinton's campaign. Instead, he countered that claims of
Russian interference were driven by the
"desire of those who lost the U.S.
elections to improve their standing."
"They want to explain to themselves and
prove to others that they had nothing to do
with it, their policy was right, they have
done everything well, but someone from
the outside cheated them," he continued.
"It's not so. They simply lost, and they
must acknowledge it."
That has proven easier said than done, because half a year
after the election, Hillary Clinton still blames Wikileaks
and James Comey for her loss. Ironically, what Putin said
next, namely that the
"people who lost the vote hate to
acknowledge that they indeed lost because
the person who won was closer to the
people and had a better understanding of
what people wanted,"
is precisely what even Joe Biden has admitted several
weeks ago, and once again yesterday. Maybe Uncle Joe is
a Russian secret agent too...
In reflecting on the ongoing scandal, which has seen
constant, daily accusations of collusion and interference if
no evidence (yet), Putin conceded that the damage has
already been done and Russia's hopes for a new detente
under Trump have been shattered by congressional and
FBI investigations of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.
In the interview, Putin also said the accusations of
meddling leveled at Russia have destabilized international
affairs
Going back to the hotly debated topic of "influencing" the
election, Putin once again made a dangerous dose of sense
when he argued that trying to influence the U.S. vote
would make no sense for Moscow as a U.S. president can't
unilaterally shape policies.
 "Russia has never engaged in that, we
don't need it and it makes no sense to
do it," he said. "Presidents come and go,
but policies don't change. You know
why? Because the power of
bureaucracy is very strong." Especially
when the bureaucracy in question is the so-
called "deep state."
Asked who could have been behind the hacking of the
Democrats' emails, The Russian leader added that he
agreed with Trump that it could have been anyone.
"Maybe someone lying in his bed invented
something or maybe someone deliberately
inserted a USB with a Russian citizen's
signature or anything else," Putin said.
"Anything can be done in this virtual world."
This echoed a remark by Trump during a
September presidential debate in which he
said of the DNC hacks: "It could be Russia,
but it could be China, could also be lots of
other people. It could be someone sitting
on their bed that weighs 400 pounds."
Assad, Red-Lines and Chemical Weapons
Putin was asked about French President Emmanuel
Macron's warning that any use of chemical weapons in
Syria was a "red line" that would be met by reprisals, to
which the Russian president said he agreed with that
position. But he also reiterated Russia's view that Syrian
President Bashar Assad's forces weren't responsible for a
fatal chemical attack in Syria in April.
Putin said Russia had offered the U.S.
and its allies the chance to inspect the
Syrian base for traces of the chemical
agent. He added that their refusal
reflected a desire to justify military
action against Assad. "There is no proof
of Assad using chemical weapons," Putin
insisted in the interview. "We firmly believe
that that this is a provocation. President
Assad did not use chemical weapons.”
“Moreover, I believe that this issue should
be addressed on a broader scale.
President Macron shares this view. No
.
30
matter who uses chemical weapons
against people and organizations, the
international community must formulate a
common policy and find a solution that
would make the use of such weapons
impossible for anyone,” the Russian leader
said.
On NATO's Military Buildup across Russian borders
Weighing on the outcome of the recent NATO summit, at
which Russia was branded a threat to security, Putin
pointed to the ambiguous signals Moscow is receiving
from the alliance.
“What attracted my attention is that the
NATO leaders spoke at their summit
about a desire to improve relations with
Russia. Then why are they increasing
their military spending? Whom are they
planning to fight against?”
Putin said, adding that Russia nevertheless “feels
confident” in its own defenses. Washington’s appeal to
other NATO members to ramp up their military spending
and alleviate the financial burden the US is forced to
shoulder is “understandable” and “pragmatic,” Putin said.
But the strategy employed by the alliance against Russia is
“shortsighted,” the Russian president added, referring to
the NATO’s expanding missile defense infrastructure on
Russia’s doorstep and calling it
“an extremely dangerous development for
international security.”
Putin lamented that an idea of a comprehensive security
system envisioned in the 1990s that would span Europe,
Russia and US has never become a reality, arguing that it
would have spared Russia many challenges to its security
stemming from NATO.
“Perhaps all this would not have happened.
But it did, and we cannot rewind history, it
is not a movie.”
 NEO – Will Firing Comey
Blow Up In Trump’s Face?
By Jim W. Dean, VT Editor / New Eastern Outlook, Moscow
May 30, 2017
[ Note: While Trump was on his world tour, the Russian
investigation has rolled on with new targets, like Trump’s
own attorney being asked for any and all documents
concerning contact with Russians that he might have had.
As I write, he has refused, and the House committee voted
unanimously to empower the chairman to issue subpoenas.
The key battle on these investigations will be the struggle
between the Special Prosecutor and the Congressional
committees to not kill any of the Prosecutor’s potential
recommendations for indictments by giving people
immunity for their Congressional testimony.
A picture worth 1000 words
An unscrupulous Republican committee chairman, and
even questioners, in order to protect Trump’s people, could
construct their questioning to give them a free ticket to
avoid a criminal prosecution.
But that said, this investigation is going
to be a long story, for if Trump is a one
31
term president, he might not be sitting
in office when Mueller is done. That’s
how long these high profile cases can
run. Bill Clinton’s went on for ages…
and a fortune was spent on it.
Trump has a history of liking to tip the scales
Trump has such a full plate of investigations now, he has
been wisely building a special team to handle them, rather
than piling them on his government staff people, a
construction he borrowed from Bill Clinton; this will be
better for the country.
We will be served even less by a White House that is
spending 50% of its time on scandals, including the ones
that don’t pan out as real.
The country has serious problems to address, and people,
including Congress have to have time to focus on
addressing them competently, otherwise we will get the
bum rush in terms of half-assed legislation being passed –
the last thing we need.
I don’t think that Trump is worried only
about the Russian investigation. He fears
other things coming up from his past, and
there are many. Many of his numerous civil
lawsuits carry a criminal option to them,
which he has so far avoided, we hear, via
very unpleasant means… JD ]
Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely
crowdfunded via PayPal –
JimWDean@aol.com
 This includes research, needed field
trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving, and
more – Thanks for helping out
* the legacy of the Trump gang that can’t shoot straight, but
Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
– First published … May 29, 2017 –
The jury is still out on how much
damage the surprise firing of FBI
Director Comey will have on the
battered Trump administration. The last
things we need are more major
distractions and poor decisions from a
White House in training.
Kissinger outlived Ziggy. I don’t know whether to be
happy or sad.
On May 10th, with Lavrov and the Russian US
Ambassador coming to see him, followed by Henry
Kissinger, we find the President spending his time
tweeting away in the morning, defending his firing of FBI
Director Comey, in what seemed like a sudden decision.
Trump’s staff was kept out of the loop, so they were
caught flatfooted in how to respond to the press, and they
ended up winging it, as they have in the past. The media
storm was instant, followed by Democrats’ calls for an
independent special prosecutor to protect against Trump
32
trying to kill a feared investigation of his alleged Russian
connections.
In whatever way this turns out, it will be another chapter in
could still involve a scenario where Trump scrapes by as
he has so many times before, after mistakes that have taken
other politicians down.
The odds that this was done on the spur-of-the-moment are
zero, as Trump brought his political appointees to the
Justice Department in order to run interference for
Comey’s firing. But their plan was not well thought out.
Attorney General Sessions had already recused himself
on the Trump-Russia investigation; and then he
reinserted himself by writing a recommendation that
Comey be fired, as Comey was obviously deemed a
threat to Trump on that case. Why else would Sessions
gamble with his own recusal reversal by getting
involved in taking Comey out of the picture 110 days
into the Trump administration?
Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein
We also saw Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein support
Comey’s removal, followed by the White House pushing
to have Rosenstein take over the Russian investigation, a
coup d’état on Session’s recusal. Using the FBI director’s
handling of the Clinton email server case as the excuse for
Comey’s dismissal went over like a lead balloon with the
media.
A back story has surfaced that Comey had gone to the
Justice Department to ask for more funding for the Russian
investigation. It was assumed this money was for the FBI,
but the Justice Department denied it.
Later, a more finely tuned explanation emerged to the
effect that Comey’s monetary request was not for the FBI,
but for “prosecutors,” indicating that it was needed for
preparing indictments. This may have been what spurred
the White House’s quick plan to shoot Comey out of the
saddle.
The White House exposed its true intentions even more by
stating that it did not think a special prosecutor would be
necessary anymore, as the investigation would be in the
good hands of the Republican-controlled Congress and the
Justice Department, with the understanding that the DoJ
investigation would remain under control by a political
appointee, Rosenstein.
“We encourage them to complete this
investigation so we can put it behind us
and we can continue to see exactly what
we’ve been saying for nearly a year,
there’s no evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign and
Russia,” Deputy Press Secretary
Sanders stated on Wednesday.
Partisan Maneuvering
McCain has been riding the Trump tribulations like a pony
Now all those who did want a special prosecutor will
fight ten times harder to get one. The Congressional
Democrats were quick to make a case for appointing one,
but the Republicans less so, with the exception of John
McCain, of all people.
Since the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, the
Democrats’ minority strategy is evolving toward wanting a
special prosecutor appointed before they will participate in
confirming a new FBI director.
The Republican majority could force the President’s
choice through, but historically FBI directors have been
confirmed with unanimous Senate approval or very close.
If the Democrats voted against a Republican choice, then
that director would have a huge shadow over him in the
new job. He could not instill the bipartisan confidence that
is needed to lead the FBI, and most people would not want
the job under those circumstances.
33
But if the Democrats could pull three Republicans over to
vote with them, they could block a Trump FBI nominee. If
the Democrats don’t get a special prosecutor, they could
flex their political muscle by putting the brakes on
Republican legislation, some of which is already bogged
down. One example would be an area like tax reform and
other items like health care that need some bipartisan
support to pass.
This would make Trump, the man who promised to
quickly fix everything, look like a divisive leader who
has taken the country down a dead-end road. It would
also build the case for the Democrats that they have to
win as many Congressional seats in the next election to
have any chance for ending the roll-back of decades of
progressive Democratic legislative accomplishments.
Trump has the lowest voter approval rating in modern
history, and this has to be bothering his ego, and he
does not want to see the ratings dip lower.
There is another aspect to the Comey firing tied in with
getting a special prosecutor in place. Not all the
Republicans in Congress are Trump lovers, especially
those he humiliated in the primaries. More than a few are
considering that his self-destructive behavior could render
him a one-term president, and even less time than that if he
were impeached, and this is no joke.
Countless Legal Entanglements
I am talking about more than the alleged Russian ties
with his campaign, where no proof has been put on the
table after months of allegations. Lurking in Trump’s
background are the hundreds of civil lawsuits working
their way through to settlement or trial. The Trump
University civil fraud case was settled for $25 million prior
to Trump taking office.
What has gotten almost no coverage is that, in most all of
these cases, there are criminal charges of mail and wire
fraud, hundreds of them, and all federal cases that can be
filed in any state in the country.
As the public gets more and more angry at the
authoritarian rule of the Trump regime, a lot of the
plaintiffs in the pending cases might want to proceed with
criminal charges, despite the threats they have heard about
Trump intimidating plaintiffs in the past.
And if a special prosecutor were appointed to take over the
Russian connections case, that would open up a Pandora’s
box of new victims and plaintiffs coming forward with
criminal fraud cases, any one of which could be the straw
that breaks the camel’s back.
A case that we have not even heard of could emerge as
the one removing Trump from office, and to the glee of
a number of Republicans who would love to run for
President in 2020. Vice President Pence would take
over if Trump were impeached, but he is too weak a
candidate to run and win on his own.
34
Cheney is outliving a lot of people, too. It’s so unfair.
The down side to this would be that the Republican
legislative agenda would be turned into a fiasco, with a lot
of unhappy voters back home in the districts because of the
political log jam in Washington.
We must not forget that Congress polls consistently lower
than even the worst president, below 20% normally. But
that is never a problem if you are in a gerrymandered
Republican district. The real political fights are in the
districts that have not yet been rigged, with the next
opportunity to do so after the next census in 2020.
There is a growing realization in the country, even if
people will not admit it publicly, that the US is in
uncharted waters with our unpredictable president. The
word “dangerous” is used more frequently to describe him.
And more than a few consider him literally a national
security threat, due to his demonstrated incompetence and
having a weak moral compass.
I hope I am wrong, as I do not want the country to have to
suffer through what would be needed to fix the huge mess
we are in. Americans have already taken a beating from
the Bush-Cheney gangsters, and we have not recovered
from that. But Trump could even be worse, as he is wired
in with some of that same crowd. At this moment, I do not
see a happy ending to all of this.
 Molly Ball Can’t Care: Trump Family
Just Playing ‘Victim’ With Beheading Photo
By Nicholas Fondacaro
May 30, 2017 | 6:23 PM EDT
Late Tuesday morning, leaked images of washed up
comedian and CNN News Year’s Eve co-host Kathy
Griffin holding a bloody mockup of President Trump’s
head aloft went viral. It took CNN hours before any host
on the channel dared to bring her up. Following a warning
for graphic content, Jake Tapper, host of The Lead,
displayed an image. The members of Tapper’s panel were
unfazed by the display, with Molly Ball of The Atlantic
claiming that the Trump family’s outrage was just them
playing the victim card.
“I want to warn you out there, especially if
you have kids, you might find what we're
about to show you a little bit graphic. It’s
not an actual photograph but let me show
you right now,” Tapper warned the
audience. “It’s a depiction of comedian
Kathy Griffin who does work for CNN on
New Year’s Eve. She’s pictured in this new
photo shoot holding a bloody Donald
Trump head.”
Tapper added that
“It's pretty disgusting, and I can't imagine
how anybody would think that's
appropriate. Donald Trump Jr. is out there
saying this is now considered to be
acceptable discourse by the left.”
But Molly Ball didn’t have a problem with it and argued
the Trump family was just trying to play themselves up as
victims.
35
“Who is saying it's even discourse? I have
a hard time bringing myself to care about
something like this. I think it just speaks to
the need to see themselves as a victim that
they have, that they are constantly being
persecuted,” she told Tapper. “The Trump
people are constantly having to point to the
elites who are looking down on them,”
“Of course, comedians and celebrities say
dumb stuff and do dumb stuff and violence
is not appropriate, but I just don't think that
that's the source of President Trump's
problems,” she said, trying to brush off the
incident as nothing.
Ball’s fellow panelists, Obama administration lackey Jen
Psaki and former Trump campaign strategist David Urban
dismissed it as unimportant as well.
To make Ball’s position even more ridiculous, radical
leftist Keith Olbermann actually denounced Griffin’s stunt
on Twitter between calls for Trump's son-in-law, Jared
Kushner to be arrested.
“Nope. Too much. By a very long distance,
way too much,” he said in a reply to
Griffin’s own tweet.
So far, there has been no official comment from CNN
about Griffin’s disgusting photo shoot or her future with
the news organization.
Transcript below:
CNN
The Lead
May 30, 2017
4:35:26 PM Eastern
JAKE TAPPER: I want to turn to another issue kind of in the pop
culture sphere, and I want to warn you out there, especially if you
have kids, you might find what we're about to show you a little bit
graphic. It’s not an actual photograph but let me show you right
now. It’s a depiction of comedian Kathy Griffin who does work for
CNN on New Year’s Eve. She’s pictured in this new photoshoot
holding a bloody Donald Trump head.
It's pretty disgusting, and I can't imagine how anybody would MOLLY BALL: I—Who is saying it’s acceptable discourse
think that's appropriate. Donald Trump Jr. is out there saying this exactly?
is now considered to be acceptable discourse by the left, Molly.
TAPPER: Don Trump Jr.

BALL: Who is saying it's even discourse? I have a hard time

bringing myself to care about something like this. I think it just
speaks to the need to see themselves as a victim that they have,
that they are constantly being persecuted. It’s constantly—

TAPPER: The Trump’s you’re talking about.

BALL: The Trump people are constantly having to point to the

elites who are looking down on them. Of course, comedians and
celebrities say dumb stuff and do dumb stuff and violence is not
appropriate, but I just don't think that that's the source of
President Trump's problems.
.

36
 Bizarre Trump Midnight Tweet
Sparks Twitter Trolling, Bewilderment, Mockery
By Tyler Durden
May 31, 2017 9:44 AM
Update: after deleting the original tweet that kept much of
Twitter, and most of the political media up all night,
Trump followed up shortly after 6am with a tweet in which
he tried a humorous spin on "covfefe":
"Who can figure out the true meaning of
"covfefe" ??? Enjoy!" Trump tweeted at
6:10am ET.
Many were quick to ask just how many conspiracy theories
Trump's question would start.
***
Trump's infamous late night tweeting appeared to finally
cross into the twilight zone on Wednesday morning, when
moments after midnight, president Trump sent out a
bizarre unfinished tweet with a typo.
"Despite the constant negative press
covfefe," Trump tweeted shortly after 12
a.m. E.T.
Thirty minutes passed, then an hour, and the tweet
remained undeleted, meanwhile the questions mounted.
The NYT pondered,
"had the president’s lawyers, so eager to
curb his stream-of-consciousness missives,
tackled the commander in chief under the
37
cover of night? Perhaps, some worried
aloud, Mr. Trump had experienced a
medical episode a quarter of the way
through his 140 characters."
No one at the White House could immediately be reached
for comment. By 1 a.m., the debate had effectively
consumed Twitter — or at least a certain segment of
insomniac Beltway types, often journalists and political
operatives — ascending the list of trending topics.
The tweet remained undeleted from Trump's timeline for
nearly 6 hours, and was deleted shortly before 6am ET, but
not before sparking a firestorm of replies, with "covfefe"
trending on Twitter.
The tweet had over 10,000 reactions by 12:30 a.m.
“What if this is it,” asked Emily Nussbaum,
the New Yorker television critic, after just
five minutes.
“That is his final tweet & the rest of history
stops.”
Some appeared to temper their whimsy as a more sobering
news story dominated the medium: a huge explosion
shaking Kabul, leaving dozens dead or wounded. But the
instinct to linger was powerful, for those who had
glimpsed the initial post, even if they did not seem entirely
sure why they were still awake.
Eventually, the jokes lurched into delirium. Twitter users
held forth on the former F.B.I. director James Covfefe.
They pledged to order a grande covfefe during their next
Starbucks runs. They announced they had at last
discovered what Bill Murray whispered to Scarlett
Johansson at the end of “Lost in Translation.” Some
speculated this was America's nuclear code.

Here are some of the ways people responded to Trump's

tweet:

.
38
 Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Brother
Suspected Of Burying Seth Rich DC Murder Case
Alex Christoforou
May 31, 2017

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s brother Steven Wasserman

accused of burying Seth Rich case.

The Seth Rich murder has taken another unexpected twist.

Disgraced former DNC leader, Debbie Wasserman

Schultz, may have had her brother, Steven Wasserman,
bury the Seth Rich Case.

Steven Wasserman would have the power to do this,

The Gateway Pundit reports…
because he is Assistant US Attorney at the Attorney’s
office for the District of Columbia.
39
 Former Head of the DNC, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, lost her position
during the DNC Convention due to
WikiLeaks emails being released that
showed her efforts to enable Hillary Clinton
to win the DNC nomination and steal the
nomination from Bernie Sanders. Now
Wasserman Schultz is back in the news.
This time it is because of her close ties with
the Assistant US Attorney at the Attorney’s
office for the District of Columbia.
Wasserman Schultz’s brother, Steven
Wasserman, is the Assistant US Attorney
at the Attorney’s office for the District of
Columbia. Questions are arising
.
40
whether Steven has played a part in
burying the Seth Rich case in DC. No
one has yet been charged in spite of the
many unanswered questions related to the
murder case. Because Rich reportedly
provided emails to WikiLeaks there are
many who believe Rich was murdered as a
result.
There are too many questions and
coincidences for the Seth Rich case not
to be investigated at the highest levels
of the government.
What do you think?
 CBS Only Manages Seconds
On Kathy Griffin, Obsessed Over GOP Staffer
By Kyle Drennen
May 31, 2017 | 11:56 AM EDT
While NBC’s Today and ABC’s Good Morning America
on Wednesday devoted full reports to comedian Kathy
Griffin’s widely-condemned mock beheading of an effigy
of President Trump, CBS This Morning could only afford a
36-second news brief on the topic. By contrast, when an
Republican congressional staffer criticized the behavior of
the Obama daughters at a White House event on her
private Facebook page in 2014, the CBS morning show
had no trouble devoting full coverage to the minor
controversy.
At the top of the 7:30 a.m. ET half hour, co-host Gayle
King rightfully informed viewers:
“The Los Angeles Times reports on Kathy
Griffin’s graphic photo shoot. It features the
comedian holding a fake bloody head of
President Trump. We blurred it because it
is so disgusting.” Moments later she added:
“A lot of people are talking about this
because when you look at it – I thought it
was stomach churning when I first saw it.”
Fellow co-host Norah O’Donnell chimed in:
“Not funny at all.”
Despite expressing their outrage and noting how “a lot of
people are talking about this,” the hosts quickly moved on
to the next story and never revisited the topic in the rest of
the two-hour broadcast.
The Today show provided 3 minutes 29 seconds of
coverage on Griffin, while Good Morning America offered
a comparable 3 minutes 2 seconds.
41
Back in 2014, when Capitol Hill staffer Elizabeth Lauten
took to Facebook to share her thoughts on the dress and
behavior of Malia and Sasha Obama at the annual White
House turkey pardoning ceremony, the networks – CBS
included – completely lost their minds. Multiple reports
were aired on the subject in the first 24 hours.
At that time, King proclaimed:
A congressional aide is at the center
another social media controversy. A lot of
people want her fired for criticizing
President Obama's daughters online. Bill
Plante is at the White House with the
backlash and an apology that some people
say is too little too late for those
comments....What really gets me is that
this woman is a communications director. I
think she might have missed a class or two.
O’Donnell lectured:
“...this is just part of our coarsening
dialogue about treating other people with
respect.”
It will interesting to see whether CBS actually provides a
full segment on Griffin at some point and whether the
networks continue to update viewers on the story in the
same obsessive manner they did with Lauten.
Combined, Wednesday's morning shows spent more time
on Trump's Twitter typo than on Griffin's outrageous
display.
Here is a full transcript of the May 31 news brief on CBS
This Morning:
7:32 AM ET
GAYLE KING: The Los Angeles Times reports on Kathy Griffin’s
graphic photo shoot. It features the comedian holding a fake
bloody head of President Trump. We blurred it because it is so
disgusting. This morning, Mr. Trump tweeted, “Kathy Griffin
should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year
old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!” Griffin
went on to Twitter to apologize. She said she crossed a line and
she admits that she went too far. A lot of people are talking about
this because when you look at it – I thought it was stomach
churning when I first saw it. Even Chelsea Clinton tweeted,
.
saying, you know, threatening the life of a president is never
funny.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Not funny at all. Not funny at all.

42
 Suppose Trump Had Hillary’s
Incredible Russian Connection?
By Jon Rappoport
Published: May 31, 2017
If Trump had Hillary’s Russian connection…
Trump would be curled up in a ball in a bunker a few
hundred feet under the White House. And that’s on his best
day.
The newspapers and television news would be citing
nothing less than treason as the cause for his impeachment.
They would claim he was, in fact, helping Putin win World
War 3 against the US. A nuclear war.
Forget “Putin influenced the election on
behalf of Trump.”
Instead, mainstream attack dogs would be claiming Trump
was a conscious agent who had been turned, years ago,
against his home country. The dogs would be making up
stories about how this happened.
“It was on a business trip that the world
changed for a desperate real estate mogul
named Donald Trump. Mr. Trump was on
his way to Moscow, ostensibly to meet with
several Russian oligarchs about a casino
project he was hoping to launch. Instead,
he huddled with a representative and close
friend of Vladimir Putin at the Baltschug
Kempinski Hotel, and that friend offered Mr.
Trump a different kind of deal, one that
would change his life forever and alter the
future of America…”
This is what we would be seeing and hearing if Donald
Trump had been involved in the 2013 Clinton business
deal with Russia that everyone knows about—but no one is
willing to prosecute or even cover (anymore) in the
mainstream press.
43
I have written about the Clinton deal before, but it’s worth
reviewing again, given the kind of heat Trump is dealing
with for Phone Conversations. Conversations several of his
people have had with Russians; even business deals that
could have been consummated during those discussions.
So…here it is again. Imagine Hillary and Bill Clinton were
not the wheelers and dealers. Imagine Trump was. Try to
conceive what would be happening to him now vs. what is
happening to Bill and Hillary: i.e., nothing.
I’ll go one step further. Wherever Bill or Hillary’s name,
or the name of their Foundation, appears in the NY Times
story I’m about to quote, I’ll substitute a Trump name (in
CAPS), so you get the full effect:
Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.
Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is
owned by a Canadian mining company.
The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.
But because uranium is a US “national security” product,
various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of
those agencies is the US State Department.
The State Department is headed up by MELANIA
TRUMP. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.
The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who
wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to
the TRUMP FAMILY FOUNDATION.
Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a
story under the headline: Cash Flowed to TRUMP
Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.
The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called
Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium
production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin
and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US
uranium production.
From the Times:
 “…the sale gave the Russians control of
one-fifth of all uranium production capacity
in the United States.”
From the Times:
“The [Pravda] article, in January 2013,
detailed how the Russian atomic energy
agency, Rosatom, had taken over a
Canadian company [Uranium One] with
uranium-mining stakes stretching from
Central Asia to the American West. The
deal made Rosatom one of the world’s
largest uranium producers and brought Mr.
Putin closer to his goal of controlling much
of the global uranium supply chain.”
“At the heart of the tale are several men,
leaders of the Canadian mining industry,
who have been major donors to the
charitable endeavors of DONALD TRUMP
and his family. Members of that [mining]
group built, financed and eventually sold off
to the Russians a company that would
become known as Uranium One.”
“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has
donated $31.3 million to the foundation run
by DONALD TRUMP…”
“Since uranium is considered a strategic
asset, with implications for national
security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to
Putin] had to be approved by a committee
composed of representatives from a
number of United States government
agencies. Among the agencies that
eventually signed off was the State
Department, then headed by Mr. TRUMP’S
wife, MELANIA TRUMP.”
“As the Russians gradually assumed
control of Uranium One in three separate
transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian
records show, a flow of cash made its way
.
44
to the TRUMP Foundation. Uranium One’s
chairman used his family foundation to
make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly
disclosed by the TRUMPS, despite an
agreement Mrs. TRUMP had struck with
the Obama White House to publicly identify
all donors. Other people with ties to the
company made donations as well.”
“And shortly after the Russians announced
their intention to acquire a majority stake in
Uranium One, Mr. TRUMP received
$500,000 for a Moscow speech from a
Russian investment bank with links to the
Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One
stock.”
Got the picture?
Circumstantial case, you say?
Well, imagine the case applied to Donald Trump and his
wife.
Where would we be now?
What hell would be unleashed from the press corps?
What venom would be spewed from the Arctic Circle to
Tierra del Fuego?
Page one: THE GREATEST TRAITOR IN
AMERICAN HISTORY IS THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
And that headline would run on a mild slow news day.
But Hillary and Bill Clinton, the actual players in the
Russia/Putin/uranium deal…
Roam free.
 Mika Brzezinski Complains Kathy Griffin
Story Is 'Gross' and 'Not Worth Doing'
By Kevin Baker
May 31, 2017 | 10:48 AM EDT
Many Americans were horrified to learn last night of the
news that comedian Kathy Griffin had posted a tweet
depicting herself with an effigy of the bloody, severed
head of President Trump. In a world now full of real-life
beheadings instigated at the behest of Islamic terrorists,
drug cartels, and others, one would think that such a story
might be considered “newsworthy.” Co-host Mika
Brzezinski of MSNBC’s Morning Joe disagreed, however,
on the basis that the story was ‘too gross’ and ‘not worth
doing.’
The exchange in question went as follows:
MICHAEL SCHMIDT: I will say with all the news going on, like,
we step out for something, and then all of a sudden someone
else has written another story and we've gotta go back to the
office. It's like playing a baseball game and every time you turn
up someone is hitting a home run.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: No, it is really scary. You go into a lunch
or something and you come out and everybody goes you just see
what happened? No, what happened? The martians attacked,
they’ve got LA they’re going towards Vegas. You’re like, how did
I miss that!? But it is moving at such a hyper pace.
NICHOLAS CONFESSORE: I missed the Kathy Griffin news last
night.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay, we're not talking about it.
ELISE JORDAN: You missed nothing up.
BRZEZINSKI: I’m sorry it’s too gross. It’s just not worth
doing.
45
Wow, so this story doesn’t deserve to be covered then on
the basis that it is too icky to talk about? Is that what the
new journalistic standard is at MSNBC? If someone
depicts the murder of a president now it can only be
discussed if it is done in a neat and tidy manner? Or is this
simply the standard as applied solely to Republican
presidents?
Here are the excerpts from the May 31 exchange:
6:53 AM
MICHAEL SCHMIDT: I will say with all the news going on, like,
we step out for something, and then all of a sudden someone
else has written another story and we've gotta go back to the
office. It's like playing a baseball game and every time you turn
up someone is hitting a home run.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: No, it is really scary. You go into a lunch
or something and you come out and everybody goes you just see
what happened? No, what happened? The martians attacked,
they’ve got LA they’re going towards Vegas. You’re like, how did
I miss that? But it is moving at such a hyper pace.
NICHOLAS CONFESSORE: I missed the Kathy Griffin news last
night.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay, we're not talking about it.
ELISE JORDAN: You missed nothing up.
BRZEZINSKI: I’m sorry it’s just too gross. It’s not worth
doing. All right, coming up, Michael eat some lunch.Thanks for
being on the show this morning. Nourish yourself.
SCARBOROUGH: Thank you Michael, I thought this was a
stellar performance for you. I thought this was one of your better
days.
SCHMIDT: I'm just happy I got through it.
SCARBOROUGH: You did very well.
BRZEZINSKI: Sort of. All right, we'll ask award winning linguist,
Nicholas Confessore to help us break down the word covfefe.
Plus, the President reportedly gives out his cell phone number to that!
other world leaders. And we actually found some footage of
.

46
 Take-Down of Kathy Griffin
May 31, 2017

Judge Jeanine Pirro had some choice words for comedian

Kathy Griffin's faux beheading of President Trump.

Pirro said she doesn't believe Griffin's apology was

sincere.

She said that Griffin sounded more concerned about her

reputation and her career than about the Trump family
seeing their father's head bloodied in effigy.

"What you've done is try to normalize

beheadings," Pirro said. "And, to suggest
the beheading should be that of the
commander-in-chief is sick."

47
 NY Attorney General Vows To
Fight Trump Over Reported Paris Climate Deal Exit
© AP Photo/ Evan Vucci - US
19:29 31.05.2017(Updated 19:30 31.05.2017
New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman said in a press release
Wednesday that his office is prepared to
actively oppose US President Donald
Trump's reported decision to withdraw
the United States from the Paris Climate
Agreement.
48
NEW YORK (Sputnik) — Earlier on Wednesday,
president Trump announced that he will make a decision
about whether the United States will remain in the Paris
Climate Agreement in the next few days. The US media,
however, reports that the president has made a decision
to pull out of the agreement.
"I have not — and will not — hesitate to hold President
Trump accountable for any climate policies that threaten
New Yorkers," Schneiderman stated. "I will use the full
power of my office to protect New Yorkers and our
planet — and to fight the Trump Administration's harmful
and retrograde actions."
Schneiderman, an active opponent of numerous White
House policies, noted in the release that the recent lawsuit
from his office caused the Trump administration to reverse
course on energy efficiency standards.
 Breakup of the West?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday - May 30, 2017 at 2:10 pm
By the time Air Force One started down the runaway at
Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, to bring President
Trump home, the Atlantic had grown markedly wider than
it was when he flew to Riyadh.
In a Munich beer hall Sunday, Angela Merkel confirmed
it.
Europe must begin to look out for itself, she said,
“take our fate into our own hands. … The
times in which we could rely fully on others,
they are somewhat over.”
Merkel’s apprehensions are understandable. A divorce
could be in the cards. During his visit to NATO in Brussels
and the G-7 in Sicily, Trump, with both his words and
body language, revealed his thinking on who are friends
and who are freeloaders.
Long before arriving, Trump had cheered Brexit, the
British decision to quit the EU, and shown a preference for
nationalist Marine Le Pen in the French election won
handily by Emmanuel Macron.
But when it comes to leaders, Trump seems to prefer Deke
House to student council types. He has hailed Vladimir
Putin as a “strong ruler” and “very smart.” In Riyadh,
Trump declared King Salman a “wise man.” He calls
China’s Xi Jinping “a great guy,” and welcomed Turkish
autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the Oval Office:
“It is a great honor to have you with us.”
When Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who has
imprisoned and killed thousands of the Muslim
Brotherhood, came to visit, Trump said,
“He’s done a fantastic job in a very difficult
situation.”
In a phone call, Trump also praised Philippines President
Rodrigo Duterte, who has had narcotics dealers gunned
down in the streets, for doing an “unbelievable job on the
drug problem.”
49
Trump has even found merit in Kim Jong Un, the 33-year-
old dictator of North Korea, describing him as a “a pretty
smart cookie.”
And where Trump was photographed by the Russians
grinning broadly with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, his
confab with Merkel was marked by a seeming reluctance
to shake hands.
But the disagreements with Europe are deeper than matters
of style. Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have
indicated that in dealing with foreign nations, U.S. support
for democratic norms and human rights will now take a
back seat to strategic interests.
In Riyadh, Trump signaled the Sunni King of Bahrain we
will no longer be giving him instructions on how to treat
his Shiite majority.
We’re not “here to lecture,” Trump assured
the Arab royals.
After the conclave, the king’s police killed five and
wounded dozens of demonstrators outside the home of a
Shiite cleric, and arrested 286 of his supporters.
Of greater concern to Trump and Tillerson is the retention
of the Persian Gulf naval base of the U.S. 5th Fleet in
Bahrain.
Trump also tilts toward GOP skepticism of the threat of
global warming and is considering pulling out of the Paris
climate accord that is the altarpiece of the environmentalist
international.
In Brussels, Trump praised NATO’s decision to back the
U.S. war in Afghanistan after 9/11, but did not specifically
recommit to Article 5, requiring all NATO nations to treat
an attack on one as an attack on all, which our nervous
NATO allies had wanted to hear.
Instead, they got an earful of pure Trump about how they
owed back pay for NATO and that only five NATO
nations were meeting their obligation to allocate 2 percent
of GDP to defense.
Merkel seemed to take this as an implied threat that the
U.S commitment to defend Europe from a Russia with
one-tenth of NATO-Europe’s GDP may be contingent, and
may have a time limit on it.
Moreover, France, Britain and Germany appear far more
solidly committed to the Iran nuclear deal than are Trump
and Congress.
A U.S.-NATO collision could come here, and soon.
The Iranians have signed on to purchase 100 Airbus
aircraft and 80 commercial airliners from Boeing. If the
Republicans impose new sanctions on Iran, or scupper the
Boeing deal, Europe would have to decide whether to
abandon the Airbus sales, or deliver the planes and perhaps
take over the Boeing contract. That could bring a crisis.
And any U.S. confrontation with Iran, pressed upon us by
Saudis, Israelis and Sunni Arabs could find Europeans
bailing out wholesale on the next U.S. war in the Middle
East.
50
Trump also seems less committed to the sanctions on
Russia for its reannexation of Ukraine and support of pro-
Russian rebels in the Donbass than does NATO Europe or
Congress.
From his rough remarks, Trump sees the
Europeans as freeloaders on U.S. defense,
laggards on their NATO contributions, and
mercantilists who craft policies to run
endless trade surpluses at our expense,
especially the Germans who are “bad, very
bad.”
The European half of Trump’s trip should be taken as a
fire-bell-in-the-night warning: Shape up, Europe, or you
may find yourselves on your own when it comes to the
defense of your continent.
For we Americans have had about enough.
 Bogus “Trump-Russia Collusion” Story
Nothing But A Political Hatchet Job Cooked Up
By Obama Loyalist John Brennan
By: JD Heyes
Date: May 31, 2017
After a series of congressional hearings involving a former
top figure in the U.S. intelligence community, it has
become far more clear what led the Obama-era FBI to
launch its counterintelligence investigation into “alleged”
Team Trump-Russia “collusion.”
Think politics. Think political hackery. Think abuse of the
Constitution. Think former CIA Director John Brennan.
As reported by the Washington Times, Brennan — a close
associate of President Obama who once worked on the
former chief executive’s 2008 campaign — is responsible
for the massive, money-and-time-wasting nothing burger
that is the “Russia” investigation.
During testimony May 23 before the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, it was Brennan who said
that the intelligence community was supposedly getting
small bits of information on Team Trump associates who
were making contact with Russian officials. During that
testimony, Brennan did not name the people on both sides
who were allegedly involved, and he told panel members
in no uncertain terms he had no clue what was said
between the parties. (RELATED: In the age of Trump,
innuendo and allegations are enough to land you in jail)
Nevertheless, he told the committee that the contacts had
happened often enough that he felt it was proper and
necessary to alert the FBI, which then began its
investigation into associates of the Trump campaign last
51
July; former FBI Director James Comey has also testified
that the bureau launched its probe that same month.
The FBI began its investigation the same month that the
intelligence community claimed that Russian hackers had
penetrated computers at the Democratic National
Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton, then gave
stolen emails and documents to whistleblower website
WikiLeaks, a claim that has never been publicly proven or
substantiated and, in fact, is doubted by outside experts.
In any event, Brennan, who has displayed his contempt for
President Donald J. Trump, told the committee that he
briefed Obama on the progress of the ongoing
investigation; it should be noted that, at the time, Obama
was doing all he could to aid Clinton, whom he claimed
never put national security at risk with her unsecured and
likely hacked private email server (by Russia, no less).
“I wanted to make sure that every
information and bit of intelligence that we
had was shared with the bureau [FBI] so
that they could take it,” Brennan told the
House Intelligence Committee. “It was well
beyond my mandate as director of CIA to
follow on any of those leads that involved
U.S. persons. But I made sure that
anything that was involving U.S. persons,
including anything involving the individuals
involved in the Trump campaign, was
shared with the bureau.
“I was aware of intelligence and information
about contacts between Russian officials
and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those
individuals were cooperating with the
Russians, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion, and it served as the basis for the
FBI investigation to determine whether
such collusion [or] cooperation occurred,”
he continued.
But here we are, 11 months later — and no official public
confirmation that there was anything at all improper
occurring between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government, and certainly no confirmation that Team
Trump and Russia formed an alliance to hack Clinton and
the DNC.
In fact, a little more than a week before the Nov. 8
election, The New York Times reported that U.S.
intelligence officials never suspected that any alleged
Russian hacking was done to help Trump defeat Clinton,
as she and the DNC and congressional Democrats and
pundits have repeatedly alleged.
No one is seriously questioning whether or not there was
some contact between Team Trump or Trump associates
during the campaign and subsequent transition to the
White House; there was.
52
But they weren’t improper or illegal, and there is no
evidence whatsoever that there was “collusion” to “steal”
the election. (RELATED: Top Dems admitting now
there is NO evidence of Trump-Russia collusion)
What’s more, Brennan’s May 23 testimony proves beyond
any doubt, in his own words, that he was responsible for
this bogus investigation, which is ongoing and now even
features a “special prosecutor.”
Obama politicized every aspect of the Justice Department
and intelligence community — to protect both his
operatives and the operations he was conducting to thwart
Trump and undermine him even before he got into office.
 Clapper: Russians ‘Genetically
Driven’ To Interfere In Elections
© AFP 2017/ SAUL LOEB - Politics
03:39 31.05.2017(Updated 10:23 31.05.2017)

In so many words, Clapper admitted he believed in a

genetic predisposition of Russian people to lie, manipulate
and misrepresent.

While Clapper's interview with Todd was well-reported

Former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper claimed in an interview
that Russians are “almost genetically
driven to” manipulate and infiltrate as
an explanation for his concern about
alleged Russian interference into the US
presidential election and alleged ties
between Trump senior advisor Jared
Kushner and Russian officials.
Clapper was asked by NBC's Meet the Press host Chuck
Todd if he knew about communications between Kushner
and Russian officials.
"I will tell you that my dashboard warning
light was clearly on and I think that was the
case with all of us in the intelligence
community: very concerned about the
nature of these approaches to the
Russians," Clapper replied.
on by mainstream outlets, they were all curiously mum
about his openly discriminatory comments. Take a
moment to imagine the media reaction had Clapper said
the same about, say, Jews, or African-Americans. A
Denver Post sportswriter lost his job over the weekend
for tweeting that he was "uncomfortable" with a Japanese
person winning the Indy 500. He didn't even have
to disparage an entire ethnicity to be smacked
down immediately.
Not that Clapper made his opinions on Russia a secret
in the interview.
"Russia, at least for my money, is our
primary adversary. They are not our
friends. They are in to do us in," he said.
"[Russia is] only emboldened," Clapper
said. "They are only going to continue
to interfere in our political process. To me,
that is the big story here and what
American people should be concerned
about."
Clapper added that he considered Russian ambassador
to the US Sergei Kislyak more of a spy than a diplomat.

"If you put that in context with everything

"Given the fact that he oversees the very
else we knew the Russians were doing
aggressive intelligence operation in this
to interfere with the election, and just the
country – the Russians have more
historical practices of the Russians, who
intelligence operatives than any other
typically, almost genetically, [are] driven
nation that is represented in this country,
to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
still even after we got rid of 35 of them –
which is a typical Russian technique. So
and so to suggest that he is somehow
we were concerned."
separate or oblivious to that is a bit much."
.

53
BREAKING DOJ Has Obtained FISA Warrant To Spy On
DC Journalists: Result 3 White House Leakers Caught
BY Robert Wenzel
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
New York Post columnist John Crudele is out with a
bombshell:
[A] Washington source of mine tells me...
.the Justice Department has gotten a
warrant from the US Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court — also known as the
FISA court — to conduct electronic
surveillance on a group of journalists
who’ve been the recipient of leaked
information, the source said.
The journalists are not the target, according to my source
— and I say, thank goodness for that. Instead, the Trump
administration is looking for the leaker. Who could it be?
54
Some in the administration are focusing on a retired, high-
ranking military officer who held important posts in the
intelligence service, according to the source.
The possibly high-ranking leaker was getting some of his
information from people inside the White House who were
holdovers from the Obama administration, the source said.
Those White House leakers — said to be three people —
have either already been fired or will soon be, the source
claims.
And these cases, I’m told, have been turned over to the
Justice Department for possible prosecution.
.
 Anti-Russia Spin Pushed By Those Who Lost
US Election & Can't Face Reality – Putin To Le Figaro
Published Time: 31 May, 2017 03:46 Edited Time: 31 May, 2017 18:25

pre-election promise to close the infamous Guantanamo

Bay prison. Describing Obama as a “forward-thinking
man,” Putin said that he has no doubt that Obama
genuinely wanted to follow through his pledge, but failed
even though the controversial Cuban prison was known
primarily for torture and a practice of unlawful detentions.

“Can you imagine France or Russia acting

this way? This would have been a disaster.
But it is possible in the United States and
continues to this day,” Putin said, referring
President Vladimir Putin © Sergey Guneev / Sputnik to widespread and well-documented
human rights abuses in the prison.
A powerful bureaucracy is preventing US presidents from
making changes, Vladimir Putin told Le Figaro, saying
The Russian president said Moscow still hopes for a
he’s not surprised Donald Trump hasn’t restored relations
political normalization with Washington, but is in “no
with Moscow amid a power struggle – just as Obama
hurry” and “ready to wait” until the anti-Russian hysteria,
failed to shut down Guantanamo.
fueled by the defeated party which seeks to shift the blame
for its own loss on Russia, subsides.
Despite early signals from the Trump administration that it
would not mind improving relations with Russia, which
seemed to hit rock bottom during the last months of the
Obama presidency, Moscow “had no special
expectations” with regards to the new US President
Trump, the Russian leader said in an interview to be
published in full Wednesday.

While US presidents “come and go,” its political

landscape is hardly prone to changes, Putin said, noting
that the incumbent US leader “is steering a traditional US
policy.”

This political invariability can be ascribed to the sprawling

US bureaucratic machine, which imposes rigid constraints
on every neophyte leader as soon as he rises to power,
Putin argued.

“When a person is elected, they may have

some ideas. Then people with briefcases
arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits…
These people start explaining how things “That said, I am cautiously optimistic, and I
are done. And instantly, everything think that we can and should be able to
changes,” Putin elaborated, noting that no reach agreements on key issues,” he said.
administration is able to escape this trap,
which significantly narrows its room for Criticizing the increase in NATO military spending and its
maneuver. build-up on Russia’s doorstep, Putin nevertheless noted
that Trump showed a “pragmatic and understandable
Putin argued that former US President Obama also fell approach” when he demanded from other NATO member
victim to the system as he was not able to deliver on his
55
states to share the financial burden of common defense
with the US.
Dismissing allegations of Russian meddling in the US and
French presidential elections, Putin argued that claims that
Moscow was behind the hacks of the Democratic National
Committee emails have not been supported by evidence.
He added that it does not take much effort to cover up the
source of the attack for the purpose of making Moscow a
scapegoat.
“As President Trump once said, and I think
that he was totally right when he said it
could have been someone sitting on their
bed or somebody intentionally inserted a
flash drive with the name of a Russian
national, or something like that,” Putin said.
The Russian leader believes that essence of the problem
lies not in the Moscow’s perceived interference in the
electoral process, but in the unwillingness of those who
were stunned by the defeat in the November elections to
take responsibility for their poor performance.
Apparently, Trump turned out to be
“closer to the people and better understood
what ordinary voters want,” Putin said,
suggesting that the Democrats need to put
up with the fact and adding that when those
drop this mindset “it will be easier for us to
work [with the US].”
While there is no timeline for when such a turnaround will
happen, Putin believes that this phase in US-Russia
relations, during which Russia is being dragged into US
internal policy, is temporary.
“The fact that this is being done using anti-
Russia tools is not good, as it brings
discord into international affairs,” Putin
said. “But it will pass, everything passes,
and this will pass as well.”

“They are absolutely reluctant to admit

this, and prefer deluding themselves and
others into thinking it was not their fault,
that their policy was correct, they did all the
right things, but someone from the outside
thwarted them. But it was not so. They just
lost and they have to admit it,” Putin said.

56
 RT Editor-In-Chief Mocks Clapper
Over Claim Of RT's US Election Meddling
© Sputnik/ Russia
15:59 31.05.2017(Updated 16:02 31.05.2017)

Simonyan said she would be offended if the broadcaster is

not mentioned in at least one chapter in what she
speculates to be former Director of National Intelligence
(DNI) James Clapper's "upcoming" memoirs on Russia's
alleged meddling in the US presidential election.

"Clapper will soon begin writing memoirs

about how Russia derailed the US election
using RT. If I get less than a chapter, I will
be offended," Simonyan said, commenting
on the claim.
RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan
mocked the former Director of National
Intelligence over claim of the alleged On May 16, CIA spokeswoman Heather Fritz Horniak said
Russian interference in the US the involvement of Russian intelligence services
presidential election via "very in hacking related to the US election was an "established
sophisticated, slick propaganda efforts, fact."
principally through RT."
Russian officials have repeatedly denied allegations
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — On Tuesday, Clapper said that the
of meddling in the elections, calling them absurd. Kremlin
alleged Russian interference in the US election was
spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said the Russian
particularly aggressive and that in addition to the hacking,
government had no official contacts with Donald Trump's
there were "very sophisticated, slick propaganda efforts,
campaign during the election.
principally through RT."
.

57
 CNN Terminates Kathy Griffin
After Trump Rages At "Sick" Comedian's Stunt
By Tyler Durden
May 31, 2017 7:19 PM

Update 2: CNN pulled the plug on Griffin... * * *

Despite her apology - after her ultimate act of virtue

signaling by holding up the blood-soaked head of the
president backfired - President Trump and his family failed
to find the humor in this particular act.

Her partner for the New Year's Eve shows, Andersoin

Cooper, had already disowned her...

First Donald Trump Jr. tweet-raged...

Nigel Farage was quick to respond...

And this morning the President himself reacted...

Update 1: First Lady Melania Trump has

spoken out against Kathy Griffin's
actions, questioning her "mental
health."
“As a mother, a wife, and a human
being, that photo is very disturbing,” the
first lady said in a Wednesday
statement, according to reports.
We are sure this outrage will be seen as some badge of
“When you consider some of the atrocities
honor for the New Year's Eve counter-downer, but perhaps
in the world today, a photo opportunity like
we should reflect on what this really means. As Martin
this is simply wrong and makes you
Armstrong writes...
wonder about the mental health of the
person who did it,” Melania Trump said.
58
While Kathy Griffin apologizes for going
tooooo far, that is obviously only because
of the flack she got for even doing this
photo.
If it were Obama, she would be called a
racist.
The mere simple act of doing something
like this is exposing just how dangerous the
future truly is. We have the left who thinks it
is their God given right to suppress if not
kill anyone who disagrees with them. I for
one am starting to lean for the break up of
the United States and all the leftists please
move to the left of the country and anyone
else who wants freedom from these insane
people, move to the right.
59
They never heard of freedom and that
means to enjoy your own life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness without
being told what to do by people who
want to rule the world their way.
I have always had a simple motto – live
and let live. I ask for nothing but freedom
from oppression. Tyranny is what these
people preach. It is their way or no way.
We need to separate or there will be blood
in the streets.
It’s very simple. I fully agree with Patrick
Henry. They have no right to subjugate
the 50% they seem to hate so much.
House Intelligence Committee Issues Subpoenas In “Russia
Investigation,” Demands To Know Who
Unmasked Team Trump Officials
By: JD Heyes
Date: May 31, 2017
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on
Wednesday issued more than a half-dozen subpoenas, four
which were related to its investigation into Russian
“meddling” in the 2016 presidential election, and three
dealing specifically with the unmasking of officials on
President Donald J. Trump’s transition team and
subsequent administration.
The panel, it seems, is getting serious about zeroing in on
former Obama administration officials who, on the surface
at least, appear to have used U.S. intelligence as a political
weapon — and quite possibly at the former president’s
direction.
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, the three
subpoenas are likely tied to Republican panel members’
efforts to get to the bottom of the unmasking — that is, the
revealing of Americans’ identities caught up in intelligence
surveillance of foreign subjects — that is highly irregular
and unusual or, at least, it used to be before the Age of
Obama. (Related: Most Americans think Leftist
‘establishment media’ is committing treason by publishing
classified info.)
The paper noted:
The Republican-led committee issued four
subpoenas related to the Russia
investigation. Three subpoenas are related
to questions about how and why the names
of associates of President Donald Trump
were unredacted and distributed within
classified reports by Obama administration
60
officials during the transition between
administrations.
Specifically, the committee sent subpoenas regarding
unmasking to the National Security Agency, the Central
Intelligence Agency and the FBI. GOP members of the
panel have sought a more complete understanding about
how Trump campaign officials and associates were
exposed in classified intelligence reports — exposures that
were subsequently illegally leaked to the disgusting
“establishment” media.
The subpoenas are aimed at uncovering any requests by
former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former CIA
Director John Brennan (a noted Obama hack) and former
United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power to unmask
Americans whose identities were previously concealed in
classified intercepts. The three former Obama officials
were not sent subpoenas personally, a source familiar with
the documents told The WSJ.
Up to now, Powers was not included on any witness lists
to appear before the Intelligence Committee, so the fact
that her name came up in the three subpoenas probably
indicates the panel is widening its probe.
“Typically, information about Americans
intercepted in foreign surveillance is
redacted, even in classified reports
distributed within the government, unless a
compelling need exists to reveal them.
Unmasking requests aren’t uncommon by
top intelligence community officials but
Republicans want to know whether any of
the unmaskings of Trump campaign
officials during the transition were politically
motivated,” the paper reported.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is also
conducting its own probe of whether Russia interfered in
the election and whether Trump associates were colluding
with Moscow on any level; so far, there has been no
evidence that happened, and even top Democrats have
admitted they’ve not yet seen anything that would even
suggest collusion.
For his part, Trump has consistently called the probes a
Democrat-media-created “witch hunt.” (Realted: Insane
Democrat Base Demanding Nothing Short Of
Impeachment For Trump But The Party Knows It Can’t
Deliver.)
For months now, the discredited fake news media has
insinuated that Team Trump and the Kremlin were equal
partners in a multi-year effort to “steal” the election from
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. No one
believed that before Clinton lost to Trump, mind you, but
as we’ve learned from additional reporting, that didn’t stop
the Obama regime from illegally spying on Team Trump
.
61
in a desperate bid to find something — anything — which
could help Clinton.
Though it’s unclear what else the House and Senate
intelligence committees are after in terms of information,
one aspect of this entire episode has yet to be publicly
explored: What did Obama know about all of this and
when did he know it? What role did he play? What
instructions did he give to his operatives and the
intelligence community?
And why hasn’t any of that information been leaked?
 Donald Trump Reopens
Undiplomatic Twitter Spat With Germany
© REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst - Europe
18:55 31.05.2017(Updated 19:01 31.05.2017
US President Donald Trump has
launched another bitter broadside
against Germany in the latest spat
between the White House and Berlin,
after he described her refugee policy as
"catastrophic" and castigated Germany
for failing to pay its way within NATO.
In his latest attack on Berlin, Trump tweeted that the US
was running a huge trade deficit with Germany, having
previously complained that too many German cars were
bought on the US. He also castigated Berlin for failing
to meet financial obligations within NATO, where it has
not met the two percent of GDP target on defense
spending.
The negative tone in the tweet was contradicted in the first
press briefing since Trump's first European trip by Trump's
spokesman, Sean Spicer, who denied there was a rift
between Trump and Merkel.
"I think the relationship that the president
has had with Merkel he would describe
as fairly unbelievable. They get along very
62
well. He has a lot respect for her. They
continue to grow the bond that they had
during their talks in the G-7," Spicer said,
referring to the summit Trump attended
May 26/27.
Trump irritated his European partners — particularly
France and Germany — by refusing to endorse the Paris
climate change agreement, which came into force
November 2016. Trump has been critical of the strict
emission targets. At the summit, he signaled that he would
exit the Paris accord and refused to sign a joint statement
with his G7 partners which supported it.
'Catastrophic Mistake'
In January, Trump told a German newspaper that German
Chancellor Angela Merkel had made a "catastrophic
mistake in her 'open doors' policy towards refugees.
"I think she made one very catastrophic
mistake and that was taking all of these
illegals, you know, taking all of the people
from wherever they come from. And
nobody even knows where they come from.
So I think she made a catastrophic
mistake, very bad mistake," Trump told the
German newspaper Bild am Sonntag.
Merkel hit back, accusing Trump of conflating two
separate issues.
"I would clearly separate (terrorism)
from the existence of refugees in relation
to the Syrian civil war…the majority
of Syrians left their country because of the
civil war, because of the fight against
[Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad or the
oppression by Assad," she said.
Trump had previously hit out at Europe — not naming
Germany as such — telling troops of the US Central
Command and US Special Operations Command that other
NATO member states should step up to the plate and
commit to spending two percent on GDP on defense,
as agreed at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales in 2014.
 "We strongly support NATO; we only ask Germany is well below the two percent level, according
that all of the NATO members make their to the latest NATO figures, spending only 1.2 percent,
full and proper contributions to the NATO which could be a major issue between the two leaders.
alliance, which many of them have not
been doing — many of them have not been
even close," Trump said.
.

63
 By Firing Jihadi Murder Advocate Kathy Griffin, CNN
Avoids Being Labeled An ISIS Sympathizer
By: JD Heyes
Date: May 31, 2017

As the firestorm of criticism surrounding

Griffin increased a CNN spokesman said
that they are “evaluating” Griffin’s long-time
role hosting its New Year’s Eve coverage
but have “made no decisions at this point.”
“We found what she did disgusting and
offensive. We are pleased to see she has
apologized and asked that the photos be
taken down. We are evaluating New Year’s
Eve and have made no decisions at this
point,’ the spokesman said.

What’s to discuss? What’s to decide? My goodness, even

uber-lib Chelsea Clinton condemned what Griffin did:
Imagine that you voluntarily participated in a “photo
shoot” where, as the video camera rolled, you stared
blankly forward and slowly raised a mock severed,
bloodied head of the current sitting president of the United
States.

Imagine if you had not only upset said president, but

offended his wife and family, and made his 11-year-old
son gasp with disbelief and concern as he unwittingly
watched news reports of the spectacle.
The Church of Satan even found what she did more evil
Imagine if your sick attempt at satire went horribly awry, than…well…Satan:
upsetting tens of millions of Americans, including many
who hold your views regarding said president.

Imagine you had an annual New Year’s Eve gig at a

leading news network.

Now, imagine you were a conservative or a Republican;

you would have been permanently bounced off the air so
fast that time would have to catch up.

But that’s not what happened to “comedienne” Kathy

Griffin, who for several years has done a rather raunch-
filled New Year’s Eve program for CNN, where Trump
hate lives and reputable journalists go to destroy their
careers.
No. Despite the major backlash, CNN honchos took their
sweet time in trying to decide what to do next, as reported
by the UK’s Daily Mail:
So what’s to decide? Why didn’t the network become so
far detached from Griffin and her ISIS-esque anti-Trump
photo shoot (not a few people found it so close to a
violation of the law prohibiting threats to presidents and
vice presidents) quickly?

64
That’s a great question — one for the network and for its
advertisers, many of whom bailed on Fox News host Bill
O’Reilly for far less (how, exactly, is being a lech and a
scoundrel with women anything at all like pretending to
behead the president?).
To be fair, CNN finally did part ways with Griffin, but it
took several hours longer that it should have. And what do
you want to bet that it wasn’t a decision the network
honchos really wanted to make, given the network’s 24-7-
365 anti-Trump this, Trump “fake news” that — all in an
attempt to placate their far-Left viewers?
What’s more, networks like CNN have essentially caused
this kind of insane backlash against Trump, by constantly
portraying him as a racist, a bigot, an intolerant boob and a
Russian stooge — none of which is correct. In essence,
then, CNN — along with The New York Times, the
Washington Post, USA Today and the broadcast networks
.
65
have all contributed to creating the kind of cultural climate
where someone like Griffin — and Snoop Dogg and
Madonna — felt empowered and comfortable enough to
do things like fake Trump’s beheading, “play” shoot him,
or mention in passing that you thought about blowing up
the White House.
Griffin’s stunt has also laid bare the fact that when idiots
like her do stupid things to harm the president, it doesn’t
just hurt him; it hurts his family, too. Either she thought
that what she did was going to be upsetting to Trump’s
wife and children — or she didn’t think about it. Both are
bad.
Some people aren’t going to forgive Griffin for this. CNN
didn’t, and that’s good, because if the network had
wavered, it most definitely would have become complicit
in the act.
 Comey Expected To Testify
About Trump Conversations As Early As Next Week
By Bridget Johnson
May 31, 2017
FBI Director James Comey pauses as he testifies on Capitol Hill at a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3, 2017. (AP
Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
WASHINGTON -- FBI Director James Comey may testify
in an open Senate hearing as soon as next week, while on
the House side of the Russia investigation subpoenas were
approved for several individuals including former National
Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
The House Intelligence Committee included in the
subpoenas Flynn's consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group
LLC, as well as Michael Cohen, a longtime lawyer for
President Trump, and Michael D. Cohen & Associates PC.
Though not included in the committee's announcement,
subpoenas were also approved seeking information on any
requests by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice,
former CIA Director John Brennan, and former UN
Ambassador Samantha Power to unmask names of Trump
associates in intelligence reports. A Democratic aide on the
committee told NBC News that Chairman Devin Nunes
(R-Calif.), who has recused himself from the Russia
investigation, would have issued those separately from the
Russia probe and without advising committee Dems. A
GOP source told the network that Dems were "informed
and consulted" on the move.
"As part of our ongoing investigation into
Russian active measures during the 2016
campaign, today we approved subpoenas
for several individuals for testimony,
personal documents and business
records," said Reps. Mike Conaway (R-
Texas) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in
announcing the Flynn and Cohen
subpoenas.
66
"We hope and expect that anyone called to
testify or provide documents will comply
with that request, so that we may gain all
the information within the scope of our
investigation," they added. "We will
continue to pursue this investigation
wherever the facts may lead."
The Senate Intelligence Committee announced mid-May
that Comey had agreed to testify before their panel -- while
turning down a similar request from the Senate Judiciary
Committee -- but the date was up in the air while the
former FBI director talked with special counsel Robert
Mueller about the parameters of what could be discussed
in open session.
Sources close to Comey told media outlets, with CNN first
reporting, that the former FBI director is preparing to talk
about his closed-door conversations with Trump -- and the
memos he reportedly kept of those interactions.
Trump allegedly asked Comey to "let go" of the
investigation into Flynn and his Russia ties, a meeting that
Comey chronicled in a two-page memo, the New York
Times reported two weeks ago. The story said the Oval
Office meeting took place the day after Flynn resigned in
February. The existence of the memo, written by Comey
"immediately" after the meeting, was shared "with senior
FBI officials and close associates," according to the report.
"I hope you can see your way clear to
letting this go, to letting Flynn go," Trump
allegedly told Comey. "He is a good guy. I
hope you can let this go."
The memo alleged that Vice President Mike Pence and
Attorney General Jeff Sessions had been in the meeting,
which was called to discuss national security threats, but
were among those asked to leave by Trump before he
made his request of Comey, the NYT added.
Comey will also likely field questions about reports that,
just after taking office, Trump asked the FBI director for
his loyalty.
Though cleared to testify, Comey's hearing still hasn't been
scheduled and the Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't
issued any announcements. As in past hearings when he
was still head of the FBI, Comey isn't expected to reveal
details of the ongoing investigation into potential ties
between the Trump camp and Russia.
67
There hasn't been any indication from the White House yet
on whether the administration will try to block Comey's
testimony, citing executive privilege to keep Oval Office
conversations private.
The FBI has denied requests from Congress to see
Comey's memos, citing Mueller's investigation.
 Kathy Griffin Is Toast.
Good.
By Megan Fox
May 31, 2017

Griffin has apologized, looking like hell, and seeming to

be shocked by the violence of the backlash. But even so,
no one is going to give her a pass, nor should they. Adams
is wrong for two major reasons.

1. Threatening a president of the United States is a

We've all seen Kathy Griffin's latest attempt at "comedy,"
right? That's when she took a fake bloody head of the
president and posed for photos with it like an ISIS loser.
Scott Adams says we're all too triggered and we run the
risk of becoming what we mocked — the perpetually
outraged — for being upset about her fake decapitation of
a sitting president (which his eleven-year-old witnessed
2.
and thought was real).
federal crime. This is not a joke nor should it be a joke
for comedians or anyone else because there's no way
the Secret Service can figure out each individual's
intent. It cannot be "art" to threaten a president (and
terrorize his small child). It is always illegal. This
makes the outrage people feel justified the same as if
Griffin had yelled "fire" in a crowded theater when there
was no fire.
The Left cannot have it both ways. For years they have
persecuted pizza shops and bakeries with online hate
campaigns and lawsuits. They have put people out of
work for joking on Twitter or saying something
unpopular (to them). We have come to a stage in the
game when we are done allowing them to hold us to
standards they don't have to share. We are adopting a
new policy since whining about what they are doing
doesn't change anything. Now we don't care when they
get slapped around by a congressman and we want
their jobs when they threaten the president. All's fair in
war and trust me, this is war—only the shooting hasn't
started yet.

UPDATED: Trump Derangement Syndrome Takes a

Grisly Turn

Kurt Schlichter pretty much nailed it in a recent article on

Townhall, stating,

We don’t like the new rules – I’d sure prefer

a society where no one was getting
attacked, having walked through the ruins
of a country that took that path – but we
normals didn’t choose the new rules. The
left did. It gave us Ferguson, Middlebury
College, Berkeley, and “Punch a Nazi” –
which, conveniently for the left, translates
as “punch normals.” And many of us have
had personal experiences with this New
Hate – jobs lost, hassles, and worse. Some
scumbags at an anti-Trump rally attacked
68
 my friend and horribly injured his dog. His There aren't any rules anymore because
freaking dog. the left only applies them one way. And in
doing so, they've left what once was a civil
So when we start to adopt their rules, they’re shocked? compact between the two parties in
Have they ever met human beings before? It’s not a smoldering ruins.
surprise. It’s inevitable.

This is how you win, Scott. Letting them get away with
The old rules do NOT apply anymore. That crap is over.
this constant "do as we say not as we do" nonsense isn't
Giving Griffin a "pass" like Adams suggests in the name of
working in our favor. Yes, political correctness sucks. But
free speech is not going to happen. The Left destroyed free
the Left has dragged us into a place in which political
speech for us. I sure as hell won't be a part of allowing
correctness rules the day. So we're seizing the weapon with
them to keep theirs while we stay silenced and cowering.
which we have been beaten and we are fighting back. It
No sir.
won't be over until they squeal for mercy and beg for
forgiveness.
Instead, I want her destroyed. I want every
venue she ever tries to book in the next
Starting with Kathy Griffin.
decade to turn her down like she has the
plague.
CNN fired her. Good. Squatty Potty fired her. Even better.
Her venues are canceling her shows one by one. Excellent!
I want to see her begging for money on GoFundMe to pay
Let the left feel the true weight of what they have done to
her legal bills from all the lawsuits that come her way just
our nation and civilization. They wanted a barbaric, violent
like the bakery shops her side took part in ruining. And
mob mentality running things. I hope they're happy.
when that day comes when they are broken and beaten and
begging for forgiveness, admitting they were wrong to
destroy people over speech, then and only then will we Quit Whining, Liberals. You Brought
stop doing unto them what they have done unto us (H/T Trump on Yourselves
Ace of Spades):
.

69
 NSA Won't Release Clinton/Lynch
Tarmac Tape - Claims "National Security"
Tim Brown
May 31, 2017
A citizen researcher from Florida is attempting to have the
recording of the infamous Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch
tarmac tape released to the public, but apparently, the
National Security Agency claims they won't release it due
to "national security."
The man researching and seeking to have the tape released
is Florida orthodontist Larry Kawa. You may remember
him because of Judicial Watch's filing of a lawsuit on his
behalf to obtain a week's worth of Hillary Clinton's emails
regarding Benghazi.
It's being reported now that the NSA has declared the
recording of the conversation that took place between Bill
Clinton and Loretta Lynch in Phoenix, Arizona on June 27,
2016.
Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request
in March of this year to obtain the following:
 Any and all records and/or transcripts of a meeting held
between Attorney General Loretta lynch and former
President Bill Clinton on June 28, 2016.
 Any and all records of communication sent to or from
officials in the Office of the Attorney General regarding
the meeting held between Attorney General Loretta
Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 28,
2016.
 Any and all records of communication sent to or from
officials in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General
regarding the meeting held between Attorney General
Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June
28, 2016.
 Any and all references to the meeting held between
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President
Bill Clinton contained in day planners, calendars and
schedules in the Office of the Attorney General.
This brings us to Kawa. In an article at Big League
Politics, Patrick Howley writes:
The National Security Agency (NSA)
blocked the release of a purported tape of
Bill Clinton and former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch’s private airplane talk with a
rare legal justification used to protect top
national security secrets.
70
The NSA’s block of the release of this information —
citing one of President Obama’s executive orders —
undercuts Hillary Clinton’s claim that her husband and
Lynch had a “purely social” conversation about grandkids
and golf on June 27, 2016, two weeks before Lynch
dropped the Department of Justice investigation into
Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.
Citizen researcher Larry Kawa is pressing the government
to release the contents of a taping system that is required to
have been installed on Lynch’s government airplane.
Kawa points to the Tempest system, a NATO-certified
system by which the NSA tracks and records sound that
emanates within government structures.
“General Dynamics installs the recorders in the planes,”
Kawa told Big League Politics. “(Lynch) could not have
un-installed them if she wanted to.”
Kawa claims that there are Voice Over IP recorders that
are installed on government airplanes, so there must be a
recording. His FOIA request was denied citing national
security.
So far, we've not really heard anything except that the
conversation was all about golf and grandchildren, even
though Lynch claimed the meeting was "regrettable."
How is that a matter of national security?
We do know that following that meeting, the Justice
Department shielded Clinton Foundation emails and there
is definitely a question of how that meeting may have
resulted in the communications of Donald Trump and his
advisors at Trump Tower.
“To respond to your request, NSA would
have to confirm or deny the existence of
intelligence records on Loretta Lynch,” the
NSA wrote in their response on November
14, 2016. “Were we to do so in your case,
we would have to do so for every other
requester. This would enable, for example,
a terrorist or other adversary to file a FOIA
request with us in order to determine
whether he or she was under surveillance
or had evaded it. This is turn would allow
that individual to better assess whether
 they could successfully act to damage the
national security of the United States. For
such reasons, we can neither confirm nor
deny the existence or non-existence of the
records you requested.”
Kawa then wrote to the NSA FOIA office to challenge
them on their denial. Here's their response.
Our letter dated 14 November 2016 is indeed our final
response to your FOIA request. It states that the “first
exemption” of the FOIA authorizes, by Executive Order,
properly classified information to be kept secret and goes
on to say that the fact of existence or non-existence of
intelligence records on any individual is an appropriately
classified matter. The “first exemption” is often referred to
as the “B(1) exemption” to which you refer.
71
We also provide background information regarding the
decision, as well as the specific paragraph of E.O. 13526
which authorizes the type of response, which is often
called a “Glomar” response. In addition, we state that the
withholding of this information is also authorized by the
third exemption under the FOIA, as the information is also
protected by statute. Lastly, we provide you with
instructions on how to appeal this response.
Both stories here cannot be true. We cannot have a
conversation about golf and grandchildren and that be
national security at the same time. It's one or the other,
and judging from the Clintons and Lynch's lawlessness, I
think it's safe to assume that there was no talk of golf and
grandchildren and I'm betting there was no "national
security" talk either. Rather, there was more than likely
criminal scheming taking place. Let's hear the recordings
for ourselves NSA.
 ‘Fake News!’ Farage Laughs Off Claim
He’s A ‘Person Of Interest’ In FBI’s Russia-Trump Probe
Published Time: 1 Jun, 2017 13:58

“This is fake news.”

© Jonathan Bachman / AFP

Ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage has laughed off reports by

the Guardian that he is a “person of interest” in an FBI
investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as “fake news.”
According to the newspaper, the former UKIP leader and
MEP has attracted the interest of US investigators because
of his relationship with individuals connected to both the
Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the founder of
WikiLeaks, which published troves of hacked emails that
damaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The Guardian’s sources say Farage is a person of interest
because of his proximity to people at the heart of their
Russia has adamantly denied all allegations of collusion in
investigation. Farage has not been accused of any
the US election.
wrongdoing but the FBI thinks he has information about
the acts under investigation, the newspaper reports.
“In response to the Guardian article, it has taken me a
long time to finish reading because I am laughing so
“One of the things the intelligence
much,” Farage says.
investigators have been looking at is points
of contact and persons involved,” a source
“The hysterical attempt to associate me said.
with the Putin regime is a result of the
liberal elite being unable to accept Brexit “If you triangulate Russia, WikiLeaks,
and the election of President Trump. Assange and Trump associates the person
who comes up with the most hits is Nigel
“For the record, I have never been to Farage. He’s right in the middle of these
Russia, I’ve had no business dealings with relationships. He turns up over and over
Russia in my previous life and I have again. There’s a lot of attention being paid
appeared approximately three times on RT to him.”
in the last 18 months.
“I consider it extremely doubtful that I could Farage was the first British politician to meet Trump
be a person of interest to the FBI as I have following his election victory, and they had their picture
no connections to Russia. taken together in front of a golden elevator in Trump
“My meeting with Julian Assange was Tower. The pair met again in February, where they had
organized for me by LBC Radio with a view dinner with Trump’s daughter and advisor, Ivanka, and her
to conducting an interview.” husband and White House advisor, Jared Kushner.

He added:
72
 In November, Trump suggested Farage should become the
British ambassador to the US.

CIA director John Brennan has claimed WikiLeaks worked

with Russia via third parties. Assange has denied these
claims.

Brennan has also claimed Russia “brazenly interfered” in

the 2016 US presidential election, however, he admitted to
a House Select Committee on intelligence last week that he
had there were “unresolved questions” as to whether any
Trump campaign officials actually colluded with Russia.

73
 Impeachment Advocates Beware:
Trump Holds A Trump Card:
The Power To Pardon
By Dave Lindorff
June 1, 2017
Whatever the truth regarding Deep State and Democratic
Party charges of alleged Russian “meddling” in last year’s
election (and I’m definitely in the camp that says there has
been no hard evidence presented to show Russia hacked
DNC emails), Donald Trump and his administration are
now ensnared in a serious investigation by an independent
prosecutor, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, into
obstruction of justice and other crimes that could
technically lead to indictments of Trump aides and to
Trump’s impeachment.
But don’t forget: Trump has one unassailable power as
president — the power to pardon — and I predict he will
wield it.
The US Constitution gives a president the almost absolute
power to pardon, including to pardon someone before he
or she has been convicted of a crime or even indicted. As
President Gerald Ford proved, such pardon power can even
be used to pardon someone — in his case the disgraced
and resigned ex-President Richard Nixon — before he had
even been charged with a crime.
The only limitation on that presidential pardon power is
that it cannot be used if the president is impeached, or to
interfere with the impeachment process.
What this means is that as long as there has not been an
impeachment of the president, or at least the launching of
impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives,
there is no constraint on President Trump’s use of his
pardon power. He can, according to many legal experts,
even pardon himself, though in that case he could still be
impeached and removed from office, just not prosecuted
for any crimes (impeachment is not a criminal proceeding,
but is simply a process for removing a person from office).
I believe it is likely therefore, that Trump, for whom
appearances, tradition, propriety, and the good of the
country are all meaningless notions, will use his pardon
power to block investigations into, and block indictments
of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and
his top advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner, and anyone
else who gets caught up in the investigation into crimes
.
74
committed by him and his administration, his transition
team and his campaign.
While such actions — even more shocking than Nixon’s
abrupt firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox during
the Watergate scandal — would likely stun the public and
would, by most Americans, be viewed an admission of
Trump’s guilt, it would effectively eliminate any chance
for Mueller to prosecute or even to investigate anyone in
the Trump administration. People who are pardoned
cannot be pressured by fear of indictment and a promise of
immunity into turning state’s evidence.
Trump would no doubt present his pardons as being an
appropriate action to kill an investigation that he is already
characterizing as a “witch hunt’ based upon lies and “fake
news” — a view shared by most of his ardent backers
around the country.
How such a bold stroke would play out at that point is hard
to say. Establishment Democrats would likely be
encouraged by Trump pardons to push harder for his
impeachment, but this approach could work to their own
detriment. We’ve already seen in the last election how
disenchanted much of white, working-class America is
with the Congressional Democrats and their focus on
inside-the-beltway fighting as well as their lack of interest
in the daily struggles of ordinary people, white and non-
white. This sentiment will be all the stronger because most
of Americans really aren’t really concerned about Russia
as any kind of threat these days.
At the same time, Republicans, who have shown a
shameless lack of concern with ethics, morals and basic
decency in supporting Trump no matter how obscene,
selfish, brutish or narcissistic he behaves, could lose
support, particularly among independent voters and
erstwhile Democrats, if they were to go along with
Trump’s use of pardons to protect his own ass.
It is really a no-win situation for both parties, which
benefits Trump, who doesn’t really seem to care much
about his place in history.
 5 Things You’re Missing While The Internet
Obsesses Over ‘Covfefe’ And Kathy Griffin
Carey Wedler
June 1, 2017
Between last week’s bombing in Manchester, the patriotic
three-day weekend in the United States, comedian Kathy
Griffin’s mock beheading of President Trump on Tuesday,
and the president’s recent ‘covfefe’ tweet, the media and
public have been busy.
But as the mainstream media and left-wing faction of the
country obsess over what covfefe means, and right-wing
snowflakes clutch their pearls at Griffin’s politically
incorrect, if not ill-advised and distasteful stunt, stories
that actually affect the American people are falling through
the cracks.
This is not to say the corporate media apparatus has not
covered any of the stories we’re about to detail. It is to say
that they’ve misplaced their outrage and focus on
superficial, topical stories that do little to speak truth to
power and expose the machinations of openly corrupt
ruling institutions.
Here are five ongoing stories that should have received the
same feeding frenzy as covfefe and Kathy Griffin — but
didn’t and probably won’t:
1. Human Rights Watch issues urgent
warning over a new “Back the Blue” law
in Congress
— Last week, the human rights organization penned a
letter to Sens. Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein
condemning the pro-law enforcement legislation, which is
currently making its way through both the House and
Senate. Human Rights Watch (HRW) says H.R. 2437 and
S.B. 1134
75
“[a]mend civil rights laws to severely limit
private citizens’ ability to hold police
accountable for their violations of the law.”
It also removes incentives for officers to refrain from
abusive behavior against citizens. Additionally, it imposes
mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of
causing “bodily injury” to officers,
“defined to include injuries as minimal as a
cut, an abrasion, a bruise or even just the
temporary feeling of physical pain.” The
letter claims “The ‘Back the Blue Act,’
which purports to protect law enforcement
officers from violence, does not propose
any meaningful measures to advance this
important goal of keeping officers safe.
Instead, it would weaken police
accountability and do serious damage to
existing tools for the protection of civil
rights.”
The bill is currently in a judiciary committee, and HRW
concluded its letter by urging lawmakers to reject it.
Considering the continued police violence that plagues the
United States — officers have already claimed nearly 400
lives so far this year, with few facing appropriate
ramifications for their violence — the legislation appears
to be a step in the wrong direction. Read Human Rights
Watch’s full statement here.
2. Suicide bombing kills 90, injured 400
in Afghanistan
— A terrorist attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, on
Wednesday, believed to be one of the worst in the
country’s history, is being drowned out by the media’s
incessant focus on covfefe and a fake bloody head. Though
Westerners fumed at the attack in Manchester last week,
which killed 22, the attack in the war-torn Middle Eastern
nation is failing to attract the same indignation and
outrage. The Taliban (a terror group empowered by U.S.
policy) is denying responsibility for the attack, making it
possible the Islamic State (another terror group empowered
by U.S. policy) may take credit in the next few days, the
Independent reports. Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry says
the death toll is expected to rise, which is nothing new for
the country, which has been subject to the United States’
invasion and violence for sixteen years. In February, a U.S.
airstrike killed 18 civilians in Afghanistan, and the
American military has killed hundreds, if not thousands of
innocents in Iraq and Syria in the last several months.
3. U.S. considers trillion-dollar military
budget
— Though the U.S. strategy of perpetual war has failed to
quell terrorism or create stability in the Middle East,
Antiwar.com reported this week that the Trump
administration’s 2018 budget proposal seeks to allocate
over a trillion dollars toward military spending.
As Antiwar.com notes, it is “particularly
shocking just how money is disappearing
not just into the general war-fighting
budget, but into related costs of having
such a massive military for so long.”
Over $183 billion would go toward Veterans Affairs amid
the ongoing crisis veterans face in the United States. Still,
if the United States government stopped waging so many
wars and creating so many veterans, that figure would not
be necessary.
According to the Straus Military Reform Project, the
discretionary base military budget would increase over $20
billion with the new proposal.
They note that “The ‘base’ budget
purportedly contains all routine, peacetime
expenses; however, DOD and Congress
have loaded tens of billions of such ‘base’
spending into the Overseas Contingency
Operations fund for declared wartime
expenses.”
Further, Antiwar.com points out that while spending on the
U.S. nuclear program would be increased by over $1
billion according to the budget, the cost of updating the
entire arsenal will likely increase many times over as the
policy is implemented.
4. The warfare state has come home to
roost, according to documents detailing
counterterrorism strategies used at
Standing Rock
— Over the holiday weekend, the Intercept reported that
according to leaked documents, law enforcement worked
with private defense contractor TigerSwan to impose
counterterrorism tactics on protesters at the site of the
Dakota Access Pipeline. According to the Intercept, they
were hired by Energy Transfer Partners, the company
behind the project:
76
“Internal TigerSwan communications
describe the movement as ‘an ideologically
driven insurgency with a strong religious
component’ and compare the anti-pipeline
water protectors to jihadist fighters. One
report, dated February 27, 2017, states that
since the movement ‘generally followed the
jihadist insurgency model while active, we
can expect the individuals who fought for
and supported it to follow a post-insurgency
model after its collapse.’ Drawing
comparisons with post-Soviet Afghanistan,
the report warns, ‘While we can expect to
see the continued spread of the anti-DAPL
diaspora…aggressive intelligence
preparation of the battlefield and active
coordination between intelligence and
security elements are now a proven
method of defeating pipeline insurgencies.’”
The vast majority of demonstrators at Standing Rock were
peaceful, making it all the more concerning that a military-
industrial profiteering company was deployed to silence
free speech as militarized law enforcement used aggressive
tactics to steamroll opposition — not to mention the fact
that the pipeline has already sprung two leaks before even
becoming operational.
5. Opposition to Trump’s $110 billion
arms deal with Saudi Arabia grows in
Congress
— Lawmakers like Rep. Justin Amash and Sen. Rand Paul
have crafted legislation to nullify the president’s recent
deal with the extremist Saudi regime, which received
widespread coverage when Trump visited the Arab nation,
sword-dancing with the monarchs and touching a glowing
orb.
In an email sent out to constituents and
followers Wednesday, Amash discussed
the transfer of “tanks, ships, anti-aircraft
missiles, and possibly precision-guided
bombs,” which was sealed during the
president’s trip to Saudi Arabia. Amash
warned that “all those weapons are going
to a questionable partner… in an unstable
region… without so much as a debate.”
Highlighting the fact that Saudi Arabia has
inserted itself into a civil war in Yemen,
attempting to prop up a leader previously
ousted from power, he said “thousands of
civilians, including more than a thousand
children, have died in the conflict — some
of them at the hands of the Saudi
government, using American weapons.”
Citing extremism coming out of Saudi Arabia — indeed,
the country spends billions exporting its radical Wahhabist
ideology and has also funded ISIS — Amash asked for
support for his bipartisan joint resolution, H.J. Res. 102, to
halt the sale. Sen. Paul has also introduced companion
legislation in the Senate.
***
Also deserving of honorable mention are the statements
made in court on Tuesday by violent racist Jeremy
Christian, who killed two Americans when they attempted
to stop him from harassing two teenage girls, one African-
American and one Muslim, in Oregon last week. Though
that story received widespread coverage, Christian’s
.
77
hyper-nationalistic statements have been somewhat
drowned out by the Kathy Griffin-covfefe fervor.
“Death to America’s enemies,” he said in
the courtroom, also claiming, “Free speech
or die, Portland. You got no safe place.
This is America,” as he faced the judge,
displaying no remorse for his murder of two
men, including one Army veteran.
This extreme form of American “patriotism” is just one
symptom of perpetual jingoism, militarism, and American
exceptionalism, which are also represented in the five
underreported stories highlighted in this list.
 Dershowitz: Comey Testimony
Will Help Trump Legally [VIDEO]
Amber Athey
11:46 AM 06/01/2017
According to Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz,
James Comey’s upcoming testimony in front of the Senate
will actually help Trump’s legal case.
Dershowitz said on MSNBC’s “On The Record” that, for
Trump, being able to hear the claims made against him
will help him and his legal team develop a strategy.
.
78
“This could hurt Trump politically but it will
help him legally,” he told host Greta Van
Susteren. “Why will it help him legally?
Every defense lawyer wants to see a
preview of the testimony against them.”
“That’s why we hate grand jury hearings
and we love inquiries, preliminary hearings,
where we can hear in open what’s coming
up against our client.”
Dershowitz also slammed people who want to “stretch
obstruction of justice” arguing that it goes too far to
inquire into what Trump was thinking when he chose to
fire Comey.
“That’s not the way American criminal law
should operate…today it’s Trump,
tomorrow it’s you.”
 The Alt-Left’s Latest Cultural Target: Destroying Respect
For The Institution Of The Presidency
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 01, 2017

violent, lunatic Left with video of the bloody,

decapitated head of President Trump)

You may recall that, on the day after Trump was

inaugurated, entertainer Madonna proclaimed to
participants of the “Women’s March,” “Yes, I’m angry.
Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about
blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t
change anything,” she said to raucous applause.

By now most people are aware of the disgusting photo D-

list “comedienne” Kathy Griffin posed for recently, in
which she held a mock severed, bloody head of President
Donald J. Trump.

Widely chastised by Trump supporters, Griffin was even

lambasted by some liberals — members of the
establishment media among them as well as former first
daughter Chelsea Clinton, who tweeted:

You may also recall rapper Snoop Dogg mimicking the

shooting of a clown that closely resembled Trump in a new
music video.

The outrage must have gotten to Griffin, who then issued a
mea culpa of her own:
“I am sorry. I went too far. I was wrong,”
she tweeted.
Well, no one but Griffin knows whether or not she’s truly
sorry, but many of us agree that yes, she went too far and
yeah, was she wrong. But hers is just the most recent in a
raft of radical, extreme insults and pseudo-threats against
the institution of the presidency that, in the Age of Trump,
are just fine and dandy with far too many Americans.
(RELATED: Kathy Griffin sums up the deranged,
79
And let us not forget the February 2017 cover of Irish
magazine Village, which featured a profile view of our
president with a target on his temple, with the words,
“Why Not?” underneath.
All of these incidents have one goal in common: To
cheapen the life of Donald Trump, because the ultra-
radical Alt-Left has decided that he is not legitimate and
does not deserve to hold the office he won fair and square,
and without any assistance from Mother Russia.
But these incidents go much further than cheapening
Trump; they cheapen the institution of the presidency
itself, by setting example after example that it’s okay for
political opponents of the chief executive to threaten election again someday? Will it be okay for ‘the other
violence against him if they have decided on their own that side’ to insinuate threatening his (or her) life?
he doesn’t represent their views.
Will the Left tolerate that?
That is a horrible — and wholly dangerous — precedent.
Of course it won’t, but the Left will nonetheless be
Damaging faith in the office of the president is just the responsible for it because they are the ones who will have
latest cultural battle by the hard Left to destroy other normalized it.
vestiges of traditional America, including faith, higher
education, family, and popular culture. Since before the Of Griffin’s Trump decapitation photo specifically,
1960s, when the destruction of traditional values was set traditional culture warrior and “establishment” media critic
into high gear, left-wing liberals marching in lockstep with Mark Dice tweeted,
the Democratic Party have worked ceaselessly to tear
down the cultural cornerstones of American society,
“You liberals look more like ISIS terrorists
replacing them with warped, sadistic and valueless mores
every day. You are ruining America.”
designed to “mainstream” and “normalize” aberrant,
disgusting behavior like that demonstrated by Griffin and
other “entertainment” types.

Just a quick stroll through social media demonstrates that

this effort is bearing fruit. One idiot on Twitter justified
Griffin’s pic as “art,” just like the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ was “religious art.”

There were more, but you get the drift.

The point is, normalizing this kind of violence — and they

can call it “free speech” all they want, but in reality, these
are nothing but demonstrations of hate and violence It would seem as though that is precisely their goal, one
couched in the First Amendment — will lead to nothing institution at a time.
good. What happens when their side wins a presidential
.

80
 Exclusive: Bilderberg Schemes To Overthrow Trump
Elitists Begin Effort To Reverse America-First Revolution And Brexit
Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.Com
June 1, 2017
Sources close to the elitist Bilderberg
Group conference tell Infowars that
globalists see their agenda as being in
“deep trouble” and that Donald Trump
poses a “dangerous” risk to the
international order and must be brought
to heel or turfed out of office.
Over the years, Infowars has developed sources close to
the conference who feed us information ahead of time as to
the real agenda behind the confab, not just the vague list of
topics released officially by Bilderberg.
Given that this is the first year since both Brexit and
Trump came to pass, the effort to derail both is very much
the primary focus of discussion amongst globalists in
attendance this week.
The reason that three members of the Trump
administration – HR McMaster, Wilbur Ross and Chris
Liddell have been invited to attend this year’s meeting in
Chantilly, Virginia is that Bilderberg thinks there is still a
chance to put pressure on Trump to force him to back
down on his America-first agenda.
81
With the U.S. about to pull out of the Paris climate
agreement, Trump is “dangerously obsessed” with
derailing the current world order, according to one
Bilderberger, a fear that has intensified since Trump
chided world leaders at the G7 summit last week.
Globalists are baffled as to Trump’s “erratic” style of
governance and are panicked that he could undo decades
of work they put in to build the new world order.
However, Bilderbergers still think Trump can be brought
to his senses and taught “how the world really works,” a
line that is typical of the arrogance that has come to
epitomize the attitude of Bilderberg members over the
years.
Given the highly unlikely scenario of Trump taking orders
from Bilderberg, the only recourse left for the elite will be
to turf him out of office.
Another Bilderberger is confident that Trump can be
impeached, but only if Democrats regain control of
Congress in 2018, in which case his days are “numbered”.
If the impeachment of Trump is in process by the end of
2018, globalists are confident that any effort on behalf of
his administration to pull out of the Paris climate
agreement and any other globalist treaties will be thwarted.
On the subject of Brexit, globalists still think that the UK’s
exit from the European Union can be prevented. Elitists
plan to make the withdrawal process as messy and as
drawn out as possibly, taking as long as five years, before
which point they hope to force through a vote in
Parliament that will reverse the results of the referendum.
 As Trump Struggles To Control Leaks To Media, Majority
Of Americans Say Publishing Classified Info Is Treason
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 01, 2017
Since before he even took office, then-President-elect
Donald J. Trump and his transition team were fending off
one media broadside after another, attacks that only
intensified once he took office Jan. 20.
Since then, the Trump White House has been regularly
caught off-guard and flat-footed by a deluge of leaks —
from the Deep State and, some say, from his own inner
circle — concerning sensitive and, sometimes, classified
information.
Two of the most recent examples, as The National Sentinel
reported, came from The New York Times, which
published highly classified information regarding the
addition of a U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarine off the
coast of the Korean peninsula and previously undisclosed
information regarding the Manchester, England, terrorist
suspect and the bombing itself.
The publication of classified information by the Times and
other “mainstream” media should constitute treason, say a
majority of Americans in a new survey by Rasmussen
Reports. (Related: Read Washington Post Exposed As A
CIA Front Propaganda Rag Working To Overthrow
The Trump Administration And Install Political
Puppets.)
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national
telephone and online survey finds that just
over half (53 percent) of all likely U.S.
voters still consider the leaking of classified
information to the media to be an act of
treason. Thirty percent (30 percent)
82
disagree, while 18 percent are undecided,”
the firm announced on its website.
The latest figures pretty much represent how Americans
said they felt in November 2010 after WikiLeaks
published reams of top-secret information stolen from the
U.S. government regarding the Afghanistan war and
various foreign policy and defense-related issues. At that
time, 72 percent of respondents said publishing the
information harmed U.S. national security instead of
providing a “need-to-know” public service, compared to
14 percent who believed the opposite.
And as you might expect, the issue of whether the media’s
publication of sensitive information leaked to damage the
Trump administration is treasonous or not is highly
partisan: Rasmussen said that 73 percent of Republicans
think so, while just half as many Democrats (36 percent)
agree.
However, if you had to handicap the data you could say
that Republicans’ view on the matter is more reflective of
the country in general: Rasmussen also noted that by a 50-
27 percent margin, “voters not affiliated with either major
party” think the publication of secret data is treasonous.
Rasmussen noted further:
Partisan differences of opinion are even
more obvious when voters are asked
whether media outlets that release secret
government information are providing a
public service or hurting national security.
A plurality of those surveyed — 47 percent — do believe
that publishing sensitive information hurts our ability to
defend ourselves. That is down considerably from 72
percent six years ago, the polling firm reported. Today, 34
percent think publishing the data is a public service.
To again demonstrate the partisan nature of the issue,
when Obama was in the White House in 2010, six-in-10
Democrats thought
“the media was hurting national security by
releasing secret government information,
 while 84 percent of Republicans and 72
percent of unaffiliated voters agreed.”
What does that tell us? That Republicans and unaffiliated
voters more reliably see the media’s publication of secret
information as harmful to the country, while Democrats —
especially those in the Age of Trump and the fake “Russia
collusion” story — tend to pick and choose when to be
more outraged by such disclosures. (Related: Read WaPo
screws up again, publishes fake news involving Trump
son-in-law: Kushner DIDN’T request back channel to
Russia.)
83
But the fact is, it shouldn’t matter who is in the White
House and which party is in power; such disclosures by the
media of classified data always hurt us and help our
enemies, hence, are treasonous.
There are things the public has every right to know, and
our founders adopted the First Amendment’s media
protections for the very purpose of holding governments to
account. But it’s not at all likely they would have
supported the publishing of secret war plans, for example,
against America’s enemies, nor would they have likely
sanctioned the media’s decision to allow itself to be used
by the Deep State to harm a duly elected president.
 Trump: 'Big Story' Is Unmasking,
Surveillance During Obama Administration
By Rebecca Savransky
06/01/17 07:21 AM EDT
President Trump on Thursday turned his attention to
"unmasking and surveillance" in the Obama
administration, calling it the "big story."
"The big story is the 'unmasking and
surveillance' of people that took place
during the Obama Administration," Trump
tweeted Thursday.
84
Trump's comments come after the House Intelligence
Committee on Wednesday issued seven new subpoenas in
its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016
election.
Three of the subpoenas focus on allegations of improper
"unmasking" of Trump campaign officials, The Wall Street
Journal reported.
Those three subpoenas went to the CIA,
FBI and National Security Agency and are
related to questions — primarily from
Republicans — about how the names of
Trump associates were un-redacted and
distributed in classified Obama
administration reports during the transition
period.
Republicans have signaled they see unmasking as the key
to investigating the source of media leaks damaging to the
Trump administration.
Trump and his aides have often railed against the leaking
of information to the media and Trump has blasted the
Russia probe as a "witch hunt."
 Hey Congress, Voters Are Blaming YOU (And The Media),
Not Trump, For Holding Up The President’s Agenda
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 01, 2017
It’s been said that supporters of President Donald J. Trump
are heavily invested in seeing him succeed, and that’s true.
It helps explain why voters stuck by him through thick and
thin during the campaign, when all sides threw everything
they had at him in an attempt to knock him out of the race,
and since he was elected to the nation’s highest office,
despite a daily, never-ending, unprecedented assault
against him.
Now, a new analysis has not only found no “buyer’s
remorse” among Trump supporters, but that they also
aren’t blaming him for any failures thus far to enact his
agenda. They’re blaming the media, which is completely
understandable, and in a warning to members of both
parties but particularly the Republican Party, voters are
blaming Congress for Trump’s lack of progress as well.
As reported by the Washington Times, there is no regret
among Trump supporters for backing him in November:
Despite an onslaught of ridicule from the
national media, chiding from their
neighbors and repeated public relations
flare-ups from the White House, President
Trump’s voters remain remarkably loyal to
him, pollsters and analysts say.
The paper noted further that Trump voters aren’t buying
into suggestions they ought to be ashamed of their vote or
otherwise remorseful about it. In fact, his voters are
venting frustration at never-Trump, “resistance”
Democrats, as well as congressional Republicans — “party
leaders, hard-line conservatives and moderates whose
squabbling caused major problems in the Obamacare
85
repeal effort,” the Times noted. (Related: Read Cowardly
Lawmakers Relying On Bogus CBO Estimates Of
People Who Will “Lose Coverage” Under Obamacare
Repeal: Is Collapse Of The System Better?)
Despite the fact that nearly to a person, all Republicans
either ran on Obamacare repeal-and-replace, voted for
such a bill several times when they knew Obama wouldn’t
sign it, or both.
Republican Party strategist Kevin Madden told the Times
that Trump voters remain fully invested in their candidate.
“They still want to see their support
validated and still believe it can pay off,” he
said. “They have less trust in the people
and the institutions that are trying to
convince them they made the wrong
choice, like the media and political elites,
than they do the president himself.”
There have been no shortage of speculative reports —
many filled with gross inaccuracies and baseless innuendo
— claiming that Trump’s so very unpopular that those who
voted for him are abandoning him in droves. But just as
consistently, legitimate surveys have found that not to be
the case. A series of polls released around Trump’s 100-
day mark failed to demonstrate any major loss of the
president’s base of support. Rather, most believe he has
evolved into a powerful leader, especially on foreign
policy, and they continually cheer his assault against
political correctness as well as his public displeasure with
the “fake news” media.
In addition, analysts note that the president’s supporters
have forgiven him for ditching some promises he made on
the campaign trail, excusing those lapses as someone who
has never been a politician and is just easing into the job of
being president.
The biggest concern, however, is that he takes to Twitter
far too much.
The Times cited a Fox News survey that showed 97 percent
of Trump supporters are still satisfied they cast a ballot for
him, while a Washington Post/ABC News survey found
that 96 percent of Trump voters remain satisfied with their
choice, saying it was the right thing to do. Just two percent
in the latter poll said they regretted their decision.
A University of Virginia Center for Politics and Public
Opinion Strategies survey found that 93 percent of Trump
voters still support him and approve of his job
performance. That compares with just 52 percent for
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and about half that —
around 28 percent — for Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky. Both leaders are responsible for
pushing the president’s agenda in Congress. (Related:
Read The big lie: Former House Speaker Boehner spills
the beans, says Republican tax cuts are “happy talk”.)
“They are more loyal [to Trump] than they
are to the GOP, but they are still anti-
Democrat and much more inclined to
support the GOP,” Glen Bolger, of Public
.
86
Opinion Strategies, told the Times. “There
are not a whole lot of Trump voters who
say, ‘I am ready to defect.’”
But that doesn’t mean the dishonest “establishment media”
isn’t looking for each and every disaffected Trump voter
they can find, all in an effort to make it seem like there are
millions of them, the Times noted.
In many respects, however, so much negative media
coverage is backfiring. The U of Va. survey also found
that 88 percent of voters
“said that media criticism of Trump
reinforces that the president is on the right
track, and the same percentage agreed
with Trump’s assertion that the press is ‘the
enemy of the American people.’”
 2 D.C. Hospitals Shut Down
Questions About Seth Rich Murder
'I Am Not Permitted To Reveal Any Information'
Alicia Powe
June 1, 2017
Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich
WASHINGTON – Murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was
likely treated at one of two hospitals near the Washington,
D.C., intersection where police found him shot in the back
in July 2016, but those hospitals are refusing to answer any
of WND’s questions about the unsolved crime.
WND contacted MedStar Washington Hospital Center and
Howard University Hospital – two hospitals located within
a one- to two-mile radius of the 2100 block of Flagler
Place NW, where Rich was shot in the early hours of July
10, 2016. Howard University Hospital is three blocks east
of the shooting site, and MedStar Washington Hospital
Center is less than two miles to the north.
When WND sought an interview with hospital officials
and a media representatives of MedStar Washington
Hospital Center, administrators refused to answer
questions and instead summoned security guards. WND
also called and emailed both hospitals.
MedStar Washington Hospital Center
87
MedStar’s director of media relations, So Young Pak,
would not confirm whether Rich was treated at the
hospital. Pak also said the hospital cannot release
information about any patient and cited the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, also
known as HIPAA.
“I am not permitted to reveal any
information about any patient of this
hospital, whether that patient is living or
deceased,” Pak told WND. “Journalists are
not permitted in any hospital in the nation
unless escorted by a director of media
relations.”
Pressed to merely confirm whether Rich was admitted and
treated at MedStar, Pak said,
“All information is subject to federal privacy
laws, and thus we cannot respond to the
question.”
Howard University Hospital also declined to respond to
WND’s multiple requests for confirmation that Rich was
treated in its facility.
Instead, Howard University spokesman Sholnn Freeman
told WND by phone,
“Um, I’m not prepared to answer this right
now.”
When WND inquired about whether Freeman would have
the information at a later time, he simply replied,
“You can follow up with me.”
WND is one news agency determined to
get to the truth about the Seth Rich
murder. It has launched a GoFundMe
campaign to raise money for three
purposes – to put more resources into
investigative reporting, to hire an
 independent private investigator and to
provide rewards for new evidence that
leads to the arrest and conviction of the
perpetrator.
Howard University Hospital Emergency Room
Government watchdog group Judicial Watch confirmed
that filing Freedom of Information Act requests with the
hospitals would be unproductive, particularly when dealing
with private medical facilities, due to strict patient privacy
regulations.
Distance from the site of the Seth Rich shooting at 2100 Flagler Place Northwest is about 1.8 miles, less than 10 minutes’ driving distance, to MedStar
Washington Hospital Center (Photo: Google Maps)
88
As WND reported, Jack Burkman, the head of the
Profiling Project investigative team, filed a lawsuit
Wednesday to push the Metropolitan Police Department to
release information in the Rich case, including the medical
examiner’s report, video footage of the shooting and
ballistics reports. In the past, the department has regularly
released surveillance video related to unsolved criminal
investigations and often posts footage of persons of
interest on its YouTube account. However, police have not
released any footage related to the Rich murder case.
“MPD has released 12 videos in the last
week alone, to include unsolved murder
investigations,” the Daily Caller’s Ted
Goodman reported Tuesday. “Their habit of
transparency with unsolved cases raises
the question as to why they’ve been so
tight-lipped about the Rich case.”
Distance from the site of the Seth Rich shooting at 2100
Flagler Place Northwest is about .4 miles, less than 10
minutes’ walking distance, to Howard University Hospital
(Photo: Google Maps)
As WND reported, Rich was murdered in his affluent
neighborhood in Washington. He was shot in the back
multiple times with a handgun at 4:18 a.m. a block from
his home, and although the police reported it as a robbery,
nothing was taken from him. He was transported to an
unidentified local hospital and was pronounced dead at
5:57 a.m. On July 22, just 12 days after Rich’s death and
days before the Democratic Party Convention in
Philadelphia, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from
DNC officials.
A police report issued by the Metropolitan Police
Department (full report included at the end of this article)
indicates that Rich was “conscious and breathing” when
law-enforcement authorities arrived on the scene.
However, the report doesn’t name the hospital where Rich
was treated or name the physician at the hospital who
pronounced Rich dead. The report states:
CIC reports the sound of gunshots at 2134 Flagler Pl. NW.
Upon arriving to the scene, the decedent was laying in the
Southwest corner of the intersection of W. St. and Flagler
Pl. NW. The decedent was conscious and breathing with
apparent gunshot wound(s) to the back. The decedent was
transported to local area hospital and was pronounced dead
by attending physician at 0557 hours.

The Metropolitan Police Department and Washington, D.C., mayor’s office maintain that Rich was killed during an attempted
robbery, even though the murderers left behind his wallet, credit cards and other valuables.

89
 Intersection where DNC staffer Seth Rich was found ‘conscious and breathing with apparent gunshot wound(s) to the back,’
according to a July 10, 2016, police report (Photo: Google Maps)
One America News, a budding independent TV news
company, reported that Rich was alive and talking to
police and EMTs before being hospitalized, raising
questions about what he may have been able to tell them.
If he told them it was a botched robbery, that evidence has
not been made public. Rich’s murder is one of 65 unsolved
cases in D.C. from 2016. His was the only murder last year
in the quiet, well-to-do Bloomingdale neighborhood. There
have been a total of five homicides in Bloomingdale since
2012, according to the Twitter feed DCHomicideCount.
Meanwhile, Americans have been hunting for clues and
searching for answers to a myriad of questions surrounding
the unsolved murder. Rumors and speculation are running
wild in online chat rooms, social media and websites.
Some social media users have even speculated that Rich
was killed at a D.C. hospital.
Dr. Jack Sava, MD, MedStar Health
90
One America News reported that the attending physician
who treated Rich was Dr. Jack Sava, a donor to Hillary
Clinton’s campaign, who visited the White House six
times before the day of Seth Rich’s murder. Dr. Sava is in
a relationship with Lisa Kountoupes, a lobbyist for the
DNC in 2016 who reportedly visited the White House 23
times during that same time period. They both reportedly
visited the East Wing, reserved for then-first lady Michelle
Obama and her staff.
WND called Dr. Sava, one of 80 doctors who specialize
surgery at MedStar Health, multiple times to ask him if he
operated on Rich. But WND was unable to reach the
physician, and his office has not returned messages.
WikiLeaks emails reveal Kountoupes co-hosted a Feb. 22,
2016, fundraiser with Tony and John Podesta, Hillary
Clinton’s 2016 national campaign chairman. Kountoupes
and Dr. Sava were also listed on a guest list attached to a
Feb. 7, 2016, email to John Podesta. Kountoupes is listed
among Clinton Foundation contributors in the $10,0001-
$25,000 donation bracket.
.

91
 Seth Rich Murder Case Just Took Stunning Turn –
Something Big Is Happening...
Reported By Gina Kynast
06-01-2017

Jack Davis for Western Journalism reports, A lawsuit is being filed against the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department seeking the release of information regarding the July murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.

92
 Jim Carrey Advises Kathy Griffin
To Double Down With Trump’s ‘Severed Leg’
By Daniel Nussbaum
1 Jun 2017
As a photograph of Kathy Griffin
hoisting the fake, decapitated head of
President Donald Trump swept the
Internet this week and led to her firing
from CNN and the cancellation of at
least one stop on her current comedy
tour, one celebrity is urging Americans
not to worry about it.
Jim Carrey told the audience at the premiere of his new
Showtime comedy series that Griffin should double down
on the now-infamous photograph.
“Hold up a severed leg as well,” he advised
Griffin in a speech at the event, according
to People magazine. “I don’t know if it’s
funny, but I don’t think the joke is the
problem. Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry
for your existence. All of this is
meaningless… all of creation is just God’s
Fidget Spinner. It’s really not important.
What’s important is that we’re all here.”
The graphic photo of Griffin holding “Trump’s” head,
taken during a shoot by L.A.-based photographer Tyler
Shields, sparked severe backlash online and drew
responses from the president and First Lady on
Wednesday. Griffin was fired from her role on CNN’s
.
93
annual New Year’s Eve Live broadcasts, and the Route 66
Casino in Albuquerque cancelled the comedian’s
scheduled performance there. The toilet accessories
company Squatty Potty also pulled its advertising
campaign, in which Griffin had starred.
Still, Carrey believes that in times of political turmoil,
comedians often become the only source of comfort and
reassurance for concerned citizens.
“I think what happens is, when these
extraordinary times politically happen, and
we’re going through terror and the fear of
the end, comics are the last line of
defense,” he told the audience. “We tell
them the truth, and we make something
beautiful out of it.”
The 55-year-old actor made the comments at the premiere
of the new Showtime series I’m Dying Up Here, which
follows a group of young, up-and-coming comedians
making their way in the comedy scene in 1970s Los
Angeles. Carrey serves as an executive producer and a
writer on the project.
“This is a labor of love,” he said at the
event. “It was an idea that was rolling
around in my head for a long time, and I
really wanted to see the comedy world as it
really was and the extraordinary
experience that I actually was lucky enough
to have.”
On Wednesday, a Los Angeles judge ruled that a wrongful
death case against the actor — related to the 2015
overdose death of his ex-girlfriend, makeup artist
Cathriona White — could move forward. White’s parents
accused Carrey of supplying the prescription painkiller
medication on which the makeup artist overdosed.
The actor has vehemently denied the claims.
 'I Represent The People Of Pittsburgh NOT Paris':
Trump Pulls U.S. Out Of Climate Accord Saying It Is A
Foreign Attempt To Seize American Jobs And American
Wealth - And Is Immediately Attacked By Obama
 Donald Trump Is Pulling The United States Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement That
Barack Obama Entered
 President Says He Is Protecting American Jobs And Accuses Treaty Of Being Designed To
Redistribute U.S. Wealth To Other Countries
 'I Was Elected To Represent The Citizens Of Pittsburgh Not Paris,' He Said - 'It Is Time To
Make America Great Again.'
 Obama Reacted Before Trump Even Finishing Speaking, Saying Action Means U.S. Joins A
Small Handful Of Nations That Reject The Future'
 Trump Told 'Foreign Leaders In Europe, Asia And Across The World' They Would Not
Have A Say Over American Jobs And American Growth
 Syria And Nicaragua Are Only Other Countries Not In Deal Whose Backers Say Is Vital To
Stopping Average Temperatures Growing By More Than 2C This Century
 Ivanka Trump And Jared Kushner Were Said To Have Lobbied To Stay In - And Were Not
At The Rose Garden To Witness The Decision Being Announced
By Francesca Chambers, White House Correspondent For Dailymail.Com
Published: 14:56 EDT, 1 June 2017 | Updated: 17:43 EDT, 1 June 2017

Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris

accord on climate change on Thursday afternoon -
deriding it as bad for American jobs and bad for the
environment.

He dared opprobrium from foreign leaders,

environmentalists, scientists and celebrities to say he was
putting the jobs of American workers first.

'We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing

at us any more. And they won't be. They won't be,' Trump
declared. 'I was elected to represent the citizens of
Pittsburgh, not Paris.'

Before he even sat down, his predecessor Barack

Obama launched an all-out assault, saying Trump 'joins a
small handful of nations that reject the future'.

The leaders of France, Germany and Italy said the decision

was 'regrettable' and that the deal was 'non-negotiable'.
Elon Musk, the Tesla billionaire, said he was quitting
advising the White House, tweeting: 'Leaving Paris is not
good for America or the world.'
President Donald Trump took the United States out of the
Paris climate accord on Thursday in a dramatic Rose
Garden statement which lashed out at foreign leaders

94

America first: Trump was unrepentant in saying he was
standing up for U.S. interests
America First: 'We don't want other leaders
and other countries laughing at us
anymore. And they won't be. They won't
be,' the president said in the Rose Garden
95
Where's Jared: The President's son-in-law Jared Kushner and his
daughter Ivanka, both said to have wanted him to stay in the Prais
treaty, were absent as they marked a Jewish holiday
Trump complained in the White House's Rose Garden that
major polluters like China are allowed to increase their
emissions under the agreement in a way that the US
cannot. India is hinging its participation on billions of
dollars of foreign aid.
'The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is
very unfair, at the highest level, to the
United States,' he said.
He argued later,
'The agreement is a massive redistribution
of United States wealth to other countries.'
'This agreement is less about the climate
and more about other countries gaining a
financial advantage over the United States,'
he said.
Trump said he would end the United States' participation
in the United Nations' Green Climate Fund for the same
reason.
The UN program asks developed countries to provide
billions in foreign aid on top of what the US already gives.
In a slap at European leaders who'd lobbied him last week,
including France's Emmanuel Macron, Trump said the
Paris exit is 'a reassertion of America's sovereignty.'
'Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia and
across the world should not have more to
say with respect to the United States
economy that our own citizens and their
 elected representatives,' Trump
proclaimed.
Trump told off naysayers in a lengthy explanation of his
decision and the effect he expects it to have on the US
economy.
'The Paris Agreement handicaps the United
States economy in order to win praise from
the very foreign capitals and global activists
that have long sought to gain wealth at our
country's expense. They don't put America
first. I do and I always will,' he said.
He outlined what he said the accord would do to the
American economy: 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025; $3
trillion in lost GDP by 2050; and an average household
income loss of $7,000.
Trump said he would be willing to get back in but only if
he is allowed to renegotiate the terms of the United States'
participation.
Among Trump's reasons for leaving the accord was the
'massive legal liability' that administration lawyers had
warned him about.
The Republican president also said he could not support
the agreement 'in good conscience,' from an environmental
stand point, either, 'as someone who cares deeply the
environment, which I do,' because it is non-binding.
It imposes 'no meaningful obligations on the world's
leading polluters,' Trump said - naming India and China as
countries which could 'do what they like;.,
Sitting in the front row for Trump’s outdoor announcement
chief strategist Steve Bannon, EPA Administrator Scott
Pruitt and Vice President Mike Pence – all of whom were
part of a push to leave the agreement.
Trump ended months of speculation in an afternoon Rose
Garden event promoted with all the anticipation of a major
press conference.
He sided with conservative groups over world leaders and
his daughter Ivanka, declaring that the accord poses a dire
threat to the American economy and jobs market.
She was not there to see more conservative advisers
applaud loudly as he said the United States was out of the
treaty. Neither was her husband, Jared Kushner, one of his
closest aides, who had also been said to have lobbied to
stay in.
96
Trump said Thursday that he would be willing to sit down
with world leaders and discuss a new deal for the United
States.
The leaders of Germany, Italy and France rejected his offer
in a joint statement immediately after.
A White House official could not name a country that had
expressed interest in new negotiations during briefing with
reporters shortly after.
All the Trump representative could say was that it was the
administration’s belief that they were going to want to
make a deal to keep the United States in the accord.
‘They have a strong interest in finding
common ground with the United States,’
the official said. ‘We don’t want to get out of
ahead of ourselves here,’ the person added
as reporters fired off follow ups.
Even if the US were allowed to adjust the terms of its
participation in the agreement, it would not matter at the
moment.
An official who briefed the press could not say what a
good deal would like in the president’s eyes.
Prior to the announcement, an official told DailyMail.com
that the United State was unhappy with its nationally
determined contribution to greenhouse gas reduction in the
agreement.
Barack Obama committed the US to a 26 to 28 percent
reduction of emissions from 2005 levels by 2025. The
official said the NDC was too aggressive.
At Thursday’s briefing on the agreement, a senior official
could not provide a ballpark range for reduction when
pressed by DailyMail.com.
The White House tipped its hand just an hour before the
president spoke, when it distributed a set of 'talking points'
to allied organizations that proclaimed,
'The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for
Americans, and the President's action
today is keeping his campaign promise to
put American workers first.'
The document says the US is exiting the international
climate accord because it is in the best interest of US
economy.
Good day in the office: Steve Bannon, the President's chief strategist, On your feet: White House aides gave a standing ovation to the
was one of the major voices behind pulling out and was in the front president after his Rose Garden speech - but his predecessor issued a
row for the announcement highly critical statement while Trump was still speaking

Happy outcome: From left Chief Economic Advisor Gary Cohn,

Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt and Vice President Mike Pence,
applauded as the president pulled out of the climate agreement

Distributed: This is the official White House document

setting out why Trump is pulling the U.S. out of the Paris
accord

We're not here: Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner had advised the OBAMA'S FURY AT TRUMP MOVE
president to stay in the Paris accord - and instead of being at the
Rose Garden they observed the Jewish festival of Shavuot by taking
their children, Arabella and Joseph, to shul in Washington D.C. Obama issued a statement while the president was still
speaking, saying:

97
 A year and a half ago, the world came
together in Paris around the first-ever
global agreement to set the world on a low-
carbon course and protect the world we
leave to our children.
It was steady, principled American leadership on the world
stage that made that achievement possible. It was bold
American ambition that encouraged dozens of other
nations to set their sights higher as well.
Speaking out: Obama has made a series of foreign trips, all of them
on private jets, and used Trump's Rose Garden announcement to
explicitly attack the new president
And what made that leadership and ambition possible was
America’s private innovation and public investment in
growing industries like wind and solar – industries that
created some of the fastest new streams of goodpaying
jobs in recent years, and contributed to the longest streak
of job creation in our history.
Simply put, the private sector already chose a low-carbon
future. And for the nations that committed themselves to
that future, the Paris Agreement opened the floodgates for
businesses, scientists, and engineers to unleash high-tech,
low-carbon investment and innovation on an
unprecedented scale.
The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the
nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created.
I believe the United States of America should be at the
front of the pack.
But even in the absence of American leadership; even as
this Administration joins a small handful of nations that
reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and
businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way,
and help protect for future generations the one planet
we’ve got.
98
PARIS PROTEST: Dan Ingram, right, told DailyMail.com that his
wife Marione, left, is a 'Holocaust survivor' during a chat outside the
White House on Thursday
A successful businessman before he was elected, Trump
has already taken steps to end the 'job-killing' regulations
his predecessor enacted in order to bring the US in line
with the environmental pact.
In a May 26, 2016 speech to a gas- and oil-friendly crowd
in Bismarck, North Dakota, he declared flatly: 'We're
going to cancel the Paris climate agreement.'
Trump also said then that if he were elected he would stop
making payments to United Nations programs that fight
global warming.
The talking points the White House gave to conservative
organizations on Thursday said,
'The Accord was negotiated poorly by the
Obama Administration and signed out of
desperation.'
'It frontloads costs on the American people
to the detriment of our economy and job
growth while extracting meaningless
commitments from the world's top global
emitters, like China. The U.S. is already
leading the world in energy production and
doesn't need a bad deal that will harm
American workers.'
Trump, the most unpredictable U.S. president in a century,
performed as expected despite sending signals of
ambivalence about his yes-or-no decision during the week
and telling reporters that he was 'hearing from a lot of
people, both ways.'
Asked if America would be in or out, Trump would only
say:
'You're going to find out very soon.'
'Climate change is not a fairy tale. It is a
tough reality which affects peoples' daily
lives.'
Vatican: Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, head of the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said:
'If he really does [pull out], it would be a
huge slap in the face for us. It will be a
disaster for everyone.'

European allies had begged Trump not to ditch the pact

last week, and the White House said the president was
considering their position.

When White House sources said he was pulling out on

Wednesday morning, the reports set off worldwide
condemnation led by the United Nations secretary general.
New York City mayor Bill de Blasio said pulling out with
be 'horribly destructive'
The Vatican called the move a 'slap in the face' before it
was announced.

Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, head of the Pontifical

Academy of Sciences, said:

'If he really does [pull out], it would be a

huge slap in the face for us. It will be a
disaster for everyone.'

PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS AND BUSINESS

TAKE ON TRUMP

Countries which have decided to stay in Paris were swift to

speak out about the impending move to pull out of the
climate accord including:

United Nations: Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said:

'Climate change is undeniable. Climate

change is unstoppable.
'Climate solutions provide opportunities that
are unmatchable.'

Finland: Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipila said climate

change won't be reversed 'by closing your eyes' and
called the expected withdrawal 'a big setback'.

China: Will reiterate support for Paris agreement this week

during visit by prime minister Li Kequiang to Europe,
European Union official told Reuters

European Union: President of the European Parliament

Antonio Tajani said:

99
Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Gap, Mars and
Tiffany & Co. joined a group of large businesses in
publishing an open letter to Trump asking him not to end
the United States participation in the global warming
agreement
Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Gap, Mars and
Tiffany & Co. joined a group of large businesses in
publishing an open letter to Trump asking him not to end
the United States participation in the global warming
agreement.
Their ask ran as a full page ad in The New York Times and
The Wall Street Journal on Thursday.
Lakely said Thursday that there were four possible
outcomes of Trump's deliberations – including a pullout
that could spark lawsuits and an end-run involving sending
the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
'The Senate fails to get the two-thirds votes
necessary to ratify the treaty, and it's really
dead, instantly,' he said.
Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president,
said at a weekend summit in Italy he was sure Trump
would back the deal after listening to his G7 counterparts.
WHAT WAS PARIS AGREEMENT?
The Paris Agreement is the first large-scale global
agreement to combat what scientists say is climate change,
coming together at the United Nations Climate Change
Conference in 2015 and adopted on December 12.
On Earth Day of 2016, April 22, it was opened for
signatures and enough European countries signed on so
that the agreement entered into force on November 4,
2016, four days before Donald Trump was elected
president of the United States.
China and the United States had already committed to
backing the deal in September 2016, with their greenhouse
gas output accounting for nearly 40 percent of the world's
.
100
emissions. To go into legal force, countries accounting for
55 percent of the world's emissions had to sign on.
The deal asks that the countries signing on reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Right now 147 countries have
ratified the agreement to the 197 who attended the
convention.
The aim is to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius -
3.6F - this century.
Part of the reason the Paris Agreement was successful was
that ratifying countries can decide independently how to
reduce their emissions rather than being told how much to
cut by.
Counties, instead, put forward their best
efforts through 'nationally determined
contributions.'
The binding part of the agreement makes countries report
on their progress decreasing emissions, while the actual
setting of emission-reduction targets is non-binding.
The United States said it would try to reduce emissions
from its 2005 level by 17 percent in 2020 and 26 to 28
percent by 2025.
Even Pope Francis got involved in the decision with worldwide
repercussions. He presented Trump with his encyclical on the
environment during a customary gift exchange last week at the
Vatican
 LOSING IT: Total Liberal MELTDOWN Over Trump’s
Paris Climate Accord Nullification Demonstrates Extreme
Derangement Of Climate Change Cultists
By: Mike Adams
Date: June 01, 2017
Via Grabien News:
As expected, fanatical climate change cultists are totally
melting down in another irrational, emotionally charged
frenzy over President Trump‘s correct decision to pull the
United States out of the Paris climate accord scam, a
genocidal attack on Mother Nature and all plant life across
our planet.
The Paris climate accord is nothing but a big government
scam concocted via a combination of junk science and
outlandish greed on the part of globalists (such as Al Gore)
who profit from climate change hysteria.
Grabien News has collected and posted the 11 most insane
reactions by fanatical climate change lunatics, and it’s a
list that will have you rolling on the floor with laughter.
Remember, these are all the very same people who
weren’t bothered in the least when Obama laundered $1+
billion in cash and delivered it on a cargo plane to the
Iranian regime that will use the money to build nuclear
weapons. These are all the same media sources that said
nothing when Obama’s DOJ mafia boss Eric Holder ran an
international gun running operation (Operation Fast
and Furious) in order to unleash mass gun violence so that
Obama could call for eliminating the Second Amendment.
These are all the same sources that say nothing about toxic
glyphosate herbicide, brain damaging mercury in vaccines
or toxic fluoride in the public water supply. But when
Trump calls “bulls##t” on the Paris climate accord, they all
melt down into a quivering blob of outrage and fear.
101
11. Democratic super-donor Tom Steyer —
who as an investor in many green-tech
companies is anything but a disinterested
party — thundered that Trump is
“committing a traitorous act of war against
the American people.”
10. John Kerry, one of the deal’s leading
negotiators, said Trump is not helping the
“forgotten Americans” he pledged to
elevate, but instead will give their kids
asthma (perhaps as soon as this summer!).
9. The ACLU, an organization ostensibly
centered around civil rights, offered the
bizarre claim that leaving the Paris
agreement is “a massive step back for
racial justice and an assault on
communities of color across the U.S.”
8. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria upped the crazy a
notch higher, telling Jake Tapper “this will
be the day that the United States resigned
as the leader of the free world.”
7. Elon Musk, who runs three companies
that all depend to some degree on the idea
that carbon dioxide will destroy planet
Earth, said he takes America’s removal
from this largely symbolic agreement so
seriously that he’s going to make up the
difference and stop crisscrossing the world
in a private jet. Just kidding, he said he’s
resigning his symbolic post on a symbolic
presidential council.
Barack Obama, breaking again with the
tradition of erstwhile presidents refraining
from attacking their successors, channeled
his inner Miss Cleo, arguing he knows what
the future holds, and Trump’s decision
means America now “joins a handful of
nations that reject the future.” (Obama’s
prophesy, for those wondering, foretells a
“low-carbon” world that showers wealth
upon fellow believers.)
 5. MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch, apparently
seeking a compelling way to express his
philosophical differences with Trump, said
the president “is a sociopath.” Also, “very
dangerous.”
4. John Kerry — yes, he appears twice in
this list — also released a lengthy
statement on Facebook, in which he made
the utterly-lacking-in-perspective take that
Trump’s decision “will rightly be
remembered as one of the most shameful
any president has made.” Really? Worse
than FDR locking up innocent Japanese
Americans? Worse than President Adams
outlawing criticism of his administration,
and jailing critics? Worse than JFK’s Bay of
Pigs fiasco? Think before you Facebook,
Mr. Kerry!
3. Serial fabricator/MSNBC anchor Brian
Williams intoned that “on a sunny day in
the Rose Garden,” President Trump
.
102
delivered a “dark speech,” and then
approvingly quoted an Obama official who
likened Trump to Hugo Chavez.
2. Apparently of the opinion that Kathy
Griffin pretending to behead Trump wasn’t
quite distasteful enough, an editorial
cartoonist for the Australian Financial
Review, David Rowe, likened Trump
leaving the Paris agreement to …
beheading the entire planet.
1. And New York’s Daily News takes the
cake. Trying to recapture the glory of its
notorious “Ford to City: Drop Dead”
headline from the 70s, tomorrow’s front-
page will appear thusly: “TRUMP TO
WORLD: DROP DEAD”
In response to the list, one user wrote:
It’s become impossible to distinguish actual left-wing
responses from parodies in The Onion.
 List Of Democrats Who Took Money From Violent Sicko
Kathy Griffin Who Promotes The Blood
Beheading Of President Trump
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 01, 2017
It’s really interesting to read social media posts from
supporters of the far-Left Democratic Party whenever they
are trolling stories meant to report truthfully and honestly
on conservatives and lovers of liberty and the Constitution.
They love to lump us all into a single group (these days a
popular characterization is “Trumpster” or some vulgar
variation of that), as if we, and not they, were victimized
and hamstrung by groupthink.
The fact that the Republican Party had 17 candidates vying
for the party’s presidential nomination, to include a
brilliant African-American physician (now Housing and
Urban Development Director Dr. Ben Carson), two
Hispanics and a female former corporate executive, not
only proves the party’s ethnic and gender diversity, but
also its diversity of ideas. If you watched any of the GOP
debates, as I did, you would have heard ideas and policies
espoused that were conservative, libertarian-leaning, those
of the so-called “establishment” and many variations in
between.
Not exactly what I would define as uniformity of thought.
The Democrats, by comparison, primarily featured two
whites — Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Both of them espoused essentially the same brand of Left-
wing liberalism that consisted of growing the already
massive federal government, inflicting more control over
people’s lives, taking more of our money in taxes and
doubling down on the failed economic policies of their
103
predecessor, Barack “I never saw three percent growth”
Obama.
So it shouldn’t surprise you that “progressive” Americans’
Left-wing heroes and politicians would stick together like
glue, no matter what any of them did. (RELATED: The
Alt-Left’s latest cultural target: Destroying respect for
the institution of the presidency)
Take “comedienne” Kathy Griffin. You recall her outrage
this past week, posing for a video and still pictures where
she stood, stone-faced, slowly raised, and then held high a
mock severed head of President Donald J. Trump, which
reportedly deeply anguished his 11-year-old son Barron
when he inadvertently saw it on a news broadcast.
Well, seems that she has a penchant for sending money to
Democratic politicians, which is, of course, her
prerogative. But when one of your donors does something
this vile, shouldn’t you do the right thing and, I don’t
know, return her money? (Related: Discover more
outrageous news at OutrageDepot.com)
It’d be like your way of standing up for what’s right,
morally and otherwise.
But apparently not.
As noted by Breitbart News, Griffin has donated to two
elected Democrats — Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, and
Calif. state Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto. She gave
Franken $1,000 in 2016, and $2,600 to him in 2014. And
she donated another $2,500 to Franken’s Midwest Values
PAC (does it support mock presidential beheadings as a
“Midwest value?”) in 2011.
She also gave Cortez Masto $1,000 in 2016.
In addition, Griffin made a voter registration video for the
House Democrats’ Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee, volunteered to do voter-turnout videos for
Clinton last year, and has given money to other (losing)
Democratic candidates, including North Carolina singer
Clay Aiken and Katie McGinty, a Democrat who lost the
2016 U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania. (RELATED: By
Firing Jihadi Murder Advocate Kathy Griffin, CNN
Avoids Being Labeled An ISIS Sympathizer)
As for Franken, he won’t even cancel an event with Griffin
scheduled for this summer at the Wallis Annenberg Center
for the Performing Arts, where they are slated to have an
intimate talk about his book, “Giant Of The
Senate,” Breitbart reported.
None of this rank immorality and hypocrisy got past
Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health
Ranger. In a column Tuesday, he skewered Griffin and the
entire lunatic Left-wing culture of violence and disgust.
.
104
“There’s no other way to say it: Kathy
Griffin and the deranged, lunatic Left are
mentally ill and pose a very real danger to
society. This wretched, terrorist-style
beheading video posted by Griffin
encourages deadly violence against
Trump supporters and sends a message
that murdering political opponents of the
intolerant Left is a normal, acceptable
activity,” he wrote.
 Trump Pulls U.S. Out Of “Non-Binding” Paris Climate
Accord — Here’s Why He Was Right To Do It
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 01, 2017
Far-Left Democrats and so-called “environmentalists” who
still believe the global warming hoax are furious at
President Donald J. Trump for keeping his campaign
pledge to withdraw the United States from the “non-
binding” Paris Climate Accords signed onto by the Obama
administration.
But perhaps after they calm down and allow their blood
pressure to return to normal, they can take a rational,
reasoned look at why the president made his decision; if
they afford him that courtesy, there is no way they can
conclude that his decision was wrong.
In making the announcement from the White House Rose
Garden Thursday afternoon, Trump stated that he felt
obligated to withdraw from the agreement — which should
have been sent to the U.S. Senate by Obama to be ratified
as a treaty, because that’s what it was, in both style and
substance — because it is “a bad deal” for American
workers, taxpayers and companies. (RELATED: The
Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants,
forests and all life on our planet)
Trump also knocked the cost of the agreement — which
will rise to some $450 billion a year, much of which would
have to come from the U.S. — while major polluters who
are also signatories to the deal do not have to comply with
the accords’ emissions limitations for more than a decade.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has to comply immediately.
The president also lashed out at his critics who said pulling
out of the deal would be a disaster for the country, noting
that remaining in the agreement would cost American
families and businesses billions per year. Also, he said, the
agreement prohibited the U.S. from “conducting its own
105
domestic economic affairs” by preventing the development
of our own natural resources, like clean coal and natural
gas, both of which create far fewer emissions than other
forms of energy.
“I was elected to represent the people of
Pittsburg, not Paris,” Trump said. “It’s time
to pursue a new deal that protects” the
environment, as well as the American
people.
Trump, according to various experts and analyses, was
right to withdraw from the current agreement as written.
“Through a litany of regulations stemming
from the agreement, Obama has
essentially offered up the U.S. economy as
a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy,”
Americans for Tax Reform noted
Wednesday in a post on its website.
“Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the
country’s growth as a whole, but will trickle
down to low-and-middle income
Americans. As a result of the agreement,
energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising
the cost of utility bills for families and
increasing the costs of consumer goods.”
(RELATED: UN official actually ADMITS
that ‘global warming’ is a scam
designed to ‘change world’s
economic model’)
A study of the agreement by the Heritage Foundation,
released in April 2016, found that the agreement would
have resulted in the adoption of government policies that
dramatically increased electricity costs for a family of four
between 13 and 20 percent annually. In addition, the
analysis found that American families would lose out on
some $20,000 in income by 2035, regressive (not
progressive) economic policies that no doubt would hit the
nation’s poorest the hardest. [Meanwhile, we’re sure that
Obama won’t have any trouble paying his electric bill, no
matter what it costs]
Other analysts, as Trump noted in his speech, noted that
the loss of U.S. annual gross domestic product would be
close to $3 trillion by 2035, while reducing employment in
the U.S. by about 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in
manufacturing.
But perhaps most galling of all is the fact that even the far
Left admitted that the agreement would accomplish
virtually nothing — and certainly was not the global
carbon emissions destroyer its principle advocates made it
out to be.
Politico Europe reported:
In fact, emissions reductions are barely on
the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged
to ensure an agreement is reached
regardless of how little action countries
.
106
plan to take. The developing world,
projected to account for four-fifths of all
carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will
earn applause for what amounts to a
promise to stay on their pre-existing
trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.
As Trump said,
“The agreement is a massive redistribution
of wealth from the U.S. to other countries.”
There is no good reason to remain in it, just as there was
no good reason for Obama to have signed it.
 Liberals Lose Their Minds
Over Climate Exit: ‘Go F**k Yourself!’
By Julia A. Seymour
June 1, 2017 | 5:44 PM EDT
Editor’s note: This story contains explicit language.
From drunken driving and Titanic sinking comparisons, to
complaints about the impact on “racial justice,” liberals
lost it when President Donald Trump officially announced
the U.S. would quit the Paris Climate Accord.
The president held a press conference on June 1, saying the
nation would walk away from the deal, but he was open to
renegotiating a “fair” deal which would not harm the U.S.
economy and result in job losses for American workers.
Actor and author Wil Wheaton tweeted at White House
Chief of Staff Reince Priebus,
“Go fuck yourself, you lying piece of shit,”
after Priebus tweeted positively about the
announcement.
It reflected the mood of the left. Filmmaker Michael
Moore claimed the decision was a “crime against
humanity” and the equivalent of “USA to Earth: FUCK
YOU.”
Liberal journalists, celebrities, environmental activists and
others went berserk on Twitter denouncing Trump’s
actions as “stone cold stupid” and “locking in a future of
dangerous climate change.” One famous liberal actor even
used a crude way to suggest Trump shouldn’t have been
conceived.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Star Trek actor
George Takei tweeted,
107
“Too bad someone didn’t tell his father that
he shoulda pulled out too.”
The governor of California called it an “insane move” by a
“deviant.”
Talk show host Montel Williams reacted
with venom, “Trump is stone cold stupid.
That's right @realDonaldTrump is an
intellectually impotent little man who needs
to b impeached #ParisAgreeement.”
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof compared
Trump to a drunken driver tweeting,
“If somebody drives drunk, we arrest him. If
he drives national policy recklessly,
threatening our planet, we just call him ‘Mr.
President.’”
Commenting on the jazz band playing music ahead of the
Rose Garden press conference, New York Magazine writer
Jonathan Chait said,
“This is kind of like the end of the Titanic.”
InsideClimate News writer and editor John Cushman’s
dismal reaction was,
“Having thought hard about it, I fear this is
the day that history will record our locking
in a future of dangerous climate change.
Sorry.”
Sierra Club Director Michael Brune agreed with CNN
anchor Fareed Zakaria who responded to the news saying
“Today is the day that the United States
resigned as leader of the free world.” Brune
quoted him, adding #sadbuttrue. The Sierra
Club’s official Twitter account snarked,
“Congratulations, President
Bannon,” referring to the White House chief
strategist.
Climate activists with 350.org called it “deeply shameful
and shortsighted,” following founder Bill McKibben’s
comments days earlier about it being a “crime” to abandon
the agreement.
Shortly after the press conference, Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) touted the fact that The
Weather Channel had updated its website “with proof you
should care about withdrawal from the #ParisAgreement.”
Vox writer David Roberts melted down at
announcement tweeting,
“[Bangs head on keyboard, produces
strings of letters that mean more than "bad
deal" in the context of Paris.] Roberts used
to work for Grist. In 2006, he was forced to
apologize after writing that “we should have
war crimes trials for these bastards —
some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
The ACLU condemned the action as a
“massive step back for racial justice, and
an assault on communities of color across
the U.S.”
the
Predictably, both former vice president Al Gore and actor
Leonardo DiCaprio also criticized the decision. Gore
called it “reckless and indefensible,” while DiCaprio said
the “planet suffered,” and called on people to take action
on climate change.
108
 Nets Lose It: ‘The World Will Be A Mess’
With Trump Pulling U.S. From Paris Accord
By Nicholas Fondacaro
June 1, 2017 | 10:05 PM EDT
Well, it finally happened. President Trump pulled the final
thread that has begun to unravel the entire world in a
climate change apocalypse. Not really, but that’s the
hysteria the liberal media was drumming up Thursday after
Trump announced the United States would be withdrawing
from the Paris climate change accord. The Big Three
Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) were mobilized later that
evening to tear into the President.

“And now to the impact in cities and

states across the country where the
effects of climate change are already
being felt,” announced Savannah Guthrie, On ABC’s World News Tonight, Senior White House
filling in for Anchor Lester Holt on NBC Correspondent Cecilia Vega touted the backlash Trump
Nightly News. “And many leaders are was receiving from Hollywood elitists and environmental
already vowing to fight back against the organizations.
president's decision by taking matters
into their own hands.”
“The Sierra Club saying,
‘Congratulations, President Bannon.’
NBC’s Chief Environmental Affairs Correspondent, Ann Leonardo DiCaprio tweeting ‘our planet
Thompson was in full alarmist mode as she started her suffered,’” she reported.
report.
Vega failed to mention how DiCaprio pranced around the
“Climate scientists say the warning world on a private jet to preach to us about living with less.
signs are everywhere from Montana’s
shrinking glaciers to Australia's
ABC Anchor David Muir kicked off the program by
bleaching Great Barrier Reef,” she
setting a dire tone for the saying
declared. “A trend that could worsen
experts say now that the U.S., the
second largest carbon emitter in the “And we begin tonight with reaction
world, plans to pull out of the Paris across this country and the world to
agreement.” President Trump’s decision to pull out
the Paris climate accord.” He then added
“That means record heat, more drought that “the U.S. joining only Syria and
in some places, torrential rains and Nicaragua in not joining the deal.”
floods in other places, sea level rising
drowning coastal areas, the world will
He also showed high praise to the speedy condemnation of
be a mess,” Princeton University
Trump from former President Obama:
professor, Michael Oppenheimer told
Thompson.
Former President Barack Obama was among the first to
weigh in before President Trump was even done in the
There was no mention of all the false predictions people
Rose Garden. The former president issuing a statement,
like Oppenheimer have made in the past. According to Al
saying:
Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, much of New York City should
already be under water and every hurricane should be
Katrina, even though some years there are no category five “The nations that remain in the Paris
hurricanes. That’s not to mention the decades-long agreement will be the nations that reap the
California drought that recently ended. benefits in jobs and industries created.”

109
Adding:
“I believe the United States of America
should be at the front of the pack.”
Former Secretary of State John Kerry sat down with CBS’s
Anthony Mason on CBS Evening News where he trashed
President Trump for his decision.
“Today [John Kerry] took to Facebook.
He accused Mr. Trump of ‘walking
backwards from science and backwards
from leadership on behalf of polluters
and fringe ideologues,’” hyped Mason, as
he led into the interview.
“Tell me, where is the constituency in
America to put coal sludge back into
rivers and lakes? But that's what he's
done. He's signed an executive order to
do that,” Kerry shouted at Mason. “What
Donald Trump is doing is serving the
polluters. And serving a narrow group
of ideological interests.” “That's not
leadership. That's abdication of
responsibility. And this step does not
make America first. It makes America
last,” Kerry smeared as he finished his
rambling.
During his speech in the Rose Garden, President Trump
quipped that he was elected to be the President of
Pittsburgh and not Paris. All three of the furious networks
made sure to note that the mayor of Pittsburgh had come
out against the climate deal withdrawal.
All three asserted that the accord’s non-binding nature was
a reason for the U.S. to stay. But they didn’t make the
logical conclusion that that means countries don’t have to
follow it nor that the U.S. could pursue their ideal
regulations on its own. Instead, all three pretended as
though pulling out of the accord spelled doom for the
world and that the U.S. could no longer create the
regulation they were looking for.
Transcripts below:
NBC Nightly News
June 1, 2017
7:04:37 PM Eastern
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: And now to the impact in cities
and states across the country where the effects of climate
change are already being felt. And many leaders are
already vowing to fight back against the president's
decision by taking matters into their own hands. Our Chief
Environmental Affairs Correspondent Ann Thompson with
those details.
110
[Cuts to video]
ANN THOMPSON: Climate scientists say the warning
signs are everywhere from Montana’s shrinking glaciers to
Australia's bleaching Great Barrier Reef. A trend that
could worsen experts say now that the U.S., the second
largest carbon emitter in the world, plans to pull out of the
Paris agreement.
MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: That means record heat,
more drought in some places, torrential rains and floods in
other places, sea level rising drowning coastal areas, the
world will be a mess.
THOMPSON: The Department of Defense labels climate
change “a threat multiplier” fueling international conflicts.
But today the President focused on the economy, claiming
the Paris accord would cost the U.S. $3 trillion in lost
economic activity and 6.5 million industrial jobs.
ARI VELSHI: The president sited a particular study today.
That study has been widely debunked because it makes
all sorts of incorrect assumptions about America's role in
the Paris agreement.
THOMPSON: Under the Paris agreement, the U.S.
pledged to reduce emissions 26% by 2025. In 2015, it was
almost half way to that goal helped by power companies
choosing cheaper, cleaner natural gas instead of polluting
coal. The coal industry hopes the President's actions will
ignite a renaissance but this week alone two coal-fired
power plants in New Jersey and one in Massachusetts
closed.
Many states and cities vow to fight climate change.
California launching its own global coalition with Canada
and Mexico. Los Angeles is reducing its carbon footprint
with the biggest electric vehicle fleet in the country.
ERIC GARCETTI: We made a commitment to get off of
coal by 2025.
THOMPSON: And Virginia is establishing its own carbon
emissions standards for power plants. Many parts of
 America opting for cleaner energy sources with or without
the President. Ann Thompson, NBC News, New York.
...
ABC
World News Tonight
June 1, 2017
6:31:09 PM Eastern
DAVID MUIR: Good evening and it's great to have you
with us here on a Thursday night. And we begin tonight
with reaction across this country and the world to
President Trump’s decision to pull out the Paris climate
accord. The U.S. joining only Syria and Nicaragua in not
joining the deal. The President said today, it was a bad
deal for America and that he was elected to represent the,
quote, “citizens of Pittsburgh not Paris.”
Tonight the mayor of Pittsburgh among the many reacting,
cooperate leaders speaking out. And President Trump a
short time ago, fielding calls from the German chancellor
and from the French president, who went on television
saying, “make our planet great again.” Saying the United
States has turned it back on the world. ABC's Senior
White House Correspondent, Cecilia Vega leading us off.
(…)
CECILIA VEGA: He's making good on a campaign
promise, but in his own inner circle, the divisions ran
deep. Right there in the front row, the man who lobbied for
withdrawal, his chief strategist Steve Bannon. Not seen,
those who opposed leaving the deal -- daughter Ivanka.
She was home, marking the Jewish holiday. The last-
minute lobbying from around the world intense, but the
bottom line for President Trump: American jobs.
(…)
VEGA: The reaction swift, the mayor of Pittsburgh
tweeting, "I can assure you that we will follow the
guidelines of the Paris agreement for our people, our
economy & future." The Sierra club saying,
"Congratulations, President Bannon." Leonardo DiCaprio
tweeting "Our planet suffered." But the president said the
111
benefits just didn't add up. A number of Republicans
agreeing, including Paul Ryan, saying, the Paris climate
agreement was simply a raw deal for America.
(…)
VEGA: But recently aides said his views are evolving. On
that foreign trip, he faced intense lobbying from world
leaders, including the Pope. The President's beliefs about
global warming not made any clearer today. Just five
minutes announcing his decision to leave the Paris
accord, he declared his love for the environment.
(…)
6:35:59 PM Eastern
MUIR: Former President Barack Obama was among the
first to weigh in before President Trump was even done in
the Rose Garden. The former president issuing a
statement, saying: “The nations that remain in the Paris
agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs
and industries created.” Adding: “I believe the United
States of America should be at the front of the pack.”
...
CBS Evening News
June 1, 2017
6:34:33 PM Eastern
ANTHONY MASON: Then-Secretary of State John Kerry,
with his granddaughter on his lap, signed the Paris accord
last year. Today he took to Facebook. He accused Mr.
Trump of “walking backwards from science and
backwards from leadership on behalf of polluters and
fringe ideologues.” And said it “may be the most self-
defeating action in American history.” I spoke to the
secretary earlier today.
[Cuts to video]
Mr. Secretary, you call this an unprecedented forfeiture of
American leadership. What do you mean?
JOHN KERRY: Well, when 195 countries come together
working for decades and the United States of America
takes the leadership in order to join with China, two
largest emitters in the world of carbon emissions, to say
we must begin to reduce. And then to have a president
stand up and simply unilaterally walk away from that
without scientific basis, not based on facts in terms of our
economy.
The truth is the President-- no country is required by this
agreement to do anything except what that country
decided to do for itself. So Donald Trump is not telling the
truth to the American people when he says, "We have this
huge burden that's been imposed on us by other nations."
No, we agreed to what we would do. We designed it. It's
voluntary. And the President of the United States could
have simply changed that without walking away from the
whole agreement.
(…)
KERRY: The fastest growing job in America, the single
biggest job is wind turbine technician. 2.6 million clean
energy jobs have been created in America. And guess
what? Half of them, 50 percent, are in states that Donald
Trump won. He's going to hurt those people. He's going to
hurt those states. America's going to lose economic
leadership in this.
112
MASON: So you do think we have something to lose if we
back out?
KERRY: I think we have indeed. Do you think American
businesses are going to flourish when they knock on the
door of a country and say, "We want to give you solar
tech?" They're going to say, "You guys just walked away
from the deal. You're not committed to this." That's why
major companies, among them ExxonMobil, I mean, major
Fortune 500 companies, all supported staying in the Paris
agreement because they know what this means in terms
of their job base, their growth, and economy.
(…)
KERRY: Tell me, where is the constituency in America to
put coal sludge back into rivers and lakes? But that's what
he's done. He's signed an executive order to do that.
Where is the constituency to reduce ability of cars to-- to
maintain lower automobile emissions? Why would you
want to get rid of that? What Donald Trump is doing is
serving the polluters. And serving a narrow group of
ideological interests. That's not leadership. That's
abdication of responsibility. And this step does not make
America first. It makes America last.
(…)
 France Confirms No Traces Of
Russian Hackers In Macron Campaign Cyber-Attack
By Tyler Durden
Jun 1, 2017 11:39 AM
In a blow to the anti-Russia narrative being spewed by any
and everyone in the western establishment (most recently
Hillary again), the head of the French National Agency of
Information Systems Security (ANSSI) told AP that
France has found no traces of Russian hackers in a
cyberattack on President Emmanuel Macron's campaign
(we wonder if the result would have been the same if he,
like Hillary, had lost).
Right after the event, it was claimed (by officials and the
media lapdogs) that Russian hacking group called APT28
was responsible for the cyberattack on Macron's
presidential campaign.
113
However, according to ANSSI (the French cybersecurity
agency has been investigating the attack) chief Guillaume
Poupard,
the hacker attack on Macron's campaign
"was so generic and simple that it could
have been practically anyone."
He told AP that it "means that we can
imagine that it was a person who did
this alone. They could be in any
country."
Of course, given Putin's meeting with Macron this week,
we are sure the narrative remains alive and well and Putin
must have strong-armed Macron to deny this.
As a reminder, the leak of Macron
campaign data contained 9 gigabytes of
emails, images and attachments dating
back several months.
At the time, the French authorities called on the national
media not to report the contents of the leak, saying that
doing so would violate election rules to stop campaigning
a day ahead of an election. The candidate also barred RT
and the Russian news agency Sputnik from his campaign
HQ, accusing them of spreading false information about
him.
His team failed to provide any examples
of such misreporting.
 'They Go Low, We Go High': MSNBC's Deutsch Says
'Dangerous Little Man' Trump Is Backward, Uneducated
By John Hirschauer
June 1, 2017 | 6:40 PM EDT
President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate
Agreement was highly controversial on Thursday,
with Democrats and even some Republicans opposing the
move. MSNBC, anxious to bring on a level headed
dissenter from Trump’s decision, brought Donny Deutsch
onto Nicolle Wallace’s Deadline: White House.
Deutsch, wasting no time in casting aspersions at his
political opponents, articulately described Trump as a
“dangerous little man”. Such words of eloquent contempt
were not enough for Mr. Deutsch, who proceeded to call
the President a “backward” and “uneducated man”:
I don't think Donald Trump understands these CEOs are
think about their global companies. They're not saying,
what is best for -- he is such a backward man. He's
such an uneducated man.
Deutsch, valiantly refusing to stray from DNC talking
points, reminded Wallace of the obvious opportunity for
the Trump campaign to deflect from the Russia narrative.
To her credit, Wallace was steadfast in proving MSNBC’s
blind partisanship:
DEUTSCH: Had he gone any other direction, and by block
three we'd be back to Russia.
NICOLLE WALLACE: Let me-- We're actually getting
back to Russia in block two.
Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union was
invited to provide support for the leaving the accord, and
he proceeded to give a solid, sober conservative response
114
on the matter. Wallace then asked Schlapp more broadly if
he believed in climate change, and he responded this way:
I believe that the climate fluctuates, absolutely, and
sometimes we go through periods of time when it gets
warmer and sometimes we go through periods of time
when it gets colder. I do not believe that these carbon caps,
and taxing carbon and constraining carbon will result in
much difference on the temperature gauge and I think
every scientific study shows it. All of these -- all of these
goals, if you actually look at the impact on the
temperature, they are so slight and why are we shedding
our jobs for tiny, tiny possible improvements in the
temperature?
Schlapp’s cautious skepticism was too much for Deutsch,
supposedly armed with years of experience as a climate
scientist (he's not), who pontificated on humanity’s certain
doom:
DEUTSCH: Matt, first of all -- I'm sorry--
SCHLAPP: Please.
DEUTSCH: Even tiny improvements, if we go 3.6%
warmer, the world ends.
The two exchanged rounds of verbal sparring that ended,
fittingly, with a full-on devolution into a schoolyard brawl:
SCHLAPP: That's not true.
DEUTSCH: That is true.
SCHLAPP: That is not true.
DEUTSCH: Every scientific-- Matt, and, by the way --
SCHLAPP: Donny, you sound like a crazy Christian
preacher saying the End is near.
DEUTSCH: No, you sound like a crazy Trump advocate
who that just drinks whatever he sells. And that's what you
sound like, sir.
After the rigorous scholasticism embodied in the
passionate/pathetic interchange, the rest of the segment
seemed awash with normalcy, as Schlapp went back to
bread and butter conservatism while Deutsch claimed that
those who disagree with him on health care policy want
“20 million people” to die. It's tough to say which modus
operandi is preferable.
Read the full June 1 transcript below:
4:20 PM ET
DONNY DEUTSCH: I have such rage and sadness. We
just watched a dangerous little man give a very, very scary
speech.
(…)
4:22 PM ET
DEUTSCH: I don't think Donald Trump understands these
CEOs are think about their global companies. They're not
saying, what is best for -- he is such a backward man. He's
such an uneducated man. And the fact that, to your point,
Steve Bannon has risen again. And I also, my more cynical
viewpoint, the more dramatic he got today, the less we talk
about Russia. Interestingly enough.
NICOLLE WALLACE: Right.
DEUTSCH: Had he gone any other direction, and by block
three we'd be back to Russia.
WALLACE: Let me-- We're actually getting back to
Russia in block two. Let me bring in my friend, Matt
Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union,
who tweeted earlier in the day that you were invited to be
at the Rose Garden speech and I’m guessing you have a
different take on today’s news.
MATT SCHLAPP: Oh yeah, completely. Look, I think
that this is-- it's like there are two worlds out there, and I
think whether or not the elected Democrat leaning mayor
of Pittsburgh agrees with this or not, there are a lot of
people in states like Michigan and Pittsburgh and Ohio and
Wisconsin, my home state of Kansas, a lot of people
across this country who have felt like they've been
struggling, and one of the reasons they feel like they're
struggling is they don't feel the economic prospects of the
recovery that we've seen over the last several years. They
haven't seen an increase in their take-home pay. And the
one thing every piece of concrete legislation on climate
.
115
that has tried to be pushed through the congress, the one
thing that's enduring is that energy prices will increase and
that it disproportionately hits the working class and there
are less of those types of jobs available for those folks, and
I think the American people want the responsible things
done on questions like climate and energy usage and not
being wasteful, but they're tired of having to shed their
own economic opportunity for somebody else's
environmental ideal. In America, we're much more
practical, and I think we should approach this from a very
practical standpoint.
(…)
4:26 PM ET
WALLACE: Do think -- do you believe in climate change?
SCHLAPP: I believe that the climate fluctuates,
absolutely, and sometimes we go through periods of time
when it gets warmer and sometimes we go through periods
of time when it gets colder. I do not believe that these
carbon caps, and taxing carbon and constraining carbon
will result in much difference on the temperature gauge
and I think every scientific study shows it. All of these --
all of these goals, if you actually look at the impact on the
temperature, they are so slight and why are we shedding
our jobs for tiny, tiny possible improvements in the
temperature?
DEUTSCH: Matt, first of all -- I'm sorry.
SCHLAPP: Please.
DEUTSCH: Even tiny improvements, if we go 3.6%
warmer, the world ends. So tiny increments --
SCHLAPP: That's not true.
DEUTSCH: That is true.
SCHLAPP: That is not true.
DEUTSCH: Every scientific-- Matt, and, by the way --
SCHLAPP: Donny, you sound like a crazy Christian
preacher saying the end is near.
DEUTSCH: No, you sound like a crazy Trump advocate
who that just drinks whatever he sells. And that's what you
sound like, sir.
CRYBULLY MASTERY: After Depicting Deadly Violence
Against The President, Kathy Griffin Plays VICTIM Card,
Claiming Trump Bullied Her
By: Mike Adams
Date: June 02, 2017

crybully, you see, is all about being a violent bully while

always claiming to be the victim.

Up-and-coming crybullies take note: If you really want to

master the art of crybully tactics, watch and learn how
Kathy Griffin does it.

First, Kathy makes a death threat against the President of

the United States by holding up a bloody, decapitated head
of Donald Trump, in effect encouraging hatred, violence
and death against her intended target.

Next, after the backlash avalanche informs Griffin of what

a pathetic, vile, disgusting, hate-filled Left-wing reprobate
she is, she issues a half-apology to “anyone who was
offended” but never apologizes to President Trump.

Once CNN cuts ties with her — because even CNN isn’t
yet insane enough to tie themselves to the insanity of left-
wing terror jihad against the President — Kathy Griffin
cries foul, claiming that President Trump is destroying
her career.

Finally, Griffin hosts a press conference during which she

breaks down into tears and claims “old white guys” are
trying to ruin her.

What’s next? Did the Russians hack her brain and

MAKE her do it? Perhaps Griffin will join Hillary
Clinton in broadcasting a never-ending list of excuses that
cast blame in every direction possible in order to avoid
taking responsibility for her own actions. The art of the

116
 It’s all spontaneously “happening” to
her and she had nothing to do with it!
According to Kathy “Crybully” Griffin, “What is
happening to me has never happened, ever, in the history
of this great country.”
RIIIIGHT. Notice the passive voice? It’s all happening
TO HER. She didn’t do anything. She’s pretending she
didn’t hold up the bloody, decapitated head of the United
States President and broadcast her message of hatred,
violence and death to the entire world. Nope, Kathy Griffin
is the victim here, you see. It’s all happening to her, totally
out of her control. She did nothing, and she’s bewildered
as to why everybody is targeting her with death threats.
Gee, she really has no clue that she started the death
threats?
Furthermore, Kathy Griffin hates this country. Like all
insane, delusional Leftists, she’s anti-America, anti-
Constitution, anti-Trump and anti-liberty. She despises
liberty, tolerance and the rule of law. And she literally
wants all her political opponents to DIE. Yet according to
her, she’s the victim here!
As I wrote in a recent Natural News article:
There’s no other way to say it: Kathy Griffin
and the deranged, lunatic Left are mentally
ill and pose a very real danger to society.
This wretched, terrorist-style beheading
video posted by Griffin encourages deadly
violence against Trump supporters and
sends a message that murdering political
opponents of the intolerant Left is a normal,
acceptable activity.
That’s what the deranged Left already
believes, of course. Fanned into flames by
a wildly dishonest, discredited fakestream
media, Trump Derangement Syndrome has
now escalated into a left-wing murderous
rage that now celebrates gruesome images
of beheadings that were once the sole
domain of fanatical terrorists. What’s even
more disturbing about all this is that Kathy
Griffin apparently thought posting a video
showing a bloodied, decapitated Trump
head in her fist would somehow be
hilarious or inspiring in some twisted way.

Now you see how the Left is going to attempt to overthrow

the country. Like every socialist / communist revolution in
recent memory, they will mass murder their political
opponents while screaming “We are the victims.” This
is the level of derangement that has now been achieved by
the delusional, insane, violent, mentally ill Left. (See
Intolerance.news for more stories on all this.)

Griffin: “Happy to deliver beat down” to

Barron Trump, a young boy

Remember, Kathy Griffin previously said she was “happy

to deliver a beat down” to Barron Trump, a young minor.
Griffin had no problem assaulting the psyche of an
innocent boy… she was proud of it!

In a time when most people are desperate to witness a de-

escalation of all the insanity and violence in our world,
isn’t it interesting that Kathy Griffin thinks it’s a brilliant
idea to add more gore, violence and death imagery to
our collective consciousness, even targeting young
children in the process? All this from a liberal culture that
absurdly claims it has a monopoly on peace, compassion
and tolerance… (in reality, Leftists are the new racists,
bigots and intolerant, violent fundamentalists).
.

117
 Dan Rather’s Grave Diagnosis:
President Trump 'Psychologically Troubled'
By John Hirschauer
June 2, 2017 | 3:21 PM EDT
Fake news pioneer Dan Rather was on Lawrence
O’Donnell’s MSNBC show The Last Word Thurday night,
and he knew exactly why President Trump disagreed with
him on climate policy: it’s because of deep rooted
psychological difficulties.
Rather, deeply attuned to the President’s innermost
thoughts, relayed just how dark the past few days have
been in the Trumpian psyche:
"He just came back from this European trip,
and he was angry with the leader of
Germany, Ms. Merkel, and the new leader
of France. So what you have here is a
President who is lashing out in anger.
The clairvoyant former CBS anchor continued, as
Rather proceeded to use his telepathic knowledge of
.
118
the psychological states of American presidents past
and present to illustrate the severity of Trump’s
psychological prognosis:
“We haven't had a president
this psychologically troubled -- I'm trying to
use my language real carefully. We haven't
had a president this psychologically
troubled in this way since at least
Richard Nixon.”
Rather was sure to let the American people know just how
“carefully” he chose the “language” with which he
slandered the Commander in Chief’s mental acuity, and
thus, in his mind, we should be grateful and humbled that
he allowed the audience a glance into his
unparalleled Freudian musings.
Prognostications on the President's mental health by
professionals and amateurs alike are hardly new; the New
York Times ran an op-ed asking whether it was time to call
Trump mentally ill, and the Atlantic even brought on a
psychologist to write an entire piece on Trump's
sociobehavioral abnormalities.
While political criticisms of the previous administration
yielded unfettered accusations of bigotry and intolerance,
speculation about the President's mental health and faux-
executions seem par for the course when the Left doesn't
like the Commander in Chief.
 Kathy Griffin Abandons Accountability, Slams Trump &
Family For "Personally Ruining [Her] Life"
BY Tyler Durden
Jun 2, 2017 11:48 Pm

Somehow, Kathy Griffin is now claiming she is the Presumably, this is what comes when a generation is
'victim' of Trump (and his grown children) "personally taught that there are no consequences.
ruining my life" after her "stunt" earlier in the week

"I'm not afraid of Donald Trump... He's a

bully. I've dealt with older white guys trying
to keep me down my whole life... He Broke
Me"

Enjoy.

The utter delusion in this brief press statement perfectly

sums up the virtue-signaling, holier-than-thou perspective
of the liberal/progressive/'celebrity' of today.

119
 Bozell Lambastes Childish Media, Kathy Griffin Over
Trump Attacks; Wonders If Scarborough Is A Good Man
By NB Staff
June 2, 2017 | 2:47 PM EDT
On Friday afternoon, Media Research Center president
Brent Bozell joined the Fox Business Network’s Cavuto:
Coast to Coast and tag-teamed with host Neil Cavuto to
trash both the “sophomoric” liberal media’s attacks on
President Trump and Kathy Griffin’s pathetic behavior
since she held up a bloodied, fake severed head of Trump.
“The media continuing what appear to
be — well, not appear to be what are, at
least to me, pretty sophomoric attacks
on President. Whatever you think of
them, does he deserve that? Does
anyone, actually deserve that? Talking
about defecation, that sort of thing.
Really? How old are we here,” Cavuto
wondered before introducing Bozell.
Bozell first commented on the childish behavior recently
by MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough,
wondering if he’s still a good person:
You know, Neil, I want to say because I
know Joe, I want to say Joe is better than
that, but I'm not so sure he is anymore
because he is — he is bought in to the
watercooler at MSNBC. He is part of that
operation that now sees that it is an
anything goes attitude about Donald
Trump. By the way, this is exactly why
Kathy Griffin did what she did, because she
too believed there were no lines that could
be crossed, that were not unacceptable.
As for Griffin, Bozell predicted that “the
radical left in Hollywood is circling the
wagons around her and saying to her,
120
you know, you had every right to do
that.” He also mocked her retaining of
ultra-liberal, spotlight-seeking lawyer Lisa
Bloom “to do a press conference to
saying people were bullying against
her.”
Cavuto responded by noting how much you’ll learn from
watching the news by having the sound off because, in the
case of Trump coverage, it has showcased how “the
media don’t like him” in a “visceral” way to the point
that they’re hypocrites for bemoaning Trump as “thin-
skinned.”
Moments before that, Bozell piled on:
Neil, this man will not get a break on anything that he
does....Nothing works if it’s Donald Trump, but where the
personality is concerned and this is what you're driving to,
it is the personal, the character assassination that is being
done about it far left is beyond the pale. But now you have
journalists, people who consider — who want you to
respect them as serious people doing what Joe
Scarborough did, which is why I repeat, I wonder whether
he is still a good enough man to recognize what he has
done?
“Bill Buckley used to say, watch their
eyes, watch their mouths when they're
doing their reports and you’ll see what
their attitude really is and that is exactly
what is going on. Watch their eyes,
watch their mouths. Their eyes will have
one — rolling eyes of disbelief. Their
mouths will have the scowls, will have
the disgust. You see it on their faces,”
the MRC president added.
The pair admitted that it can get tiresome to point out the
double standard with the Griffin story, but emphasized that
it was still worth mentioning:
CAVUTO: But, you know, no matter how
many people I talk to on this subject, say,
no, no, doesn't happen. I — I don't know
how much more obvious it can be to get
 past your own, you know, id but the media
refuses to do it.
BOZELL: Look at — good point. Look at
Kathy Griffin, you know, gets tire some to
say if a conservative did this with Barack
Obama, what would be reaction. If
conservative did this with Barack Obama,
there would be literally, literally, there
would be rioting in the streets from the far
left.
Here’s the transcript of Bozell’s appearance from FBN’s
Cavuto: Coast to Coast on June 2:
FBN’s Cavuto: Coast to Coast
June 2, 2017
12:32 p.m. Eastern
[CLIPS OF ANDERSON COOPER’s POOP JOKE, COVFEFE
TALK]
NEIL CAVUTO: And they all had a good laugh. Think about that,
if it were reversed if the same were being said about Barack
Obama. The media continuing what appear to be — well, not
appear to be what are, at least to me, pretty sophomoric attacks
on President. Whatever you think of them, does he deserve that?
Does anyone, actually deserve that? Talking about defecation,
that sort of thing. Really? How old are we here? Media Research
[Center] president Brent Bozell, do you think the media is going a
tad too far there, Brent?
BRENT BOZELL: You know, Neil, I want to say because I know
Joe, I want to say Joe is better than that, but I'm not so sure he is
anymore because he is — he is bought in to the watercooler at
MSNBC. He is part of that operation that now sees that it is an
anything goes attitude about Donald Trump. By the way, this is
exactly why Kathy Griffin did what she did, because she too
believed there were no lines that could be crossed, that were not
unacceptable. And so where — where Joe Scarborough —
CAVUTO: By the way she was surprised the left came out
against her, but not everybody on the left. It’s a little back and
forth with, Al Franken, going on a book tour with her and then
pulled that. But very few have rallied to her defense. So I think
she was caught off-guard with that and now blaming it on the
121
Trump family, but that’s weird. I can't keep track of it. But we
keep seeing this play out.
BOZELL: We do, but where Kathy Griffin is concerned, she didn't
expect it because they have attitude anything goes, so Joe
Scarborough can say what he says and Anderson Cooper can do
the same thing on CNN and she can take it to the next step
because you always have to take it to the next step and there
was a backlash. Sure. I can guarantee you — I can guarantee
you the radical left in Hollywood is circling the wagons around her
and saying to her, you know, you had every right to do that.
There is a moment of levity that she has hired a lawyer to do a
press conference to saying people were bullying against her.
Number one, her apology was not sincere, but number two when
do you hire a lawyer to make a political point? From now on now,
every time, Neil, I will have a lawyer sitting down next to me to
explain my position.
CAVUTO: But, in your case it might be a good idea with the
reaction you get. But, you know Brent, I was thinking that, in light
of Donald Trump and personal attacks, it’s clear the media don’t
like him. Most of the media, they just hate him and it’s visceral.
Maybe it started with fake news thing, I don't know, but the very
behavior they abhor in the President, thin-skinned and all that,
they — they — they — they put on steroids in their own
response. So I guess what I'm saying is, fine if you want to chase
the Russia stories. Fine if you want to say I will let the world met
down and the New York Daily News covers that he’s told the
whole globe to drop dead and all that but it wouldn't kill you to
point out the fact obviously markets don't agree. Or U.S.
economy doesn't agree. The steady economic improvement we
have had doesn't seem to reinforce that notion, so if you're going
to rip him a new one, that's fine, sometimes he has a lot of it
coming, it wouldn't kill to you balance it out. But there is no
attempt at that more attempt to get sophomoric and childish as
you can. Talking about defecation, talking about so much more,
his weight, stuff that would never be acceptable elsewhere.
BOZELL: Neil, this man will not get a break on anything that he
does. Look what happened yesterday. Today, you have 138,000
jobs created, huge number. Yesterday, the market hit an all-time
high. It’s doing it again today. You have got the economy on a
roll, but what did The Washington Post report? That the economy
is faltering. Nothing works if it’s Donald Trump, but where the
personality is concerned and this is what you're driving to, it is
the personal, the character assassination that is being done
about it far left is beyond the pale. But now you have journalists,
people who consider — who want you to respect them as serious
people doing what Joe Scarborough did, which is why I repeat, I
wonder whether he is still a good enough man to recognize what
he has done?
BOZELL: This is their mission. They're all on a mission. CNN is
on a mission to destroy Donald Trump. 97 percent negative
coverage. Bet you the three percent have been fired. This is
almost unanimously trying to undermine him.

CAVUTO: You know what I do, Brent, and maybe I learned this
from you a few years back, you can learn a lot watching a news
show, news network with the sound down and when I hear
coverage or watch it of Donald Trump, there’s a lot of snickering.
There is a lot of sort of, you know, just condescension that is
evident in the faces and the demeanor. Now, that’s something
you just got to watch as journalist. You have to be very careful
because you are telling your viewers this guy's a joke. Now,
whatever your views notwithstanding, quite a few people elected
him, they might not share your views on him. So you could dial it
back a notch.
CAVUTO: But, you know, no matter how many people I talk to on
this subject, say, no, no, doesn't happen. I — I don't know how
BOZELL: Bill Buckley used to say, watch their eyes, watch their
much more obvious it can be to get past your own, you know, id
mouths when they're doing their reports and you’ll see what their
but the media refuses to do it.
attitude really is and that is exactly what is going on. Watch their
eyes, watch their mouths. Their eyes will have one — rolling eyes
of disbelief. Their mouths will have the scowls, will have the BOZELL: Look at — good point. Look at Kathy Griffin, you know,
disgust. You see it on their faces. gets tire some to say if a conservative did this with Barack
Obama, what would be reaction. If conservative did this with
Barack Obama, there would be literally, literally, there would be
CAVUTO: And I've seen it in coverage, you can go after Donald
rioting in the streets from the far left.
Trump be heralded as very tough journalist. You go after, let’s
say, a liberal politician or liberal cause, you're in the hip pocket —
by the way, I say this as an anchor of a show who Donald Trump CAVUTO: Yeah, but it’s prism through which a lost people get
doesn't want to come on. So I have no agenda here. That is fairly their coverage. Alright, Brent, thank you very much, my friend.
blatant and obvious. Good seeing you.

BOZELL: Thank you, Neil.

.

122
 Trump Didn’t Kill The
Paris Agreement — It Was Already Dead
By Arthur R. Wardle
Posted To Energy June 02, 2017
President Donald Trump shakes hands with EPA Administrator
Scott Pruitt after speaking about the US role in the Paris climate
change accord, Thursday, June 1, 2017, in the Rose Garden of the
White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
President Trump recently removed the United States from
the Paris Climate Agreement, heralded by many as a major
win for global climate action. The Paris Climate
Agreement, signed during the Obama administration,
attempted to include the entire world and managed to
amass 195 signatories.
Given that international climate negotiations are
notoriously difficult, that can only be evidence of two
things: either the Paris agreement was a truly monumental
agreement in which the entire world came together to
respond effectively to a global problem or it was so
toothless that nobody bothered to object. All things
considered, it was probably the latter.
The agreement itself contains very few direct
requirements, instead relying on nations to interpret
independently and work toward various ill-defined goals.
This problem led James Henson, the “father of global
awareness of climate change” and an ex-NASA scientist,
to condemn the agreement as a fraud. It lacks any
enforcement mechanism, instead relying on nations
voluntarily to reduce emissions.
Assuming that countries will voluntarily subject
themselves to emissions reductions brings into question the
need for an international agreement in the first place. Why
123
else would Exxon, Shell, Peabody and other fossil fuel
companies traditionally hated by the environmental
movement defend the accord? The excitement of many
Paris agreement supporters following these statements
exposes their naivete.
People worldwide lauded the accord for including 195
countries, but the inclusion of so much of the developing
and undeveloped world may have neutered the agreement.
Including undeveloped nations in a global climate
agreement presents a double bind. Either the outcome will
stymie much-needed and fossil fuel-dependent
development, or the agreement will not do much at all.
The Paris Agreement, again, took the latter approach by
failing to make meaningful change. The agreement’s
already vague and unenforceable requirements for
developed countries are even more diluted for lower
income countries. Interest in the agreement among many
low-income countries likely stems from the $100 billion
earmarked for payouts to assist in adaptation and
mitigation.
Yet even the source of these funds are up in the air, with
international public pledges still well beneath the agreed-
upon amount. If the money does materialize, the
agreement fails to outline any monitoring to make sure
funds are used appropriately or a mechanism for their
transmission. If mitigating emissions is really the only
goal, that money would probably be more effectually spent
where sizeable emissions are actually occurring — the
developed world.
Including the entire world in climate agreements is
unnecessary and, as illustrated above, is likely to reduce
their effectiveness. If an international agreement does
prove useful for addressing climate change, a better
agreement would place responsibility for carbon emissions
squarely in the lap of those who emitted them: large,
developed countries.
The United States and European Union alone are
responsible for more than 50 percent of emissions since
1850. Thus, there’s no reason to complicate negotiations
with a worldwide agreement, nor to add to the developing
world’s biggest challenge of tackling poverty. If less
developed nations are considered at all, it should be to
carve out room for their emissions to grow as they
develop.
The Trump administration’s decision to leave the Paris
agreement may have ramifications such as straining
diplomatic relationships, but the claim that Trump is
.
124
undoing the ultimate solution to global climate change
cannot be justified by a plain reading of the agreement’s
text. Hand-wringing over the United States’ exit fails to
recognize that the Paris agreement is more of a symbolic
vanity project for world diplomats than an actionable plan
for addressing climate issues.
 Trump-Griffin Scandal
Underscores American Celebrity-Obsessed Culture
Published Time: 3 Jun, 2017 12:15
Kathy Griffin, US President Donald Trump © AFP / Reuters
This past week, comic and attention-monger Kathy Griffin
posted a photo on social media of her holding the bloody,
decapitated head of President Trump. The ensuing outrage
was not the least bit surprising and was exactly what
everyone involved craved.
When I first heard of the uproar over Kathy Griffin’s
infamous Trump photo, I hesitated even reading the story
because I didn’t want to feed Ms. Griffin’s ravenous
hunger for fame. But Hollywood is my beat, so I
reluctantly dove into the story.
My first impression upon seeing the (warning: graphic)
photo was to be startled by the grotesque face with vacant
eyes staring back at me. I soon realized that vile and
contorted mug was Ms. Griffin’s and that she was holding
a cheap replica of Donald Trump’s head, severed and
bloody.
Griffin, for those that are lucky enough to not have heard
of her, is a talentless hack of a comedienne. A sad
desperation seeps through her every pore, proof of which
is her aspiration to be a D-list celebrity. While Griffin is
devoid of any and all talent, she is not entirely without
skill, her lone proficiency being the ability to tirelessly and
shamelessly promote herself.
Griffin’s “career” is littered with one self-serving stunt
after another. She’s been banned from the television shows
The View, Today and Late Night with David Letterman for
her crude and obnoxious behavior. After this Trump photo
controversy, she can now add CNN’s New Years Eve
special, which she co-hosted with Anderson Cooper, as
among the growing number of shows where she is no
longer welcome.
125
Reading up on the Griffin story left me irritated, frustrated
and fatigued. Once again some dopey celebrity was
providing aid and comfort to Trump, a man I abhor, by
diverting attention away from his catastrophic
administration, and instead focusing it on their mind-
numbing idiocy.
As Napoleon once said,
“Never interfere with your enemy when he
is making a mistake.”
Hollywood liberals would be wise to stop ignoring
Boneparte’s sage advice.
Whether it be Madonna at the Women’s March, or Snoop
Dogg and his Klump video, or Stephen Colbert and his
“holster” joke, or Ms. Griffin and her ISIS-inspired photo
shoot, the left-wing out here on the left coast keeps giving
Trump a welcome distraction from his floundering
presidency. With the President embroiled in a series of
crippling investigations, leaks and a stalled agenda, now
would be a great time for the liberal opposition to keep
their mouths shut and let Trump get on with his self-
immolation. But no, the temptation of attention is too great
for those who endlessly thirst for it.
Which brings me to my central point. Kathy Griffin
despises Donald Trump, but she is exactly like Donald
Trump. Both Griffin and Trump have made a name for
themselves by doing anything and everything to make a
name for themselves.
They are both reality television stars, Griffin on My Life on
the D-List and Trump on The Apprentice. Both of them
require fame and attention like the rest of us do oxygen,
and they both will do just about anything for it. Griffin
once had a pap smear poolside on her television show, and
performed a simulated sex act with Cooper in Times
Square. Trump has a long history with WWE professional
wrestling, and appeared - fully clothed - in a pornographic
film and has attached his name to everything from a
beleaguered university to steaks. Both of them have shown
an astonishing ability to debase themselves and a
remarkable shamelessness in their pursuit of fame.
This Griffin-Trump photo story is a perfect microcosm of
all that is currently wrong with our celebrity obsessed
culture and politics. You could have easily foretold the
way this entire episode would play out from start to finish.
Kathy Griffin quickly apologized when the uproar over her
photo became deafening, and then Trump jumped at the
chance to play the victim. Both he and Melania delivered
statements bemoaning how their 11 year-old son, Baron,
was horrified by the photo, which was probably true.
Not to be outdone in the race for the crown of victimhood,
on Friday Griffin held a tearful and defiant press
conference with her press-hound lawyer Lisa Bloom,
claiming that Trump and his family were bullying her and
that she had received death threats. This script is as
predictable as an episode of Real Housewives, but not
nearly as dignified.
The reality is that both Griffin and Trump want this story
to go on for as long as it possibly can because they both
benefit from it. Trump gets a distraction from his
disastrous presidency and bad press, and Griffin gets
people talking about her, which is her lifeblood.
As I kept reading about this story and seeing the photo
attached to each article, one of my favorite paintings,
David with the Head of Goliath (c. 1610) by Italian
Baroque master Caravaggio, came to mind. The reason I
thought of Caravaggio’s painting is that in his work David
holds aloft the decapitated head of the slain Goliath, much
like Griffin holds the bloody head of Trump in her now
infamous photo.
Caravaggio painted multiple versions of this same event
over his lifetime, but the one that has always moved me
was the one currently hanging in the Galleria Borghese in
Rome. I love this panting so much I actually made a
pilgrimage to Rome a few years ago with the express
purpose of seeing it. Witnessing the painting in person did
not disappoint, as Caravaggio’s supreme talent and
transcendent work resonated deep in my soul. What makes
126
this painting so fascinating, besides the masterful skill
required for its creation, is the subtext of the story it
reveals.
In the painting, Goliath’s lifeless face is also that of the
artist, Caravaggio at the time of creating this masterpiece.
It is also said that the face of David in the painting is that
of a young Caravaggio. And unlike Caravaggio’s other
renderings of this scene (the one on display in Vienna for
instance), in the Borghese version, David is not
triumphant, or proud of his conquest of Goliath, rather he
looks down at the giant’s lifeless head with “an expression
of sadness and compassion." Caravaggio’s famous
paintingis not only a depiction of the story of David’s
victory over Goliath, but of Caravaggio’s own struggle
against his inner demons.
In relation to the current scandal du jour, it would have
been much more interesting if Griffin and photographer
Tyler Shields had the artistic vision and courage to eschew
the usual attempt at trying to muster shock and garner
attention, and instead recognized that Griffin and Trump
are both symptoms of the same disease - celebrity - that
ravages America, and let that fact be reflected in their
work.
For instance, if Kathy Griffin had been photographed
dressed as young David, with a sword in her right hand
and her left her breast exposed (in order to mimic the
painting and supply the titillation both she and Shields
crave) while perhaps wearing a Trump wig, as she looks
down with “an expression of sadness and compassion” at
Trump’s decapitated head in her outstretched hand, then
Griffin and Shields would be saying something both
artistically and politically worthwhile. The symbolism of
the eternally vapid Griffin mournfully understanding that
Trump, the Goliath of vacuity, is just a larger version of
herself, might awake America from its collective cultural
and political madness.
That is what great art does and why it is so vital, it reveals
a larger truth that resonates both personally and
collectively for its audience. Instead, Griffin and Shields
went the cheap and vacuous route in their photo shoot
searching for the instant gratification of agitation and
satiating their adolescent emotional needs rather than the
more difficult, but ultimately rewarding, work of telling an
artistic truth.
What makes Caravaggio’s painting so exquisite is that it is
a work of artistic introspection that tells an uncomfortable
truth about both its creator and all of humanity, while the
Griffin and Shields photo is one of shallow projection
meant to allow the artist to continue to lie to themselves.
Griffin and Shields lack of self-awareness does tell a wider
story about narcissism run amok in America, but
unintentionally, and that worthy revelation is only born out
127
of the artists own unconsciousness and not out of any
artistic vision or insight.
What our emaciated culture and politics truly need right
now is a lot more Caravaggio, and a lot less Kathy Griffin.
Sadly, as we spiral deeper into a new Dark Age fueled by
our insipid celebrity obsession, there are no signs of a
cultural and political Renaissance on the horizon. We are
stuck with the culture, and the politicians that we have
dutifully earned and so rightly deserve.
Kathy Griffin and Donald Trump are living proof of that.
 Huckabee On Griffin Blaming Trumps: 'Look In The
Mirror - That's Who Ruined Your Career'
June 3, 2017
Griffin was subject to heavy criticism and tour
cancellations after holding up a mock severed head of
Trump.

At a press conference, Griffin and attorney Lisa Bloom

said Trump's administration and his penchant for off-color
remarks should also be focused on.

Bloom, daughter of high-powered attorney Gloria Allred,

said that Trump, Mrs. Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are
unnecessarily targeting Griffin.

Mike Huckabee said comedian Kathy Griffin overrode her

own apology by blaming President Trump for destroying
her career.

128
 New Seth Rich Details Emerge-
Threatens Hillary, DNC Pizzagate Style (VIDEO)
Posted By Bernie Suarez
Date: June 03, 2017

begs a reasonable answer. Of course Kim Dotcom

testifying under oath to Congress to help solve the Rich
murder would or should be a great thing for humanity,
right? Apparently not! According to the controlled Liberal
Left mainstream media apparently wanting to know how
Seth Rich was murdered is “demented” and “conspiracy
theory” according to them. The resistance to anyone
wanting to know the truth is stunning and frankly
frightening.

Welcome to the information age where details have been

emerging faster than ever about political corruption in
ways never before seen. Here in the US we’ve been
witnessing a deep state war where criminals at the highest
level of government, particularly the Democratic party
with respect to the 2016 presidential election, have been
caught planning to steal the election for Hillary using not
only election fraud, intimidation, provocateurs, violence,
criminality and corruption but all of this with the help of
the mainstream media themselves. It may seem like
something out of a novel but amazingly all of this is
printed in black and white for the world to see in many of
the DNC, Hillary and John Podesta emails revealed by
Wikileaks.
The Huffington Post article written contributor by H.A.
Goodman describes and posts an accompanying video
Yes, Wikileaks and Julian Assange changed the nature of showing how Dotcom interviewed with ‘Bloomberg’ in
the political spectrum. The Wikileaks have allowed well 2015 and tells about how Julian Assange back then already
meaning Americans who care about truth to see for had damning information on Hillary and company that
themselves what’s really going on behind the scenes. would bring down her presidential run. This is directly
Thanks to the Wikileaks emails we all discovered the contrary to the fake new narrative about “Russia” being
horrific dark world of pedophilia and we saw last fall what perpetually pushed by the Liberal mainstream media.
happens when the citizens of the world expose this
pedophilia. We watched the counter-intelligence reaction
And so because this information is so damaging to the
to these revelations- the “fake news” psyop and the
Liberal Left again and the “Russia” narrative, not
“Russia” election hacking psyop. Both seemingly
surprisingly within just 12 hours or so the article was
concocted strategies to deflect awareness of their crimes.
mysteriously pulled by Huffington Post. Thankfully
That alone shows you how desperate the ruling elite are.
however, the article can still be found here where it was
archived.
And now we’re dealing with what I’m calling “pizzagate
2” or the Seth Rich murder details. Brand new details are
This is yet another reminder to everyone that the Wikileaks
now emerging thanks to Kim Dotcom an entrepreneur and
emails are very real and thus the information in the emails
the founder of Megaupload.com. Just a couple of days ago
is very important and should be taken serious by all of us
Dotcom tweeted out a link to a HuffingtonPost.com article
because the emails show that the lives of many children
titled ‘Why Is It Blasphemous For Kim Dotcom to
are at stake, that there was and still is out of control
Testify Under Oath in Congress?’ The question itself
129
corruption inside what was the Obama administration
which continues today, and the emails show us that
mainstream media is corrupt to the bone and should never
be trusted again. The Wikileaks emails also demonstrate
that the Republic and the rule of law really is on the verge
of collapse and we must do something now to restore
order. Will the Trump administration step in and act on
what we now know? America awaits.

130
 Help Destroy The “Russiagate” Psyop Once And For All-
Sign Petition Asking White House To Investigate The Seth
Rich Murder (VIDEO)
Posted By Bernie Suarez
Date: June 04, 2017

commonly known (to FBI) pedophilia code talk in the

emails and much more.

We are asking that Americans identify and push back

against the Liberal Left, pro-new world order, pro-
globalist, pro-corruption, corporate mainstream media
which created the “fake news” psyop to distract Americans
from looking into pedophiliagate revealed by Wikileaks
and is now attacking anyone for looking into the Seth Rich
murder. They are doing all of this to prevent the masses
from seeing, believing and understanding the degree of
criminality revealed in the Wikileaks.

The now growing details surrounding the murder of DNC
insider and IT specialist Seth Rich is now going viral and
has given birth to a petition which can be found on
whitehouse.gov. As of the time of this writing the petition
titled- “Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the
murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks email
leaker“ has over 32,000 signatures and needs another
67,000+ signatures.
If you understand what is at stake please take a moment to
sign the petition and share with someone you know. The
future of America, the Republic and thus protected
individual freedom really is at stake. Don’t allow the pro-
globalist corrupt mainstream media to win. Fight for truth
and justice!

Advocates of and activists behind this petition as well as

many of those in the alternative media, Trump supporters
and just people who care about truth are all coming
together to help make this critical investigation a reality.
The reason being is that the truth about the Seth Rich
murder will once and for all end the issue of “hacking” and
“Russiagate”. The fact of the matter is that evidence has
been mounting since day one that Russia had nothing to do
with the now well known Wikileaks which revealed the
dark side of the Democratic party including corruption,
murder, collusion with the mainstream media to elect
Hillary Clinton, pedophilia and child trafficking hidden in .

131
 The Trump Collapse Scapegoat
Narrative Has Now Been Launched
Posted By Brandon Smith
Date: June 04, 2017
Last week was a rather crazy one for the news feeds, with
cyber attacks and “Comey memos” and a host of other
wild mayhem, it may have been difficult for many people
to keep track of it all. That said, there was one event that I
think went partly under the radar, and I think it is an
important signal for anyone concerned with the ongoing
process of economic collapse in the U.S.
Generally, the American public holds very little vigilance
when it comes to economics. They are distinctly unaware
of fundamental indicators such as commodities demand,
energy usage, manufacturing, imports, exports and
international shipping, etc. What they do take note of, and
what the mainstream news will tell them about in 30
second blurbs, is the state of unemployment and whether
stock markets were down for the day or up for the day.
These two “indicators” are the extent of the average
person’s exposure to fiscal health.
This is why the Federal Reserve and the establishment
have been meticulous over the past several years in their
efforts to keep employment statistics highly manipulated to
the positive side and why they have been injecting untold
trillions into stocks around the world through various
measures including no cost overnight loans.
However, over the past couple of years something has
changed. As I warned they would do in 2015 in my article
The Real Reasons Why The Fed Will Hike Interest
Rates, central banks including the Fed have been backing
off of stimulus measures and they have now begun a series
of interest rate hikes. Look at it this way — imagine the
economy has a terminal disease and the only thing keeping
132
it alive is a highly addictive drug called “free money.” It’s
a rather terrible life, barely worth living, but the economy
still has a faint pulse as long as the drug is administered.
Now, what would happen if the Fed suddenly cuts off the
drug supply? Well, the economy will die in a very frantic
and horrible way.
Low interest rates and Federal Reserve loans represent the
purest form of the free money drug, even more so than the
bailouts and QE. And now, those interest rates are rising,
and the drug is being taken away.
These marginal rate hikes might not seem like much — .25
basis points here and .25 basis points there. And they are
not much, unless you are a corporation borrowing billions
of dollars at a time so that you can stave off your exposure
to quadrillions in derivatives debt and so that you can
purchase massive shares in your own stock to keep its
value artificially elevated. Cycling this borrowed cash and
paying the Fed back is rather easy for such corporations as
long as the loans are essentially free. But when they have
to start paying interest on that cash, even at a low rate, the
costs add up at lightning speed.
ANY interest rate hikes in this environment make
borrowing from the Fed untenable for corporations seeking
to prop up their stocks and the stock market at large.
In my estimation, based on previous Fed measures such as
the removal of QE from the system in 2014, it takes
around six to eight months for the effects of policy shifts
by the Fed to become visible on the main street economy
and in equities. I believe we are about to see the effects of
interest rate hikes on our system within the next couple of
months.
I put very little value in stock markets as an indicator of
anything. In reality, stocks are a fraudulent circus based on
perceived value and perceived demand rather than true
value and demand. In most cases, stocks crash in the
FINAL phase of an economic collapse, not in the
beginning phase. If you decide to start preparing for a
crisis after a stock market decline then you are probably
too late.
I am revisiting this topic here because I want to remind
people that the full and tantamount blame for any
economic crisis (and the final phase market crash) in the
near future is placed on the Federal Reserve and
international banks. All future shocks to the financial
system were made possible because the establishment and
the Fed have gutted our economy, stuffed it with the fluff
of fiat stimulus and left it to lumber aimlessly since 2009.
Now, because of the Fed’s efforts, stocks have been rising
for quite some time with only a few moments of
obstruction, due again, to their policy shifts. These efforts
have conjured a 20,000 point Dow Jones, but nothing else
positive for the economy. The one constant, though, has
always been low interest rates.
With interest rates increasing, I would point out that
market behavior has changed. The meteoric rise has
stalled. In the past few months stocks have barely budged
1 percent either up or down per week. Except for last week
when something strange happened; markets suddenly
dropped nearly 400 points in a single day. Why? Well, that
is a subject up for debate, but the majority of mainstream
news outlets will tell you that it was all Donald Trump’s
fault.
I have been warning since long before the election that
Trump’s presidency would be the perfect vehicle for
central banks and international financiers to divert blame
for the economic crisis that would inevitably explode once
the Fed moved firmly into interest rate hikes. Every
indication since my initial prediction shows that this is the
case.
The media was building the foundation of the narrative
from the moment Trump won the election. Bloomberg was
quick to publish its rather hilariously skewed propaganda
on the matter, asserting that Trump was lucky to inherit an
economy in ascendance and recovery because of the fiscal
ingenuity of Barack Obama. This is of course utter
nonsense. Obama and the Fed have created a zombie
economy rotting from the inside out, nothing more. But, as
Bloomberg noted rightly, any downturn within the system
will indeed be blamed on the Trump administration.
Fortune Magazine, adding to the narrative, outlined the
view that the initial stock rally surrounding Trump’s
election win was merely setting the stage for a surprise
market crash.
I continue to go one further than the mainstream media and
say that the Trump administration is a giant cement shoe
designed (deliberately) to drag conservatives and
conservative principles down into the abyss as we are
blamed by association for the financial calamity that will
occur on Trump’s watch.
Last week’s sudden market bloodletting is important in
this regard; 400 points down is hardly a flesh wound to a
20,000 point Dow, but the media’s reaction to it was very
133
revealing on what the future has in store. Multiple news
outlets responded by immediately connecting the drop to
Trump and the absurdity surrounding the “Comey
memo” — a memo which no one in the public has seen
proof of. The claim is that this level of turmoil around
Trump might lead to impeachment and that the threat of
impeachment would kill the stock market bounce which
the media also claims was driven by Trump’s promises of
corporate tax cuts. It’s a lie built on another lie.
It is interesting to me that the mainstream media never said
the market drop was caused by “Comey’s turmoil,” or by
“The Washington Post and The New York Times’ turmoil.”
No, they called it “Trump’s trumoil.” Last week’s stock
dive was, in my opinion, the official launch of the Trump
collapse narrative. The establishment was beta testing it for
months, but now, the program has gone live.
Every single stock decline from now on, as well as the
ultimate economic crash, which will become visible to the
public in short order, will be blamed on Donald Trump and
conservatives by extension. As I said, he is the perfect
scapegoat.
I have been very critical of Donald Trump recently, and it
is my view, according to the evidence and his swift
retraction of nearly every promise he made to the voters
during his campaign, that Trump is controlled opposition.
But, I would never lay the blame for our fiscal decline at
his feet. Trump does not have the power to create that kind
of disaster; only the global banks have that power. I’ll say
it again — the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates into
a major financial downturn. This will be the trigger for the
next phase of collapse, not any drama surrounding Donald
Trump. Everything else, from Comey to North Korea, is
distraction.
The Fed has done this before. In fact, the Fed has a habit of
raising interest rates at the onset of economic instability or
right in the middle of a downturn, as it did in 1928-1929
triggering the Great Depression, and in 1931, adding fuel
to the fire of financial catastrophe. These particular
catalyzing policy actions are partly what Ben Bernanke
was referring to on Nov. 8, 2002, in a speech given at “A
Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, the Paul
Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor
Emeritus, On the Occasion of his 90th Birthday.”
“In short, according to Friedman and
Schwartz, because of institutional changes
and misguided doctrines, the banking
panics of the Great Contraction were much
more severe and widespread than would
have normally occurred during a downturn.
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my
status as an official representative of the
Federal Reserve. I would like to say to
Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great
 Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re Ben Bernanke finished his astonishingly honest assessment
very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it with a lie. They are indeed doing it again… but this time
again.” they have made sure they have a president and an entire
political ideal to blame it on.

134
 ABC, CBS Salivate Over Upcoming
Senate Hearing With James Comey
By Nicholas Fondacaro
June 5, 2017 10:01 PM EDT

also rattled off a series of questions many hoped would

spell doom for Trump:

Lawmakers are eager to know: Did President Trump ask

Comey to pledge his loyalty? Did the President pressure
Comey to drop his investigation into fired National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn? And did Comey tell the
President he wasn't under investigation, as Trump claims?
Hanging over the hearing, the biggest question of all. Is
there any evidence of collusion between the Trump team
and the Russians?

Former FBI Director James Comey is set to speak before

the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday after
recently getting permission from Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, who is now in charge of the FBI’s Russian
meddling investigation. Comey is expected to field
questions about a series of memos he allegedly wrote that
unnamed sources claim to show that President Trump
attempted to interfere with the said investigation. During
their Monday evening broadcasts, ABC and CBS were
eagerly awaiting the day of the hearing.

“Former FBI Director James Comey set to

testify Thursday about his meetings with
President Trump and the memos he kept
about the meeting before he was fired,”
hyped ABC Anchor David Muir as he led
into the segment on World News Tonight.
He added speculation to the story, asking:
She ended her report with a clip of Democratic Senator
Mark Warner gleefully talking about how much smoke he
sees.
“There's a lot of smoke. We have no
smoking gun at this point. But there is a lot
of smoke,” he said.

“Will President Trump try to stop him,
invoking executive privilege,” even though
he already knew the answer was no.
ABC’s Mary Bruce was the reporter behind the segment.
“Tonight, that blockbuster testimony from
the fired FBI director is moving forward.
The White House now says definitely
President Trump won't try to block him,”
she announced in a dramatic tone.
She followed that up with a clip of Deputy Press Secretary
Sarah Huckabee Sanders plainly stating that fact. Bruce
Meanwhile, on CBS Evening News, they were looking
forward to Thursday as well.
“[The Senate Intelligence Committee] is
investigating Russian meddling in the
election and whether anyone in the Trump
campaign was involved,” noted Anchor
Scott Pelley as he handed it off to Nancy
Cordes.
Cordes kicked off her report by calling into question why
the Trump administration would not invoke executive
privilege.

135
 She pitted the claims of Huckabee
Sanders, who said the reason was “in order
to facilitate a swift and thorough
examination of the facts sought by the
Senate Intelligence Committee;” up against
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who claimed
that “if the President were to say he
shouldn't testify, that would be very
incriminating for the President.”
And it wasn’t just the Comey hearing that had CBS’s
mouth watering, there was another high-profile hearing
happening the day before Comey’s.
“Two other top intelligence officials,
including the head of the NSA, were also
pushed by the President to downplay the
Russia investigation. They'll testify on
Wednesday,” she reported, leaning on
more anonymous claims. “Scott, Senators
are trying to determine whether all of this
was just presidential banter or if it amounts
to obstruction of justice.”
In contrast, NBC Nightly News ran a mere 20 seconds long
brief for the story. It’s still early in the week so there is
time for their excitement to grow. After their segments on
the hearing, both ABC and CBS announced that they will
be broadcasting the Comey hearing live for their audiences
at 10 o’clock in the morning. The anticipation is that
Comey’s testimony will damage Trump’s presidency. It
would be interesting to see if their assumptions were
proven false.
Transcript below:
ABC
World News Tonight
June 5, 2017
6:41:55 PM Eastern
DAVID MUIR: Next to Capitol Hill. Congress back to work tonight
after a break with that major showdown looming. Former FBI
Director James Comey set to testify Thursday about his meetings
with President Trump and the memos he kept about the meeting
before he was fired. Will President Trump try to stop him,
invoking executive privilege? Well, tonight, we have an answer
on that from the White House. And ABC's Mary Bruce on the hill.
[Cuts to video]
MARY BRUCE: Tonight, that blockbuster testimony from the fired
FBI director is moving forward. The White House now says
definitely President Trump won't try to block him.
SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: President Trump will not assert
executive privilege regarding James Comey's scheduled
testimony.
136
BRUCE: Sources close to Comey say he's angry after being fired
with no warning. On Thursday, he'll get to tell his side of the
story. Front and center will be his private conversations with the
President. He's preparing to answer questions about those
memos he wrote detailing their encounters.
What's your one key question for him?
MARCO RUBIO: We've seen these reports that are been
attributed to Comey. And the questions are going to be about
whether that's how it happened. No one has heard from him
directly.
BRUCE: Lawmakers are eager to know: Did President Trump
ask Comey to pledge his loyalty? Did the President pressure
Comey to drop his investigation into fired National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn? And did Comey tell the President he
wasn't under investigation, as Trump claims? Hanging over the
hearing, the biggest question of all. Is there any evidence of
collusion between the Trump team and the Russians?
MARK WERNER: There's a lot of smoke. We have no smoking
gun at this point. But there is a lot of smoke.
[Cuts back to live]
MUIR: So let's get to Mary Bruce, live on the hill again tonight.
The committee has requested those memos as you reported
there, Mary. But lot of questions about whether or not the public
will ever see them.
BRUCE: David, lawmakers remain hopeful but no clear answer
yet on when we might see those memos. Regardless, lawmakers
I talk with are confident that Comey will be discussing those
private conversations with the President.
MUIR: We know you’ll be right there on the hill for us Mary, thank
you.
...
CBS Evening News
June 5, 2017
6:33:52 PM Eastern
SCOTT PELLEY: The White House said today that the President
will not invoke executive privilege to keep fired FBI Director
James Comey from testifying to the Senate Intelligence
Committee. That panel is investigating Russian meddling in the
election and whether anyone in the Trump campaign was
involved. Nancy Cordes is on Capitol Hill.
[Cuts to video]
NANCY CORDES: The deputy white house press secretary said
today the President has the right to block Comey's testimony but
won't. Why?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: In order to facilitate a swift and
thorough examination of the facts sought by the Senate
Intelligence Committee.
CORDES: Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi argued the President
had no choice.
NANCY PELOSI: I think if the President were to say he shouldn't
testify, that would be very incriminating for the President.
CORDES: Democrats and Republicans want to know more about
the memos Comey kept outlining the president's alleged request
that he drop his investigation into fired National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn.
.
137
SUSAN COLLINS: The tone, the exact words that were spoken,
and the context are so important.
CORDES: On Face the Nation, intelligence committee members
Susan Collins and Mark Warner described the questions they'll
have for Comey on Thursday.
MARK WERNER: And two, I want to know what kind of pressure,
appropriate, inappropriate, how many conversations he had with
the President about this topic.
CORDES: Committee Chair Richard Burr does not expect the
FBI will hand over Comey's memo before the Thursday hearing,
but...
RICHARD BURR: Oh, I think eventually nothing in Washington
stays locked up forever.
[Cuts back to live]
CORDES: Two other top intelligence officials, including the head
of the NSA, were also pushed by the President to downplay the
Russia investigation. They'll testify on Wednesday. Scott,
Senators are trying to determine whether all of this was just
presidential banter or if it amounts to obstruction of justice.
PELLEY: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill. Thank you, Nancy.
138
 CONFIRMED: DNC Paid The ‘Russian’ Founder Of
Crowdstrike To Hack Its Server So It
Could Be Blamed On Russia!
The Millennium Report
June 5, 2017
DMITRI ALPEROVITCH, CTO, CrowdStrike
Would you trust this guy with
technically verifying who perpetrated
the alleged Russian hack?
Believe it or not, the above photo of CTO Dmitri
Alperovitch was taken directly from CrowdStrike’s official
website, the “American cybersecurity technology
company” tasked with the digital sleuthing of the DNC
server hack.
Key Point:
CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a
criminal hacking organization by Internet
investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm was
founded by a Russian-American so that the
U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to
perpetrate ‘Russian’ hacks. In this way,
CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake
evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI
which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike
was the C.I.A. contractor paid to create digital evidence
with fake Russian “signatures” in order to incriminate the
Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been
perpetrated in collusion with the creators of Guccifer
2.0. Did Guccifer 2.0 Fake “Russian Fingerprints?”
139
Here’s another fake report produced by CrowdStrike
regarding a hacked “Ukrainian artillery app” during the
Ukrainian War. It’s important to note that the following
mainstream media account was published by Voice of
America (VOA)—
“a United States government-funded
multimedia news outlet”.
Cyber Firm Rewrites Part of Disputed Russian Hacking
Report
What is particularly suspicious is that CrowdStrike is the
only cybersecurity entity that has ever been given
unfettered access to the DNC servers.
CrowdStrike can’t even be trusted to perform illegal
hacking proficiently, much less confirm the true source of
the DNC email hack. Therefore, if CrowdStrike asserts
that the hackers were Russian, we know that Russia had
absolutely nothing to do with it.
As a matter of documented fact, it was actually
CrowdStrike who hacked the DNC server before the 2016
election. The following exposé is a MUST READ for
anyone who wants to know the real back story. DNC
Russian Hackers Found!
Here’s how they did it:
Source – “Bear Hunting: History and Attribution of
Russian Intelligence Operations” posted by CrowdStrike at
slideshare.net
The plot to frame Russia — for the DNC’s own criminal
conspiracy — was closely coordinated between the DNC
and the C.I.A. and carried out with the full support of the
Obama Administration. Given that the heads of virtually
all 17 agencies within the U.S. Intelligence Community
were ready and willing to support the necessary crime
wave, it was an obvious brainchild of Deep State. CTO
Dmitri Alperovitch is a creation of Deep State, and was
carefully set up as the point man for the hacking scheme.
His entire family history reflects a pattern of double
agents who were easily enlisted to work for the US
government in order to maintain their “in-country status”.
All the evidence even points to Alperovitch working for
Ukraine intelligence, which significantly demonstrates his
motives to pin the hacking on the Kremlin.[1] The
preceding graphic delineates the time frame according to
which CrowdStrike was stealthily employed by the DNC
to eventually identify the fictitious ‘Russians’ hackers.
They even named the alleged state actors COZY BEAR
and FANCY BEAR. That’s because all they do — 24/7 —
is hunt Russian bear…even where they don’t exist.
Bottom line
There are very good reasons why this story will not go
away, and only gets bigger with each passing day. When
the CIA, DNC, CrowStrike et al. started off with such a
140
flagrant falsehood about Russia, they were then compelled
to fabricate more lies in order to maintain their entire work
of fiction. Because this complex and convoluted criminal
conspiracy is being used as a basis to instigate a war
against Russia, it’s really just another classic false flag
operation. Such CIA-conceived black ops, that are then
used as NSA-driven global PsyOps, can only come this far
when Deep State so orders it. Their ultimate goal is to
overthrow the Trump presidency before their New World
Order agenda is thwarted any further.
Conclusion
Perhaps these highly radioactive details explain the now-
notorious grin worn by Dmitri Alperovitch in his company
photo posted above.
 MSNBC’s Katy Tur Rails Against
President Trump, Insists He Isn’t Trustworthy
By Nicholas Fondacaro
June 6, 2017 1:04 AM EDT

One of her main gripes with the President was that on the
night of the London Bridge terror attack, Trump had
retweeted a Drudge Report tweet that said:

“Fear of new terror attack after van ‘mows

MSNBC’s faulty political historian, Katy Tur filled in for
Chuck Todd during MTP Daily on Monday, where she
dedicated a significant portion of the show to railing
against President Trump and claiming he was
untrustworthy.
“I'm in the chair for @MeetThePress
Daily. Tonight we're focusing on trust.
Do Americans have it for Trump? Does
Trump have it for his NSC,” she
announced in a tweet before the show.
down 20 people’ on London Bride…” “If the
President is tweeting out unverified
reports from Drudge in the moments
after a terror attack … do you trust the
President if he comes out and statement
on Twitter,” she pestered Zarate.
And it’s not only Tur that whines about Trump retweeting
Drudge, but her employer too. NBC itself took the time to
rebuke the President while details of the attack were still
unfolding. Neither Tur nor NBC ever explained what was
specifically wrong with what Drudge reported, especially
when it turned out to be true. So it’s clear that they’re
opposed to Trump retweeting Drudge just because it’s
Drudge.

During her opening monologue, she glorified a smear of

Trump from the Associated Press.

“The Associated Press had a brutal lead

in their piece fact-checking the
President,” she hyped as she began to
read the AP article. “'President Donald
Trump can't be counted on to give
accurate information to Americans
when violent acts are unfolding
Throughout her discussion with Zarate, Tur badgered him
abroad.’” “So what happens if there is an
with ridiculous questions about his level of trust in the
attack here at home,” she then wondered
President.
aloud.

“Is he trying to capitalize politically by

As Tur was bringing on the first guest of the night, Juan
tweeting out scare tactics? … Juan, can
Zarate, President George W. Bush’s Deputy National
Americans trust the President? … Do
Security Adviser, she told him:
you trust the President, Juan?”
“I really do want to focus on the issue of
Tur posed similar questions to her panel a little later on in
trust. And that AP lead really got down
the show. When she asked for the opinion of Politico’s Azi
to it.”
Paybarah, he unleashed a flood of disdain for Trump.

141
 “I'm just speechless. This has gone
beyond lunacy,” he exclaimed before
comparing Trump to a mental patient. “And
when a person has, when you can't trust
a person and they can't control what
come out of their mouth, they usually
get help. And the person in the White
House is not getting that help in anyway
shape or form.”
“I just don't know how you can live with
yourself,” he chastised Trump supports
who continued to back the President
despite his tweets against the mayor of
London.
“You need accurate information so
people know what's going on,” Paybarah
whined. “So to have the President tweet
out stories with anonymous sources
when he’s trashed anonymous sources,
after he calls on supporters, that
reporters are the enemy of the people…”
After hearing that, Tur asked him if he couldn’t believe a
word Trump said if a terrorist attack happened in the
United States.
“Absolutely,” he responded in the
negative.
The speculation about a terrorist attack happening in the
U.S. and questioning Trump’s ability to inform the public
didn’t sit well with former Senate Aide Amy Holmes. She
spoke her mind and called out MSNBC for their own
lunacy in reporting:
I don’t like these theoreticals because I live
in this city too. And I lived in Washington
DC on 9/11. And I think these theoreticals
can be irresponsible when we’re just
discussing them and batting them around
and suggesting the President is “provoking”
a terrorist attack, which happened
yesterday in media discussions. And I
thought was totally irresponsible.
Holmes also diagnosed that the reason people trust Trump
with ISIS was because they couldn’t trust Obama with
them.
“Why do arguments in trust of this
president always devolve into how you
couldn't trust the last president,” Tur
complained.
“Because I think you're asking a question
of trust that involves a number of things
including trusting someone's judgment in
terms of their political priorities. And I think
142
President Trump prioritizes national
security in a way that can be trusted,”
Holmes responded.
It’s extremely irrational for Tur to bemoan Trump’s
trustworthiness, particularly when she works for the same
network that has a show hosted by serial liar Brain
Williams. Tur herself has a long history of making up
facts live on air as she argues with Republican members
of Congress. MSNBC is also the home of Rachel Maddow,
a personality that literally made up a scandal about
Trump based on her opinion about how much his
inauguration cost.
Transcript below:
MSNBC
MTP Daily
June 5, 2017
5:04:32 PM Eastern
KATY TUR: These statements are arguably going to make it
more difficult for the administration's lawyers, as they argue their
case in court. But here's the bottom line: The President
mischaracterized the London mayor, undermined his own staff,
turned a terror attack into a political talking the point and
disseminated information about the unfolding tragedy using a
Drudge Report headline!
This comes after the president recently called an incident in the
Philippines terror attack. But authorities later said it was likely a
robbery attempt. The Associated Press had a brutal lead in their
piece fact-checking the President. “President Donald Trump can't
be counted on to give accurate information to Americans when
violent acts are unfolding abroad.” So what happens if there I an
attack here at home?
(…)
TUR: I really do want to focus on the issue of trust. And that AP
lead really got down to it. If the President is tweeting out
unverified reports from Drudge in the moments after a terror
attack, before the UK even comes out and blames it on that. If
he's talking about the Philippines and calling on it terror, when
the Philippines later says it was likely a robbery attack, do you
trust the President if he comes out and statement on Twitter?
(…)
TUR: Is he trying to capitalize politically by tweeting out scare
tactics?
(…)
TUR: Juan, can Americans trust the President?
JUAN ZARATE: I think we need to. And I think we need
President to succeed. He is our president after all. I think--
TUR [Cutting him off]: Do you trust the President, Juan?
(…)
5:11:19 PM Eastern
AMY HOLMES: On the question of trust, I would say there are a
lot of voters who do trust that President Trump realizes what is
the threat that is facing the United States of America. And the
previous president called ISIS JV. ISIS grew under his watch and
there are a lot of people didn't trust the judgment of the previous
president when it came to this severe national security threat.
TUR: Why do arguments in trust of this president always devolve
into how you couldn't trust the last president?
HOLMES: Because I think you're asking a question of trust that
involves a number of things including trusting someone's
judgment in terms of their political priorities. And I think President
Trump prioritizes national security in a way that can be trusted.
TUR: Azi, what is your take?
AZI PAYBARAH: I'm just speechless. This has gone beyond
lunacy. And when a person has, when you can't trust a person
and they can't control what come out of their mouth, they usually
get help. And the person in the White House is not getting that
help in anyway shape or form. And when you have a city that's
attacked, to misrepresent the mayor of that city's remarks is
reprehensible and disgusting. And anyone who stands and
defends that, I just don't know how you can live with yourself.
143
And when people say the President should be trusted and that he
voters trust him, look what he's done. Look what he said. This
is—I live in a city like any number of people. And there are times
we have to go and report immediately, whether it is a Times
Square car accident, that we don't know if it is a terrorist attack,
or it’s a cop that gets injured and your at the hospital and you're
hearing Mayor deBlasio sort of explain what's going on. You
need accurate information so people know what's going on. So to
have the President tweet out stories with anonymous sources
when he’s trashed anonymous sources, after he calls on
supporters, that reporters are the enemy of the people…
TUR: It sounds like, if he were to come out and say something
after a terrorist attack here, Azi, you would have a hard time
trusting what he said.
PAYBARAH: Absolutely.
HOLMES: I don’t think we should be discussing if we had a
terrorist attack here. It’s almost as if we’re suggesting
[Crosstalk]
HOLMES: It’s almost as if there is some goating going on. “If we
had a terrorist attack.” No one should wish.
TUR: No one is wishing for that.
HOLMES: Well, there was discussion yesterday that Donald
Trump was provoking a terrorist attack.
[Crosstalk]
HOLMES: I don’t like these theoreticals because I live in this city
too. And I lived in Washington DC on 9/11. And I think these
theoreticals can be irresponsible when we’re just discussing them
and batting them around and suggesting the President is
“provoking” a terrorist attack, which happened yesterday in media
discussions. And I thought was totally irresponsible.
(…)
MRC's Bozell Condemns Aslan’s Dishonest Apology, Issues
Open Letter Demanding CNN Sever Ties
By NB Staff
June 6, 2017 12:29 PM EDT
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell on Tuesday
condemned the weak and “dishonest” apology from
CNN’s Reza Aslan. Outrage has grown in the wake of the
host calling Donald Trump a “piece of shit” on Twitter.
Bozell issued the following statement, as well as an open
letter to the president of CNN:
“Reza Aslan’s apology was not only
insincere, but dishonest. His vulgar
remarks towards President Trump this past
weekend were only a few of the many
hateful comments he has made about
conservatives. CNN has yet to respond in
any fashion to the backlash over Mr.
Aslan’s insults. Allowing Aslan to continue
to have any association with the network is
not only embarrassing to CNN, but insulting
to their viewers. We are issuing the
following open letter to CNN President Jeff
Zucker demanding they sever any and all
ties with Reza Aslan and apologize for the
disgrace he has brought to the network. As
mentioned in the letter, CNN was decisive
in ending ties with Kathy Griffin; it would
naturally follow the network should do the
same with Mr. Aslan.”
Here is the full text of Bozell's open letter:
June 6, 2017
Mr. Jeff Zucker
President, CNN
CNN Headquarters
One CNN Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
144
Dear Mr. Zucker,
As you must be aware by now, the Media Research Center
and I have denounced Reza Aslan for his entirely
inappropriate vulgar remarks aimed at the president. What
Mr. Aslan said about President Trump was wrong by any
journalistic or professional standard. And let's face it, if a
CNN host publicly had called former President Obama a
"piece of shit," your network would have severed all ties with
them by now.
Yet as of the writing of this letter, all that has happened is
that Mr. Aslan has offered a tepid apology and CNN
accepted it. Mr. Aslan is still listed as the host of Believer on
CNN's website. If you want to maintain any degree of
journalistic integrity, you must cut all ties with Mr. Aslan,
including your plans to have him host the next season of
Believer.
What Mr. Aslan said about the president is bad enough, but
this is not the first time he has spewed such hateful
language. When Mr. Aslan "apologized" on Sunday
afternoon for using profanity, saying "not like me," it was an
outright lie. Here are just a few examples of from his Twitter
account:
On what Khizr Khan's wife would say to Trump (Jul 30,
2016): "She'd probably tell you [President Trump] to go fuck
yourself."
To Dinesh D'Souza on July 30, 2016: "Hey Dinesh. I'll say
this as politely as I can: Go fuck yourself, you adulterous
piece of shit felon."
Using the term "Fuck those moms" while responding to Paul
Ryan on Mother's Day, May 14, of this year.
Regarding Sean Hannity (on May 23, 2017): "This piece of
shit"
And there are many, more examples of such hate-filled
profanity aimed at conservatives. Is this really the type of
person you want hosting a show on religion?
CNN had the common sense to end its professional ties with
Kathy Griffin after she bizarrely promoted a photo shoot of
 her holding a facsimile of the severed head of President Sincerely,
Trump. For CNN to continue to do business with someone
so vile as Mr. Aslan after Kathy Griffin's sickening stunt is
tantamount to announcing to conservatives that you
consider them nothing more than a basket of deplorables.
If, Mr. Zucker, you want to do the right thing and correct this
notion, you must immediately end CNN's relationship with L. Brent Bozell III
Mr. Aslan and apologize for the disgrace he has brought to
your network. Founder and President

We look forward to your reply. Media Research Center

145
 FBI Committed TREASON Under COMEY: Surveillance
On Americans Illegally Leaked To Other Nations
By: Ethan Huff
Date: June 06, 2017
As the American media machine continues its baseless
attacks against President Trump, lobbing unsubstantiated
accusations against him on the daily regarding imaginary
connections to Russia, there’s a much bigger story brewing
that the public isn’t being told about shamed former
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James
Comey. New evidence has emerged from classified
government documents showing that, under Comey’s
leadership, the FBI actually committed major acts of
treason against the American people by sharing raw
intelligence about American citizens with unauthorized
third parties, including foreign entities.
In his final congressional testimony before being officially
fired by President Trump, Comey claimed before
lawmakers that his agency used sensitive espionage data
on Americans gathered without a warrant only when such
data was “lawfully collected, carefully overseen, and
checked.” But top-secret internal intelligence community
memos that have since been obtained by investigators
paint a much different picture, suggesting that the FBI
deliberately disregarded legal protocols on multiple
occasions and failed to properly oversee how sensitive data
on Americans was handled. In at least one instance, data
that should have remained private was illegally shared
with forbidden parties.
The FBI’s crimes against the American people under
Comey’s leadership extend even further than this, though.
A declassified ruling issued back in April by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) contains nearly 10
pages’ worth of violations in which the FBI was shown to
have side-stepped the privacy rules concerning sensitive
data, sharing information that it shouldn’t have with third
parties. The FBI also illegally interfered with attorney-
146
client privileged communications without proper
oversight, something that Comey during his testimony
deceitfully claimed was not occurring.
Department of Justice, Inspector General says FBI broke
the law in its handling of spy data
As heinous as these crimes are, the court found that they’re
likely only the tip of the iceberg. In its ruling, the court
declared that along with its concerns about the FBI’s
“apparent disregard of minimization rules,” it fears that the
FBI “is engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702
information that have not been reported.” In other words,
the FBI’s crimes that we know about may pale in
comparison to the crimes that we don’t know about.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) holds a similar view
of FBI malfeasance, both reported and unreported. Its
Office of the Inspector General (IG) published a report
back in 2015 explaining how an internal watchdog had
expressed concerns as early as 2012 about the way the FBI
was reporting its data-handling procedures. The Office
pegged the FBI’s protocols as “deficient” in this regard,
though nothing was done under the Obama Administration
to address this deficiency.
While the FBI is normally forbidden from accessing
surveillance data on Americans, Congress enacted a new
section to the Foreign Surveillance Act (FSA) back in
2008, known as Section 702, that allows the National
Security Agency (NSA) to share spy data with the FBI,
without a warrant, in cases where communications involve
“foreign targets” of interest as they pertain to national
security.
While the FBI’s own compliance reports show a clean
record, the IG report presents clear evidence that the FBI
violated the law on numerous occasions, backing FISA’s
findings. The FBI under Comey, the report concludes,
committed acts of treason against Americans by
mishandling information gathered on them by the NSA,
and should be held to task.
“No one on the Hill wants to look like we
are soft on terrorism when you have
increasing threats like Manchester-style
attacks. But the evidence of abuse or
 sloppiness and the unending leaks of
sensitive intelligence in the last year has
emboldened enough of us to pursue some
reforms,” a senior congressional aide told
Circa on the condition of anonymity.
.
“Where that new line between privacy and
security is drawn will depend on how many
more shoes fall before the 702 renewal
happens.”

147
 Breaking: A Hillary Conviction Is Being
Offered Up In Deal Between Deep State And Trump
By Dave Hodges
June 6th, 2017
They say that little things come in small packages. This
will be one of the most concise and condensed articles that
I have ever written. However, it may prove to be one of the
most important I have written, since I broke the Benghazi
mutiny story almost 5 years ago.
Please note the caption in the picture above. Obviously,
Hillary did not become President. However, she is going to
jail for her actions in pursuit of the office.
Hillary Clinton Is Being Offered Up As a
Sacrifice by the Deep State
I was told by very reliable inside sources that Jeff Sessions
was closing in on the alleged pedophilia allegations against
John Podesta and Hillary Clinton and this was going to
prove doable because Anthony Weiner and possibly Huma
Abedin were going to turn State’s evidence. Weiner is
taking his chances in jail (27 months). However, Attorney
General, Jeff Sessions, is closing in, with the foreign
support of President Duterte and Vladimir Putin on child-
sex-trafficking emanating out of the United States’ elite
Deep State.
Yesterday, even Putin said the Deep State assassinated
John Kennedy. And with each passing day, and with each
child-sex-trafficking arrest, the Deep State risks more
exposure to both their existence as a shadow government
and their true nature. The light of day is something that
Deep State will not permit, so a deal is being made which
will be revealed in the final paragraphs of this article.
The Sources
Since the election of Donald Trump, I have been receiving
information from an FBI employee (nonspecific) and two
State Department employees. One of the State Department
employees and the FBI employee must remain anonymous.
One State Department employee, Monika Wesolowski and
she can provide confirmation to the some of the ancillary
revelations in this article.
Clinton Will Be Offered Up On a Platter
Yesterday, I read no less than six articles in which DNC
officials want Hillary to just go away. The fact that these
148
stories were released on the same day is not a coincidence.
this is part of the deal that has been made between Donald
Trump and members of the Deep State. This is the primary
reason why former FBI director, James Comey, was fired
when he was. His loyalty to Clinton was a threat to this
arrangement. Here are the links to a few of these stories
emanating from the DNC and the media who are
distancing themselves from Hillary.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/even-clinton-groupies-cnn-
are-fed-hillarys-pathological-bullshit/ri20012
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/hillary-clinton-dazzles-
memorial-day-crowds-her-favorite-anti-seizure-
glasses/ri19988
Remember? Hillary was not supposed to be ill. Where did
this come from?
Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Bill Clinton, and James
Comey’s brother (runs finances for the Clinton
Foundation) are under FBI investigation as I write these
words. The tips to Jeff Sessions were provided by sources
close to Clinton, presumably, Deep State operatives.
Hillary will very likely go to jail, or at minimum receive a
suspended sentence and pay a big fine. I have been told
that the Clinton Foundation will cease to exist in its
present form. Some may remember that I broke the story,
from my same sources, that Podesta had been caught
converting Clinton Foundation assets to gold, art, etc., and
then hiding these assets. I stated at the time, that Hillary
knows that RICO will soon come knocking and that total
asset forfeiture will occur. Podesta is trying to stay one
step ahead.
Clinton Will Not Go Down for Child
Trafficking, Drug Dealing, Money
Laundering or Gun Running
The Deep State is feeling the heat because the most
prominent members of the Independent Media have been
relentless in their pursuit of these activities, especially
child-sex-trafficking. I was told by my sources that the
Deep State, even with the support of the media, cannot
contain these revelations. They do not want a sleeping
public to be aroused by a story that would dwarf
Watergate.
To the best of my knowledge, this has not hit the
mainstream media, yet, but it will very soon.
Hillary is being investigated by the FBI
for “pay for play” and misusing her
authority as the Secretary of State to get
Lois Lerner, IRS director at the time, to
prosecute an African national
government official who is living inside
the United States if this African official
does not help stop the investigation into
a government official from Bangladesh
who participated in pay for play with
regard to the Clinton Foundation. There
is a second African nation that is
subject to this investigation, as well, for
the same reasons. I have agreed to not
release the identity of the second nation
because it is too close to one of my
sources.
Please note that Hillary will be going down for “pay for
play” and not drug dealing, gun running nor child-sex-
trafficking. She will also be charged with malfeasance of
office with regard to the IRS issue. In exchange, Trump
gets to purge much of the Deep State that is embedded in
the FBI and the State Department.
All three sources, including Weslowski have told me that
their supervisors have cleaned out their desks. Many are
taking retirement. In Monika Wesolowski’s case, her
.
149
supervisor and her supervisors two levels up are all
leaving. Monika said that her office is almost empty. The
purge is already beginning.
Conclusion
This story is a work in progress and there will be updates. I
chose to publish what I know at this point because I
wanted to get out in front the mainstream media spin that
will undoubtedly be coming in order deceive the public. I
asked the question, “Does this mean that Trump is backing
off of child-sex-trafficking?” Nobody is certain.
Please note that the allegations that will be coming
Hillary’s way will have nothing to do with the big three
criminal activities of the Deep State.
One final note, Wasserman-Schultz, according to my FBI
source, better have lots of body guards because in trying to
distance herself from the related Seth Rich murder, she is
bringing the same kind of attention that the Deep State is
trying so hard to avoid.
I will be offering counterpoints to the MSM as this story
about pay for play begins to break in the MSM. I am also
producing a video which validates the claim that Hillary
has been “ditched” by DNC leadership.
Finally, we now know why Hillary was not prosecuted by
Trump for the emails when he took office.
 CNN's Comey Countdown Clock
Ticks Down The Seconds To Testimony Time
By P.J. Gladnick
June 6, 2017 4:05 PM EDT
Hours... Minutes... Seconds...
The world awaits the very moment former FBI Director
James Comey begins his testimony on June 8 before the
Senate Intelligence Committee. It could be the most
momentous world event in decades...or even centuries!
And we must all thank CNN for providing us with the
Comey Countdown Clock so we can be aware of exactly
how long we have to wait until our lives are changed
forever.
Of course, a killjoy out there could point out that Comey
already did testify before the Senate a month ago on May 3
when he said there was no effort to get him to stop the
investigation into supposed collusion between Russia and
the Donald Trump campaign. In fact, if he were to
contradict his previous testimony he would be opening up
himself to a perjury charge.
But no matter. Just watch CNN's Comey Countdown
Clock below and enjoy the imaginary drama queen tension
for now. Oh, and pay no attention to John King. He is just
saying the same liberal stuff he always says. All that is
important is that Comey Countdown Clock. Look at it
carefully. Be sure not to take your eyes off of it as it counts
down every crucial second to testimony time.
150
Hey you! I know who you are! You dared to take your
eyes off the Comey Countdown Clock for just a moment.
You better not repeat that offense or I shall be forced to
report your transgression to CNN Mission Control. CNN
takes this all very seriously as their editor-at-large Chris
Cillizza explains:
The big three broadcast networks -- ABC,
CBS and NBC -- announced they would be
carrying the Comey hearing live, an
unheard-of move for something so
traditionally mundane as a congressional
hearing. Please watch the hearing on CNN
or stream it live at CNN.com.
And please don't take your eyes off the CNN Comey
Countdown Clock. Every second counts.
High stakes. Major revelations. Wall-to-
wall TV coverage. And a president ready
to blow. Add it all up and Thursday is
shaping up to be the single biggest day
in Washington in decades.
Will Wolf Blitzer blow if Comey's testimony turns out to
be a big nothing burger (i.e. confirms his previous
testimony)?
Exit question:
Did Geraldo have an Al Capone Vault Opening
Countdown Clock?
 'Bigger Than Snowden': Whistleblower Says Comey
Covered Up Illegal Spying On 20M Americans
Chris Menahan - Informationliberation
Jun. 07, 2017

Montgomery says the evidence he gave to

Former US intelligence contractor Dennis Montgomery
followed all legal procedures to blow the whistle on the
NSA and CIA back in 2015 after he found over 600
million classified documents showing they engaged in
widespread, illegal spying on over 20 million Americans,
but FBI Director James Comey allegedly shut the
investigation down.
From Circa:
A former U.S. intelligence contractor tells
Circa he walked away with more than 600
million classified documents on 47 hard
drives from the National Security Agency
and the CIA, a haul potentially larger than
Edward Snowden's now infamous breach.
And now he is suing former FBI Director
James Comey and other government
figures, alleging the bureau has covered up
evidence he provided them showing
widespread spying on Americans that
violated civil liberties.
the FBI chronicle the warrantless collection
of phone, financial and personal data and
the unmasking of identities in spy data
about millions of Americans,.
“This domestic surveillance was all being
done on computers supplied by the FBI,"
Montgomery told Circa in an interview. "So
these supercomputers, which are FBI
computers, the CIA is using them to do
domestic surveillance."
...Montgomery’s lawsuit, which included his
lawyer, the well-known conservative activist
Larry Klayman, alleges Montgomery
provided extensive evidence to the FBI of
illegal spying on Americans ranging from
judges to businessman like the future
President Donald Trump.

The suit, filed late Monday night by Dennis

Montgomery, was assigned to the same
federal judge who has already ruled that
some of the NSA's collection of data on
Americans violates the U.S. Constitution’s
Fourth Amendment, setting up an intriguing
legal proceeding in the nation’s capital this
summer.

151
 ...Montgomery divulged to the FBI a
”pattern and practice of conducting illegal,
unconstitutional surveillance against
millions of Americans, including prominent
Americans such as the chief justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court, other justices, 156
judges, prominent businessmen, and
others such as Donald J. Trump, as well as
Plaintiffs themselves,” Montgomery and
Klayman alleged in their suit.
Director John Brennan and even former
President Barack Obama.
During Comey's bizarre speech to the ADL earlier this
year just one day before he was fired, social justice warrior
James Comey said he kept a 1963 memo from former FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover under his desk which asked for
permission to surveil Martin Luther King Jr. over his
communist connections.

“Plaintiffs were assured that the FBI, under

Defendant Comey, would conduct a full
investigation into the grave instances of
illegal and unconstitutional activity set forth
by Montgomery. However, the FBI, on
Defendant Comey’s orders, buried the
FBI’s investigation because the FBI itself is
involved in an ongoing conspiracy to not
only conduct the aforementioned illegal,
unconstitutional surveillance, but to cover it
up as well,” the suit added.
He said he kept it to show how vital it was that the
Klayman and Montgomery also alleged that enormous powers of the FBI not be abused. Clearly, that
they have evidence that they themselves was all a load of crap. This man ran cover for Hillary
have been improperly spied upon by U.S. Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and now
intelligence. The suit named numerous he's determined to take down the first president in decades
other defendants as well, including current that's not entirely a puppet of the deep state.
NSA Director Mike Rogers, former CIA
.

152
 Matt Lauer: Trump Guilty
Of ‘Emotional Definition’ Of Obstruction Of Justice?
By Kyle Drennen
June 7, 2017 11:52 AM EDT
Matt Lauer is not a legal scholar, but apparently the
morning show host likes to play one on TV. On
Wednesday’s NBC Today, while lamenting reports that
former FBI Director James Comey would not accuse
President Trump of obstruction of justice during his
congressional testimony on Thursday, Lauer still tried find
a crime by absurdly claiming that Trump’s actions
surrounding the Russia investigation may have met the
“emotional definition” of obstruction.
Talking to Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd, a
disappointed Lauer noted that Comey “will stop short of
accusing the President of trying to obstruct justice.”
However, the anchor then threw the law out the window
and decided to just rely on his feelings that Trump did
some wrong:
“Might we fall into a situation here,
Chuck, where we’re talking about the
legal definition of obstruction versus
the emotional definition of
obstruction?”
Rather than call-out the ridiculous premise, Todd happily
went along with it:
“Well, yes. It’s why obstruction of
justice charges are so hard to make – to
make hold on this point. But the fact is,
all of the circumstantial evidence here
says the President is trying to do
everything he could to stop this
investigation for one reason or the
other.”
The Sunday show host admitted that,
153
“We don’t have the motivation behind it just
yet,” but asserted that the President “asked
people to step in multiple times.”
Only briefly did Todd allude to tough questions that
Comey would have to ask during his upcoming appearance
before the Senate Intelligence Committee:
“Yes, James Comey’s going to have to
explain why, if he was so concerned to
write a memo, that he didn’t take it to his
superior.”
At no point in the discussion did any of the supposed
“journalists” mention the fact that Comey testified to
Congress on May 3 that political pressure on the FBI to
stop the Russia investigation had “not happened in my
experience.”
Instead, Todd tried to excuse Comey’s actions:
“But I’m sorry, we’re in a crisis here, I
think, as a country with our institutions.
If the reasoning is what the Director of
the FBI has supposedly said, that he
didn’t know who to trust at the Justice
Department...”
He warned:
“We’re not in a very good place. And I
think, big-picture-wise, folks on Capitol Hill
need to – this is another gut-check moment
for them....And the executive branch is not
functioning right now.”
At the top of the segment, co-host Savannah Guthrie asked
about a Washington Post report that the President asked
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats to pressure
Comey to drop the investigation – a charge which Coats
has denied. Todd proclaimed:
“Well, I think it’s pretty clear this – the
Russia investigation’s consumed the
President on every level....[Coats]
testifies today, and that’s going to be a big
part of this conversation as well. And he’s
 going to help add to this obvious nature
where the President is just consumed.”
The liberal media have certainly been “consumed” by the
story, even at the expense of actual facts.
Here is a full transcript of the June 7 segment:
7:07 AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Let’s bring in Chuck Todd, moderator of
Meet the Press. Chuck, good morning to you.
CHUCK TODD: Good morning.
GUTHRIE: So we have another report of Trump allegedly saying
to an official in the government, in this case the Director of
National Intelligence, to lay off the Russia investigation.
Something that they – the Director doesn’t exactly acknowledge
happened. He said he never felt pressured to do that. What does
it all add up to when you add in the pressure and the tension with
the Attorney General?
TODD: Well, I think it’s pretty clear this – the Russia
investigation’s consumed the President on every level. Look, the
report about the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, it
was more than just that. He wanted him to go to Comey and say
lay off of Mike Flynn and the Russia investigation. And the fact is,
it’s -my – in talking to people very close and very supportive of
Dan Coats, they’re – he’s been concerned all along by the
atmosphere of the relationship between his interactions with the
White House.
Now he testifies today. You know, there’s sort of two days of
these hearings. Comey’s tomorrow, that’s the big one. But he
testifies today, and that’s going to be a big part of this
conversation as well. And he’s going to help add to this obvious
nature where the President is just consumed.
154
MATT LAUER: We don’t know what James Comey’s going to say
until the words come out of his mouth, but there are reports that
he will stop short of accusing the President of trying to obstruct
justice. Might we fall into a situation here, Chuck, where we’re
talking about the legal definition of obstruction versus the
emotional definition of obstruction?
TODD: Well, yes. It’s why obstruction of justice charges are so
hard to make – to make hold on this point. But the fact is, all of
the circumstantial evidence here says the President is trying to
do everything he could to stop this investigation for one reason or
the other. We don’t have the motivation behind it just yet. And
he’s asked people to step in multiple times.
Yes, James Comey’s going to have to explain why, if he was so
concerned to write a memo, that he didn’t take it to his superior.
In this case, either the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney
General. But I’m sorry, we’re in a crisis here, I think, as a country
with our institutions. If the reasoning is what the Director of the
FBI has supposedly said, that he didn’t know who to trust at the
Justice Department, if we’re in a situation where the Director of
the FBI can’t trust his superiors, now you have that superior
offered his resignation to the President. Where are we here?
We’re not in a very good place. And I think, big-picture-wise, folks
on Capitol Hill need to – this is another gut-check moment for
them.
GUTHRIE: I was going to say, there’s a role for Congress to play.
TODD: Yes there is.
GUTHRIE: We have three branches of government, so they’re all
called –
TODD: And the executive branch is not functioning right now.
GUTHRIE: Chuck, thank you very much.
By the way, we’re going to all be in Washington tomorrow, along
with NBC’s Lester Holt, for James Comey’s testimony. The
broadcast network will carry it live. We’ll get things started here
on Today and then that special live coverage on these NBC
stations, beginning at 10:00 Eastern Time.
 Questions Linger
About Seth Rich Murder Details
William Craddick
June 7, 2017
The murder of Seth Rich has brought a fresh round of
condemnation from establishment figures of so called
“fake news.” Mainstream press outlets have claimed
without justification that there is no evidence to suspect
political involvement in Rich’s death despite strong
indications from multiple sources, including Wikileaks,
that this may have in fact been the case. Extreme
censorship in the media of the story fails to account for a
botched and corruption tinted investigation by the D.C.
Police Department. Additionally, close connections
between the DNC, White House and individuals at the
center of the incident do nothing but continue give rise to
accusations of a cover up.
I. Concerted Efforts To Censor
Reporting On Seth Rich’s Murder
On May 15th, FOX 5 DC carried claims from private
investigator Rod Wheeler that Rich was in contact with
Wikileaks prior to his death. American media figures and
political groups have subsequently engaged in an
unprecedented frenzy of attacks against media outlets who
even mention the story. Fox News anchor Sean Hannity
faced a frenzy of attacks on his sponsors, which were
spearheaded by one time Republican operative turned
Democrat David Brock’s Media Matters. Disobedient
Media has previously reported that another one of Brock’s
organizations, Shareblue, is partially owned by the
government of China; who concealed their purchase of
shares in the group using a phony mining contract. Brock’s
ties to foreign interests may mean that he is in violation of
the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 614.
155
Alternative media sources reporting on the story have also
faced pushback and censorship for their coverage of Seth
Rich. On May 24th, 2017, World Net Daily reported that
they were slapped with a 12 hour ban by Twitter after
running a story that revealed Democrat National
Committee (DNC) official Donna Brazile had warned off a
private eye looking in to Seth Rich’s murder. San Diego
based One American News also had its website taken
offline after an employee from the outlet posted online
asking about details of the case, revealing that OAN
planned to run a report on Seth Rich.
Attacks against investigators looking into Seth Rich have
been lead largely by the Washington Post, who has
claimed that the story is a conspiracy theory without
fielding much basis for such accusations. The decision of
the Post to employ Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager
John Podesta as a contributing columnist only serves to
undermine their ability to factually report on Seth Rich’s
murder in a manner which maintains a commitment to
journalistic ethics and integrity. Oliver Darcy from CNN
also posted yesterday and revealed that he had badgered
Fox News into censoring one of their reporters who was
posting about Seth Rich on Twitter. Darcy was recently
blasted by Julian Assange on Twitter for misleadingly
citing him in an article about Assange’s intention to appear
on the radio.
II. Close Affiliation Of Groups Involved
In Crime To DNC And D.C. Figures
One of the most troubling aspects of the Seth Rich case is
the pervasive connection between central figures in the
case to organizations with deeply established ties to
criminal activity. An August 2016 tweet
from Wikileaks revealed that Rich family spokesperson
Brad Bauman is a crisis public relations consultant
working with the Pastorum Group. A media release from
the Pastorum Group reveals that Bauman previously
worked for the DNC and the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU).
The SEIU has previously been reported by the Wall Street
Journal as a “top spender” for the Democrats, openly
endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and actively assisted in
her campaign. It has been widely criticized by some
groups for the involvement of union members in crimes
including embezzlement, criminal conspiracy, perjury and
identity theft. The SEIU is also a client of the Strategic
Consulting Group, which was founded by the Democratic
operative Robert Creamer. In 2016, Creamer was
implicated in footage obtained by journalist James
O’Keefe which revealed that Creamer was engaging in
voting fraud and violent disruption of political events,
sometimes using his connections to unions who were as
clients of his.
On June 6th, 2016, Politico reported that Brandon Davis,
the former national political director for the SEIU, took a
position as the DNC’s chief of staff. In 2014, the SEIU
chapter in charge of representing health care workers in
Washington D.C. also gave their endorsement to mayor
Muriel Bowser. Hospitals which are staffed by SEIU
members include MedStar Washington Hospital Center,
where Seth Rich was taken for medical care after being
shot.
Medstar Washington Hospital Center has a problematic
history of substandard care at the facility and the
implication of past employees in the death of patients. In
December 2014, the Washington Post reported that nurses
at Medstar Washington Hospital went on strike,
alleging understaffing, unsafe conditions and inadequate
pay for nurses. The hospital was also rocked by
controversy in 2016, when two former security guards at
Medstar Washington Hospital were arrested and are
currently standing trial for involuntary manslaughter after
a patient died while being restrained when he tried to walk
out of the hospital without an official discharge.
Chapters of the SEIU are also listed as partners of the
Wellstone Foundation, which Disobedient Media revealed
earlier this week to be collaborating with organizations
tied to George Soros and individuals previously
investigated by the FBI for their ties to the Chinese
Communist Party.
The Washington D.C. area suffers from a pervasive
infestation by mafia organizations. In 1987, the
Washington Post ran a detailed report, revealing crime
families from Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York and
Sicily had become increasingly involved with drug
trafficking in Washington D.C., using pizza parlors as
fronts to move narcotics. The report specifically mentioned
pizzerias at L’Enfant Plaza and another at Tysons Corner
as locations where police had discovered mob activity.
Mafia groups have traditionally been able to operate freely
in Washington D.C. by paying police large sums each
month for protection.
III. The D.C. Police’s Investigation Has
Been Hampered By Corruption And
Incompetence
156
Details surrounding the investigation into Rich’s murder
continue to raise concerns about the Washington D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department’s efforts to identify Seth
Rich’s killers. The public incident report filed after Rich’s
death shows that several officers who responded to the
scene of the crime were wearing body cameras. But the
Metropolitan Police claimed the footage was “lost” when
met with requests to release the videos, which might have
provided important clues.
Police also maintain that they no longer possess
surveillance camera footage which might provide
important clues about the identities of the killers. But the
Washington Times reported in 2013 that police were
increasingly relying on such footage in criminal cases. 5th
District Cmdr. Andrew Solberg stated to the Times that
such footage was the “first thing” that D.C. police typically
look for. A May 21st, 2017 report by World Net Daily has
additionally established that police failed to speak with
staff at Lou’s City Bar (where Rich was last seen alive) to
enquire about whether they had any pertinent evidence.
The accusations of impropriety are further compounded by
the close relationship which the D.C. Police Department
has to figures close to the DNC. Observers have noted that
the Heather Podesta, wife of John Podesta’s brother Tony,
sits on the board of the Washington D.C. Police
Foundation.
Even stranger, police chief Cathy Lanier resigned just a
month after Rich’s death. The Washington Times reported
that as she left her position, Lanier blasted Washington
D.C.’s criminal justice system as “broken” and directly
stated that her departure was due to the city’s refusal to
deal with the problem. Her replacement, Peter Newsham,
has been plagued by past allegations of alcoholism and
domestic violence. Newsham was also accused of severely
mishandling a rape case after the family of an 11 year old
girl alleged that he allowed the victim to be charged with
filing a false report despite several medical accounts
detailing her sexual injuries and genetic evidence
indicating that she had been abused by multiple assailants.
It is also not clear why police would seize Rich’s laptop
for an investigation into what was supposed to be a
robbery gone bad. The Washington Post claimed that
neither the FBI nor the police were in possession of Rich’s
laptop. But this claim contradicts a report by
the Washington Examiner which cited a former law
enforcement official who stated that the laptop was
examined during the investigation.
IV. Close Involvement Of Individuals
Close To The DNC And Seth Rich With
The White House
Records show that a number of individuals close to the
DNC were visiting the White House both before and after
Rich’s death. White House Visitor Logs show that
Strategic Consulting Group founder Robert Creamer
visited the White House on July 6th and July 12th.
Additionally, White House visitor logs and Facebook posts
reveal that Joe Capone, the owner of Lou’s bar, was at the
White House on July 6th, the same day as Creamer. The
Washington Post reported that Capone had badgered Rich
about which candidate he planned to support in the DNC
primary before he was killed. Capone also appeared in a
campaign ad for D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser, who
endorsed Hillary Clinton for president along with most of
D.C.’s council members.
The infamous June 27th, 2016 tarmac meeting between
Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch
also raises the possibility that multiple officials in the U.S.
government might have been aware of a large number of
corruption related issues concerning the DNC and took no
action to address them. Former FBI Director James Comey
has specifically mentioned the tarmac meeting as a turning
157
point which “set off a series of events” which influenced
him to take multiple actions during the 2016 U.S.
presidential elections which broke protocol and stoked a
frenzy of speculation about corruption related to Hillary
Clinton and DNC officials. The NSA has refused to release
the transcript of the tarmac meeting, citing “national
security.”
The extreme censorship and propaganda efforts to silence
reporters giving attention to the Seth Rich story, the deep
involvement of the scandal ridden SEIU to multiple
members of the DNC who have played roles in the case,
the inept and corruption-affected investigation into Rich’s
death by the D.C. Police and suspicious activity
surrounding the White House and Obama administration
officials in the days and weeks leading up to Rich’s
murder all create real concerns that facts about Seth Rich’s
murder are being suppressed to prevent a political scandal.
 CNN Corrects 'Fake News' Story On Comey-Trump
By Tyler Durden
Jun 7, 2017 6:05 PM
We concluded our full breakdown of proof that CNN' so-
called "anonymous sources" lied thus:
"As such, we are quite confident that
CNN will promptly retract their
erroneous reporting and offer an
apology to their readers for the
unfortunate mistake."
And while the sarcasm was implied, we are shockingly
pleased that CNN - the news agency with a live on-air
countdown clock to Comey's testimony - has been forced
to issue a correction, and ironically, The Washington Post
was the first to jump on the story of CNN's correction, as
they explain...
A Tuesday story with four bylines carried this headline:
“Comey Expected To Refute Trump.”
Here’s a key part of that story:
Trump has made a blanket claim that
Comey told him multiple times that he was
not under investigation. But one source
said Comey is expected to explain to
senators that those were much more
nuanced conversations from which Trump
concluded that he was not under
investigation.
On CNN’s air, analyst Gloria Borger put matters more
starkly, saying,
“Comey is going to dispute the
president on this point if he’s asked
about it by senators, and we have to
assume that he will be. He will say he
never assured Donald Trump that he
was not under investigation, that that
would have been improper for him to do
so.”
But, as we illustrated earlier, this afternoon's prepared
remarks 100% refuted those "facts" and given that little
problem, CNN published a correction to its story...
CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was
published before Comey released his prepared opening
158
statement. The article and headline have been
corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly
dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not
under investigation in his prepared testimony released
after this story was published.
The new headline reads, “Comey unlikely to judge on
obstruction.”
* * *
Here are the full details, as we described earlier, back on
May 9th, the White House released the letter that President
Trump sent to former FBI Director James Comey
informing him that he'd been relieved of his duties at the
FBI. Within that letter, Trump awkwardly inserted a
sentence thanking Comey for informing him "on three
separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
Here's the full sentence (full post here):
"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three
separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I
nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department
of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the
Bureau."
Not surprisingly, this statement set off alarm bells at CNN
and other MSM outlets because, if true, it would put a real
damper on their "Trump colluded with Russian hackers to
stage a coup" narrative. Therefore, those outlets set out on
a mission to 'prove' that Comey never made those
statements and that, by definition, Trump clearly lied about
his past interactions with the former FBI Director.
And not long after setting out on that mission, courtesy of
those infamous 'anonymous sources', CNN and ABC
struck gold when they confirmed that "FBI Director
James Comey is reportedly set to testify he never told
President Donald Trump that he was not under
investigation." Here is a summary of CNN's reporting
from their primary echo chamber, HuffPo:
"Former FBI Director James Comey is reportedly set to
testify he never told President Donald Trump that he
was not under investigation in connection with Russian
interference in the 2016 election, according to CNN and
ABC News."
And here is the original CNN reporting:
"Trump has made a blanket claim that
Comey told him multiple times that he was
not under investigation."
"But one source said Comey is
expected to explain to senators that
those were much more nuanced
conversations from which Trump
concluded that he was not under
investigation. Another source hinted
that the President may have
misunderstood the exact meaning of
Comey's words, especially regarding
the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence
investigation."
Unfortunately, CNN's 'anonymous sources' seem to have
been 'mistaken' on this one. And while we have no doubts,
generally, about the integrity of CNN and/or their
anonymous sources, Comey's direct testimony released
just a while ago seems to confirm exactly what Trump
said in his original May 9th letter and exactly the
opposite what CNN subsequently reported.
In fact, here are precisely three instances (ironic, right?),
directly from Comey's testimony, in which he personally
told President Trump he was not under investigation:
1. January 6th Meeting at Trump Tower:
"In that context, prior to the January 6
meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s
leadership team whether I should be
prepared to assure President-Elect
Trump that we were not investigating
him personally. That was true; we did not
have an open counter-intelligence case on
.
159
him. We agreed I should do so if
circumstances warranted. During our one-
on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based
on President Elect Trump’s reaction to
the briefing and without him directly
asking the question, I offered that
assurance."
2. January 27th Dinner at White House:
"During the dinner, the President returned
to the salacious material I had briefed him
about on January 6, and, as he had done
previously, expressed his disgust for the
allegations and strongly denied them. He
said he was considering ordering me to
investigate the alleged incident to prove it
didn’t happen. I replied that he should
give that careful thought because it
might create a narrative that we were
investigating him personally, which we
weren’t, and because it was very difficult to
prove a negative. He said he would think
about it and asked me to think about it."
3. March 30 Phone Call:
"I explained that we had briefed the
leadership of Congress on exactly
which individuals we were investigating
and that we had told those
Congressional leaders that we were not
personally investigating President
Trump. I reminded him I had previously
told him that."
Of course, we're 'absolutely positive' that everything else
CNN has learned and reported from their anonymous
sources, regarding Trump and his Russian collusion, is
completely accurate and reflect nothing but the highest
levels of journalistic integrity.
As such, we are quite confident that
CNN will promptly retract their
erroneous reporting and offer an
apology to their readers for the
unfortunate mistake.
 Lawyer Says Trump Feels 'Completely And Totally
Vindicated' By Comey's Testimony
David Choi
Jun. 7, 2017, 6:37 PM
Donald Trump. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
President Donald Trump's private attorney, Marc
Kasowitz, on Wednesday said his client felt "completely
and totally vindicated" by James Comey's prepared
opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Comey's remarks, released Wednesday in advance of
Thursday's Senate hearing, confirmed previous statements
by Trump that Comey had told him three times that he was
not personally being investigated amid the FBI's wide-
ranging inquiry into Russian meddling in the election and
the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia.
160
"The president is pleased that Mr. Comey
has finally publicly confirmed his private
reports that the president was not under
investigation in any Russian probe,"
Kasowitz said in a statement. "The
president feels completely and totally
vindicated. He is eager to continue to move
forward with his agenda."
Comey's seven-page testimony released Wednesday,
however, also portrayed Trump as having pressured
Comey to ease the FBI's Russia investigation. It described
a dinner in which, Comey said, Trump asked for his
loyalty and another meeting in which Trump asked him to
drop the FBI's investigation into former national security
adviser Michael Flynn.
Trump officially retained Marc Kasowitz as his outside
counsel in May to represent him during the FBI's
investigation into his campaign staff's possible ties to
Russia. Former presidents have also hired outside counsel
when their personal actions became the subject of an
investigation, according to The Hill.
Read Comey's full prepared testimony on next page:
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
 Even If Everything James Comey Is Claiming Is True,
There Is Still No Evidence That Trump
Is Guilty Of Any Crime
Source: Michael Snyder, Guest Post
Published: June 8, 2017
Democrats are hoping that the
testimony that former FBI Director
James Comey will deliver on Thursday
will be enough to take Donald Trump
down for good.
Comey released a written preview of his testimony on
Wednesday, and it was obviously intended to draw even
more attention to what is already being described as “the
most highly-anticipated Congressional hearing in
decades”. CNN is breathlessly declaring that “James
Comey just went nuclear on Donald Trump”, and Texas
Democratic Representative Al Green is already planning to
draft articles of impeachment even though the testimony
hasn’t even happened yet.
Unfortunately for those that would like
to see Trump go, even if every single
thing that James Comey is claiming is
true (and that is a very big “if”), there is
still no evidence that Trump is guilty of
any crime.
There are many other things that we could discuss, but the
core of this case is going to come down to a conversation
that Trump and Flynn had on February 14th…
Former FBI Director James Comey said President Donald
Trump asked him to drop the agency’s investigation into
former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
“I hope you can see your way clear to
letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is
168
a good guy. I hope you can let this go,”
Comey said Trump told him in an Oval
Office meeting on Feb. 14.
The Democrats think that they can nail Trump to the wall
with this. According to former White House ethics czar
Norman Eisen, this testimony by Comey
“is the equivalent of the Nixon tapes”…
Eisen compared the news revealed in Comey’s testimony
to former President Richard Nixon’s secret recording of
his phone calls in meetings at the White House when he
was in office, which eventually played a role in his
resignation.
“This moves us into the same realm as
Nixon’s obstruction, maybe worse,” he
continued. “This is the equivalent of the
Nixon tapes. We are headed into very, very
choppy waters.”
And CNN’s “senior legal analyst” Jeffrey Toobin seems to
be convinced that what Trump did was clearly “obstruction
of justice”…
“There is a criminal investigation going on
of one of the President’s top associations
… he gets fired, he is under under
investigation and the President brings in
the FBI Director and says ‘please stop your
investigation,'” said CNN’s senior legal
analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
“If that isn’t obstruction of justice, I don’t
know what is,” Toobin said.
I don’t know what law school Toobin
attended, but he is clearly wrong on this
point.
There are several federal statutes that could apply in this
case, but the most important one is 18 U.S.C. § 1505. In
order for obstruction of justice to be proven under 18
U.S.C. § 1505, there are a number of elements that must be
clearly established. In this case, prosecutors would have an
exceedingly difficult time proving that Trump acted
“corruptly”, but the even bigger problem would be the fact
that there was no “proceeding” taking place at the time.
This is what 18 U.S.C. § 1505 says…
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade,
prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole
or in part, with any civil investigative
demand duly and properly made under the
Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully
withholds, misrepresents, removes from
any place, conceals, covers up, destroys,
mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies
any documentary material, answers to
written interrogatories, or oral testimony,
which is the subject of such demand;  or
attempts to do so or solicits another to do
so;  or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force,
or by any threatening letter or
communication influences, obstructs, or
impedes or endeavors to influence,
obstruct, or impede the due and proper
administration of the law under which any
pending proceeding is being had before
any department or agency of the United
States, or the due and proper exercise of
the power of inquiry under which any
inquiry or investigation is being had by
either House, or any committee of either
House or any joint committee of the
Congress–
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned
not more than 5 years or, if the offense
involves international or domestic terrorism
(as defined in section 2331), imprisoned
not more than 8 years, or both.
And some of the greatest minds in the legal world agree
with me that there is no obstruction of justice in this case.
For example, consider what George Washington
University law professor Jonathan Turley recently had
to say about this…
There are dozens of different variations of
obstruction charges ranging from
threatening witnesses to influencing jurors.
None would fit this case. That leaves the
omnibus provision on attempts to interfere
with the “due administration of justice.”
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort
was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he
did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The
.
169
term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the
various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a
showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an
unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging
leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not
necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
Then there is the question of corruptly influencing what?
There is no indication of a grand jury
proceeding at the time of the Valentine’s
Day meeting between Trump and
Comey. Obstruction cases generally are
built around judicial proceedings — not
Oval Office meetings.
And Alan Dershowitz is also convinced that
there is no way to prove obstruction of
justice in this case…
Finally, there is the allegation of obstruction of justice
growing out of President Trump’s firing of FBI Director
James Comey and his alleged request to Comey to “let it
go” with regard to his fired national security advisor
Michael Flynn.
None of this, in my view, rises to the
level of criminal obstruction, because all
of the president’s actions were within
his constitutional and statutory
authority.
But even if it were a crime, it is unlikely that a sitting
president could be indicted and prosecuted for what is
alleged against Trump.
Turley and Dershowitz are both
extremely liberal, but at least they are
honest enough to give us a balanced
assessment of what the law actually
says on these matters.
If Comey is being accurate, Trump’s conversations with
him may have been inappropriate, but no crimes were
committed.
Of course that isn’t going to stop the
Democrats from trying to impeach him.
If this current angle fails, I am hearing that they are
planning an all-out push to get rid of Trump if they are
able to take back both the House and the Senate in 2018.
Let us hope that does not happen, because it is extremely
difficult to be an effective president with the threat of
possible impeachment constantly hanging over you.
 Trump To Monitor Comey
From A White House Dining Room
FBI Director James Comey’s Testimony Viewed As Political Super Bowl
By Tyler Durden -
06.08.2017 @9:28 AM EDT
The mainstream media has billed former FBI Director
James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence
Committee as the political equivalent of the Superbowl.
With millions of American and international viewers
expected to tune in, Bloomberg reports that Trump will be
monitoring Comey’s testimony from a White House
dining room with his legal team and his closest advisers
by his side.
According to the report, which cited two White House
aides, it’s unclear whether the president will offer his
trademark commentary on Twitter – or instead leave
the rebuttal to a rapid-response team the White House
assembled to blast out push-back to Comey’s assertions.
However, the president’s friends and advisers stand
firm in their conviction that Trump has done nothing
wrong with regard to Russia, that the investigation and
surrounding theater has been a witch hunt and that he
should defend himself as aggressively as he sees fit,
Bloomberg reported.
“He’s been under siege from almost Day
One and he wants to respond,” said
Chris Ruddy, a close friend and chief
executive of Newsmax.com.
Over the last week, the mainstream media has published a
stream of anonymously sourced leaks of questionable
veracity purporting to reveal the details of Comey’s
testimony – including one “scoop” where CNN reported
that Comey was preparing to contradict the president’s
claim that the former FBI director repeatedly told him that
he was not under investigation. CNN was forced to issue a
.
170
correction after Comey’s opening remarks, released on
Wednesday, directly contradicted its reporting.
This isn’t the first report that the MSM has been forced to
walk back. The CNN-Washington Post-New York Times
media cabal also reported that Comey was planning to
testify that the president obstructed justice, before
switching gears and reporting that the FBI director’s
testimony will stop short of issuing such a declaration,
which would’ve contradicted testimony he gave earlier this
year.
The White House has sought to keep Trump occupied and
focused on his domestic agenda leading up to Comey’s
testimony. His aides dubbed this week “Infrastructure
Week” and rolled out more details of his long-promised $1
trillion plan to rebuild roads, waterways and airports. He
flew to Cincinnati on Wednesday for a speech about the
plan before a friendly audience in a state that strongly
supported his election.
He’ll speak at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to
Majority” conference in the afternoon on Thursday, a
gathering of evangelicals that Trump’s allies regard as a
serendipitous bit of planning, Bloomberg reported. The
event should offer the beleaguered president a friendly
audience, and his aides said they expect zero mention of
Comey in his remarks.
Comey’s opening remarks, while laced
with jarring details of his encounters
with Trump, provided no new
information about the Russia or Flynn
investigations.
 Wapo Takes Anonymous Sourcing
To A Whole New Level In Latest Obstruction Story
Rachel Stoltzfoos
June 8, 2017
The entire basis of a big Washington Post report on
President Trump’s involvement in the FBI Russia
investigation is at best a thirdhand account from
anonymous officials of a conversation that happened
almost three months ago.
The scoop is a big one, if true. Adam Entous reports
Trump asked a top intelligence official to persuade former
FBI Director James Comey to shift the focus of the Russia
investigation away from then-national security adviser
Mike Flynn.
Such an ask from Trump would solidify the narrative he
has improperly interfered with the Russia investigation,
and that he fired Comey because he didn’t like the way he
was handling it. But the sourcing here is dubious. Entous
attributes the information to “officials familiar with the
account Coats gave to associates.”
Let’s look at how far this account had to travel to get to
Entous at The Washington Post, assuming the conversation
actually happened (none of those present have confirmed
this).
Trump has a private conversation with Coats and
Pompeo. Coats discusses the contents of that conversation
with some “associates” — who either do or do not have an
official capacity, Entous never specifies. Those associates
in turn relay what is now a secondhand account to some
“officials.”
171
At this point we’re playing a game of telephone through
likely politically motivated sources. And the story could
have traveled through several more rounds of recounting in
the intervening months before making it to Entous at The
Washington Post.
What exactly does Entous mean by “associate” here? Are
these other high-ranking intelligence officials? Former
officials? Coats’ favorite staffers? The guy who does his
dry cleaning? And what bar does a source have to meet to
be considered “familiar with” an account of an account?
The wording in the report seems deliberately vague,
perhaps in order to lend the report greater
credence, perhaps to justifiably protect sources. We don’t
know.
Entous has previously demonstrated a willingness to
run with big Russia scoops before thoroughly vetting the
facts. He and a colleague reported Russia hacked the U.S.
power grid in December, but the story turned out to be
totally false when the electric company (which had not
been contacted) quickly revealed the hack had nothing to
do with the U.S. electrical grid and may not have even
happened.
In another big Russia hacking story on the CIA conclusion
regarding interference, Entous and his colleagues cited one
anonymous source with only secondhand knowledge of the
matter. The source was cited as a “U.S. official” who was
“briefed” on the presentation the CIA gave Senators —
essentially a person who was briefed on a brief. This is
another game of telephone and falls well below what used
to be the standard bar for journalism: two sources with
firsthand knowledge of the story.
Entous is also at the center of a more recent Washington
Post report on Russian interference that is founded on an
anonymous letter the paper has refused to publish. The
story is another big scoop — that Jared Kushner wanted a
secret channel for Trump to communicate with Russia
ahead of taking office. But no one has independently
verified the existence or content of the letter that formed
the basis of the scoop. And The Washington Post has not
explained why editors have refused to publish the letter.
In each of these examples, Entous and his editors ignore
what used to be standard rules of journalism for the sake of
quickly pushing big scoops that play nicely into the
media’s big Russia narrative.
(Fox News, for its part, quoted an anonymous official
saying it wasn’t Kushner, but Kislyak who suggested the
back channel. Establishment media quickly pounced on the
single source story. Oddly, nobody seemed to notice Fox’s
source claimed to be in the room at the time of the
exchange.)
Entous explicitly connects the dots for the reader in the
latest scoop on Coats between Trump allegedly trying to
shut down the investigation and suspicions he and his
campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
172
“The events involving Coats show the
president went further than just asking
intelligence officials to deny publicly the
existence of any evidence showing
collusion during the 2016 election, as The
Washington Post reported in May,” Entous
writes. “The interaction with Coats indicates
that Trump aimed to enlist top officials to
have Comey curtail the bureau’s probe.”
But not once in the story does Entous even mention there
is as yet no evidence Trump or his campaign colluded with
Russia, despite what has already been a lengthy FBI
investigation.
 James Comey Hearing Destroys
Obstruction Of Justice Case Against Trump
By Joel B. Pollak
8 Jun 2017

Comey: Correct.

Risch: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go.

Comey: Not in his words, no.

Risch: He did not order you to let it go.

Comey: Again, those words are not in order.

Risch: No. He said, “I hope.” Now, like me, you probably

did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases,
charging people with criminal offenses. And of course you
Former FBI director James Comey have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where
began his testimony before the Senate people have been charged. Do you know of any case
Intelligence Committee on Thursday by where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice
suggesting that the question of whether or for that matter any other criminal offense where they
President Donald Trump had committed said or thought they hoped for an outcome?
obstruction of justice was one for
Special Counsel Robert Mueller to
Comey: I don’t know well enough to answer. And the
investigate.
reason I keep saying his words is, I took it as a direction.
But under questioning by Sen. James Risch (R-ID), Comey
Risch: Right.
all but destroyed any hope Democrats had for bringing a
case of obstruction of justice against President Donald
Trump. Comey: I mean, it’s the President of the United States with
me alone, saying, “I hope this.” I took it as this is what he
wants me to do. I didn’t obey that, but that’s the way I took
Their exchange was as follows:
it.
Risch: I want to drill right down, as my time is limited, to
Risch: You may have taken it as a direction, but that’s not
the most recent dust-up regarding, allegations that the
what he said.
President of the United States obstructed justice. And, boy,
you nailed this down on page page five, paragraph three,
you put this in quotes. Words matter, you wrote down the Comey: Correct.
words so we can all have the words in front of us now.
There’s 28 words that are in quotes, and it says, quote: “I Risch: He said, “I hope.”
hope” — this is the president speaking — “I hope you can
see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He Comey: Those are exact words, correct.
is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Now, those are
his exact words; is that correct? Risch: You don’t know of anyone that’s been charged for
hoping something?
Comey: Correct.
Comey: I don’t, as I sit here.
Risch: And you wrote them here and you put them in
quotes. Risch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

173
Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment — That case has now been smashed beyond repair.
and reversing the 2016 elections — on the idea that Trump
committed obstruction of justice.
.

174
 ‘Truth Bomb’: Comey Statement Provides No New Info
That Proves A Crime
Jack Crowe
12:01 PM 06/08/2017

behavior by the president. But it presents

no new information that proves a crime.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee published the

statement Wednesday ahead of a hearing where Comey is
expected to testify about his relationship with Donald
Trump prior to his firing and whether he felt pressured to
end the Russia investigation.

Comey’s statement includes a detailed description of a

Delivering what he called a “truth bomb” on FBI Director private conversation Comey had with Trump in which the
James Comey’s prepared statement for Congress president said he demands “loyalty.” Comey also
Thursday, journalist Mike Allen pointed out Comey recounts that Trump asked him to not implicate General
doesn’t reveal any new information that proves a crime. Mike Flynn in the FBI investigation into Russian
interference into the 2016 presidential election. More
details on the private conversation are expected to emerge
“For all the cable-news talk of smoking
during Comey’s testimony in front of Congress today.
guns, top Republicans were authentically
relieved by what they read in the afternoon
bombshell,” Allen wrote in his “The road ahead is long,” Allen concluded
morning newsletter. “Their reaction puzzled in his comments on the testimony.
me at first, but here’s a truth bomb: “Comey’s statement is captivating, but not
Comey’s seven-page, 3,100-word grounds for impeachment. The threshold
statement describes unusual, for any action is much higher than many
unprecedented and, to most, disturbing think, because Republicans alone will set
it.”
.

175
 Comey Slams NY Times' Fake News
On Russia Probe: "Story Was Almost Entirely Wrong"
By Tyler Durden
Jun 8, 2017 7:04 PM
For those of you who continue to consume anonymously-
sourced news from the likes of CNN, NYT, WAPO, etc, as
pure fact and a perfect substitute for actual, unbiased
journalism, while blindly ignoring the overwhelming
evidence which continues to suggest these outlets are
simply pushing a sensationalized narrative aimed at
bringing down an administration of which they disapprove,
please consider Comey's testimony from earlier today in
which he describes a February NY Times story,
which alleged numerous contacts between
Trump associates and Russia, as "almost
entirely wrong"
Cotton:
"On February 14 the New York Times
published a story, the headline of which
was "Trump Campaign Aides Had
Repeated Contacts With Russian
Intelligence."
You were asked earlier whether that was an inaccurate
statement and you said you said 'in the main.'
Would it be fair to characterize the story
as 'almost entirely wrong?'"
Comey:
"Yes."
For those who missed it, we covered the original New York
Times article in a post entitled "NYTimes Reports Trump
Aides' "Repeated Contact" With Russian Intel
Officials, Admits No Collusion Discovered."
176
Meanwhile, in earlier testimony with Senator Risch,
Comey further explained why
anonymously sourced stories can often
be pure "nonsense."
Risch:
"So the American people can understand
this, that report by the New York Times
was not true, is that a fair statement?"
Comey:
"In the main it was not true. And, again,
all of you know this, maybe the American
people do not, the challenge, and I'm not
picking on reporters, about writing
stories about classified information is,
the people talking about it often don't
really know what's going on and those
of us who actually know what's going
on are not talking about it.
And we don't call the press to say 'hey, you
got that thing wrong about his sensitive
topic.'"
"I mentioned to the chairman the nonsense
around what influenced me to make the
July 5th Statement. Nonsense, but I can't
go explaining why it's nonsense."
Of course, just like with CNN's story yesterday, we're
certain that the New York Times will promptly retract their
erroneous reporting and offer an apology to their readers
for the unfortunate mistake...not that it matters much
because the story has already reached millions of readers
and inflicted the damage for which it was intended.
***
For those who missed it, Comey's
opening statement also outed another
anonymously-sourced 'fake news'
article pushed by CNN. Here was our
post on the topic from yesterday:
Back on May 9th, the White House
released the letter that President Trump
sent to former FBI Director James Comey
informing him that he'd been relieved of his
duties at the FBI. Within that letter,
Trump awkwardly inserted a sentence
thanking Comey for informing him "on
three separate occasions, that I am not
under investigation." Here's the full
sentence (full post here):
"While I greatly appreciate you
informing me, on three separate
occasions, that I am not under
investigation, I nevertheless concur with
the judgement of the Department of Justice
that you are not able to effectively lead the
Bureau."
Not surprisingly, this statement set off alarm bells at CNN
and other MSM outlets because, if true, it would put a real
damper on their "Trump colluded with Russian hackers to
stage a coup" narrative. Therefore, those outlets set out on
a mission to 'prove' that Comey never made those
statements and that, by definition, Trump clearly lied about
his past interactions with the former FBI Director.
And not long after setting out on that mission, courtesy of
those infamous 'anonymous sources',
CNN and ABC struck gold when they
confirmed that "FBI Director James
Comey is reportedly set to testify he
never told President Donald Trump that
he was not under investigation."
Here is a summary of CNN's reporting from their primary
echo chamber, HuffPo:
"Former FBI Director James Comey is
reportedly set to testify he never told
President Donald Trump that he was not
under investigation in connection with
Russian interference in the 2016 election,
according to CNN and ABC News."
And here is the original CNN reporting:
177
"Trump has made a blanket claim that
Comey told him multiple times that he was
not under investigation."
"But one source said Comey is
expected to explain to senators that
those were much more nuanced
conversations from which Trump
concluded that he was not under
investigation. Another source hinted
that the President may have
misunderstood the exact meaning of
Comey's words, especially regarding
the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence
investigation."
Unfortunately, CNN's 'anonymous sources' seem to have
been 'mistaken' on this one. And while we have no doubts,
generally, about the integrity of CNN and/or their
anonymous sources,
Comey's direct testimony released just
a while ago seems to confirm exactly
what Trump said in his original May 9th
letter and exactly the opposite what CNN
subsequently reported.
In fact, here are precisely three instances (ironic, right?),
directly from Comey's testimony, in which he personally
told President Trump he was not under investigation:
1. January 6th Meeting at Trump Tower:
"In that context, prior to the January 6
meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s
leadership team whether I should be
prepared to assure President-Elect
Trump that we were not investigating
him personally. That was true; we did not
have an open counter-intelligence case on
him. We agreed I should do so if
circumstances warranted. During our one-
on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based
on President Elect Trump’s reaction to
the briefing and without him directly
asking the question, I offered that
assurance."
2. January 27th Dinner at White House:
"During the dinner, the President returned
to the salacious material I had briefed him
 about on January 6, and, as he had done
previously, expressed his disgust for the
allegations and strongly denied them. He
said he was considering ordering me to
investigate the alleged incident to prove it
didn’t happen. I replied that he should
give that careful thought because it
might create a narrative that we were
investigating him personally, which we
weren’t, and because it was very difficult to
prove a negative. He said he would think
about it and asked me to think about it."
3. March 30 Phone Call:
"I explained that we had briefed the
leadership of Congress on exactly
which individuals we were investigating
.
178
and that we had told those
Congressional leaders that we were not
personally investigating President
Trump. I reminded him I had previously
told him that."
Of course, we're 'absolutely positive' that everything else
CNN has learned and reported from their anonymous
sources, regarding Trump and his Russian collusion, is
completely accurate and reflect nothing but the highest
levels of journalistic integrity.
As such, we are quite confident that
CNN will promptly retract their
erroneous reporting and offer an
apology to their readers for the
unfortunate mistake.
 Comey: Trump Has Right
To End Investigation [VIDEO]
Amber Athey
12:26 PM 06/08/2017

“I’m not a legal scholar, so smarter people

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before a Senate
Intelligence Committee hearing on Russia's alleged interference in
the 2016 U.S. presidential election on Capitol Hill in Washington,
U.S., June 8, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
have answered this better,” Comey
explained, “but speaking as a legal matter,
the president, as the head of the Executive
Branch… and we have important norms
against this…[can] direct that anybody can
be investigated or anybody not be
investigated.”
Dershowitz claimed Wednesday that this right would clear
the president of any obstruction of justice charges.

“I think he has the legal authority because,

Former FBI Director James Comey said the president has
ultimately, we all report to the Executive
the right to end any investigation although there are
Branch up to the president,”
“important norms” against doing so.
Comey confirmed.
During his testimony Thursday, Comey confirmed “If he wanted to issue a direct order, he
comments made by Harvard Law professor Alan could do it in any way,” he finished.
Dershowitz Wednesday evening that legally, the president
can start or stop any investigation.

179
 Distortion of Comey’s
Prepared Remarks by NYT Editors
By Stephen Lendman
6-8-2017
Comey’s prepared remarks, published in advance of his
Thursday Senate Intelligence Committee testimony,
contained no bombshells.
There was no evidence of Trump interference with
ongoing FBI investigations in their face-to-face or
telephone conversations, nothing remotely suggesting
obstruction of justice.
Not according to deplorable NYT editors, as expected -
creating a scandal where none exists, outrageously saying
Comey’s remarks “tell a shocking story.”
The claim is a bald-faced lie, typical Times distortion of
reality, turning it upside down.
Times editors:
From his inauguration to the present,
“Trump made multiple attempts…to
interfere with the FBI’s investigations into
contacts between Mr. Trump’s former
national security adviser and the Russian
government, as well as a broader inquiry
into the Trump campaign’s possible
collusion with Russian efforts to swing the
2016 election to Mr. Trump.”
FALSE!
Comey’s remarks indicate no interference
by Trump with agency investigations.
Comey quoted him saying
“I hope you can see your way clear to
letting this go” - referring to the Michael
Flynn investigation, nothing suggesting his
contacts with Russian officials were
improper or criminal.
Comey said he
.
180
“understood the President to be requesting
that we drop any investigation of Flynn in
connection with false statements about his
conversations with the Russian
ambassador in December.”
He
“did not understand the President to be
talking about the broader investigation into
Russia or possible links to his campaign.”
Trump asked him if he’d move the Russia investigation
along to “lift the cloud,” impairing his ability to do his job.
Comey said the investigation is moving as quickly as
possible, telling Trump he’s not being investigated.
Comey’s remarks amount to much ado about nothing.
Times editors blasted Trump irresponsibly for commenting
on Comey’s sacking, saying
“(w)hen I decided to just do it, I said to
myself…this Russia thing with Trump and
Russia is a made-up story.”
He’s dead wrong on lots of things, not this one.
The “Russia thing” is part of a plot to
remove him from office - a witch-hunt
“made-up story,” as he explained.
Times editors:
“(T)he White House is led by a man with no
respect for the established barriers
between politicians and law enforcement.”
Fact:
What rubbish! Media scoundrels led by The
NYT have no respect for truth-telling,
mocking journalism the way it’s supposed
to be - bashing Trump gratuitously for the
wrong reasons, not the right ones.
 Everything We Know About
The New York Times’ Secret Comey Source
Saagar Enjeti
12:27 PM 06/08/2017
Former FBI Director James Comey told Congress
Thursday he instructed a close friend of his from Columbia
University Law School to leak details of his conversations
with President Donald Trump to The New York Times.
Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman
confirmed to The Washington Post he was Comey’s friend
who leaked the information to TheNYT. Richman’s
biography at Columbia notes that he is “currently an
adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.”
Comey confirmed he deployed Richman as an anonymous
source in the hope of sparking the appointment of a special
.
181
counsel by the Department of Justice. Richman read
portions of Comey’s private memo’s detailing
conversations with Trump regarding former National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Richman has been described as both a “friend” and
“advisor” in past media reports with respect to Comey,
where he defended his handling of the Clinton email
investigation. Richman also spoke to The New York Times
on the record after Comey was fired and confirmed he
spoke with the former director “several times since he was
fired.”
The biography also notes that
“Richman is a former federal prosecutor
who served as chief appellate attorney in
the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of New York, and has served as a
consultant to the Department of Justice and
the Department of the Treasury on federal
criminal matters.”
 Comey Testimony More
Spectacle Than Substance
By Stephen Lendman
6-8-2017
US cable and broadcast channels scheduled its coverage.
So did PBS, NPR, the BBC and CBC.
All or parts of it can be watched on C-Span, local TV
stations nationwide, YouTube, Roku, Apple TV, Amazon
Fire and various web sites.
Bars in DC and elsewhere opened early to air it. The
Capitol Hill Union Pub offered a free drink every time
Trump tweets about his testimony. Schoolteachers intend
discussing his testimony with young students.
Trump, his lawyers and other aides tuned in, preparing to
respond as necessary.
It’s more spectacle than substantive, much ado about
nothing, a tempest in a teapot. Comparing it to the Army-
McCarthy hearings or Nixon tapes is pure nonsense.
No smoking guns exist, no blockbuster revelations,
nothing to claims about another Watergate or worse, no
evidence of obstruction of justice or other wrongdoing in
Trump’s face-to-face and telephone conversations with
Comey.
The most highly anticipated hearing in decades is all
smoke and no fire, all hype and no meat.
The most “(un)trust(ed) name in news”
headlining “James Comey just went
nuclear on Donald Trump” made CNN
more of a laughing stock than already.
The hype and surreal atmosphere are bizarre, nothing like
it in decades on Capitol Hill.
Law Professor Jonathan Turley mocked it, saying
“(t)he only thing missing is a Vegas betting
line and bunting. No doubt children got up
.
182
this morning screaming “it’s Comey day, it’s
Comey day!”
Releasing his prepared remarks in advance created a media
firestorm - twisting and misinterpreting what he said -
anything to denigrate Trump, making stuff up out of whole
cloth.
He had nothing on Lyndon Johnson, his political career
built on a foundation of massive electoral fraud. He was
intimidating in dealings with others, bullying them to get
his way.
Historian Robert Dallek said he
“viewed criticism of his policies as personal
attacks.” He called political opponents
“disloyal to him and the country.”
He insulted reporters, acting uncivilized much of the time.
His press secretary George Reedy called him
“a miserable person…a bully, sadist,
lout…egoist (and) colossal son-of-a-bitch.”
His bigger than life persona got things done. Trump is a
business tycoon elevated to the nation’s highest office.
LBJ was a longtime politician, both involved in imperial
wars. Vietnam was Johnson’s undoing. Trump is at odds
with America’s deep state.
After trouncing Barry Goldwater in 1964, Johnson was too
roundly disliked to run for reelection. Trump entered office
widely despised.
Though unclear if he’ll avoid impeachment and removal
from office, it won’t be from Comey’s testimony if
happens.
 Bombshell: James Comey Willfully LIED To America
About Hillary Clinton Criminal Investigation
After Being Pressured By Loretta Lynch
By: Mike Adams
Date: June 08, 2017
Multiple, shocking revelations are now being learned from
the James Comey testimony on Capitol Hill. First, the
testimony hasn’t revealed a single shred of evidence to
support the delusional conspiracy theory that claims “the
Russians hacked the election” for Donald Trump. If
anything, Comey’s testimony underscores the knowledge
that the Russians are NOT engaged in any “siding” with
Republicans or Democrats, and that the Russians are
simply “opportunists” who want to defeat the United State
of America on the global stage. To put this in context, the
United States routinely interferes with elections of
dozens of other nations and even “installs” political
leaders through various CIA operations, including CIA-led
coups and assassinations of foreign leaders.
Arguably the most shocking revelation to come from
Comey’s testimony is the admission that Loretta Lynch
pressures James Comey to lie to the American public
about the criminal investigation into the Hillary Clinton
campaign. As Comey admitted in sworn testimony, Lynch
directly pressured him to avoid using the term
“investigation” when publicly discussing the investigation.
Instead, he was told to use the term “matter,” and he
promptly agreed to use that term in order to distort the
public perception of the severity of the criminal
investigation into Hillary Clinton. (Don’t forget that Bill
Clinton also secretly met with Loretta Lynch to pressure
the DOJ to back off any real investigation of Hillary
Clinton’s email server fiasco.)
183
If this had happened on behalf of Donald Trump instead of
Hillary Clinton, the entire mainstream media would
immediately characterize it as “obstruction of justice.”
“Comey added later that he was concerned
about that direction as it was false,” reports
The Daily Caller. “He was further
concerned because it aligned with the
Clinton campaign’s spin on the
investigation. He said he complied,
however, because he believed the media
wouldn’t buy into that take on it… Comey
cited that pressure from Lynch to downplay
the investigation as one of the reasons he
held a press conference to recommend the
Department of Justice not seek to indict
Clinton.”
Hillary Clinton’s campaign routinely lied to America about
the seriousness of the criminal investigation into her illegal
email server, pattern of corruption, selling influence and
collusion. Via the Daily Caller:
The Clinton campaign consistently sought
to mislead the public by denying that
Clinton was the subject of an FBI
investigation. Instead, the campaign
claimed the investigation was a simple
“security inquiry.” Comey said he was
concerned by Lynch’s pressure on him and
the FBI to use the campaign’s spin, as it
appeared it appeared that Lynch was
intentionally trying to align the language the
FBI was using to match the angle pushed
by the Clinton campaign.
James Comey confirms he orchestrated
“leak” of memo to embarrass President
Trump
Also today, Comey confirmed he orchestrated the “leak”
of his memo by using a close friend to funnel the memo to
the press. As explained by Axios.com:
 After his firing and this Trump tweet,
Comey asked a close friend of his —
Columbia law professor Daniel Richman —
to leak the content of his memos to the
media with the hope of triggering the
appointment of a special counsel.
From Breitbart.com:
UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey’s open
admission he orchestrated a potentially
illegal leak puts him in serious potential
trouble, the New York Times people note.
That’s the story folks. He vindicated Trump,
and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.
You may recall that I nailed all this back in May when I
wrote a story titled Wait a sec… You mean James Comey
wrote a memo to HIMSELF, then “leaked” it to the NYT?
In that story, I unraveled the “leaked memo” B.S. being
pushed by the rabid left-wing media:
The latest “bombshell” news story from the
New York Times — entitled Comey Memo
Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn
Investigation — is based entirely on a
memo that James Comey wrote to
himself, then “leaked” to the NYT.
184
If you wrote it yourself, it’s not exactly a
“leak,” is it? It’s actually some words
scribbled on a napkin, all of which may or
may not be accurate about what was
actually said at the meeting. For all we
know, James Comey decided to scribble
his silly memo the day after he got fired by
Trump.
It has no credibility at all, in other words.
James Comey wants to damage the Trump
administration, so he jots down whatever
lies he wants the NYT to publish, then he
calls it a “memo.”
The fact that the Comey memo is being
widely reported as a “leak” to the NYT
underscores the fact that nobody in the
establishment media knows what a
“leak” really is. It’s not a leak if you wrote
it yourself, obviously, unless the words
leaked out of a hole in your head and
spilled onto the memo pad.
Comey also confirmed that Donald Trump was never
under investigation by the FBI, shutting down the entire
fake news narrative of the lying left-wing media which has
repeatedly insinuated that Trump has been under constant
criminal investigation by the FBI.
 More Proof Of Media Bias:
NBC Reporter Accuses Sessions Instead Of Lynch,
Deletes Tweet Instead Of Correcting It
Lily Dane
June 8, 2017

It is “Comey Day” and the mainstream media can’t get

enough of it.

And oh, how their bias is showing.

Exhibit 1:

That is a BIG OOPS. What Bill Neely meant to say was

“Ex FBI Chief Comey says former US Attorney Gen.
LORETTA LYNCH instructed him to call CLINTON
EMAIL INVESTIGATION a “matter”, not an
investigation.”

Instead of correcting the Tweet, Neely deleted it. No

explanation. No correction. No retraction.

People on Twitter noticed Neely’s original Tweet and that

he deleted it, and called him out:

185
 Jonathan Weisman did Tweet about Lynch after deleting
his Tweet about Sessions – but did not mention his
“error”..

Then this happened…

These “errors” *cough* demonstrate the importance of

fact-checking and getting things right the first time,
186
but…some Twitter users pointed out that the damage is
already done…

NewsBusters caught it and took the screenshot above, and

pointed out that another NBC reporter – Andrea Mitchell
– DID Tweet about what Comey actually said regarding
Lynch:

Here is what Comey actually said:

187
188
 Comey Testimony: Ex-FBI Boss Says Trump Team Lied,
But Stops Short Of Obstruction Charge
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published June 08, 2017
Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before a
Senate panel on Thursday could have President Trump’s
legal team breathing a sigh of relief since he stopped short
of alleging obstruction of justice – but his otherwise
scathing comments guarantee the political controversy and
Russia-related investigations are far from over.
"This is nowhere near the end of our
investigation," Senate Intelligence
Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C.,
said moments after the hearing's
conclusion.
Comey, in his high-profile appearance before the
committee, accused the administration of defaming him
and said comments made about his competency “were lies,
plain and simple.”
Comey also told lawmakers he decided to document
meetings he had with Trump because he was “honestly
concerned that he might lie about the nature” of their
discussions.
“I knew there might come a day when I
might need a record of what happened not
only to defend myself but to protect the
FBI,” he added.
Comey also said bluntly he believes he was fired because
of the Russia investigation -- and that in a now-famous
February meeting, Trump directed him to ease off an
investigation into former national security adviser Michael
Flynn.
189
Trump's team denied the claims.
“I can definitively say the president is not a
liar,” White House Deputy Press Secretary
Sarah Huckabee Sanders said.
Trump’s personal attorney Marc Kasowitz directly
disputed the account of the Flynn discussion and the
former FBI official’s claim that Trump demanded loyalty
from him.
At the same time, Comey told lawmakers that Trump did
not ask him to end the Russia investigation as a whole
-- a key piece of testimony that Kasowitz
seemed to flag when he said Comey
affirmed Trump never sought to "impede"
the probe.
“Not to my understanding, no," Comey
testified, when asked by Burr whether
Trump tried to get him to end the
investigation.
He also said he could not say whether Trump's
conversations with him amounted to obstruction of justice.
Asked again if Trump engaged in obstruction of justice,
Comey said,
“I don’t know. That’s Bob Mueller’s job to
sort that out.”
The Justice Department appointed Mueller, a former FBI
director, as special counsel in mid-May to oversee the
investigation into Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Comey didn't reserve his criticism just for Trump. He also
took a shot at former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
revealing she had told him to describe the Clinton email
probe as a "matter," not an investigation. He suggested she
was trying to align the DOJ's comments with those of the
Clinton campaign.
Comey had not spoken publicly since his dismissal on May
9. He was four years into a 10-year term when Trump fired
him. The timing fueled claims that Trump was trying to
kill the investigation into Russia and obstruct justice.
Comey was asked Thursday why he thought Trump fired
him. The former FBI director said he didn’t know for sure
but added,
“I take the president at his word that I was
fired because of the Russia investigation.”
Comey was referring to an interview Trump had given
NBC News in which he contradicted the narrative his aides
had floated as to why Comey was let go.
Comey later added he believed he was fired to
“change the way the Russia investigation
was being conducted.”
Surprisingly, Comey also admitted he helped orchestrate a
media leak of his private conversations with Trump
because he thought that by doing so, it would put pressure
on the administration and result in the appointment of a
special counsel.
The public got its first glimpse of Comey's side of the
story Wednesday after the Senate committee released his
written statement. The seven-page statement provided
details about uncomfortable conversations and silent
standoffs between the former FBI director and Trump.
Comey not only laid out details about the Russia
investigation but also took aim at Trump’s preoccupation
with having his name publicly cleared as well as the
president asking him to drop the investigation into former
national security adviser Flynn.
.
190
Comey claimed the conversations became so awkward that
he took steps to avoid any one-on-one time with Trump.
Comey said he spoke directly with Trump a total of nine
times -- three in person and six over the phone. According
to his written testimony, Comey “felt compelled” to keep a
detailed log after each conversation, something he hadn’t
done with former President Barack Obama.
Comey's dramatic statement detailed five separate
exchanges he had with Trump, beginning with a meeting at
Trump Tower in New York before Trump was sworn in as
president. That briefing focused on the investigation into
Russia’s election meddling as well as lascivious claims
Trump had been involved with prostitutes in 2012 – a
claim the White House has strongly denied.
The second meeting took place Jan. 27 at the White House.
According to Comey, during a one-on-one dinner, Trump
asked him if he wanted to keep his job – a question that the
former FBI director found strange because in two prior
conversations he had had with Trump, Comey assured him
he intended to stay.
At that same dinner, Comey says Trump demanded loyalty
from him.
“I need loyalty. I expect loyalty,” Comey
recalled Trump saying.
During a Feb. 14 face-to-face meeting at the White House,
Comey said Trump asked him to drop the FBI
investigations into Flynn. Comey said the president told
him:
"'I hope you can see your way clear to
letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a
good guy. I hope you can let this go."
191
 Comey On Russiagate:
Where’s The Proof?
Will Porter
June 8, 2017
In his testimony before the Senate intelligence committee
Thursday, former FBI Director James Comey said there
was “no fuzz” regarding the claim that Russia interfered in
the 2016 election.
“The Russians interfered in our election
during the 2016 cycle,” Comey said in his
testimony. “They did it with purpose, they
did it with sophistication, they did it with
overwhelming technical efforts. It was an
active measures campaign driven from the
top of that government; there is no fuzz on
that. It is a high confidence judgment of the
entire intelligence community, and the
members of this committee have seen that
intelligence, its not a close call. That
happened.”
Yet if there’s such “slam dunk” evidence, why can’t the
public see it?
Surely Comey cannot be referring to the two Intelligence
Community (IC) assessments released in December 2016
and January of this year—to date the most substantive
official pronouncements on the matter—which by no
means warrant such certainty from the former FBI director.
Retired CIA and DIA officer Phil Giraldi described both
reports as “a lot of sometimes wild speculation and
judgments based on fragmentary information,” and a
“mish-mash of soft facts combined with plenty of opinion
and maybe even a bit of good old Cold War-style politics.”
The first of the two reports, entitled “Grizzly Steppe:
Russian Malicious Cyber Activity,” is heavy on
accusations, but weak on proof. The report essentially tells
192
readers to take the IC’s word that Russia hacked into DNC
servers, and then proceeds to explain with cartoon
diagrams how a particular hacking method is carried out.
This is akin to asserting “John Smith killed John Doe,” and
as proof presenting a cartoon diagram explaining how one
goes about firing a rifle. It does not at all implicate John
Smith, but merely shows one way Smith, or somebody,
could have committed the crime.
The disclaimer attached to the December report is also
perhaps illustrative of its quality :
This report is provided ‘as is’ for
informational purposes only. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
does not provide any warranties of any kind
regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial
product or service referenced in this
advisory or otherwise.
The closest the report comes to attributing responsibility to
Russian state actors is the bare assertion that what the IC
identifies as “Advanced Persistent Threat” groups 28 and
29 are somehow connected to Russian intelligence.
Indeed, as cyber security expert Jeffrey Carr has explained,
attributing responsibility to a particular actor for a cyber
attack is nearly impossible, especially in light of the
knowledge that the CIA is able to fabricate fingerprints
that point back to whatever actor they choose.
“Once malware is deployed, it is no longer
under the control of the hacker who
deployed it or the developer who created
it,” Carr wrote in response to the December
report. “It can be reverse-engineered,
copied, modified, shared and redeployed
again and again by anyone. In other
words  —  malware deployed is malware
enjoyed!”
One serious blunder regarding the attribution of a hacker
came with a report from Crowdstrike, the private firm
initially hired by the DNC to investigate the hacking
allegation. Also published in December 2016,
Crowdstrike’s report concluded that one of the same
groups implicated in hacking the U.S. election on behalf of
the Russians was also involved in hacking a smartphone
application used by the Ukrainian military.
Crowdstrike’s claims were demolished by a March report
from Voice of America, exposing the firm’s analysis as
fatally flawed and sloppy. Yet Crowdstrike and the
American Intelligence Community would build upon those
conclusions, taking them as a starting point in the
investigation into election-tampering.
It should be clear from this alone that intelligence
assessments are not always what they seem.
The second IC report released in January, while much
longer than the first, still fails to back its assertions with
factual evidence. The report expands its scope beyond
hacking to posit a full-blown influence operation,
including the use of Russian state-owned media, such as
Russia Today, to sway the opinion of American voters.
This comes off more as an attempt to throw everything at
the reader besides the kitchen sink, offering distractions
from the original allegation of cyber attacks directed at
changing the outcome of the American election.
Soon after the January report was published, investigative
reporter Robert Parry commented:
[T]he case, as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual
proof. Further, the continued use of the word “assesses”—
.
193
as in the U.S. intelligence community “assesses” that
Russia is guilty – suggests that the underlying classified
information also may be less than conclusive because, in
intelligence-world-speak, “assesses” often means
“guesses.”
The DNI report admits as much, saying,
“Judgments are not intended to imply that
we have proof that shows something to be
a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or
fragmentary, as well as logic,
argumentation, and precedents.”
Perhaps the recent Intercept scoop on a new NSA leaker
will elucidate more evidence in this case, however already
there are reasons to be skeptical of that story.
So did Russia interfere in the 2016 election, as Comey
asserts with such confidence? A neutral observer should
regard this as a possibility—but where’s the proof?
The Intelligence Community ought to treat the American
people as adults and present a sober, objective case
detailing all the evidence that both supports and cuts
against their conclusion of Russian guilt.
Until that day—which, sadly, may never come—the matter
can only be interpreted as a farce.
194
195
 Are The Feds Treating
The White House Like A Mob House?
‘Absolutely They’re Dumb Enough To Talk,’ Said One Current FBI
Employee About The Men And Women Surrounding Trump.
Noah Shachtman
Jana Winter
06.08.17 1:00 AM ET
Photo Illustration by Sarah Rogers/The Daily Beast
It’s no accident your phone lights up nearly every night
with new revelations about Team Trump’s connections to
Russia. So many different investigators with so many
different agendas are looking into so many different parts
of that nexus, it would be almost impossible for word not
to leak out.
But there’s an explanation for at least some of the leaks
that’s a little more cunning than the rest—one that might
bring some actual resolution. Four current and former law
enforcement officials believe prosecutors have been
treating Trump and his associates like a criminal network,
and subjecting them to an array of time-tested law
enforcement tricks.
One of those tricks involves floating names of potential
targets of the investigation, to try and get potential co-
conspirators to turn on one another. Another, called
“tickling the wire,” entails strategically leaking
information to try and provoke targets under surveillance
into saying something dumb, or even incriminating.
“You want people to freak out, to say, ‘are
they talking about me? Is this me? What do
they know?’—and you want them to do this
in a way that is captured,” one former FBI
official said about the Russia investigation.
“Now we wait for the cover up.”
196
Trump and his associates are facing an array of potential
legal troubles. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, former
national security adviser and retired Lt. Gen. Michael
Flynn, and Trump’s son-in-law and top aide Jared Kushner
all failed to mention their meetings with Russian officials
on their security clearance applications; such omissions are
considered felony crimes. Flynn and former campaign
chair Paul Manafort declared only after the fact their
lobbying work advanced the interests of foreign
governments, despite regulations requiring the immediate
disclosure of such lobbying work. Federal and local
investigators are examining Manafort’s real-estate
transactions, and a grand jury is now looking into Flynn’s
influence-for-hire business. Then there’s the specter of
obstruction of justice charges over Trump’s firing of FBI
director Jim Comey—the man who was leading the
investigation into his Russia ties. (Robert Mueller, his
predecessor at the FBI, has been named as a special
counsel and is now helming the case, which has expanded
to encompass Flynn and Manafort’s lobbying.)
Trump’s new lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, may say his client
has been “totally vindicated” by the written testimony of
Comey, who noted, in as narrow language as possible, that
Trump wasn’t personally under investigation. That doesn’t
make Kasowitz’s statement true.
“We are only at the beginning of this.
There’s too much smoke for there to be no
fire. Criminal acts and cover ups usually
unfold just like this. This doesn’t mean
there was collusion. It means crimes were
committed somewhere along the way and
now people are trying to find ways to
distance themselves while keeping
appearances like they are all friends,” a
former FBI official said.
One technique for pulling those friends apart:
Leak information on who may be a target of the
investigation.
 “It’s a way to get other rats to run in and
say, ‘me first, me first,’” said Charles
Clayman, a veteran New York City criminal
defense attorney who began his career as
a local and federal prosecutor. “There’s
always a race to the courthouse, because
there’s no honor among thieves. The idea
is to make other co-conspirators think the
race has already begun.”
Stories that don’t name names—like a recent Washington
Post piece noting that a senior Trump adviser was a
subject of interest in the Russia probe—can be particularly
helpful in provoking targets and getting tips, according to
three current and former FBI sources.
“It is not a coincidence that those stories
[about the subjects of interest] hit as Air
Force One was wheels up on a very long
flight to Riyadh,” said a former FBI official
with knowledge of aspects of the current
investigation.
“That’s of course about turning up the heat.
You create friction between Trump’s people
while they’re stuck in a confined space for
16-plus hours.”
By the end of the trip, Kushner had not only been
identified in other press reports as that White House
subject of interest but the White House then all but
confirmed that he had proposed a secret backchannel to the
Kremlin—using the Russians’ own communication gear.
(The FBI and Justice Department didn’t respond to
requests for comment for this story.)
The prosecutorial leaks can become doubly effective when
the targets are undisciplined, and under surveillance.
That’s what happened in 1989, when federal prosecutors
sent subpoenas to Gambino crime boss John Gotti and his
associates to testify in an incoming trial. The feds were
hoping Gotti would flip out—and he did, all-but-admitting
to obstructing justice while agents listened in.
“Nobody is taking the stand!” Gotti
screamed, according to the book Mob Star
by Gene Mustain and Jerry Capeci. “You
go in there and break their fuckin’ heads.
Don’t worry about us. Go in and fight!”
It was a classic example of tickling the wire—pushing out
information to skittish targets, and then listening to what
they say next. And in Gotti’s case, it worked. The so-called
Teflon Don was arrested on charges of murder, bribery,
loansharking, tax evasion, and obstruction of justice in late
1990, and sentenced to life in prison in 1992.
197
Former federal prosecutor Edward McDonald worked on
public corruption and mob cases, including the famous
Lufthansa heist case. He recalled another example of
tickling the wire, from back in 1986, while building a
public corruption case against Bronx Congressman Mario
Biaggi and Brooklyn Democratic leader Meade Esposito.
“You can’t conduct electronic surveillance forever,” he
explained; ordinarily, a judge only authorizes such
eavesdropping for a few weeks or months at a time. On the
final day of the surveillance they had the FBI go into the
congressman’s office and ask about his relationship with
Esposito. Panicked phone calls followed, which were
captured on the wiretaps.
Such methods have continued to be used in public
corruption, organized crime, and insider trading cases,
McDonald said.
But he added that it’s unlikely Trump is under similar
pressure at this moment.
“If you’re tickling the wire you have to have
a wire,” McDonald said. In a criminal
investigation, at least, a judge would have
to find probable cause that people in the
Trump orbit were discussing criminal acts.
“I don’t know if they are that stupid.”
FBI officials, current and former, disagreed.
“Absolutely they’re dumb enough to talk,”
said one current FBI employee about the
men and women surrounding Trump.
Even if the targets are somewhere south of genius, tickling
the wire can be a risky proposition, noted David C.
Gomez, a former assistant special agent in charge of the
FBI’s Seattle field office. Leak the wrong information, and
the target now knows that he or she is under surveillance.
“You can jeopardize an investigation that
way,” he said. And Mueller, who is now
leading the Justice Department’s FBI
probe, has a reputation for being careful—
and tight-lipped. “I don’t think Mueller would
want to be that provocative until all his i’s
are dotted and his t’s are crossed.”
But Trump and his team have previously made multiple
claims of being monitored (or “tapped,” as the president so
famously tweeted). And of course, this is no ordinary
criminal probe.
Over the past year, at least a half-dozen different
organizations have deployed investigators to look into the
potential nexus between Team Trump and Camp Putin.
There’s the House and Senate Intelligence Committees,
each with its own separate probe; the corporate
intelligence shops, like the one that eventually compiled
the infamous “Golden Showers” dossier; the cybersecurity
firms who found much of the technical evidence linking
the hacking of the DNC to Russian crews; the U.S.
intelligence agencies, which have uncovered previously-
undisclosed contacts between Trump confidants and
Russian government officials; and finally, the multi-
pronged, far-flung Justice Department investigation, now
under Mueller’s direction.
Any one of these outfits—or any combination of them—
could contribute to any single leak about the Trump-Russia
axis.
Take another recent story in The Washington Post,
chronicling how the Russian ambassador to the United
States Sergei Kislyak called his superiors in Moscow about
the highly unusual proposal—a call that eavesdroppers in
U.S. intelligence apparently picked up. Did that mean
someone in American intelligence compromised their
surveillance program? Or was Kislyak talking about
Kushner, knowing an American ear was listening in? In
other words, Gomez wondered,
“Was Kislyak doing his own version of
tickle the wire?”
Gomez isn’t the only law enforcement professional who
raised that possibility, but he was the only one willing to
say so on the record.
The two former law-enforcement officials said “the deluge
of leaks” about Trump and Russia since Comey’s firing is
.
198
about trying to shake things loose, to pressure White
House staffers still in Washington, D.C., to come forward
and report criminal activity.
Those leaks, sources said, played to Trump’s ego, appetite
for cable news, and tendency to veer toward paranoia.
“Who is under investigation… and who is
cooperating and are their conversations
being monitored? Those are the questions
you’d want the president to be thinking
about,” said one government official,
declining repeatedly to offer answers to any
of those questions.
Could this all change as Mueller takes full control of the
investigation? Or if Christopher Wray, Trump’s pick to run
the FBI, gets installed atop the bureau? Sure it could.
For now, however, the drip-drip-drip continues. One
intelligence official and one law enforcement official, both
currently serving, said that government officials have
openly talked about using leaks to undermine the
performance of the president, and to create infighting and a
distracted senior staff. Given the president’s ham-fisted
responses to the—like his near-admission that he leaked
sensitive Israeli intelligence to top Russian officials—it’s a
tactic that appears to have worked rather well.
As one former FBI official said, “Trump just
went way too far.”
 The Impeach-Trump Conspiracy
Pat Buchanan
Thursday - June 8, 2017 At 11:06 Pm
Pressed by Megyn Kelly on his ties to President Trump, an
exasperated Vladimir Putin blurted out,
“We had no relationship at all. … I never
met him. … Have you all lost your senses
over there?”
Yes, Vlad, we have.
Consider the questions that have convulsed this city since
the Trump triumph, and raised talk of impeachment.
Did Trump collude with Russians to hack the DNC emails
and move the goods to WikiLeaks, thus revealing the state
secret that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was
putting the screws to poor Bernie Sanders?
If not Trump himself, did campaign aides collude with the
KGB?
Now, given that our NSA and CIA seemingly intercept
everything Russians say to Americans, why is our fabled
FBI, having investigated for a year, unable to give us a
definitive yes or no?
The snail’s pace of the FBI investigation explains Trump’s
frustration. What explains the FBI’s torpor? If J. Edgar
Hoover had moved at this pace, John Dillinger would have
died of old age.
We hear daily on cable TV of the “Trump-Russia” scandal.
Yet, no one has been charged with collusion, and every
intelligence official, past or prevent, who has spoken out
has echoed ex-acting CIA Director Mike Morrell:
“On the question of the Trump campaign
conspiring with the Russians here, there is
smoke, but there is no fire, at all. …
There’s no little campfire, there’s no little
candle, there’s no spark.”
199
Where are the criminals? Where is the crime?
As for the meetings between Gen. Mike Flynn, Jared
Kushner, Sen. Jeff Sessions and Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak, it appears that Trump wanted a “back
channel” to Putin so he could honor his commitment to
seek better relations with Russia.
Given the Russophobia rampant here, that makes sense.
And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use
Russian channels of communication, what is criminal
about this?
Putin is not Stalin. Soviet divisions are not sitting on the
Elbe. The Cold War is over. And many presidents have
used back channels. Woodrow Wilson sent Col. Edward
House to talk to the Kaiser and the Brits. FDR ran
messages to Churchill through Harry Hopkins.
As for Trump asking Director James Comey to cut some
slack for Flynn, it is understandable in human terms. Flynn
had been a loyal aide and friend and Trump had to feel
rotten about having to fire the man.
So, what is really going on here?
All the synthetic shock over what Kushner or Sessions said
to Kislyak aside, this city’s hatred for President Trump,
and its fanatic determination to bring him down in
disgrace, predates his presidency.
For Trump ran in 2016 not simply as the Republican
alternative. He presented his candidacy as a rejection, a
repudiation of the failed elites, political and media, of both
parties. Americans voted in 2016 not just for a change in
leaders but for a revolution to overthrow a ruling regime.
Thus this city has never reconciled itself to Trump’s
victory, and the president daily rubs their noses in their
defeat with his tweets.
Seeking a rationale for its rejection, this city has seized
upon that old standby. We didn’t lose! The election was
stolen in a vast conspiracy, an “act of war” against
America, an assault upon “our democracy,” criminal
collusion between the Kremlin and the Trumpites.
Hence, Trump is an illegitimate president, and it is the
duty of brave citizens of both parties to work to remove the
usurper.
The city seized upon a similar argument in 1968, when
Richard Nixon won, because it was said he had colluded to
have South Vietnam’s president abort Lyndon Johnson’s
new plan to bring peace to Southeast Asia in the final
hours of that election.
Then, as now, the “t” word, treason, was
trotted out.
Attempts to overturn elections where elites are repudiated
are not uncommon in U.S. history. Both Nixon and
Reagan, after 49-state landslides, were faced with attempts
to overturn the election results.
With Nixon in Watergate, the elites succeeded. With
Reagan in Iran-Contra, they almost succeeded in
destroying that great president as he was ending the Cold
War in a bloodless victory for the West.
After Lincoln’s assassination, President Andrew Johnson
sought to prevent Radical Republicans from imposing a
.
200
ruthless Reconstruction on a defeated and devastated
South.
The Radicals enacted the Tenure of Office Act, stripping
Johnson of his authority to remove any member of the
Cabinet without Senate permission. Johnson defied the
Radicals and fired their agent in the Cabinet, Secretary of
War Edwin Stanton.
“Tennessee” Johnson was impeached, and
missed conviction by one vote. John F.
Kennedy, in his 1956 book, called the
senator who had voted to save Johnson a
“Profile in Courage.”
If Trump is brought down on the basis
of what Putin correctly labels
“nonsense,” this city will have
executed a nonviolent coup against a
constitutionally elected president.
Such an act would drop us into the
company of those Third World nations
where such means are the customary
ways that corrupt elites retain their
hold on power.
 NYT Scrambles To Fix ‘Almost Entirely Wrong’ Russia
Scoop After Comey Testimony
Rachel Stoltzfoos
June 9, 2017
The New York Times is “looking into” whether one of its
big Russia scoops is actually true, after former FBI
Director James Comey disputed the report in Thursday
testimony before Congress.
The paper of record reported Feb. 14 that U.S. intelligence
officials had intercepted repeated communications between
the Trump campaign and senior Russian intelligence
officials in the year leading up to the election. The news
firmly planted the as yet totally unsubstantiated narrative
that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to sway the
election in his favor.
But Comey characterized the report as almost entirely false
Thursday, and The New York Times is now reviewing the
report in light of his statements.
“We are looking into James Comey’s
statements, and we will report back with
more information as soon as we can,”
The NYT tweeted following the hearing, after prominent
journalists highlighted Comey’s statement.
.
201
“In the main, it was not true,” Comey
testified Thursday.
He added that when the news broke, he was so troubled
that he actually double checked with the intelligence
community to make sure he wasn’t missing something.
Asked again about the story later in the hearing, Comey
reiterated that it was unfounded.
“Would it be fair to characterize that story
as almost entirely wrong?” Republican Sen.
Tom Cotton asked.
“Yes,” Comey replied.
The NYT sourced the report to four “former and current
officials,” who were likely politically motivated, or as
Comey suggested in the hearing may not have had a proper
understanding of the “facts” they were dishing out to the
paper.
“The challenge — and I’m not picking on
reporters about writing stories about
classified information — is the people
talking about it often don’t really know
what’s going on,” Comey said. “And those
of us that know what’s going on aren’t
talking about it. And we don’t call the press
to say, ‘hey, you got that thing wrong about
that sensitive topic.’ We just have to leave
it there.”
 Trump Slams "Liar, Leaker" Comey,
Claims "Total And Complete Vindication"
By Tyler Durden
Jun 9, 2017 7:51 AM
After an uncharacteristic two-day social media silence, in
which some wondered if White House lawyers had finally
taken control of Trump's iPhone, President Trump broke a
nearly two-day silence on Twitter Friday morning to slam
James Comey as a "liar" and a “leaker” the day after the
fired FBI director’s testimony before Congress.
In the tweet, which may be the first of many, Trump
claimed "total and complete vindication" from the Senate
Intel Committee hearing, in which Comey likewise
accused him of “lies” and requesting the FBI end a
criminal investigation.
Despite a brief statement by his private lawyer following
Comey's three hour testimony, Trump had remained silent
on Twitter throughout Thursday surprising many, when
much of the U.S. was glued to the TV screen, following
.
202
every word in Comey's first public comments since the
president fired him early last month.
Comey said he believed Trump terminated him over the
FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016
election, he also revealed that he had authorized a close
friend to leak a memo to the NYT. "I didn't do it myself for
a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought
that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,"
Comey said. Comey also disclosed that Loretta Lynch had
exerted pressure on him during the Hillary Clinton probe.
During the highly charged hearing with the Senate
Intelligence Committee, a blunt-talking Comey said that he
was "confused" and "concerned" when Trump said in May
that he was firing him for undermining the morale of the
agency he had led since 2013.
"The administration then chose to defame me, and more
importantly, the FBI by saying the organization was in
disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost
confidence in its leader," Comey said.
We now look forward to Comey's response, as Trump
appears unwilling to let it go.
 Sen. McCain’s Confused Comments
At Comey Hearing Actually Made Sense, Here’s Why
Sen. McCain Actually Took An Anti-Deep State Stance Thursday,
During The Comey Hearing On Capitol Hill
By Shepard Ambellas -
06.09.2017 @10:07 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (INTELLIHUB) — Although Senator
John McCain beat around the bush in an attempt to get his
point across to Fmr. FBI Director James Comey and others
in attendance at Thursday’s hearing on Capitol Hill, he
actually made perfect sense — here’s why:
What the 80-year-old senator from Arizona
was trying to say is that President Trump is
still under FBI investigation for possible ties
to the alleged Russian interfere of the U.S.
electoral system but somehow the FBI
reached a conclusion regarding Hillary
Clinton’s ties in the same investigation,
clearing her.
McCain said that Comey reached a “conclusion” in the
case whether or not to “further pursue” Hillary Clinton and
chose not to.
“I don’t understand how you can be done
with that but not done with the whole
.
203
investigation of their attempt to effect the
outcome of our election,” McCain said. “Yet
at the same time, in the Case of [Donald
Trump] you said that there was not enough
information to make a conclusion.”
Surprisingly, at least in this case, Sen. McCain’s train of
thought is spot on. After all, how could the FBI exclude
Hillary Clinton so quickly from the very same
investigation that’s dealing with the possibility of
campaign collusion with the Russians to undermine the
U.S. system.
In an effort to pass the buck, Comey told McCain,
“As of July the 5th the FBI completed its
investigative work and that’s what I was
announcing, what we have done and what
we have found.
As a result, the senator from Arizona fired back, telling
Comey,
“There’s a whole lot of questions out there”
about Hillary Clinton’s involvement. […]
You’re going to have to help me out here.”
“In other words, we are complete in the
investigation of anything that former
Secretary Clinton had to do with the
campaign is over and we don’t have to
worry about it anymore?” McCain asked.
‘I’m confused,’ Comey responded.
 Trump Hints He Has Comey Tapes, Tells Press: "You're
Going To Be Very Disappointed, Don't Worry"
By Tyler Durden
Jun 9, 2017 10:16 PM

Trump just dropped an awful lot of bombs in a very short

period of time during a brief press conference with the
Romanian President held in the White House Rose Garden.
First, on the issue of the infamous 'Comey
tapes,' Trump hinted that they do, in fact,
exist and he will "tell you about it over a
short period of time."
Reporter:
"And you seem to be hinting that there are
recordings of those conversations."
Reporter:
"Would you be willing to speak under oath
to give your version of events?"
Trump:
"100%. I hardly know the man, I'm not
going to say "I want you to pledge
allegiance." Who would do that? I
mean think of it. I hardly know the man.
It doesn't make sense."

Trump:

"I'm not hinting anything. I'll tell you

about it over a very short period of
time....Oh, you're going to be very
disappointed when you hear the answer.
Don't worry."

And on why Trump felt vindicated by Comey's testimony:

"No collusion, no obstruction, he's a

leaker..."

On whether he would be willing to refute

Comey's testimony under oath, Trump
said he would "100 percent" be willing
to tell Special Counsel Mueller that he
did not ask for Comey's loyalty or ask
for him to drop the Flynn investigation.
.

204
 Trump Lawyer Doubles
Down On Comey Perjury Accusation
by Tyler Durden
Jun 9, 2017 4:13 PM
Yesterday, the Twittersphere lit up when Julie Davis of the
New York Times sent out a tweet suggesting that Trump's
personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz, had potentially made a
serious blunder in mixing up his timeline of when Comey
first leaked details of his meetings with Trump to the
Times.
Here is what Kasowitz said yesterday:
Although Mr. Comey testified he only
leaked the memos in response to a
tweet, the public record reveals that the
New York Times was quoting from these
memos the day before the referenced
tweet, which belies Mr. Comey's excuse for
this unauthorized disclosure of privileged
information and appears to entirely
retaliatory.
Davis, and most of the media, assumed that Kasowitz was
referring to an article published on May 16th by the New
York Times entitled "Comey Memo Says Trump Asked
Him to End Flynn Investigation."
Of course, given that Trump's tweet about the Comey tapes
was sent 4 days prior, it couldn't have possibly been
triggered by the the NYT's May 16th story, as Kasowitz
suggested,
which led Ms. Davis of the Times to
publish her 'gotcha' tweet.
205
Unfortunately for Davis and the New York Times,
Kasowitz has just released a clarifying statement which
points out that he was never referring to the May 16th
article in his statement yesterday, but rather an article
published on May 11, the day before Trump's tweet,
entitled "In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty.
Comey Demurred," which seems to discuss, in detail, the
same facts presented in Comey's now infamous memos.
Here is the full statement from Kasowitz:
Statement of Marc Kasowitz, Attorney to President Donald
J. Trump:
Numerous press stories have misreported
that our statement yesterday incorrectly
claimed that the New York Times was
reporting details from Mr Comey's memos
the day before President Trump's May 12,
2017 Tweet because, according to these
reports, the first New York Times story to
mention the memos specifically was May
16, 2017, which was after the Tweet.
Our statement was accurate and was
not referring to the May 16, 2017 story.
Rather, Mr. Comey's written statement,
which he testified he prepared from his
written memo, describes the details of
the January dinner in virtually verbatim
language as the New York Times May
11, 2017 story describing the same
dinner.
That story was the day before President Trump's Tweet.
It is obvious that whomever was the
source for the May 11, 2017 New York
 Times story got that information from
the memos or from someone reading or
who had read the memos.
This makes clear, as our statement said,
that Mr. Comey incorrectly testified that
he never leaked the contents of the
memo or details of the dinner before
President Trump's May '12. 2017 Tweet.
Meanwhile, a quick review of the New
York Times' May 11 story does seem to
suggest that Kasowitz has a point as the
language describing Trump's January
dinner with Comey is almost identical to
the testimony he presented to Congress
yesterday.
Therefore, whoever supplied this 'leak' to the NYT's was
either in possession of Comey's memos or had been read
them verbatim shortly before they were relayed to the
Times.
WASHINGTON — Only seven days after Donald J.
Trump was sworn in as president, James B. Comey has
told associates, the F.B.I. director was summoned to the
White House for a one-on-one dinner with the new
commander in chief.
The conversation that night in January, Mr. Comey now
believes, was a harbinger of his downfall this week as head
of the F.B.I.,
according to two people who have
heard his account of the dinner.
As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk
about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s
rallies.
206
The president then turned the
conversation to whether Mr. Comey
would pledge his loyalty to him.
Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr.
Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he
would always be honest with him, but that he was not
“reliable” in the conventional political sense.
The White House says this account is not correct. And Mr.
Trump, in an interview on Thursday with NBC, described
a far different dinner conversation with Mr. Comey in
which the director asked to have the meeting and the
question of loyalty never came up. It was not clear whether
he was talking about the same meal, but they are believed
to have had only one dinner together.
By Mr. Comey’s account, his answer to Mr. Trump’s
initial question apparently did not satisfy the president, the
associates said.
Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again
said to Mr. Comey that he needed his
loyalty.
Mr. Comey again replied that he would
give him “honesty” and did not pledge his
loyalty, according to the account of the
conversation.
But Mr. Trump pressed him on whether it
would be “honest loyalty.”
“You will have that,” Mr. Comey told his
associates he responded.
Of course, this would seem to directly contradict Comey's
testimony yesterday that he had his
"very good friend from Columbia Law
School" leak information to the New
York Times, for the very first time, after
he "woke up in the middle of the night"
on Monday, May 15th.
 POLLAK: James Comey’s Admission Means Special
Counsel Must Be Dropped
By Joel B. Pollak
9 Jun 2017
Former FBI director James Comey made
a major mistake at his hearing at the
Senate Intelligence Committee on
Thursday when he revealed that he had
deliberately leaked a memorandum of a
conversation with the president
because he “thought that might prompt
the appointment of a special counsel.”
Aside from the legal jeopardy that Comey may face as a
result of having leaked a government document as a
private citizen, Comey has now undermined Special
Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation by revealing it to
be a deliberate political setup.
Earlier in the hearing, Comey had praised the special
counsel as a critical tool to discover the truth about
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election:
“Understanding what efforts there were or are by the
Russian government to influence our government is a
critical part of the FBI’s mission, so — and you’ve got the
right person in Bob Mueller to lead it,” he said.
But later, Comey said that he had hoped to “prompt the
appointment of a special counsel” for reasons that had
nothing to do with Russia. Comey leaked his memo, he
said, so that he could corroborate claims by aides that he
told them Trump had asked for his “loyalty.”
207
The Times reported those leaked claims on May 11, and
Trump denied them the following day, accusing Comey of
leaking to the press. Three days later, Comey told the
Senate, he remembered the memo and leaked it.
He knew Trump was not under investigation for ties to
Russia — a fact he refused to divulge publicly — but
pushed for a special counsel to be appointed because he
wanted to take revenge on the president. He leaked
through Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman,
who approached the New York Times. (It was a left-wing
trifecta: a former government bureaucrat, an Ivy
League academic, and a liberal mainstream media outlet.)
Moreover, the special counsel that was appointed was —
coincidentally? — one of Comey’s long-time associates,
the FBI director when Comey was Deputy Attorney
General.
“For Mueller to be brought in to investigate
the behavior of the guy who sacked Comey
seems a conflict of interest,” wrote Carl M.
Cannon of RealClearPolitics. “These two
guys, working in tandem, have a track
record of bureaucratic infighting — with
another Republican White House as their
shared adversary — that belies their
reputations for being above political
intrigue.”
Comey did not have to tell the Senate Intelligence
Committee that he had leaked his memo to the press to
make sure a special counsel was appointed. He could have
just told the hearing that he had wanted to set the record
straight. That might have led to questions about why he
had not waited to testify before revealing the memo, but he
could have said he was worried about Trump exerting
executive privilege to block it.
Instead, Comey blurted out the truth: he had seen
a chance to make the political case for a special counsel
through the power of the mainstream media.
Suddenly, the motive behind Comey’s bizarre pattern of
behavior over the past year is obvious. Comey went along
with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s request to
hide the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton, and
later made the extraordinary recommendation not to
prosecute her, because he did not want the public to blame
him or the FBI for destroying her election prospects. When
she seemed certain to win, in late October 2016, he feared
Republicans might blame him for ensuring her victory, and
so he re-opened the Clinton investigation in a public way.
He probably never imagined that she would lose: he
simply wanted to be able to avoid blame for her win.
Then, once the impossible happened, Comey was
scapegoated by the media and the Democratic Party for
Clinton’s loss. So he made sure that President Trump was
dogged by false allegations, and later set in motion a
process that made Trump’s removal from office possible,
setting himself up as the hero. At all times, he justified his
actions, to himself and to the public, by claiming he was
.
208
protecting the integrity of the FBI, which he was in fact
destroying it.
Comey clearly wanted credit for the appointment of the
special counsel. But his admission that he manipulated the
media — and the evidence — to win a political fight
with Trump undermines the justification for
that appointment.
Mueller was not appointed to find the truth about Russia,
but to bring down the Trump presidency.
Nothing Mueller does can be taken at face value any
longer, and every action he takes will be clouded by
political suspicion. He should be dismissed and replaced
by an independent, bipartisan commission. Otherwise the
truth will never be known, or trusted.
 Trump’s World Order
By Vijay Prashad
June 9, 2017

Europeans are not entirely given to the more belligerent

aspects of U.S. policy, although they do not argue against
the theory that these states need to be contained. It is
Europe’s reliance on U.S. power that makes it grouse
about Trump’s refusal to fully endorse Article 5. The gap
between Europe’s view of the world and that of America is
largely irrelevant. At the end of the day, Europeans line up
quite evenly behind U.S. policy.

European silence

On May 25, the U.S. Defence Department acknowledged

Photo by Antti T. Nissinen | CC BY 2.0
that in March one of its aircraft had dropped a bomb on the
al-Jadidah neighbourhood in Mosul (Iraq), killing 105
civilians. The target was two Islamic State (I.S.) snipers.
President Donald Trump has failed to reassure members of
The massive GBU-38 500-pound bomb pulverised two
the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) that the
buildings, killing civilians who had sought shelter there.
United States was fully committed to the alliance. When
There was little evidence on the ground that this was an
pressed about the importance of Article 5 of the NATO
I.S. weapons storage area, as claimed by the Defence
charter—which obliges members to ensure collective
Department. A few days later, in al-Mayadeen in Syria, an
defence—Trump dithered. No clarity was possible. He
aerial attack killed 106 civilians, including 42 children.
wants NATO members to increase military spending. It is
something the U.S. needs little prodding to do by itself.
During his election campaign last year, Trump said that he
would “bomb the shit” out of the I.S. He has given his
Trump wants the U.S. to spend over $700 billion on its
generals “total authorisation” to act, which has translated
military, which is astronomically higher than any of the
into a 50 per cent increase in bombings in 2017 from
other NATO states. The U.S. expenditure is two-thirds of
previous years. This amounts to close to 15,000 bombs in
the total the 28 NATO states spent on their militaries. The
the first four months of the year. While the I.S. has lost
U.S. spends 3.6 per cent of its gross domestic product
territory as a result of this bombardment, the civilian toll
(GDP) on the military, almost twice the 2 per cent standard
has also risen dramatically.
asked of NATO states. The U.S., by itself, is effectively
the military arm of the NATO.
The European Union’s (E.U.) foreign affairs chief,
Federica Mogherini, is otherwise quick to denounce
NATO’s Article 5 has been triggered only once—after the
human rights violations, such as those committed by the
attacks on September 11, 2001, to ensure NATO support in
government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. No such
Afghanistan. NATO has been involved in several wars,
swiftness is detected when evidence is plainly available
from Yugoslavia to Libya, but this was without the
about civilian casualties from American bombs. This
invocation of Article 5. More than anything, Trump’s
silence is partly because several European countries have
reticence to endorse Article 5 says a great deal about the
also been implicated in the killing of civilians in Syria. An
U.S.’ frustration with its allies. Notions of U.S. supremacy
investigation by Airwars, which tracks civilian casualties
endure amongst the U.S. foreign policy elite. Fingers on
in West Asia caused by air strikes, said at least 80 people
the trigger, they prod states such as North Korea and Iran,
were killed in bombing raids conducted by Belgium,
which they had designated 20 years ago as “rogue states”.
France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
American warships continue to threaten the coastlines of
these countries, sitting provocatively in the narrow Sea of
Hormuz (near Iran) and in the Sea of Japan (near North The British have been adamant that they have killed no
Korea). civilians in the 1,300 raids that they have conducted.
Airwars asked the British Ministry of Defence about 120
incidents in 2016 where civilians were likely injured or
209
killed. British officials said that “we cannot make any
definitive assessment of possible U.K. presence from the
evidence”. This is a guarded and bureaucratic way of
saying that the U.K. refuses to make any direct statement
about civilians killed by its raids.
Interestingly, it is the U.S. that has sought to highlight the
civilian casualties that resulted from the bombings by its
European coalition partners. A U.S. military official said
he was frustrated by the sanctimoniousness of the
Europeans. “They blame us for everything, when they are
also part of our war efforts,” he said. If the Europeans
could be properly implicated in the riot of civilian
casualties in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military
feels that it would be under less pressure to answer for its
own damaging record. It is true that the Europeans are
generally smug about issues of human rights. A British
investigation is ongoing into alleged abuses by 120 Royal
Military Police between 2005 and 2013. The outcome of
the investigation will likely be as muddy as that of the
investigation against SAS soldiers who were accused of
war crimes in Afghanistan. Last year, the European Court
of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, set aside an
accusation that Dutch troops had committed war crimes in
Srebrenica in Bosnia & Herzegovina in 1995 by forcing
civilians out of the safety of the United Nations compound.
This is part of a pattern of protection for European
soldiers, a way to protect the idea that Europe is incapable
of human rights violations.
Coverage of Trump’s visit to the G7 summit could not
help but focus on his own antics. Trump shoved aside
Dusko Markovic, the Prime Minister of Montenegro, to get
to the front of a photograph. He preened and poked,
grabbed hands and shook them with ferocity, walked
around like he owned Europe, and bragged about business
deals in Scotland and his friendship with celebrities.
Trump was like the ugly American, the figure of scorn for
.
210
Mark Twain and a reference to the boorish American
traveller “who talked very loudly and coarsely and laughed
boisterously where all others were so quiet and well-
behaved”. It was easy to mock all this but harder to cover
the underlying issues, notably Europe’s well-heeled
subservience to U.S. policy and its own ghastly record in
the War on Terror.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel went on a campaign
tour after the G7 summit. “The times in which we can fully
count on others are somewhat over,” she said. “Europeans
must really take our destiny into our own hands.” Even if
this was said with the full weight of an election campaign
behind it, and should therefore be taken with a pinch of
salt, it indicates Germany’s frustration with Trump’s
consistent prodding about trade unfairness and the U.S.
military expenditure that enables NATO to function as a
global power. It is unlikely that Europe will be able to take
action to create an independent military force, which is
precisely what the U.S. did not want in 1949 when NATO
was created. There is simply no combined will in Europe,
already rattled by Brexit, to produce a European military.
There is even less determination in Europe to actually
alienate itself from the U.S. NATO will remain intact and
the U.S. will continue to play a major role in pushing up
against Russia in the east.
European leaders seemed to smirk when Trump suggested
that NATO should concentrate on “terrorism and
immigration”, the connection between the two going
against the ethos of European liberalism. But in practice,
the European states have made precisely this linkage. It
suggests that beneath the European claim to being the
planet’s champion of human rights lies a singularly ugly
truth—that Trump is the id to Europe’s superego, the
instinct that drives policy rather than the morality that
screens the reality.
 Robert Steele: Memorandum For The President 4.0
[WH Floor Plan Graphic Added]
Robert David STEELE Vivas
Posted On 2017/06/10

PERSONAL FOR THE PRESIDENT The main battle to take you down begins on 2 July. There are
three things you can do in June to pre-empt the violent summer
9 June 2017 of protest and emerge as the sole leader commanding the loyalty
and regard of a majority of voters from Alt-Right to Alt-Left,
adding blacks and Latinos:
Mr. President,

01 Create the Trump Channel inclusive of PollMole (two-way

The Deep State has you surrounded and you cannot win playing
interaction with all voters) an Open Source Agency, a Grand
by their rules on their court (Washington DC). To win – to triumph
Strategy team, and a Presidential Academy to achieve discipline.
and be the greatest President ever – you need to change the
Here is a diagram of how you can make better use of the space
rules of the game in your favor and move the fight to the larger
now wasted on the fake news media that spins the CIA –
court where you excel: across America the Beautiful. Go direct.
Establishment narrative against you every day.

02 Sponsor an Election Reform Summit immediately, Rand Paul in the Senate and Tulsi Gabbard in the House, and
followed by the introduction of the Election Reform Act of 2017 by commit to barnstorming the country with Ron Paul, Dennis
211
Kucinich, Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader, Patrick Buchanan,
Cynthia McKinney, and others — #UNRIG is yours to command.
I cannot over-state the urgency of your doing this as a means of
surviving the loss of the Senate to the Democrats after a major
pedophilia leak takes down four GOP Senators and two or more
GOP Governors. If you don’t get to paper ballots counted publicly
and other integrity measures in time for the 2018 elections, the
Establishment is going to take you down in 2019.
03 Sign an executive order closing down the National
Security Agency. This is – along with the legalization of
marijuana –one of two political nuclear options. You have a copy
of William Binney’s memorandum to Jeff Sessions. NSA is
concealing from you the fact that it has all the data needed to
map out every traitor and pedophile in America, going back 15
.
212
years. You have my memorandum on fixing intelligence. We can
put these people on a tight leash.
I have five other ideas that I wish to place in your service, but the
three above allow you to seize the initiative, mobilize the broad
voter base, harvest the data you need from NSA to triumph over
your enemies, and go into September as the single most
powerful US leader in modern history. The White House is
bugged six different ways, so all things being equal if you want to
meet me and William Binney, I urge you to invite us – along with
Roger Stone and Judge Napolitano – to see you at Mar-a-Lago.
With the utmost respect,
Robert David Steele
 Judicial Watch: Comey’s Home And Office Should Have
Been Raided By US Marshals Following Leak Confession
(VIDEO)
Cristina Laila
Jun 10th, 2017 11:56 Am

Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations were Attorney General, about 20 minutes

and Research for conservative after his confession today in front of the
watchdog group, Judicial Watch spoke Senate Intelligence Committee, Deputy
with Fox News’ Lou Dobbs Thursday U.S. Marshals would have raided his home
evening about Comey’s testimony. and office. As well as Mr. Richman at
Columbia Law School.

Those records and documents must be recovered. Mr.

Comey had no business releasing them. It’s an
extraordinary admission on his part. It’s lawless. We
wonder why we have leakers in the government when the
FBI Director is playing these little games for political
points or because his tender ego is bruised. This is
outrageous.

He took an oath to the Constitution and he’s betrayed it in

no uncertain terms.”

As TGP previously reported, Farrell told Dobbs, VIDEO:

“This is a case where FBI agents, recently

retired and actively serving have come to
me and they have told me that they
consider Comey to be a dirty cop.”

Farrell also told Dobbs:

“This admission today is stunning. I would

argue that Mr. Comey’s notes are property
of the United States government and that
he has absconded with them. Frankly if I
.

213
 Leaker James Comey
Offered $10 Million For Book Deal
Jim Hoft
Jun 10th, 2017 11:09 Am

Fired FBI Director James Comey has been offered $10
million to spill his secrets on Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump.
Publishers are reportedly scrambling to sign a book deal
with Comey. Hollywood is also reportedly lining up to get
the scoop.
“And what we saw this week–I’m shocked by this news, is
Jim Comey’s about to sign a $10 million book deal, right?”
It’s amazing how these guys go from government service
to multi-millionaires, and people wonder why Washington
is broken.”

President Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey

Lewandowski called James Comey a liar and was
disgusted by the news about publishers scrambling to sign
a book deal with Comey.

Lewandowski: “Don’t kid yourself, Jim Comey is a person

who has made a career, a very good career living in
Washington.”
.

214
 Trump Accuses Comey
Of Lying Under Oath
By Stephen Lendman
6-10-2017
Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz said Comey leaked
government information and “privileged communications”
to The NYT through his legal advisor, Columbia Law
Professor Daniel Richman.
“We will leave it the appropriate authorities
to determine whether this leak should be
investigated” as a possible criminal
violation, he said.
On Friday, Trump accused Comey of lying under oath
during his Senate Intelligence Committee testimony.
He denied saying he hoped Comey would “let go” of the
Michael Flynn investigation, or asked him to pledge
loyalty.
Asked if their conversations were taped, he
said he’d explain in “a short period of time,”
adding “(y)ou’re going to be very
disappointed.”
It’s unclear what he meant until he clarifies things. Did he
or did he not tape his face-to-face and phone conversations
with Comey - nine in all?
After he sacked the former FBI director, he cryptically
tweeted “James Comey better hope that there are no
‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the
press!”
If so, verified accurate and unaltered, as well as publicly
released, what they each said will be known. Otherwise it’s
the word of one party against the other. Neither has
credibility.
Leaking is a separate issue. Comey admitted it during
Senate testimony. Asked if he would testify under oath
about his version of what happened, Trump said “100
percent,” adding:
.
215
He’ll cooperate fully with special counsel
Robert Mueller, saying “I will be glad to tell
him exactly what” he just said.
This saga has a long way to go. Comey has media
scoundrel power on his side, denigrating Trump for the
wrong reasons, a very ugly situation, little likelihood of
positive resolution.
A Final Comment
Law Professor Jonathan Turley explained
“the greatest threat facing officials in a
scandal of this kind is a false statements
prosecution…”
“Given Trump’s notorious habit for going off
script, the risks of such a violation would be
much higher for counsel prepping him for
such a deposition or testimony.”
“(T)his is a criminal matter.” Any Trump
“exaggeration…evasion” or false
statements under oath constitute an
impeachable offense.
Under the Constitution’s Article I, perjury is a high crime
and misdemeanor, an impeachable offense.
If Trump/Comey conversations weren’t taped, the issue is
no more than a dispute between two parties, not a criminal
offense for either.
Whether Comey’s leak of privileged information to The
NYT through Law Professor Richman was unlawful is for
special counsel Robert Mueller to decide, and if
prosecution is warranted.
 The Fourth Turning:
Summer Of Rage And The Total Eclipse
Of The Deep State
By Michael Hart and StockBoardAsset
10 June, 2017
“If you do a worldwide survey of eclipse
lore, the theme that constantly appears,
with few exceptions, is it’s always a
disruption of the established order,” said E.
C. Krupp, director of the Griffith
Observatory in Los Angeles, California.
That’s true of both solar and lunar eclipses.
“People depend on the sun’s movement,”
Krupp said. “[It’s] regular, dependable, you
can’t tamper with it. And then, all of a
sudden, Shakespearean tragedy arrives
and time is out of joint. The sun and moon
do something that they shouldn’t be doing.”
On August 21st of this year, the United States will witness
its first total solar eclipse seen across the totality of the
country in nearly forty years. For millennia, humans have
gazed towards the skies in awe, observing that heavenly
bodies move regularly and predictably with mathematical
certainty, and this has inspired poets, philosophers, and
other thinkers to ruminate on man’s relationship to the
universe, and the possibility that human activity is ruled by
laws and patterns independent of human activity.
Although many of these ideas that were fashionable
hundreds of years ago, such as astrology, have been put to
rest by contemporary scientific knowledge, perhaps there
is value to be gleaned from entertaining the possibility that
there are indeed larger forces and patterns governing
human affairs. Against the backdrop of this cosmically
anomalous event, are we on the cusp of a more temporal
form of disruption this summer in the United States?
216
Since President Donald Trump’s stunning victory over
Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, much of
the press have made note of Steve Bannon’s interest in an
influential book published in 1997 called, “The Fourth
Turning: What Cycles of History Tell Us About
America’s Next Rendezvous With Destiny.”
In this book, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe make
the argument that our ideas about the nature of history,
linear time, and progress are illusory, and that if we want a
more accurate concept about the way that history unfolds,
we would do well to study the ancient Greek concept of
cyclical time. This concept views national and global
historical phenomenon not as randomly occurring events,
or the linear march of historical “progress,” but instead
sees them as recurring archetypes placed into a larger
tapestry of a greater repeating historical cycle.
According to Strauss and Howe, the relative geographic
and historical isolation of the United States provides a
unique opportunity to view this cycle unfolding regularly
and predictably every 80 years.
This 80-year cycle can be divided into four stages or
seasons, each lasting approximately twenty years:
1. High– This initial stage occurs immediately following a
period of crisis. The High is characterized by strong
institutions, a sense of collective destiny, and a
weakness of individuality. The most recent example of
this would be the period of prosperity and conformity in
the U.S. immediately following the conclusion of World
War II.
2. Awakening- The second stage, or turning, is a period of
questioning established values and asserting one’s
independence from established norms and morals, be
they spiritual or political. This stage may be seen as a
rebellion of the previous era’s emphasis on material
wealth and conformity. The 1960’s, with the
psychedelic revolution, anti-war protests, Civil Rights
marches, and New Age spiritual movements can be
seen as recent characteristics of this second stage, as
well as Reaganomics and the mid-1980s Wall Street
ethos.
 3. Unraveling- The emphasis on autonomy and the
questioning of spiritual, political, and individual
authority in the Awakening stage eventually
destabilizes society, leading to the Third Turning, in
which institutions are weak and untrusted while the
subjective experience of the individual is emphasized.
This stage can be thought of as the inverse of the initial
High stage, where collective destiny is replaced by
atomization. Recent symptom of this stage would be
the culture wars, corporate malfeasance, a lack of faith
in government, social justice movements, and political
correctness.
4. Crisis- In the Fourth Turning, a destabilizing event,
usually involving warfare, leads to the destruction and
reconstruction of institutions of power. In the face of
destruction, Americans are forced to unite and forge a
vision to restructure a disrupted society. This fourth
stage can be seen as the inverse of the Awakening
stage, and the authors cite World War II as the defining
event of the most recent period of Crisis.
Strauss and Howe predicted that the next Crisis period that
the U.S. would face would happen sometime around 2005
and end around 2025. Anyone who has been paying
attention over the last decade would have a difficult time
refuting this. The financial crisis of 2008 threw the planet
into discord, and we are now just beginning to see some of
the political ramifications of this. We may be reaching the
apex of this crisis this summer, or at least we will witness a
significant acceleration of it.
The institutions that once defined American stability are
rapidly crumbling. Mounting debt, unsustainable
consumerism, and illegal immigration are chipping away
at once sturdy foundation of America.
And the robust civil discourse needed to solve these
problems has been interrupted by advocates of social
justice, sometimes violently. Recent small skirmishes
between the two sides may be headed toward larger
eruptions.
Some analysts are predicting a ‘Summer of Rage’, which
will boil over in violent protests all across the United
.
217
States. The DNC has called for a George Soros-financed
‘Resistance Summer’, in which protestors are encouraged
to invade town halls, and organize rallies and
neighborhood meetings to undermine President Trump.
This will culminate in a national training being billed as a
‘Resistance Summer Camp’ to effectively train operatives
inorganizing strategies.
Meanwhile, other leftist groups are calling for a day of
‘Impeachment Marches’ on July 2nd in dozens of major
cities across the country. Their goal is to pressure
congressional representatives to begin impeachment
proceedings against President Trump.
Emboldened by a mainstream media apparatus which
functions as a mouthpiece of Deep State interests, these
activists are determined to overturn democratically elected
officials and overturn law and order on the grounds that
they personally disagree with the results.
As we have seen in recent months, Trump supporters,
conservatives, and other patriots are not afraid to confront
leftist activists in the streets, and this is likely to intensify
as these DNC-backed groups become more desperate and
confrontational in their tactics.
James Comey’s congressional testimony this week showed
that the Trump administration is indeed attempting to
break the old political order and its far-too-power Deep
State. The cracks are surfacing now, and this will likely
shatter and spill into many facets of social life outside of
the realm of politics.
This shattering seems to be the apex, or perhaps the
precursor to the major Crisis event described by Strauss
and Howe in the Fourth Turning, and it is proving to be a
global movement, as evidenced by the recent elections this
week in the United Kingdom.
As the Soros-backed DNC footsoldiers wreak havoc in
American cities this summer, and the old political order is
eclipsed by what is shaping up to be a much more
democratic order, we can expect these types of events to
increase in frequency as well as intensity.
 New York Times Contributor:
Comey's Testimony Like A Sexual Harassment Victim's
By P.J. Gladnick
June 10, 2017 2:36 PM EDT
A number of senators on both sides of the aisle wondered
during the June 8 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing
why its witness, former FBI Director James Comey, did
not react when President Donald Trump supposedly
indicated to him his desire to obstruct justice in the
Michael Flynn matter. The most obvious answer is that
Comey did not really feel there was an obstruction request
at the time especially since he never mentioned it during
his May 3 testimony. However, a very imaginative New
York Times opinion writer, Nicole Serratore, suggested the
real reason was that the 6' 8" Comey felt sexually harassed
by Trump.
Yes, poor Comey couldn't react to Trump at the time
because he felt sexually intimidated. It sounds like a
scenario straight out of a theatrical comedy and indeed
Serratore happens to be a theater critic which could explain
her June 8 drama queen analysis.
As I listened to James B. Comey, the
former F.B.I. director, tell the Senate
Intelligence Committee about his
personal meetings and phone calls with
President Trump, I was reminded of
something: the experience of a woman
being harassed by her powerful,
predatory boss.
There was precisely that sinister air of coercion, of an
employee helpless to avoid unsavory contact with an
employer who is trying to grab what he wants.
I tweeted about this Wednesday night, and immediately
heard from other women who had seen that narrative
emerge. How recognizable it was that Mr. Comey was
"stunned" to find himself in these potentially
compromising positions. His incredulity, mixed with
President Trump’s circling attempts to get his way, were
poignant. For a woman who has spent a lifetime wrestling
with situations where men have power they can abuse, this
was disturbingly familiar.
On Jan. 27, Mr. Comey received a last-minute dinner
invitation from the president, and then learned it would be
“just the two of us.” On Thursday, Mr. Comey revealed
that he had had to break a date with his wife in order to
dine with Mr. Trump. Already, something about this
“setup” made him “uneasy.”
218
The central business of this intimate dinner was Mr.
Trump’s insistence: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Mr.
Comey immediately recognized that this was a press for
something he did not want to give. He froze: “I didn’t
move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way
during the awkward silence that followed.”
That reaction — the choice of stillness, responses
calculated to neither encourage nor offend that
characterized so many of his dealings with Mr. Trump —
is so relatable for any woman.
During his testimony, Mr. Comey was
asked why he had not responded more
robustly, why he had not told Mr. Trump
that he, the president, was acting
inappropriately or reported his behavior
immediately to others in authority.
Ummm... Could it be the most obvious answer; that
Comey did not feel like he was being pressured at the
time? Naw! Forget that. Let us go with the hilariously
entertaining sexual harassment scenario in which 6' 8"
wilting flower Comey felt intimidated by the predatory
villain Trump.
The victim of sexual harassment is constantly haunted by
the idea that she said or did something that gave her
persecutor encouragement. Serial harassers, of course,
have an intuitive sense of this, and are skilled at
manipulating and exploiting it.
Mr. Comey, you are not alone. How many of us have
played over and over in our minds an encounter that
suddenly took a creepy, coercive turn? What did I say?
Were my signals clear? Did I do something ambiguous?
Did I say something compromising?
Mr. Comey, you go, girl!
Serratore continues to make her case for former top law
enforcement officer Comey as sexually harassed:
At a White House ceremony on Jan. 22,
Mr. Comey reportedly tried to blend in with
the curtains, so that he would not be
noticed by the president. Mr. Trump called
to him and pulled him, unwilling, into a hug.
What woman has not tried to remain
invisible from an unwelcome pursuer’s
attentions?
To this series of bizarre interactions, in which he faced
escalating pressure, Mr. Comey reacted with rising anxiety
and distress.
Time after time, Mr. Trump reverted to
his questionable agenda, and Mr.
Comey, at each pass, tried to parry the
president’s unwanted advances.
.
219
This dynamic with the president became so disturbing to
Mr. Comey that, after an Oval Office meeting in February,
he implored the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, “to prevent
any future direct communication between the president and
me.” Mr. Comey did not want to be left alone with his boss
again. We’ve been there, Jim.
Comey better hope that the preceding is not used as
evidence to have his man card revoked.
The funniest thing about the theme of James Comey as a
sexual harassment victim is that other media outlets are
now picking up on this in order to provide an excuse for
Comey's silence when he was supposedly being pressured
by President Trump. Some examples are USA Today with
Now James Comey knows how women feel
when the boss harasses them and Vox with
Why didn't he quit — or fight back?
Senators treated Comey like a sexual
harassment victim.
Exit question: Should James Comey file a sexual
harassment complaint with the EEOC?
 Biggest False Flag Operation
Since 9/11 Happening Right Now!
Deep State Determined To Go To War With Russia
Why Was The Comey “Show And Tell” Drama Even Staged?
By State Of The Nation
Posted On June 10, 2017
Critical questions that demand accurate answers:
Why did Comey even show up for the
intel hearing?
Because he was forced to by his
masters in Deep State.
Then why did Deep State trot Comey out
on stage to take such fierce fire from
every side?
Let’s be very real for a moment. James Comey had
absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose by
showing up last Thursday. In fact, by exposing himself to
the Senate Intelligence Committee he lost so much
credibility that he will never recover.
Not only was Comey completely destroyed professionally
— by the senators as well as by himself — he will never
work in government again. His stunning self-
incriminations were so damning that he may never work
again in law enforcement. Of course, there is always a
place in Deep State waiting for him. James B. Comey:
Primo Agent of Deep State
So why did his masters in Deep State set him up?
Because this was their last chance to use the authority of
the nation’s top law enforcement officer to ‘validate’ their
fabricated story about the fake “Russian election hack”.
In Comey, Deep State saw their last chance to milk the
fake story about Russia for all that they could by using an
FBI director who was supposedly privy to all the contrived
evidence. Even though Comey would be put on the firing
line both professionally and personally, it was more
important that he was used to significantly advance the
fabricated narrative about Russia—which he did in stellar
fashion.
220
In view of the Trump presidency, Deep State saw Comey
as their last opportunity to use the power, influence and
gravitas of the FBI Directorship to smear Russia. And
Comey’s every response reflected his eager willingness to
further promote the bogus Russian conspiracy to hack the
2016 election.
— End of Story —
Notes from the intel hearing:
Virtually all the senators used some part of his or her
cross-examination time to ask Comey about the fictitious
Russian ‘invasion’. In each and every case Comey lit up
like a Christmas tree with a big and loud affirmative—
“Yes!”, he affirmed, Russia did exactly what the senators
asked about. There was never a moment of hesitation or
doubt on the part of cocksure Comey.
According to Comey’s testimony, he confirmed that
 Russia attacked American democracy,
 Russia hacked the 2016 presidential election,
 Russia undermined the U.S. electoral process,
 Russia’s hacking of the voting system may have
affected the outcome,
 Russian hackers invaded America’s election
machinery,
 Russian attacked the American way of life at the
direction of the Kremlin, etc.
In no case did Comey even present an iota of evidence to
support his claims. At no time did he point to any proof
that Russia perpetrated a single act of hacking. All Comey
did was shake his head in agreement with every intel
member who inquired about Russia’s pre-determined guilt.
However, his telling posture throughout the entire hearing
was one of deception and duplicity.
What’s The Real Point Of This Ongoing Psyop?
It’s a HUGE False Flag Operation!
There are actually many purposes behind the ridiculous
false allegations against Russia. First and foremost,
however, is the objective of using this transparent false
flag operation as a means to justify war against Russia.
See the link below:
CONFIRMED: DNC paid the ‘Russian’
founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server
so it could be blamed on Russia!
Deep State knows that We the People are wise to their
many false flag attacks over the decades that were carried
out to start or escalate their unprovoked wars of
aggression. They are especially aware that the Internet has
radically changed the global playing field. Hence, they
came up with a new non-violent form of false flag
operation—the fake election hack.
By falsely accusing Russia of attacking American
democracy, the agents of Deep State intend to rally so
many more U.S. citizens to their misguided plan of war
with Russia. This is why they made such a dog and pony
show out of Comey. His juvenile responses and unproven
statements about Russia were all they really wanted from
him. He was like a kid in grammar school — a real
brown-noser — who would do and say ANYTHING
whatsoever to please his teachers, the equally deceitful
senators.
Comey sacrificed
Comey had no choice but to show up at the intel hearing.
And he was obviously ordered to really ham it up, which
he did in classic Comey style. At the end of the day, he
was knocked down so much and bloodied so badly that he
will be on life support for the rest of his political life.
In light of his numerous high crimes and misdemeanors, he
actually did as well as he possibly could. Given the depth
and breadth of the high-level criminal activity that he has
covered up throughout his career, he was quite lucky to
come out of it out alive.
It’s clear that his strategy was to ‘innocently’ admit as
much wrongdoing as possible so as to deflate those
adversarial Senate inquisitors who might compel the DOJ
toward indictment.
Comey is now so indictable it must terrify him, especially
in light of his self-proclaimed cowardice. It does,
however, take a certain amount of courage to even admit
such fears in the biggest public forum on Earth.
221
World War III
The fallacious Russian narrative, particularly where it
concerns the 2016 presidential election, was manufactured
in the bowels of Deep State. Phonies like Hillary Clinton
and John Podesta both used the DNC to further
disseminate the fake story far and wide as an excuse for
their monumental loss. In this way Democrat hatred
toward Russia and Putin was greatly intensified by
purposeful design.
This engineered predicament by the Zio-Anglo-American
Axis[1] has been further exacerbated by a coordinated
international effort to further prosecute Russia for other
false flag attacks. Since Putin asserted Russian
independence from Deep State, he has been demonized
like no other world leader since Hitler. Initially, this
campaign of personal and political destruction was
undertaken to keep Russia and the European Union from
forming a natural economic partnership. Preventing a
political alliance between Russia and Germany was Deep
State‘s top priority.
That priority, however, with the unexpected election of
Donald Trump, has shifted to keeping the United States
and Russia apart. There is only one thing more dangerous
to the Anglo-American hegemon than a Russo-German
pact; that would be a real peace deal agreed to by Trump
and Putin. This prospect would dash any hope of
maintaining the perpetual war economy that the
international banksters have implemented for centuries.
STRATFOR Chief Reveals Zio-Anglo-American Plot For
World Domination
Hence, the pattern of staging false flag terror attacks and
blaming them on Russia (and her BRICS allies) will
continue until there is a sufficient degree of Russophobia
generated worldwide to goad the community of nations
into the hot phase of World War III. The agents of Deep
State are now working 24/7 to implement the final phase
of the New World Order agenda. Establishing a One
World Government is their ultimate goal just as they used
the First and Second World Wars to form the League of
Nations and United Nations, respectively.
Conclusion
This whole sordid saga is quickly coming to its
denouement.
Will the USA and Russia go the way of a Trump-Putin
accord and toward an enduring entente? Or will the
relationship be further sabotaged in the direction of discord
and more war?
The very fragile (and imperceptible) detente that Trump
and Putin have somehow kept in place can be torpedoed in
the blink of an eye by Deep State chicanery. Therefore, it
is crucial for those who stand watch over the affairs of
humanity to avert all future false flag terrorist attacks.
Each one serves as yet another justification to instigate a
Third World War. Who is really behind all the false flag
terrorism?
The remainder of 2017 will surely bring many new twists
and turns in the relationship between Russia and America.
The ongoing moves and maneuvers on the global
geopolitical chess board will precipitously increase and
intensify after August 21st. Come September 23rd, the
whole world will know that either a durable peace will
prevail or that the warmongers have won the day.
September 23rd, 2017: A Day of Epochal Demarcation
Follows a Total Solar Eclipse
Therefore, it has never been so important to expose the
Deep State for the treasonous entity that it truly is. And, to
reveal their treacherous schemes and perfidious plots at
every turn. In this way the globalists will be
disempowered; and their New World Order will be
thwarted with finality.
Think of it this way: If the Alt Media had saturated the
blogosphere with warnings of the 9/11 false flag terror
attacks PRIOR to September 11, 2001, could they have
still pulled it off? And pulled down WTC Building #7 and
gotten away with it?
You know the answer. So, let’s get busy!
State of the Nation
June 10, 2017

Editor’s Note
While Deep State is determined to start World War III, We the People can be more determined to prevent it. Whereas the
warmongering wealthy elites really do need to hide their multi-decade crime spree of manipulating the GE&FS to their unceasing
advantage, the citizenries of all nations now face existential threats. Therefore, it’s increasingly urgent for the populace to take back
their power from their federal government. The US government, for example, works only for Deep State, and therefore it must be
reformed post-haste. Otherwise, things will be much more difficult to manage for the ordinary people after the engineered collapse.
Jim Rogers Warns Next Crisis Will Be “Biggest In My Lifetime”
Source
[1] Anglo-American Axis (AAA)
The Anglo-American Axis is represented, first and foremost, by the major English-speaking countries of the world: USA, UK,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. The European member nations of NATO, such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are also closely aligned with the AAA as are all the Scandinavian countries. So
are the Asian Pacific Rim nations of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan,
Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar also owe their allegiance to the AAA but some of these may be changing
(shown in red). The World Shadow Government is an ultra-secret, supranational organization which completely controls the Anglo-
American Axis, as well as the European Union, NATO, among many other institutional entities which constitute the Global Control
Matrix.
(Source: Vladimir Putin’s Russia: Perfect Foil To The Anglo-American Axis And Their New World ‘Order’)

222
 Andrew McCarthy on Fox: 'There Is No Obstruction,'
But Comey Is Now Trying to Invent It
By Tom Blumer
June 10, 2017 11:20 PM EDT

Recent NewsBusters posts have shown how the hysterical "What should we look for?" in the Thursday
establishment press wants the American people, against all hearing:
factual evidence, to believe that President Donald Trump
obstructed justice in his conversations with James Comey.

Transcript (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Former federal prosecutor and prolific national security ANDREW MCCARTHY: Well, I think the
columnist Andrew McCarthy, in Wednesday and Thursday main thing, Tucker, that has really
appearances on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show, made confused people about the discussion over
several argument-ending points on that issue, and also the last week is the idea that pressure
essentially alleged that the former FBI director has and obstruction of justice are the same
engaged in serious and arguably illegal misconduct. thing. And they're clearly not.
Actually, if you look at what former Director
On Wednesday, before Comey testified but with the Comey said in his testimony, the case that
transcript of his expected testimony already public, there was obstruction of justice is much
McCarthy explained that "putting pressure on a worse today than it was yesterday, and I
subordinate is not obstruction of justice." actually didn't think there was any case
yesterday.
The full segment is here (HT American Thinker). It begins But I think what people need to
with a replay of Comey's May 3 Senate Judiciary understand is putting pressure on a
Committee testimony that subordinate is not obstruction of
justice. The key element of obstruction
"it has not happened in my experience" that of justice is corruption, so if you don't
"we were told to stop something for political have pressure that is motivated by
reasons." Carlson, in his segment corruption, there is no obstruction. And
introduction, then noted that Comey also the president has as much authority or
said, in Carlson's words, that "the President more to exercise prosecutorial
never tried to improperly influence him." discretion as any of the subordinates he
(Then what's all the excitement about has who are U.S. Attorneys or FBI
"obstruction" about, for heaven's sake?) agents across the country.

The excerpt below, constituting roughly the middle half of So I think to the extent that these two concepts have been
the full segment, begins after Carlson finished introducing conflated it's important to separate them. Pressure is not
McCarthy. He asked then asked him, obstruction.

223
TUCKER CARLSON: So by discretion, you mean he
doesn't have to sit passively by while people who work for
him run these investigations? He can attempt to influence
them?
MCCARTHY: Well, he certainly can, but what I mean by
discretion is, in the United States attorneys' offices all
across the country every day, prosecutors dismiss cases
even though they could be prosecuted for a variety of
reasons. They weigh the equities and they decide whether
a case ought to be brought or not.
If you look at what Trump is alleged to
have done here, he went through the
calculus that's very much like what a
prosecutor does in a normal case.
He said, okay, here's is what they are accusing this guy of,
evidently false statements, but on the opposite side of the
ledger, he didn't do anything inappropriate with Russia.
He's already been laid low. I had to fire him yesterday.
He's already been humiliated. Enough is enough.
Now you may not agree with that, but
it's not corrupt. And it's the kind of
calculus that happens all the time in the
exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
McCarthy returned after Comey's actual testimony on
Thursday. The full segment is here.
The excerpt below follows an introductory clip from the
hearing where, in response to a senator's question, Comey
said that
"I don't think it's for me to say whether
the conversation I had with the
President was an effort to obstruct."
McCarthy then politely but effectively lit into the former
FBI director with serious allegations:
Transcript:
224
ANDREW MCCARTHY: I think his testimony as it
unfolds undermines the obstruction case.
But what I found disturbing is kind of
what looks to be like a post hoc attempt
to construct an obstruction case that
wasn't there in the first instance.
So to be more clear about that, I think that if you listen to
his story, there's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of
corrupt behavior. The president's allowed to influence the
executive branch.
So all the problems we discussed last
night are still there, and the case isn't
there.
But here’s what he did. He said in the clip that you just
played,
"it was not my place to decide whether
that was obstruction."
Yes, it was! You know, right there and
then. There's nobody in America that
knows the law of obstruction of justice
better than Jim Comey does. He was a top
prosecutor and top cop and federal cop in
America, you know, for the better part of
his professional career. And in the Justice
Department and in all these jobs, if you
are asked to do something that's illegal
or unethical or immoral, your choice is
to resign or carry out the order. Your
choice is not to say, "Well, you know, I
really don’t know what that was about."
And I was quite startled to hear him say
that he knew, he now suddenly is taking
this to be that he was being told to
dismiss the case, not just that Trump was
saying that he hoped that he would see the
Flynn case his way. And that he
disobeyed the order as he understood it
intentionally, which is something you're
never ever supposed to do. That's
insubordination.
Comey is attempting to build an after-the-fact obstruction
case which directly contradicts the May testimony. This
would mean that either his May testimony or his current
revision of history is false and therefore perjurious. And
yes, as McCarthy noted, the story change on obstruction
would mean that Comey was insubordinate in defying
what he now claims was an "order."
Despite the huge problems McCarthy identified in
Comey's testimony, the establishment media's presumption
that Donald Trump has somehow done something illegal
persists, even though virtually the entire foundation for
such a belief involves relying on a former FBI director
who has almost completely changed his tune on perceived
obstruction in the space of just five weeks, and even
though reliance on his new story invariably involves
tagging him as an insubordinate surrogate who, as lawyer
Alan Dershowitz sees it, demonstrated cowardice in using
someone else to illegally leak information to the press.
Several press reports cited in previous NewsBusters posts
have pushed the hope, disguised as fact, that Comey's
testimony, again despite all factual and legal evidence,
somehow built or strengthened the case for obstruction:
 In one of two items discussed Thursday, Scott Whitlock
caught the Washington Post declaring that James
.
225
Comey "laid out the case that President Trump
obstructed justice." Except, as Whitlock drily noted
(and as discussed earlier), "He didn't say that."
 On Friday, Alex Xenos noted that CNN's Jeffrey Toobin
contended that “it’s even clearer that this is a case of
obstruction of justice” after the Comey testimony.
Whitlock's reaction to what has transpired:
"journalists ... hear what they want to hear."
It's also quite obvious that they only report what they want
to report, and are deliberately avoiding and marginalizing
experienced people like Andrew McCarthy with
objectively deep and genuine knowledge of these matters.
 Dobbs, FBI Asst Dir Kallstrom – Comey Conspired With
Lynch To Cover For Clinton
By Rick Wells
Posted On June 10, 2017
Former Assistant Director of the FBI James Kallstrom
joins Lou Dobbs for a discussion of the Comey mess and
what he thinks is really going on at that agency. Dobbs
addresses the
“extraordinary hearing in which we found
out, the former director confessing, that he
was leaking information to the New York
Times through a conduit, if you will, a
Columbia law professor by the name of
Daniel Richmond, and at the same time
portraying himself as a weak, frankly
cowardly leader of the most storied law
enforcement agency in this country’s
history.”
Dobbs says,
“I mean it was quite a performance. And
then we hear the national left-wing media,
you would have thought that there was sort
of a draw in that, when it was clearly a
disaster for James Comey.” Kallstrom
replies, “Yeah, that fifth column is really
strong and getting stronger. The facts are
irrelevant to them.”
Kallstrom says,
“I’ve talked about Comey for a while and I
don’t do that with any glee. After first
226
endorsing the rank and file agents as being
great, he notes that the leadership is
suspect, making what he generously
describes as “foolish mistakes.” He mocks
Comey for the “flutters in his stomach” and
his having to write the memo detailing his
conversation with the President. Kallstrom
asks if Comey felt the same need to write a
memo following the meeting between Bill
Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix
tarmac, “apparently not. ” He asks, “Did he
write a memo when the prosecutor memo
came over to the FBI and said ‘you can’t
call it an investigation…you have to call it a
matter and by the way, you can’t have a
grand jury. Did he write a memo then? I
don’t think so, at least he didn’t say he did.”
He asks if Comey wrote a memo when the IRS was
bullying innocent Americans, and asks why did the FBI
get involved in interviews at the time – for what purpose
and what were the various outcomes? Not only did he not
stand up for those people, Dobbs points out that Comey
simply rolled over when Loretta Lynch. He asks Kallstrom
if he’s wrong, but without a grand jury the Clinton
investigation is not an investigation. Kallstrom agrees,
saying
“Exactly,” and “that’s the day, Lou, that he
should have stood up, and resigned as the
FBI Director and told the American people
why he was resigning.”
Kallstrom continues,
“Because you do not conduct an
investigation without subpoena power,
without compelling testimony, without
serving search warrants. There was so
much evidence against Hillary Clinton they
didn’t even need it, they had trainloads of
stuff and he read that off in the pros
memo, you know, that talked about all that.
 And then with that silly conclusion, that absence of any questions about the unmasking scandal.
obviously he had conspired with the They also note the longtime friendship and professional
Attorney General. She said she was going relationship of Comey and Mueller and the likely crimes of
to go with whatever he said he wanted to IRS Commissioner Koskinen, who somehow still retains
do.” that position, what Dobbs describes as one of the great
mysteries of the Trump administration. Kallstrom asks,
Kallstrom continues to describe the reasons he believes
Comey is a dirty cop including the decision to let Clinton “What is going on in Washington?”
off on her racketeering operation, the Clinton Foundation,
which Kallstrom said he believes is a RICO case. They
also discuss the cover up engaged in by the Senators in the
hearings.

Dobbs asks Kallstrom what his reaction was to them

playing as if they’re in some sort of Broadway play, don’t
respond to the facts and instead continue the fiction of the
Russia-Trump narrative. Kallstrom said he was listening to
the hearings on the radio and it was all BS, aside from
some questioning from Marco Rubio he said he couldn’t
tell who were the Republicans and who were the
Democrats. He said it was disgraceful and pointed to the
.

227
 Did James Comey Cover Up
A Massive And Illegal FBI-CIA Spying Operation?
Whistleblower Says CIA Spied On Supreme Court Justices, Trump, And
20 Million Other Americans Using FBI Computers
By Kathryn Blackhurst
Updated 10 Jun 2017 At 9:44 PM

The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering whether to Americans, can you imagine that kind of
subpoena former FBI Director James Comey to appear power?"
before the committee following his testimony before the
Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. He initially
had refused a request to testify to the Judiciary Committee.

Should Comey appear before the Judiciary Committee, he

may be asked about his disclosure that he gave a “close
friend” memos detailing his meetings with President
Donald Trump. But he may also face questions about the
bombshell lawsuit, filed Monday by a former U.S.
intelligence contractor, that accused the FBI and CIA of
illegally spying on millions of Americans, including
Donald Trump, and accuses Comey of covering it up.

Dennis Montgomery, the former contractor, reportedly
passed his findings on to the FBI and is now alleging that
the intelligence agencies buried the follow-up
investigation, according to a report from Circa.
The former contractor's suit attempts to prove there was a
"pattern and practice" of conducting "illegal,
unconstitutional surveillance" of millions of Americans,
including Supreme Court justices, 156 federal judges,
prominent businessmen, and others such as Donald Trump,
as well as the plaintiffs themselves.
Montgomery claims that he obtained 600 million pages of
classified documents contained on 47 hard drives detailing
how the FBI surveilled millions of Americans —on a far
larger scale than whistleblower Edward Snowden
uncovered.
"This domestic surveillance was all being
done on computers supplied by the FBI,"
Montgomery told Circa. "So these
supercomputers, which are FBI computers,
the CIA is using them to do domestic
surveillance."
"They're doing this domestic surveillance
on Americans, running a project on U.S.
soil," Montgomery continued. "Can you
imagine what someone can do with the
information they were collecting on
228
In his lawsuit, Montgomery claims that
"plaintiffs were assured that the FBI, under
defendant Comey, would conduct a full
investigation into the grave instances of
illegal and unconstitutional activity set forth
by Montgomery."
"However, the FBI, on defendant Comey’s
orders, buried the FBI’s investigation
because the FBI itself is involved in an
ongoing conspiracy to not only conduct the
aforementioned illegal, unconstitutional
surveillance, but to cover it up as well," the
suit alleges.
Both Montgomery and his lawyer, Larry Klayman, the
founder of Judicial Watch, also say they believe that they
were improperly spied on by the intelligence agencies in
question, and their lawsuit includes NSA Director Mike
Rogers, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former
President Barack Obama as defendants.
Montgomery and Klayman say they hope that the Senate
committees will press Comey for the truth in all areas,
whether they pertain to Trump, Russia, or mass
surveillance.
"So they're all covering it up because if it
comes out, they may wind up getting
 indicted and convicted and thrown in
prison, and that's the story here," Klayman
told One America News on Friday. "But no
one wants to talk about that with Comey.
They just want to have him go in there and
lie and say that the president obstructed
justice because they all have it in for
Trump, the Democrats, and the
Republicans."
.
229
"And it's now clear that Obama was
directing a political campaign to use our
own intelligence services to gather
information to help his administration and
to help Hillary Clinton get elected,"
Klayman added. "And the intelligence
agencies in this country who are trying to
destroy Trump and his presidency right
now are more powerful than the president
himself."
 Even Politico Forced To Admit That Comey Violated FBI
Policy And May Have Broken Federal Laws
By Daniel Higdon
Published June 10, 2017 · Updated June 11, 2017

Even the libs are now forced to face the facts that Comey’s
leak was potentially a crime and definitely against FBI
policies. Of course Politico still had to twist the story to try
and put Comey in the best light. Just look at the headline…
History on Comey’s side as Trump brands him a
‘leaker‘
Comey’s disclosures may have violated
bureau policies, and could lead to him
being rebuked by the FBI or Justice
Department. But agencies have little other
recourse against former employees in
these circumstances, legal experts said.
A finding that Comey breached FBI rules could do some
damage to his reputation. However, there’s no history of
cases like this being prosecuted criminally, lawyers said.
“For Comey, the greatest danger is not one
of criminality, but of credibility,” said
George Washington University law
professor Jonathan Turley. “What Comey
did was grossly unprofessional. He
actually, in my, view, hampered the
investigation.”
FBI policy does appear to prohibit
former employees from disclosing work-
related records without advance
clearance from the law enforcement
agency.
“All information created and acquired by
current and former employees … in
connection with official FBI duties, as well
as all official material to which FBI
personnel have access, is the property of
the United States,” FBI policy says. “FBI
personnel must surrender all materials in
their possession that contain FBI
information upon FBI demand or upon
separation from the FBI.”
The FBI’s standard employment agreement reads:
“I will not reveal, by any means, any
information or material from or related to
FBI files or any other information acquired
by virtue of my official employment to any
unauthorized recipient without prior official
written authorization by the FBI.”
<snip>
“I would be astonished if the FBI supported
Comey in terms of his handling of this
information … If they accepted this, you
would have a virtual collapse of a wide
array of regulations governing
dissemination of information.”
Several federal criminal laws could potentially apply,
including some that prohibit disclosure of various types of
classified information. However, Comey insists the memos
he shared are unclassified.
Judicial Watch: Comey’s Home and Office Should
Have Been Raided by US Marshals Following Leak
Confession (VIDEO)
“This admission today is stunning. I would
argue that Mr. Comey’s notes are property
of the United States government and that
he has absconded with them. Frankly if I
were Attorney General, about 20 minutes
after his confession today in front of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, Deputy
U.S. Marshals would have raided his home

230
and office. As well as Mr. Richman at Bill O’Reilly explains that Comey is in trouble for leaking
Columbia Law School.

231
 REPORT: Everything You Need To Know About Comey &
His Deep State History
By DCwhispers
Posted On June 10, 2017

(Photos Added As Part Of This Report)

administration from the start. He is as dirty as they come in
DC. He had highest-level cover (the FBI no less) and was
deep into an effort to eliminate Trump. Trump had to move
hard, fast, and at exactly the right time to cut the head off
the snake without getting bitten by the snake or being
finished by the other swamp denizens.

————————–

BEGIN OP

There are very few crime/mystery novels that approach

this true story for compelling drama, intrigue and
brinkmanship (with the nation in the balance).
Begin by noticing how the President fired Comey when
Don’t believe the fake-media story that Trump made a Comey was 3,000 miles away from his office, that Comey
mistake or huge gaffe by firing Comey. had no inkling he was being cut, that all his files,
computers, and everything in his office were seized by his
boss Sessions and the justice department.
Don’t believe the media narrative from the left that it was
an attempt to silence Comey from some investigation into
Trump.

Don’t believe the RINO narrative that Comey is a good

guy just trying to do his job in terrible circumstances and
the timing was bad.

Don’t believe the lie that Comey was admired and

respected by career FBI investigators and agents.

Don’t believe the lie that Trump’s “tweets” are not

professional and have no strategic purpose. His tweets are
‘weaponized’ and deadly.
James Comey is a poisonous snake of the highest order…
a deep-water Swamp Denizen who has been highly paid to
deliberately provide cover for high-level corruption by the
Clintons and Obama. He is has been central to trying to
destroy the Trump campaign and then the Trump
232
This was not a violation of protocol, it was tactical. Notice
how Prez Trump compartmentalized the strike and did not
inform any of his White House “staff” to prevent leaks.
Notice how he emasculated Comey and the swamp
denizens by letting them know in a tweet that the Attorney
General got information (surveillance “tapes” from the
seizure of Comey’s office) to let Comey and his handlers
know that Trump’s DOJ has the goods on them. This was a
brilliant, strategic and totally imperative move at exactly
the right time against horrible, evil and corrupt powers
infesting our government. The swamp is on notice that the
President is on to them, they are sweating bullets because
their criminal games of corruption are being pursued and
they know it. They are screaming and ranting because they
are desperate denizens of the swamp who are beginning to
realize they are roadkill.
THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
ABOUT THE COMEY SCAM. Taken from
credible public sources (readily
available if you want to look or want me
to sent them to you), with a few
reasonable “fill in the blank”
conclusions of my own.
The Highlights:
Comey was a minor assistant US attorney in the late 90’s.
He only gained power and money by being the DOJ
official who “investigated” and cleared Bill Clinton of any
wrong-doing in Clinton’s totally corrupt pardon (for huge
payoffs) of criminal financier Marc Rich as Clinton was
leaving the Presidency. This is how Comey began his
career as a creature of the “swamp” years ago, as a servant
of the Clintons.
Comey provided “cover” for the Clintons in their gaining
incredible power and wealth after leaving office through
pardoning a billionaire money-launderer, arms dealer and
criminal. Comey was a key piece in how the Clintons
upped their corruption game and gained incredible wealth
through their foundation after leaving the White House.
A huge part of the scheme was giving Marc Rich a free
pass when he should have spent life in prison, and that is
what Comey covered-up for the Clintons. This set up
Comey to be part of the corruption machine, making him
powerful and wealthy.
Immediately after doing the Clinton’s dirty work as a DOJ
official, Comey resigned from the DOJ and took a position
as the head attorney (Counsel) of the Lockheed Martin
company, a huge military contractor. While he was in that
position Lockheed became a major contributor (millions)
to the Clinton Foundation and its fake charity spin-offs. In
return for these payment to Clinton Inc., Lockheed
received huge contracts with Hillary’s state department.
Comey was the chief legal officer of Lockheed throughout
this period of contributions to Clinton Inc. in return for
State Dept. contracts.
In late 2012, after overseeing Lockheed’s successful
relationship with the Hillary State Department and the
resulting profits, Comey stepped down from Lockheed and
received a $6 million dollar payout for his services.
233
In 2013, the largest bank of England, HSBC Holdings, was
deep into a scandal. Investigations by federal authorities
and law-enforcement had revealed that for years HSBC
had been laundering billions of dollars for Mexican Drug
Cartels, channeling money for Saudi banks who were
financing terror, moving money for Iran in violation of the
sanctions, and other major criminal activity.
HSBC’s criminality was pervasive and deliberate by the
Bank and its officials. HSBC was a huge Clinton
Foundation contributor (many millions) throughout the
“investigation” and Bill Clinton was being paid large
personal fees for speaking at HSBC events (while Hillary
was Sec of State). Eric Holder and the Obama Justice
Department did what they were paid to do, and let HSBC
off of the hook for a paltry 1.2 Billion dollar fine (paid by
its stockholders), and not one Director, officer or
management member at HSBC was fired or charged with
any criminal.
Exactly when everyone involved with HSBC Bank
(including the Clintons and all of their “donors”) were
being let off without penalty, and cover had to be provided
to HSBC, Comey was appointed as a Director and Member
of the Board of HSBC (in the middle of the fallout from
the scandal). He was part of the effort to cover up the
scandal and make HSBC “respectable” again.
After about a year as HSBC director, despite his lack of
any law enforcement experience, no DOJ leadership
experience, and no qualifications for the job, Comey was
appointed FBI director by Obama.
The only qualification Comey had was that the Clinton’s
and their cronies knew Comey was in bed with them, was
compromised and was willing to do their dirty work.
Comey was appointed to the FBI right when Hillary was
leaving the State Department, and was vulnerable to the
FBI because she had been using a private-server, mis-
handling classified information, selling access to
favors/contracts from the State Department to Clinton
Foundation Donors (including Comey’s Lockheed Martin),
and much more.
Remember that this was about the time the Inspector
General of the State Department found over 2 billion
“missing” from the State Department finances during
Hillary’s tenure.
The obvious conclusion is that Comey was appointed to
the FBI (along with other reliable Clinton-Obama cronies)
to run interference for the Clinton’s and Obama’s at the
nation’s federal law enforcement agency (in conjunction
with a corrupt Department of Justice). Comey was and is
owned by the Clintons. He owed all of his power and
wealth to being part of their machine and providing them
with cover.
In late 2015 and early 2016, information began to come
out about the Clinton Foundation and its use by the
Clinton’s as a multi-billion dollar slush fund for corruption
and political favors (even Chelsea’s wedding had been
paid for by the “charity.)
This was right as Hillary was beginning her campaign for
President. It was revealed that the Foundation had never
completed required reports or had an audit. Supposedly the
FBI, under Comey, began an “investigation” of the Clinton
Funds. A “professional” accounting firm was brought in by
the Clintons to do a review, file some reports, make
recommendations to the Clinton Foundation Board, and
provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Clinton Fund
operations. Predictably, one of the partners in the firm that
was chosen (and paid lots of money) is the brother of
James Comey (FBI Director).
This brother owes James Comey $700,000 for a loan
James gave him to buy a house, and presumably some of
the money from the Clinton Fund was used to make
payments to James on the loan. Over 2 years later and
nothing has happened as a result of the FBI “investigating”
the Clinton Funds under Comey.
No one in congress or federal law enforcement was
intending to actually pursue the Clintons, but Judicial
Watch and other independent sources obtained information
proving that Hillary had been running her own server,
sending out classified information, etc. This information
began to come out right in the middle of her campaign to
be coronated as President. A “show” investigation had to
be performed to appear to look into it and clear her. Who
to use?…the reliable shill James Comey.
As head of the FBI, Comey (and his lackeys in key
positions) deliberately screwed up the investigation into
Hillary’s use of a private server and her plain violation of
national security law on classified information. The
investigation was deliberately mis-handled in every aspect.
 Comey gave immunity to all of Hillary’s lackeys
 Did not use subpoenas or warrants *
 Lost evidence
234
 Allowed the destruction of evidence
 Failed to do any searches or seizures of evidence
 Did not use a grand-jury *
 Did not swear witnesses
 Did not record testimony
 Allowed attorneys to represent multiple suspects
(corrupting the testimony).
(My note: around the time / after this OP
was made – it was revealed a Grand Jury
and subpoenas were used but I have no
idea in what manner as I haven’t
researched fully – we’ve know some
people were issued subpoenas but I don’t
know the extent and who was and wasn’t
served. Grand jury info just came out
April/May 2017. )
Everything that could be done to ruin the FBI investigation
and to cover for Hillary was done. A “slam-dunk” case
became a mess. Immunity was given every witness even
though they provided no help.
Maybe more importantly, by focusing the FBI on the email
scandal, attention was drawn away from the much bigger
scandal of the Clinton Foundation that could bring down a
huge number of corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and even
governments.
Originally, Comey’s job was simply to totally botch the
Hillary investigation and ruin the case against her and her
minions within the FBI regarding he emails. At the same
time Comey also started work on a parallel assignment to
illegally “wiretap” and surveil Donald Trump and every
other person involved in the Republican campaign. He was
tasked with digging up any dirt or fact that could be used
to hurt the Trump campaign later.
This included using a fake “dossier” paid for by the
Clinton campaign to obtain authorization for the
surveillance and to try to associate Trump’s campaign with
the Russians. Under Comey’s direction the
Trump/republican campaign was monitored and surveilled
and all information was provided to the Obama
Whitehouse and the Clinton camp all during the campaign.
Lorretta Lynch was supposed to complete the cover-up for
Hillary as Attorney General by issuing a finding that the
deliberately botched FBI “investigation” did not justify
prosecution of Hillary. But someone screwed up and Bill
Clinton was video’d meeting with Loretta Lynch in
Arizona shortly before she was supposed to make her
decision on Hillary (interference with a federal
investigation), and Lynch could no longer credibly squash
the Hillary scandal.
The solution, give the job to James. The Clinton’s owned
him and he would have to do whatever is necessary to
provide cover. Comey goes on national TV and violates
every rule of the FBI, the Justice Department and
American law enforcement by revealing some of the FBI’s
“evidence” of what Hillary did (enough to make it look
like the FBI and Comey did some investigation), then
declaring that there was no “intent” and clearing Hillary.
He did what he was ordered to do. The Justice Department
and Obama backed Comey’s cover-up and it looked like
Hillary had survived the scandal.
Then, right before the election, the NYPD obtained pervert
Anthony Wiener’s laptop and found classified emails from
Hillary on the laptop. The NYPD began leaking details to
new-media outlets, and the story was about to explode.
Comey once again stepped in to cover Hillary. He short-
circuited the NYPD leaks by publicly acknowledging the
laptop and the emails, but then claimed just days later that
hundreds of thousands of emails had all been reviewed and
“nothing new” was on the laptop. Once again, he had done
his job. Providing cover and FBI “protection” for Hillary
on the newest scandal when it broke.
The surveillance of the Trump campaign is continued after
he is elected, all participants are “unmasked” illegally, and
the transcripts are leaked throughout the government and
to the media.
When General Flynn appropriately calls Russian officials
on behalf of Trump, they brush off the old fake “dossier”
and all of the surveillance of the campaign, and Comey
creates the “Russian Conspiracy” investigation.
With help by RINO swamp kingpin and warmonger sell-
out McCain, the fake “Russian pee dossier” is leaked to the
press. There is no actual evidence of any collusion or
connection between Trump or his campaign with Russia,
but that does not prevent Comey from initiating an
“investigation” at the FBI. This provides Comey with
protection from Trump firing him immediately.
235
Comey (or his minions) constantly leak news of the
“Russia Investigation” to the media, and the media does its
scripted part by screaming constantly about “Russia.” The
Democrats fill their role and constantly scream about
“Russia.” McCain and the RINO establishment do their
part by promising to “investigate” how the Russians
influenced the campaign.
Immediately after Trump is sworn in, the DOJ
Hillary/Obama operatives and Comey start the direct
attack. This is before Sessions has been appointed to the
Department of Justice and the DOJ is still controlled by
Obama operatives.
DOJ Obama appointee Sally Yates approaches the
Whitehouse with news that General Flynn had been in
contact with Russia and alleges that he might be
compromised. She reveals that there is an FBI
“investigation” into the Russia ties (which they are
constantly leaking to the media themselves). The White
House Counsel (who Yates talks to, not Trump) asks for
some more information.
This is a two-pronged attack. It protects Comey and DOJ
democrat holdovers from being terminated by the new
administration because they are involved in an “ongoing
investigation” that they control the timetable on (albeit one
with absolutely no evidence).
If Trump fires Comey then he is “interfering with the
investigation” which is itself a federal crime that the FBI
could then “investigate.” Alternatively, if they can get
Trump to question Comey about Flynn or try to get him to
back off of Flynn or the “Russia” investigation, then they
again have him “interfering.”
Trump knows it is a set up by Comey and that he is
probably being recorded (tips from FBI or DOJ who are
not part of the corruption?) Maybe because his phone calls
in the Whitehouse as President have already been bugged
and released to the media. (FBI is in the best position to do
this.) Maybe because he was used to the Mafia in NY
trying to shake him down every time he built a hotel.
Comey tells Trump that Trump is not under investigation
regarding Russia, but that others involved with the
campaign are being investigated. Trump does not take the
bait and attempt to intervene about Flynn or the Russia
scam. Later, Flynn is cut loose because he is being used by
Comey and the Obama-holdover Justice to try to damage
Trump. He did nothing wrong, but if he stayed the charge
of “interfering with an investigation” might seem to have
teeth. Comey verbally tells Trump on two more occasions
that he is not being investigated, but refuses to state this
fact publicly or when testifying in Congress.
Trump knows everything I have gone through above about
Comey. But he has to move carefully. He has to get his
Attorney General and Deputy AG in place, get enough
leverage on the Russia narrative, and ideally get rid of
Comey in a way that allows him to obtain all the
information that Comey has been accumulating (if he is
taping Trump he is taping others.)
Comey, and others testify in Congress. Under oath, both
Sally Yates and Intelligence officials from the Obama
administration state that there has been no actual evidence
of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
More importantly, Comey, while refusing to say that
Trump is not under investigation, testifies that he has
informed the Senate Intelligence Committee heads who
exactly is under investigation regarding Russia.
Trump tells almost no one at the White House that he is
moving against Comey (so no leaks… no listening in on
his conversations.) Trump somehow contacts Sen.
Grassley (the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee)
and confirms that Comey told the Senator that Trump was
not under investigation personally. Trump gets both the
Attorney General and the new Deputy Attorney General to
legitimately review Comey’s unprofessional actions at the
FBI and to recommend in writing that Trump terminate
Comey. Somehow Comey goes to California (at the
request of AG Sessions or already scheduled and someone
at FBI telling Trump?)
Trump seizes the moment and acts. While Comey is in
California, 3000 miles away and 7 hours from his office,
Trump prepares a letter firing him (with Sessions and the
Deputy AG recommendations attached). In the letter
Trump states that he had been told 3 times by Comey that
he (Trump) was not under investigation.
The letter is hand-delivered to the FBI headquarters by
DOJ officials to lock-down and seize everything in
Comey’s office, including all surveillance files (“tapes”) of
Trump and others. All of Comey’s files, docs, computers
and “tapes” are taken to Sessions at DOJ. They are not
taken to the Whitehouse or Trump, but to Sessions, who
has every right to have them. Sessions can tell Trump that
Comey had surveillance tapes of Trump that contradict
what Comey has been telling Trump, and perhaps tapes of
236
conversations with other swamp “conspirators.” But
Trump does not have them personally or at the
Whitehouse.
Comey learns he has been fired when the media broadcasts
it in California. He had no idea it was coming and he is
ticked. On cue, the Democrat politicians and media begin
screaming about Trump’s “interference with the Russia
investigation” in accordance with the plan to set up Trump
for that charge.
The Swamp wants to blow up the Russia narrative using
Comey, and Comey is set to testify before Congress to try
to hurt Trump by saying he was interfering with the FBI
investigation. Comey intends to follow through with the
plan to take down Trump. But because of his brilliant
timing on this, Trump has Comey’s files, documents and
information safely with Sessions at DOJ. Trump sends out
a “crazy” tweet that says:
“James Comey better hope that there are
no “tapes” of our conversations before he
starts leaking to the press.”
The media and the politicians go crazy about the
“inappropriateness” of this tweet. They accuse Trump of
“taping” everyone at the White House (forgetting that the
Presidents phone calls with foreign leaders have been
“taped” without his knowledge.)
Notice that Trump did not say he taped anyone, or that he
has any tapes at the White House. It seem apparent that
Trump is telling Comey that the DOJ (who has every legal
right to possess it) has the surveillance information and
files from Comey’s office, the “tapes” obtained and kept
by Comey.
image: http://media.salon.com/2017/05/comey-trump-
620x412.jpg
Comey and all the Swamp Creatures understand the clear
message… their plan has failed and Trump’s DOJ is now
holding all the cards.
The whole Russia interference scheme crashes and burns.
While the mouthpiece media, Hollywood and the insane
fringe continue to scream about Russia and Comey being
fired, the politicians who will soon be in the crosshairs of a
legitimate (and ticked) FBI and DOJ are starting to fall
strangely silent. Comey realizes all the leverage is with
Trump and that he will be lucky if he is not added to the
Clinton Death List because of his knowledge (better not
take any baths near an electrical outlet or get on any
airplanes).
AG Sessions and his Deputy AG use the Comey trove of
information to determine who has been part of the Comey
Syndicate at the FBI. They will be appointing an “interim”
Director of the FBI shortly who has not been compromised
by Comey, Clinton or Obama.
That “interim” Director does not have to be approved by
Congress or anyone, and can immediately begin cleaning
house at the FBI of all Comey/Clinton/Obama minions,
initiating investigations of the Clintons, Clinton Fund,
violations of intelligence confidentiality laws by Susan
.
237
Rice and Obama, human trafficking in DC, political
corruption… draining the Swamp.
Using the Comey files they can be fairly certain they are
not getting another Comey as an “interim”, and they do not
have to wait for the circus of appointing a new permanent
“Director” through Congressional approval. Most of the
heavy lifting on rooting out FBI corruption and starting
investigations into the swamp will be done by the
“interim” before a new director is appointed. I suspect the
Trump administration hopes the approval FBI Director
process will be slow and tedious, so there is no political
interference with the housecleaning that is starting.
In one masterstroke, Trump has eliminated a truly toxic
and dangerous enemy to his administration and our
country, dealt a horrendous blow to the Clinton/Obama
and deep state machines, begun the restoration of the
integrity of the FBI and the DOJ, and gained incredible
ammunition to begin hunting the foul creatures in the
swamp.
 The Week In Pictures:
Comey Chameleon Edition
By Steven Hayward
June 10, 2017

Yes, I’d have to say Comey Comey Comey Comey

Chameleon is the perfect persona for our media age of Boy
George Stephanopoulos, not to mention Anderson
Drooper-Cooper and the appropriately named Don Lemon.
Why don’t we just get it over with and rename CNN the
“Comey News Network.” And were you as disappointed as
I was that Russian hookers didn’t get mentioned once in
Thursday’s hearings? I was promised there would be
hookers. At least we now have a better definition of
Covfefe: “Noun: indicating circumstances whose meaning
no one can agree about.” Sit back with a tall cup of
coffee—extra long WIP today:

238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
 SHOCKING: Look At These
Connections- Lynch To Comey To Obama/Clintons.
By IWB · H/T Quantumlove
Published June 9, 2017 · Updated June 11, 2017

Look at these connections- Lynch to Comey to Whitewater. His findings concluded no wrongdoing with
Obama/Clintons. (#7) Well worth the read!!!! the Clintons. Really?

Dept. of Justice/ FBI
1. Lynch was appointed as U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, NY
from 1999 to 2001. Who appointed her? Then
President Bill Clinton.
2. Lynch resigned in 2001 to join the law firm Hogan &
Hartson. This is the same law firm that represented the
company MXLogic. MXLogic was the company Hillary
first used to set up her private email server and
account. Executives from this law firm have also
donated to the Clintons.
3. From 2003 to 2005 Lynch served as a member of the
Federal Reserve Bank of NY. The Federal Reserve
Bank is actually a privately owned corporation,
compromised of numerous banks. Several of these
banks and or their executives have donated to the
Clintons political campaigns and to the Clinton
Foundation.
4. In 2010, President Obama re-appointed Lynch as U.S.
Attorney in Brooklyn. In 2015, Obama then appointed
her as head U.S. Attorney for the nation.
5. As we all know, Lynch met with Bill Clinton, privately,
on her private government jet. This meeting was a few
days before the FBI interviewed Hillary and a few days
before the announcement.
6. After this meeting, Lynch said something that no U.S.
Attorney has ever said. She first apologized and said
she should not have met him (obviously an apology
based on her being caught, not apologizing for the
actual action). She then states something U.S.
Attorneys also do not state. She stated her office will
be guided by whatever recommendation the FBI gives
them. Why was this statement ridiculous? She was the
head of the U.S. Justice Department. The FBI is a sub
unit of DOJ. She was the top boss, NOT Comey. And
NOT the FBI. It is the DOJ office that decides to
prosecute or not, *NOT* *the FBI.*
8. Comey and Lynch met back in the early 2000’s. Comey
was appointed by Bush as the U.S. Attorney for
Manhattan.
9. In 2002, Bush appointed Comey as Deputy U.S.
Attorney and he was tasked with investigating Bill
Clintons mass pardons as he left office. Comey
concluded that Clinton had done nothing wrong.
Really?
10. Comey went into private practice, in 2005.
11. In 2014, Obama appointed Comey as FBI Director.
Lynch was Comey’s boss, as she was the head of the
parent agency, DOJ. Lynch was the chief law
enforcement officer of our nation. Comey held the
number one position in the sub agency, the FBI.
At the end of the day, how did we have Lynch, previously
appointed by Bill Clinton, and formerly an employee of
the law firm that is connected to Hillary’s email scandal, in
charge of the investigation into Hillary’s email scandal,
with the lead investigative agency led by a man who twice
investigated the Clintons and both times found them not
guilty of wrong doing, also appointed by a former U.S.
President, who appointed Lynch, who was Comey’s
boss?????? And Comey and Lynch have known each other
for decades as well. How was this investigation to have
ever been legitimate? How was anything just & fair?
Comey had no credibility. He was a pawn.
President Trump fixed that.

7. In 1996 Comey was appointed as a Senate Committee

Investigator /Counsel to investigate the Clintons in

249
 Trump’s Coming Constitutional Crisis
Yes, Liberal Talk Of Dumping Trump Is Premature,
But We’re In Deep And Brackish Waters Now.
Jonathan Alter
06.11.17 12:00 AM ET
We don’t know yet how Trumpgate will shake out, but one
outcome is coming into view: a constitutional crisis.
Sooner or later, we’re likely to have one.
The contours of constitutional crises vary from country to
country, though all feature a breakdown of the normal
functioning of government. In the American system, they
usually involve circumstances that were not anticipated by
the framers or fights over the Constitution’s separation and
delegation of powers.
The trouble has come over issues like states rights (part of
what led to the Civil War), presidential succession (In
1841, John Tyler was the first vice-president to take over
after the death of the president and Congress wanted him
to be “Acting President”), and disputed presidential
elections, especially the one held in 1876between Samuel
J. Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes.
The best analogy to today’s madness is also the most
recent—Watergate. In 1973, in what became known as the
“Saturday Night Massacre,” President Nixon fired
Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Deputy Attorney
General William D. Ruckelshaus when they wouldn’t fire
Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor.
The questions raised so far by Trumpgate are similar: How
much power does the president have over the executive
branch? Is it obstruction of justice if the president does it?
Can the president be indicted?
As several former federal prosecutors confirmed this week,
former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony on
Thursday was a roadmap for special counsel Robert
250
Mueller to follow as he builds an obstruction of justice
case against President Trump. The two men, friends and
former colleagues, view the law in similar terms. Mueller
is unlikely to believe the word of an habitual liar over that
of a Boy Scout. It’s unlikely that juries will, either.
One key fact—as Comey stressed— is that Trump told
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, senior adviser Jared
Kushner and others to leave the Oval Office so that he
could be alone with Comey to tell him to stop the
investigation of former national security adviser Michael
Flynn. This intentionality is harmful to “the newbie
defense”—that Trump was new to the presidency and
didn’t know that what he was doing was wrong—offered
by House Speaker Paul Ryan and others. Ignorance of the
law is no defense, anyway.
All of the other arguments from Trump apologists have
also collapsed. According to former prosecutors, Trump’s
use of “I hope” instead of “I order you” to stop the Flynn
probe won’t get him off. "If you say, 'Nice storefront you
have here. Pity if something should happen to it,' that
doesn't help you when you burn down the store," says
Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for
Justice. Neither would Comey's "leaking" (a classic Trump
diversion) or the fact that he didn’t immediately report the
crime, which ignores an FBI director’s well-established
obligation not to do anything to impede his own
investigation.
The best thing Trump may have going for him legally is
his shamelessness. His seemingly dumbest moves—like
telling NBC’s Lester Holt that he fired Comey over Russia
and saying publicly that Flynn had suffered enough—seem
at first to be important confessional evidence in the
obstruction case. But they might offer him a measure of
perverse protection. If smoking guns aren’t dramatic
revelations, just casual props in a high stakes reality show,
are they really so dangerous to him?
In line with this devil-may-care strategy, Trump switched
on Friday to a constitutional argument. He retweeted the
position of Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz
(apparently auditioning for the role of Trump’s
impeachment attorney) that even if Comey is telling the
truth, Trump didn’t do anything criminal because under the
Constitution he has total power over the executive branch.
Dershowitz argues that all Justice Department
investigations are thus legally subject to the president's
whims. So Trump's new message is: Move along, nothing
to see here. He tweeted that Mueller had “no plausible
case” and “we must distinguish crimes from pol sins.”
By coincidence, the American Constitution Society, an
organization of progressive constitutional lawyers, was
meeting in Washington this week. When I wandered by, I
didn’t find much support for the Dershowitz/ Trump view,
which Waldman compares to claiming that owning a car
gives you the right to make it a getaway car. If I’d gone to
a meeting of the comparable conservative legal group, the
Federalist Society, I’d have likely heard the opposite. One
party’s obstruction of justice is another’s presidential
prerogative.
So now we will face a new tribal partisan split, this time
not over health care or immigration but deep questions of
law, accountability and constitutional process.
Soon we may be arguing over whether the president has
the right to fire the special counsel. Odds are he’ll do so
should Mueller recommend indicting him for obstruction
of justice. Trump’s bad experience firing Comey wouldn’t
inhibit him from repeating the move if his presidency and
jail time are on the line.
Of course if Mueller finds hard evidence of collusion with
Russians or financial improprieties by the Trump
Organization (or both in the same scuzzy transaction, as
seems plausible), it would be harder for Trump to fire him.
Another possible source of constitutional crisis: The idea
that the president cannot be indicted and tried while still in
office is widely assumed to be settled law but it isn’t.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution includes a long
tangled paragraph about impeachment that has never been
clarified by the Supreme Court. President Clinton’s
lawyers argued in 1998 that it offers temporary immunity
to the president until impeachment has been resolved by
the House (which indicts) and the Senate (which acquits or
convicts). This view was endorsed at the time by
conservative legal scholars, including Jay Bybee, now a
federal judge. But many other legal scholars say the
.
251
Constitution neither states nor implies that indictment and
trial cannot proceed at the same time as impeachment.
Some conservatives even argue that Article II, Section 2
gives the president the power to pardon himself, something
else that Trump would not hesitate to do to save his skin.
He'd probably pardon Flynn while he was at it, though he
might also do so earlier, to keep him from testifying
against him.
In June of 1974, two months before Nixon resigned, the
Watergate grand jury declared the president an “unindicted
co-conspirator.” He wasn’t indicted because special
prosecutor Leon Jaworski believed doing so was the
responsibility of the House. But there’s no legal principle
involved. Mueller could easily come to a different
conclusion and recommend indicting the president if the
House won’t act.
Under the statute governing special counsels, Mueller is
supposed to deliver a report on his findings to the Attorney
General. But Sessions has recused himself, and his deputy,
Rod Rosenstein, is involved in the obstruction case and
will thus almost certainly have to recuse himself, too. So
who will even receive Mueller’s report? And what if
Justice Neil Gorsuch--appointed by Trump--is the deciding
vote on the constitutionality of Trump's firings, pardons or
indictment? Yikes.
Yes, liberal talk of dumping Trump is premature. The
Republican-controlled House almost certainly won’t
impeach him on obstruction of justice. Democrats would
probably do so in 2019 if they win back control, but
removing him from office takes a two-thirds majority in
the Senate. Trump—with Dershowitz’s help?— would
likely win his trial there, as Bill Clinton did, generating
feverish support from his partisans as he fought the “witch
hunt.”
We’re in deep and brackish waters now. “When the
president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” Nixon
told David Frost after he resigned. Trump no doubt
believes the same and will act accordingly, the
Constitution be damned.
 Eyewitness: ‘I Was There When Seth Rich Was Shot,
They Walked Him Past Me, He Didn’t Even
Know He Was Shot, No Pain’
Eyewitness Said Seth Rich Was Walked Past Him And Not In Pain When
He Was Removed From The Crime Scene By Police
By Shepard Ambellas -
06.11.2017 @8:48 AM EDT

WASHINGTON -- The corner Seth Rich was shot on (Via Google The eyewitnesses testimony begins at 6:29 into the video.
Street View)

WASHINGTON (INTELLIHUB) — A man claiming to

be Mark Mueller, Seth Rich’s neighbor, who may also be
going by the alias Scott Roberts, was at the scene when
Rich was shot on July 10, 2016, and was listed in the
police report.

Interestingly enough, the eyewitness made a few shocking

statements at a vigil for the late Democratic National
Committee staffer where Debbie Wasserman Schultz was
also in attendance, which were captured on video.

“I was there when he [Seth Rich] got shot

and uh they walked him past me so that I
could see him and identify him because I
knew him in the neighborhood — and the Mark Mueller, a.k.a. Scott Roberts
(Screencapture NBC Washington 4)
police officer said: ‘he didn’t even know he
was shot’,” the eyewitness said.
A timeline of Seth Rich related tweets and retweets by
Twitter user “@ScottRobertsDC” starting the day Rich
was shot as follows:

252
 Intellihub has reached out to the witness for his comment
on the matter.

253
 MSNBC's Howard Fineman Gets Testy,
Chides Comey Critics To 'Grow A Pair Themselves'
By Tim Graham
June 11, 2017 2:54 PM EDT
Conor Beck of the Washington Free Beacon highlighted
the pro-Comey bravado of MSNBC political analyst
Howard Fineman on Friday night’s edition of Hardball.
Fineman was beside himself that anyone would complain
that the former FBI director was cowardly, or un-manly.
He told the accusers they should “grow a pair themselves.”
Testicle remarks on Hardball.
Somehow, Chris Matthews and Fineman (also with the
liberal Huffington Post) were trying to convince
themselves that it's somehow not "leaking" to take your
private memos and share them with The New York Times
through a law-professor intermediary.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: But the notion of
leaking, I mean, I spent all these years
since the '70s in Washington, and leaking
is what you do in politics. mean, if you're
going to get a story on the front page of a
newspaper, you give it to one newspaper
or one weekly magazine, as you know.
That's how you put out a story.
In this case, Mr. Comey released what his memory was of
a meeting he had with the president when he was working
for the government. It doesn't seem like a leak to me, no
matter how hard Kasowitz tries to make it so.
HOWARD FINEMAN: No, it's not. These
were notes about his private impressions
written by himself, for himself. And
especially now that he`s out of a job,
thanks to the president, Jim Comey can
distribute those notes to anybody he wants,
quote from them as he wants, give them to
254
his friend at Columbia Law School if he
wants.
As you said, that's what books are. If, you know, Robert
Gates was considered to have written one of the really
terrific autobiographical books about being Secretary of
Defense. I mean, that is full of everything he did and saw
and learned as Secretary of Defense. That`s what makes it
a -- what makes it a book.
So, and the notion also that they're calling out Jim Comey's
manhood, I mean, Jim Comey went in front of the whole
world yesterday.
In that scene you're showing right there
and called the president of the United
States a liar and in excruciating, riveting
detail, documented what he saw as
theme president's lies. Now, that's guts.
That's not lack of guts. That's guts big-
time, and the people who, you know,
attack Comey for that should, you know,
try to grow a pair themselves.
MATTHEWS: Well said.
An emotional verdict like this can easily lead a skeptic to
one intuitive conclusion: Comey has leaked plenty of
information to Howard Fineman over the years. It wasn't
that courageous to testify when the entire liberal media
built up Comey like Moses was coming to Capitol Hill
with stone tablets.
For an attempt to find Fineman attacking Comey before
the election, when the Hillary folks wanted him tarred and
feathered, this is Howard two days before the election:
MATTHEWS: OK. You know I made a judgment about Comey a MATTHEWS: That could be it. We do that here sometimes.
long time ago positively and in spite of that. So I`ve sort of
thought my sense is he`s a good public official. FINEMAN: Yes.

FINEMAN: I think he`s -- I think he is. I just think he's been in a MATTHEWS: Anyway we try to be perfect and we fail.
way he's been too careful and too political to try to be non-
political.
.

255
 Lynch Should Testify In Wake
Of Comey Claims, Graham Says
Fox News
Published June 11, 2017
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch should testify
before the Senate, top Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham
said Sunday, in the wake of fired FBI Director James
Comey calling into question her handling of the Hillary
Clinton email probe.
“I want to hear from Loretta Lynch,”
Graham said.
The call follows Comey’s claim during a Senate
committee hearing that Lynch once directed him to
describe the email probe as a "matter" and not an
"investigation” -- an alleged intervention Comey said
made him “queasy.” He also said that directive, combined
with Lynch's unusual Arizona tarmac meeting with former
President Bill Clinton, led him to make his independent
announcement regarding the Clinton email probe last July.
Asked Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” whether
he wants Lynch to appear before the judiciary committee
on which he sits, Graham, R-S.C., said:
“Absolutely.”
Several GOP lawmakers have shown interest in learning
more about Lynch’s actions following Comey’s
testimony.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the House
Intelligence Committee, said Sunday he wants to see
whether Comey kept any notes regarding conversations
with Lynch.
“I want to see if he had any memos on
Loretta Lynch,” King said on Fox News’
256
“Sunday Morning Futures with Maria
Bartiromo.”
The intelligence committee has asked Comey for any notes
or memos he took. Comey has made clear he took
extensive notes regarding his conversations with Trump,
which detailed the president’s alleged attempt to seek his
“loyalty” during a late January meeting, among other
conversations -- a claim Trump adamantly denies.
But Comey’s allegations about Lynch drew widespread
attention.
He said Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton was a
"deciding factor" in his decision to act alone to update the
public on the Clinton probe -- and protect the bureau's
reputation.
"There were other things, significant items,"
he added, citing how "the attorney general
directed me not to call it an investigation
and call it a matter -- which confused me."
“That was one of the bricks in the load that
I needed to step away from the
department,” Comey said, later adding he
was concerned Lynch was trying to align
the DOJ’s comments with the way the
campaign was talking about the probe.
“That gave me a queasy feeling,” he said.
Lynch and former President Clinton met on a tarmac in
Phoenix, Ariz., on June 27, 2016, which immediately
raised questions about whether she -- or the Justice
Department -- could be impartial in the Hillary Clinton
email investigation. Days later, Comey called Hillary
Clinton’s actions “extremely careless” but declined to
recommend charges.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday on CNN’s
“State of the Union” that she would have had a “queasy
feeling, too.” She said lawmakers need to know more
about that, and the judiciary committee should “take a
look” at it.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., though,
said he hasn’t heard Lynch’s side of the story and cannot
say
“whether it rises to the level that she should on “Face the Nation.” “And let her state
come and testify.” something privately and see if it makes
much of a difference. I don’t know that it
“All I’m saying with Loretta Lynch is before
will.”
anyone jumps to any conclusions, we
ought to hear what she has to say,” he said
.

257
 James Comey As Anita Hill?
L.A. Times And Washington Post Go There
By P.J. Gladnick
June 11, 2017 2:46 PM EDT
It was pretty much inevitable. Once you propose the theme
of James Comey as a sexual harassment victim as
happened in the New York Times, it was almost certain that
the next step would be a comparison of him to Anita Hill.
And it sure didn't take long. The June 9 Washington Post,
followed a day later by the Los Angeles Times, have
already gone with that comparison.
The Washington Post article by Christine Emba takes a
rather embarrassing stab at Comey's manhood in its title,
Mr. Comey, what were you wearing that night?
Just as in many of the most public sexual-assault
proceedings — think Anita Hill’s testimony against
Clarence Thomas, or even the Bill Cosby trial underway
in suburban Philadelphia — we have an alleged perpetrator
with an established power structure at his disposal and an
accuser who is asked to explain why he didn’t do more to
stop things from happening. And Comey’s answers mimic
the confusion and guilt that often mark victims’ responses
to such situations.
“I was so uneasy.” “I was so stunned.”
“Maybe if I did it again, I would do better.”
The Los Angeles Times story by Robin Acarian also
pictures Comey as harassed starting with its title, The
James Comey Method of dealing with a bad boss offers
lessons for all harassed workers.
And then, when Comey appeared
Thursday before the Senate Intelligence
.
258
Committee, he was treated in a way that
was reminiscent of how the Senate
Judiciary Committee treated Anita Hill
so many years ago, when she alleged
sexual harassment by Supreme Court
nominee Clarence Thomas.
Why didn’t you speak out at the time? Why did you take
phone calls from him after that? Why didn’t you quit?
So where could the silly Comey comparisons go
next? Robin Acarian seems to have left us a clue:
So, he memorialized each conversation with the president
on a laptop. He confided in his lieutenants. And he made
sure that his version of events would be disseminated at a
time convenient for Comey — say, after the president
threatened him with the existence of recordings of their
conversation, or upon the appointment of a special
prosecutor, or perhaps during a Senate hearing.
...I’m not saying the Comey Method can work for
everyone who has been mistreated in the workplace, or
harassed or asked to do something unethical, but it
provides a valuable template for fighting back with style.
Take notes, tell friends, and then, when the moment is
right, unleash your stinger.
Got that? Keep a record of your encounter with the
president in case you need evidence against him in the
future. Does that not sound like the blue dress with the
unique "presidue" DNA on it that Monica Lewinsky saved
as a memento of her Bill Clinton Oval Office unleashed
stinger encounters? Comey probably doesn't own a blue
dress but there is that blue White House curtain he tried to
blend into so as not to be noticed by his
imaginary Predator-In-Chief. Perhaps those blue curtains
should be checked for DNA evidence.
However, since Monica Lewinsky was a victim of a
predatory Democrat, the mainstream media would be
highly reluctant to portray Comey as Monica so don't
expect that comparison anytime soon. So much safer for
them to just stick with the Anita Hill comparisons.
 Schumer Invites Trump To Testify Before Senate
Fox News
Published June 11, 2017
Sen. Chuck Schumer on Sunday invited President Trump
to testify before Congress, taking the president up on his
statement that he’s “100 percent” willing to speak under
oath about his interactions with fired FBI Director James
Comey.
“I’d like to invite the president to testify
before the Senate,” the top Senate
Democrat said on CBS News’ “Face the
Nation.”
Schumer, D-N.Y., acknowledged he and Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would have to confer
with special counsel Robert Mueller, but insisted such
testimony could be done in a “dignified” way.
Schumer suggested that testifying could help clear the
“cloud” hanging over the administration with regard to the
Russia probe.
It’s unclear whether McConnell would agree to seeking
such testimony, and whether Trump would grant it. During
the Friday press conference where Trump said he’d be
.
259
willing to speak under oath, the president said only that he
would be “glad” to speak with Mueller.
A public Senate hearing would be an entirely different
spectacle – taking the drama surrounding Comey’s
intelligence committee testimony last week to a new level.
While some GOP senators have indicated they could have
questions for Trump, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., voiced
concern Sunday about the matter becoming a “circus.”
“I think it’s inappropriate for the president to
testify publicly,” Graham said on “Face the
Nation.” “If you want to come to the
judiciary committee and testify under oath,
we’ll put Comey right by you, it’d be the
highest rated TV show in the history of the
world -- but it’s not good for our
democracy.”
Trump, in saying Friday that he’d speak under oath,
specifically rejected Comey’s claim that the president
sought “loyalty” from him when he was FBI director.
“I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make
sense. No, I didn’t say that,” Trump said.
Schumer said Trump should not only testify, but also
release any “tapes” of White House conversations if he
indeed has them.
“He ought to say what he means and if he
does, we’ll take him up on each case,” he
said.
 CNN’s John King Suggests Sessions’
Private Hearing Is ‘Obstruction Of Justice’
By Nicholas Fondacaro
June 11, 2017 11:15 AM EDT

“But my question is what about the

Republican brand, can they stand for
this,” he demanded to know, before
suggesting the change was to cover up a
more nefarious plot. “He was scheduled
to testify publically-- I'll leave it to the
lawyers to get into obstruction of
justice-- but it's certainly an obstruction
of accountability.”

When Washington, DC woke up Sunday morning,

politicos were greeted with the news that Attorney General
Jeff Sessions was going to testify before the Senate
Intelligence Committee. It would be a change of plans
since Sessions was scheduled for a public hearing in front
of the Senate Budget Committee, where he was expected
to be pelted with Russia questions. It’s the Intelligence
Committee that is handling the Senate’s Russia
investigation, but according to CNN’s John King on Inside
“It’s an obstruction of the truth, if the
Politics, a private hearing could be an “obstruction of
Attorney General was scheduled to
justice.”
testify publically and then it’s allowed to
somehow to pull that off the table and
“But as we speak this Sunday morning, get it to private after serious questions
he was scheduled to testify publicly were raised about the top law
before budget committees where he enforcement official in the United
would be asked these questions,” King States' conduct,” King continued to rant.
asked to his stacked panel of liberal
journalists. “Do we know if he now say:
He was acting as though testimony in a private hearing
“I'm not going to do that, I'm sending
wouldn’t be admissible in a proper court or be used to hold
my deputy. I'll go to the Senate
people accountable.
Intelligence Committee,” but will he do
that in public or private?”
The New York Times’ Carl Hulse had his own hypothesis
for why Sessions would choose to go before the
CNN’s Senior Congressional Reporter Manu Raju stated
Intelligence Committee instead of the BUDGET
that they didn’t know if it would be private, and just
COMMITTEE to talk about Russia.
“assumed” it would be. “Can the Republicans allow that
to happen,” King wondered. And with a shrug of his
shoulders, Raju responded with: “They can. They have the “I think he—Sessions is making a
power to.” calculation there that may be the intel
committee is a little more friendly venue for
him,” he explained to King. “He does have
King continued to have a problem with the notion that the
John Cornyn, Jim Risch, Tom Cotton,
committee conducting the investigation should be the one
people he’s worked really closely with.”
to question Sessions.

260
Perhaps it’s not the possible actions of an actual court of
law that King cares about, but instead, one the media could
have some form of sway over.
“Up next, who do you trust?
Prosecutors have one standard but it's a
very different standard in the court of
public opinion, and that's a giant
problem for the President,” he stated as
he was going to a commercial break.
Is it true that Sessions felt like he would get a fairer shake
in the Intelligence Committee? Possibly. Could it be
because the Intelligence Committee is better suited to the
levy questions about Russia against him? Again, possibly.
The understanding that the Intelligence Committee is the
correct venue for those questions seemed to have never
crossed their minds.
The idea that it’s somehow an “obstruction of justice,” “of
accountability,” or “of truth” is a demonstration of just
how much King, the rest of the panel, and the media, in
general, are craving a conviction. And if they can’t get it in
an actual court of law, they’ll settle for the court of public
opinion.
Transcript below:
CNN
Inside Politics
June 11, 2017
8:03:48 AM Eastern
JOHN KING: Let me start with the question of Jeff Sessions. He
is absolutely central to this. On the one hand here is the
administration's chance to rebut Comey with a powerful witness.
But as we speak this Sunday morning, he was scheduled to
testify publicly before budget committees where he would
be asked these questions. Do we know if he now say: “I'm
not going to do that, I'm sending my deputy. I'll go to the
Senate Intelligence Committee,” but will he do that in public
or private?
261
MANU RAJU: We don't know that yet. We assume we were
talking earlier, but we think he's probably not going to do this in
public.
KING: Can the Republicans allow that to happen?
RAJU: They can. They have the power to. Will they accept it? We
heard Senator Richard Burr, the chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, who is frustrated with the lack of responsiveness
from other witnesses before the Comey testimony will he want to
hear from Jeff Sessions.
(…)
8:05:49 AM Eastern
KING: My question-- I'll come back to this in a minute, cause I
want to get back to the President. But my question is what
about the Republican brand, can they stand for this? He was
scheduled to testify publically-- I'll leave it to the lawyers to
get into obstruction of justice-- but it's certainly an
obstruction of accountability. It’s an obstruction of the truth,
if the Attorney General was scheduled to testify publically
and then it’s allowed to somehow to pull that off the table
and get it to private after serious questions were raised
about the top law enforcement official in the United States'
conduct. That would be a copout at a minimum.
CARL HULSE: I think he—Sessions is making a calculation there
that may be the intel committee is a little more friendly venue for
him. He does have John Cornyn, Jim Risch, Tom Cotton, people
he’s worked really closely with.
(…)
8:25:48 AM Eastern
KING: Up next, who do you trust? Prosecutors have one
standard but it's a very different standard in the court of
public opinion, and that's a giant problem for the president.
 New Twitter Account Names
Kellyanne Conway as a DC Leaker
© AFP 2017/ MANDEL NGAN - Politics
03:03 11.06.2017(updated 06:59 11.06.2017)

“If a NYT, Politico, or WaPo article hits

@Reince45 (or other W.H. staff), good
chance @KellyannePolls leaked,”
explains DC’s newest tabloid Twitter
account.

With the White House leaking like a sinking ship,

speculation is running wild as to the source behind all the
anonymously backed articles causing so much upheaval
in the US capitol lately. A new Twitter account alleges —
seriously or not, it's hard to tell — that Kellyanne Conway
is one of DC's tattle-tales.

US President Donald Trump, following his election,

quickly staffed his inner circle with a cadre of vocal and
polarizing advisors, Conway among them.

Now, Conway has come under scrutiny for some

particularly uninhibited storytelling at an embassy party.

@KellyanneLeaks is now the place to go to see whether

any of her musings has resulted in a White House leak, and
the account already has nearly 7,000 followers.

The new Twitter account intends to show that every time

an article critical of Trump advisor Reince Priebus or other
White House staffers is published, it is because someone
at a high-level DC social event overheard Conway holding
court on her favorite subject: the ineptitude of the rest
of the White House.

262
After catching Conway talking very loudly (and, as the
account creator acknowledged, probably off the record)
to reporters at a British embassy event in DC, the person
behind @KellyanneLeaks had a thought: perhaps this
high-volume Trump adviser is one of the culprits?

Conway was overheard mocking White House Chief With Conway's high-volume party chatter getting its own
of Staff Reince Priebus especially viciously, but she also Twitter account, her work within the Trump administration
apparently discussed how she chooses to interpret Trump's may soon come to an end. Trump has asked intelligence
orders to her. The president told her to say "[formed FBI agencies, including the FBI, to arrest the leakers.
Director] Jim Comey will have to wait and see about the
tapes," she apparently explained to her audience. "I chose
to convert that to 'no comment.'"

She also made fun of the White House legislative director

and several other prominent GOP figures. Nice knowing you, Kellyanne.

And Conway doesn't seem to be toeing the White House

line that everything is fine and dandy and America is
rapidly being made Great Again.

263
 Senate Democrats Enter New Territory On Russia Probes
With Push To Grill Sessions, Trump
By Judson Berger
Published June 11, 2017
Senate Democrats are looking to intensify the Russia-
related investigations on Capitol Hill despite a call from
Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna
McDaniel to abandon the “collusion” track for lack of
evidence – with plans to grill Attorney General Jeff
Sessions and even a bid to get President Trump under oath.
While Trump has not responded to the invitation, Sessions
already has agreed to answer questions Tuesday before the
Senate Intelligence Committee in the probe of Russian
meddling in the 2016 presidential race. Presuming that
hearing goes forward, the big question is whether Sessions
will testify in public – and in doing so, drive the same kind
of media frenzy that surrounded fired FBI Director James
Comey’s testimony this past Thursday.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said
Sunday he wants Sessions speaking in public and under
oath.
“There are some questions about Sessions
that have to be asked,” Schumer said on
CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”
Schumer, in the same interview, invited Trump to testify
before the Senate, responding to the president’s Friday
claim that he’d be “100 percent” willing to speak under
oath. Regardless of whether Trump agrees, the pursuit of
Sessions and several Trump campaign figures for
questioning on Capitol Hill virtually ensures the Russia
investigation will continue to play out in public and cast a
continued “cloud” over the administration’s agenda – even
as special counsel Robert Mueller pursues his investigation
behind closed doors.
264
In the near-term, Schumer and fellow Democratic senators
made clear they have several tough questions they want the
attorney general to be asked Tuesday – preferably, before
the glare of TV cameras.
On “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said he
has questions about Sessions’ participation in Comey’s
firing – considering the firing came after Sessions recused
himself from the Russia probe.
“He had already recused himself and then,
suddenly, he's the one apparently
recommending to the president that Comey
be fired and the president has … declared
it was all about the Russian investigation,”
Reed said.
The Trump administration has given numerous reasons for
Comey’s firing, including his handling of the Hillary
Clinton email probe. But Comey testified last week that he
thinks the Russia probe was the driving force.
Reed, further, said he has questions about Sessions’ past
meetings with Russian officials beyond those he’s already
declared.
“That will come up,” he vowed.
Schumer said Sessions should be asked whether he
interfered in the Russia investigation before his recusal;
what safeguards are in place now; and whether he
discussed the Russia issue in the search for a new FBI
director.
During his testimony last week, Comey suggested there
might be more to Sessions' recusal from the Russia probe,
telling lawmakers he believed it was “inevitable” that
Sessions would recuse himself and there were “facts” he
could not discuss in an open hearing.
The Department of Justice, however, issued a statement
standing by the original explanation that Sessions recused
himself due to his participation in Trump’s campaign.
“[I]t was for that reason, and that reason
alone,” spokesman Ian Prior said.
Sessions had been set to testify before a budget-related
subcommittee on Tuesday but, in letters to key lawmakers,
said the intelligence committee that heard from Comey
would be the more appropriate venue considering the
Russia-related questions.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., a member of that
committee, said on “Face the Nation” that they have not
yet finalized whether the attorney general’s testimony will
be public or private.
“I assume that this will be public, but we
are still in that final conversation time with
Jeff Sessions,” Lankford said.
He said it’s important to hear Sessions’ “side of the story”
regarding some of Comey’s claims last week
“as well as these accusations that are flying
out there about conversations that he might
or might not have had with Russians prior
to the election.”
On “Fox News Sunday,” McDaniel appealed to lawmakers
to drop their line of investigation regarding the question of
collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
“This is a fishing expedition,” she said. “I’m
calling for an end to the investigations
about … President Trump’s campaign
colluding with the Russians. There’s been
265
no evidence of it; I don’t think that should
continue.”
Democrats made clear they have no such plans.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., top Democrat on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, said on CNN’s “State of the
Union” that “it should be all hands on deck” for lawmakers
examining the case.
Feinstein, who also sits on the intelligence panel, could not
say whether the Sessions hearing would be public or
whether it would even go forward. She also raised the
possibility of yet another hearing, saying the judiciary
committee would be the “fitting” venue for the attorney
general’s testimony.
As for what lawmakers should be exploring, Feinstein did
not mince words, saying they should examine
“the technical legal aspects of obstruction
of justice.”
Trump’s allies have downplayed the obstruction angle,
noting Comey stopped short of alleging obstruction of
justice in his testimony and said Trump did not try to push
him to end the Russia probe as a whole.
“To me, that’s no obstruction,” McDaniel
told “Fox News Sunday.”
Fox News’ Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
 .
Nets Hype Dems Suing Trump,
Helped Hillary Dodge Corruption Charges
By Kyle Drennen
June 12, 2017 1:19 Pm Edt
On Monday, the network morning shows breathlessly
hailed the latest partisan Democratic effort to attack
President Trump, resurrecting a lawsuit accusing Trump of
violating a clause in the Constitution because of his
business interests. Such charges were hyped by the same
media that excused the Clinton Foundation scandal that
swirled around Hillary Clinton.
At the top of NBC’s Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie
proclaimed:
“Headed to court? Two attorneys
general now say they will file a lawsuit
against President Trump, reportedly
accusing him of profiting from being
president.”
Minutes later, she told viewers:
“Two attorneys general saying they are
planning to sue President Trump and
accuse him of violating anti-corruption
clauses in the Constitution. That lawsuit
reportedly set to focus on alleged
payments to Trump businesses from
foreign governments.”
What Guthrie, a former lawyer, failed to explain was that
those “payments” were in the form of foreign officials
staying in Trump hotels or hosting events at Trump
properties. It wasn’t as if they were donating millions to a
family charity in hopes of currying favor, as they did in the
case of Hillary Clinton.
266
In fact, there was a strong case to be made that the former
Secretary of State violated the Emoluments Clause. Even
The Washington Post – which was the first to report on the
Trump lawsuit – wondered in the final weeks of the 2016
campaign whether the Consitutional issue was “a problem
for Hillary Clinton.”
Instead of actually holding Clinton accountable, the
networks helped her campaign knock down accusations of
corruption.
To NBC’s credit, correspondent Peter Alexander at least
identified the lawsuit against Trump as a Democrat-led
effort:
That new lawsuit to be announced today accuses the
President of violating the Constitution by accepting gifts
from foreign governments without the okay of Congress.
Just the latest move by Democrat attorneys general to
challenge the President and his policies....the attorneys
general of Washington D.C. and Maryland, two
Democrats, are slated to announce a major lawsuit against
the President as early as this afternoon...
Neither ABC nor CBS bothered to point out the party
affiliation of the public officials bringing the suit.
Leading off ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host
George Stephanopoulos announced:
“Overnight, President Trump’s family
joins him in the White House as he
faces a new lawsuit over his global
business empire that takes millions in
payments from foreign governments.”
In a later report, White House Correspondent Jon Karl
sensationalized:
...the President faces a new lawsuit this
morning that is unprecedented in
American history. Overnight, the D.C.
attorney general’s office confirmed to ABC
News that D.C. and Maryland will sue
President Trump today, alleging a breach
of anti-corruption clauses in the
Constitution....It’s the first time a state
 government has filed such a lawsuit
against a president.
Talking to former federal special counsel Ken Starr in a
segment that followed, Stephanopoulos eagerly wondered:
“They say it’s a violation of the Emoluments
Clause. How serious a threat is this to
President Trump?” Starr replied: “You’ve
got to take any litigation seriously, but
allegations are allegations. Now, in my 40
years of practicing law, I’ve seen a lot of
allegations that have blown up in smoke.”
In a news brief for CBS This Morning, co-host Gayle King
touted:
“The President faces a new challenge
this morning over the Trump organization
ties to other countries. CBS News has
confirmed the attorneys general of
Maryland and the District of Columbia will
file a lawsuit today.” Fellow co-host Charlie
Rose chimed in: “They claim President
Trump violated anti-corruption clauses
in the Constitution when the businesses
he owns accepted millions in payments
from foreign governments.”
Here are excerpts of the coverage on all three morning
shows:
Today
7:03 AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: President Trump facing some new heat
possibly as well this morning. Another busy week getting under
way in Washington, so let’s walk you through some of what’s
gonna happen. Two attorneys general saying they are planning
to sue President Trump and accuse him of violating anti-
corruption clauses in the Constitution. That lawsuit reportedly set
to focus on alleged payments to Trump businesses from foreign
governments.
(...)
267
7:04 AM ET
PETER ALEXANDER: That new lawsuit to be announced today
accuses the President of violating the Constitution by accepting
gifts from foreign governments without the okay of Congress.
Just the latest move by Democrat attorneys general to challenge
the President and his policies.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Attorneys General to Sue Trump; DC
& Maryland AG’s Allege Breach of Constitutional Oath]
This morning, the President is facing new legal trouble, this time
not related to Russia. The Washington Post reporting that the
attorneys general of Washington D.C. and Maryland, two
Democrats, are slated to announce a major lawsuit against the
President as early as this afternoon, alleging that he violated anti-
corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in
payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving
into the White House. Essentially breaking his promise to keep
his private business interests separate from his public role as
president.
(...)
8:02 AM ET
KRISTEN WELKER: President Trump may be facing yet another
controversy, this time, according to The Washington Post, the
attorney generals of Washington D.C. and Maryland, both
Democrats, are expected to announce a major lawsuit against
the President as early as today. The suit alleges that the
President violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by
accepting millions of dollars in payments and benefits from
foreign governments since moving into the White House.
(...)
GMA
7:03 AM ET
(...)
JON KARL: And on top of all that, the President faces a new [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump Face ‘Corruption’ Lawsuit;
lawsuit this morning that is unprecedented in American history. Foreign Payments in the Spotlight]

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump Faces New Lawsuit; D.C. &
Maryland to Sue Over Foreign Payments]
Overnight, the D.C. attorney general’s office confirmed to ABC
News that D.C. and Maryland will sue President Trump today,
alleging a breach of anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution. In
the lawsuit, which was first reported by The Washington Post, the
attorneys general allege the President “has broken his promises
to separate his public duties from his private businesses.” It’s the
first time a state government has filed such a lawsuit against a
president.
They’re accusing the President of violating anti-corruption
clauses in the Constitution by not separating himself from his
companies. The suit, first reported by The Washington Post,
claims the President accepted millions of dollars in payments and
benefits from foreign governments since taking office.
(...)
CBS This Morning
7:30 AM ET

(...)

7:10 AM ET

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, we have this lawsuit this morning

from the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C.
about those foreign payments to the President’s corporation.
They say it’s a violation of the Emoluments Clause. How serious
a threat is this to President Trump?

KEN STARR: You’ve got to take any litigation seriously, but

allegations are allegations. Now, in my 40 years of practicing law,
I’ve seen a lot of allegations that have blown up in smoke.
(...)
8:02 AM ET
AMY ROBACH: And the big story this morning, President Trump
facing a new legal battle. The attorneys general of Washington,
D.C. and Maryland are filing a lawsuit over his business dealings.
GAYLE KING: The President faces a new challenge this morning
over the Trump organization ties to other countries. CBS News
has confirmed the attorneys general of Maryland and the District
of Columbia will file a lawsuit today.
CHARLIE ROSE: They claim President Trump violated anti-
corruption clauses in the Constitution when the businesses he
owns accepted millions in payments from foreign governments.
So far, the White House has not replied to our request for
comment.

268
 James Comey Confirms That NYT Story On Russian
Collusion Conspiracy Was Totally #FAKENEWS
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 12, 2017

He added, after further questioning from Sen. James Risch

(R-Idaho):

The challenge, and I’m not picking on

reporters, about writing stories about
classified information is the people talking
about it often don’t really know what’s
going on, and those of us who actually
know what’s going on are not talking about
it. And we don’t call the press to say, ‘Hey
you got that thing wrong about this
sensitive topic. We just have to leave it
there.

One of the most under-reported aspects of fired FBI Here is the relevant exchange:
Director James Comey’s much-ballyhooed testimony
before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was
the bombshell that much of the reporting on Team Trump
and the White House by the disgusting “mainstream”
media has been absolutely false.

As in, not even close to the truth.

One such report by The New York Times on February 14

claimed in the headline, “Trump Campaign Aides Had
Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence.” It was
nothing but fake news.

As noted by Zero Hedge, under questioning from Sen.

James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, Comey was asked:
OK. You had mentioned before about some
news stories and news accounts. Without
having to go into all of the names and
specific times and be able to dip into all of
that. Have there been news accounts about
the Russian investigation or collusion about
the whole event or as you read the story
you were wrong about how wrong they got
the facts?
Comey replied:
Yes, there have been many, many stories
based on — well, lots of stuff but about
Russia that are dead wrong.”
So in other words, Comey said directly what so many of
us in the alternative media have suspected for quite some
time: Much of what’s being reported by the shrillest of
anti-Trump media — the Times, the Washington Post,
CNN — is completely bogus, planted by Deep State types
to impugn, malign and undermine President Donald J.
Trump and ruin his presidency. And this is why we have
regularly urged our readers to take that other stuff with a
grain of salt.
So much “anonymous” reporting has also been a problem,
and while reporters are trained to jealously guard their
sources, sensational items being reported about the Trump
White House were coming far too often to be legitimate.
Plus, there was definitely a political nature to the leaks —
everything was negative about Trump and his
administration, which was a huge tip-off.

269
Even #NeverTrump reporter Chris Matthews of MSNBC
was forced to admit that after the Comey testimony, the
“Russian collusion” narrative completely collapsed.
“The assumption of the critics of the
president, of his pursuers, you might say, is
that somewhere along the line in the last
year is the president had something to do
with colluding with the Russians…to affect
the election in some way. And yet what
came apart this morning was that theory,”
Matthews said on his network after
Comey’s testimony aired.
Two reasons why: Comey said Trump’s first national
security advisor, Michael Flynn, whom he fired, “wasn’t
central to the Russian investigation,” and because of that, it
destroys the notion that Flynn could have been in a
position to testify against the president. “And if that’s not
the case, where’s the there-there?” Matthews asked.
(RELATED: As Expected, The Disgusting Fake News
Media Is Ignoring The Most Damning Of All
Revelations Made By James Comey)
.
270
There’s more. CNN had to retract a story it published the
day before Comey’s testimony, in which the network
claimed “sources” said the former FBI director would
refute Trump’s claim he was told multiple times by Comey
that he was not the subject of any FBI investigation.
“Comey is going to dispute the president if
he’s asked about it by the senators,” said
Gloria Borger, one of four reporters who
claimed Comey would refute it. “He will say
that he never assured Donald Trump that
he was not under investigation, that that
would have been improper for him to do
so.”
Turns out that Comey did say during testimony he
informed Trump on multiple actions that he was not the
subject of any investigation.
He also informed Congress of same. Funny though how
that tidbit of information was never leaked.
 NYT Reporter: 'Fake News'
To Point Out Comey's Conflicting Statements
By Kevin Baker
June 12, 2017 1:23 PM EDT
New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters arrived on the
scene of Monday’s Morning Joe to continue propagating
the mainstream media narrative denying that James Comey
has made contradictory statements regarding alleged
interference by the Trump administration in the Russia
investigation. Despite the then-FBI Director testifying
before Congress in May that he had not experienced any
political attempt to squash the inquiry, Peters argued it was
"fake news" to point out that fact.
The liberal journalist feared that such stories were being
"weaponized" by the right. He smugly declared later that,
“there is such a willingness on the right to discredit and
excuse away any type of criticism of Donald Trump...that
they will latch on to almost anything.”
The full interview between Peters and the Morning Joe
hosts went as follows:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Jeremy Peters, your latest piece for
The New York Times is entitled "A Pro-Trump Conspiracy
Theorist, a False Tweet and a Runaway Story." Tell us
about what you're reporting on.
JEREMY PETERS: Well, one of the more interesting
developments in the Comey/Russia investigation denial
on the right is this weaponization of fake news. And this
is something that we may kind of tend to brush off to the
side and say, oh, it's just a bunch of crazy people on
Facebook sharing these stories, but actually it's a much
broader and more important and effective phenomenon
than you realize because where you have in this one
instance here is this guy by the name of Jack Posobiec
who, probably, many of us have never even heard of, but
with this one fake tweet about what Comey said in the
271
hearing, Jack Posobiec set off this chain reaction in the
fake news disinformation ecosystem that basically led to a
story that would appear on Fox News and be read aloud by
Rush Limbaugh that said Comey exonerates Donald
Trump.
Now, Comey had done no such thing.
He was responding to this question in
his testimony back in May about
whether or not the attorney general or
the justice department had ever asked
him to stop an investigation. Comey
said no. So these right-wing bloggers
and pro-Trump activists and they're not
shy, by the way, about being po-Trump
and that's what's interesting here is that
they are working on his behalf to
undermine the main street media story
line, the truth about these stories
involving Trump and the investigation.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, why do some of these radio
hosts follow these people down the rabbit trail? The rat
hole?
PETERS: Because it's what they want to believe. That's
what's so, I think, so strange and unsettling about all of
this Joe, is that there is such a willingness on the right
to discredit and excuse away any type of criticism of
Donald Trump or any kind of culpability that he or his
associates may have in this Russia investigation that
they will latch on to almost anything. You were asking
earlier about will conservatives ever come around and say
something is amiss here. This guy has really gone off the
tracks. Well, not when they’re clinging to information
like this, fake, discredited stories. And that's what
you're seeing, is it's a huge disinformation campaign.
Really? Conservatives are the one conducting a
disinformation campaign right now while clinging to fake,
discredited stories? Which paper was it again that James
Comey was referring to when he said, “The challenge —
and I’m not picking on reporters — about writing stories
about classified information is that people talking about it
often don’t really know what is going on.” Just some food
for thought.
 Two Democratic Attorney Generals
File Lawsuit Against President Trump For
“Flagrantly Violating The Constitution”
Deep State Sponsored Partisan Move Lands Trump In A New Lawsuit
By Shepard Ambellas -
06.12.2017 @1:20 PM EDT
(INTELLIHUB) — In a partisan move, two democratic
Attorney Generals filed a lawsuit against President Donald
J. Trump in a Federal Court Monday which alleges that the
President is “flagrantly violating the Constitution” with his
business entanglements.
Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh spoke at a press
conference Monday where they provided the details of
their suit.
“Never in the history of this country have
we had a president with these kinds of
extensive business entanglements or a
president who refused to adequately
distance themselves for their holdings,” the
D.C. Attorney General stated.
Racine claims that the Constitution explicitly bars the
President from receiving “gifts or inducements” from
foreign or domestic entities.
272
“President Trump’s businesses and his
dealings violate the Constitution’s anti-
corruption provisions known as the
Emoluments Clauses,” Racine said. “The
framers included these two anti-corruption
provisions to prevent foreign and domestic
entities from seeking to influence the
President by bestowing money or other
things of value on to him.”
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh also took the mic
to say:
“This case is about the right of hundreds of
millions of Americans to honest
government. Elected leaders who serve the
people and not their own financial interests
are the indispensable foundation of our
democracy. And the President, above all
other elected officials, must have only the
best interests of Americans at the heart of
every decision […] and is not acting out of
concern for his own business.”
“Never in our history has a President
maintained an domestic and international
business empire where his personal
interests are tangled up with the policy
interests of our country,” Frosh said. “The
President’s conflicts of interests threaten or
democracy [and] he continues to take
monies from foreign governments.”
Additionally, Frosh said that they will be seeking the
President’s financial and tax records.
 Dems To Sue Trump Over Foreign Payments
Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:48AM
US President Donald Trump makes his way to board Air
Force One before departing from Newark Liberty Airport
in Newark, New Jersey, June 11 2017. (Photo by AFP)
Two US Democratic attorneys general in Maryland and
the District of Columbia are planning to file a lawsuit
against Donald Trump, alleging that the Republican
president’s businesses have accepted foreign payments
in breach of the constitution.
The case is similar to the one filed by a group of plaintiffs
including a ethics non-profit in January but stands a better
chance in court, Reuters reported Monday, citing an
official familiar with the issue.
The January lawsuit, filed by an ethics non-profit,
restaurant group and hotel events booker in Manhattan
federal court, the plaintiffs argued that Trump had violated
the Constitution's "emoluments" clause.
The law bars the president from accepting foreign
government gifts without congressional approval. The
.
273
plaintiffs allege, however, that Trump is getting past the
barrier by maintaining ownership over his business empire
despite handing over the control to his sons.
On Friday, the Trump Justice Department dismissed the
charges brought in the case, saying the plaintiffs could not
allege enough specific harm caused by Trump's businesses.
The department also denied claims that the Trump hotel
revenue would qualify as an improper payment under the
constitution.
Attorney General Karl Racine said in March that the
payments had already caused considerable damage in the
District of Columbia.
The AG said back then that the DC had subsidized the
construction of hotels impacted by foreign payments to
Trump properties, arguing that this puts the district in a
"unique position" to sue the president.
Democratic attorneys generals have dealt heavy blows to
Trump’s policies on various occasions.
They successfully blocked the new president’s travel ban
against people from several Muslim countries. The AGs
are also resisting Trump’s reversal of major environmental
regulations as well as his efforts to repeal and replace the
affordable Care Act (ACA), former Democratic president
Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.
Trump has accused his Democratic opponents of “judge
shopping,” even threatening to “break up” the unruly court
that oppose his anti-immigration policies.
 D.C. And Maryland Sue President Trump,
Alleging Breach Of Constitutional Oath
By Aaron C. Davis
June 12
Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of
Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has
violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting
millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since
moving into the White House.
The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government
entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain
ownership of his company when he became president.
Trump said in January that he was shifting his business
assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate
potential conflicts of interests.
But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and
Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) say Trump
has broken many promises to keep separate his public
duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric
Trump has said the president would continue to receive
regular updates about his company’s financial health.
The lawsuit, a signed copy of which Racine and Frosh
provided to The Washington Post on Sunday night, alleges
“unprecedented constitutional violations” by Trump. The
suit says Trump’s continued ownership of a global
business empire has rendered the president “deeply
enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic
government actors” and has undermined the integrity of
the U.S. political system.
“Fundamental to a President’s fidelity to
[faithfully execute his oath of office] is the
Constitution’s demand that the President ...
disentangle his private finances from those
of domestic and foreign powers. Never
before has a President acted with such
disregard for this constitutional
prescription.”
274
The suit could open a new front for Trump as he navigates
investigations by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and
congressional committees of possible collusion between
his associates and the Russian government during the 2016
presidential campaign.
If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and
Frosh say, one of the first steps will be to demand through
the discovery process copies of Trump’s personal tax
returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings.
That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme
Court, the two said, with Trump’s attorneys having to
defend why the returns should remain private.
“This case is, at its core, about the right of
Marylanders, residents of the District of
Columbia and all Americans to have honest
government,” Frosh said. To fully know the
extent of Trump’s constitutional violations
“we’ll need to see his financial records, his
taxes that he has refused to release.”
Racine said he felt obligated to sue Trump in part because
the Republican-controlled Congress has not taken the
president’s apparent conflicts seriously.
“We’re getting in here to be the check and
balance that it appears Congress is
unwilling to be,” he said.
D.C. and Maryland plan to sue President Trump for violating a little-
known constitutional provision called "the Emoluments Clause."
(Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
The constitutional question D.C. and Maryland will put
before a federal judge is whether Trump’s business
holdings amount to violations of parts of the Constitution
known as the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses.
 To guard against foreign countries gaining
sway over the new republic’s ambassadors
in the late 1700s, drafters of the
Constitution prohibited any “Person holding
any Office of Profit or Trust” from accepting
“any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of
any kind whatever, from any King, Prince,
or foreign State.”
In another part of the Constitution, framers sought to
prevent a president from favoring one state over another,
forbidding him from receiving any gift or emolument from
a state and, instead, only the compensation approved by
Congress.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, is the latest and most significant legal challenge
to Trump over the issue of emoluments. The first was filed
in January by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington, a D.C.-based watchdog group. In March, a
D.C. restaurant sued Trump, alleging the new Trump
International Hotel in D.C. benefits from unfair advantages
because of its close association with the president. And last
week, a group of Democratic members of Congress said
they plan to file suit soon. Each, however, has faced legal
hurdles over standing to sue the president.
In the Trump administration’s most detailed response yet,
the Department of Justice filed a 70-page legal brief on
Friday arguing the CREW lawsuit should be dismissed.
The administration said Trump’s businesses are legally
permitted to accept payments from foreign governments
while he is in office. The filing held up the lack of past
complaints — going all the way back to farm produce sold
abroad by George Washington — to assert that market-rate
payments for Trump’s real estate, hotel and golf
companies do not constitute emoluments as defined by the
Constitution.
Racine and Frosh, however, argue Trump’s violations are
on scale never seen before and that both D.C. and
Maryland are being adversely affected by the Trump hotel
near the White House.
After hiring staff and holding events to cater to foreign
diplomats, the Embassy of Kuwait held an event at the
hotel, switching its initial booking from the Four Seasons.
Saudi Arabia, the destination of Trump’s first trip abroad,
also booked rooms at the hotel through an intermediary on
more than one occasion since Trump’s inauguration.
Turkey held a state-sponsored event there last month. And
in April, the ambassador of Georgia stayed at the hotel and
tweeted his compliments. Trump himself has appeared at
the hotel and greeted guests repeatedly since becoming
president.
As a result, the hotel may be drawing business away from
the taxpayer-owned D.C. convention center and one in
275
nearby Maryland subsidized by taxpayers, Frosh and
Racine argue.
Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics
lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board
chairman, said jurisdictions such as the District and
Maryland are among the “most perfect plaintiffs” to sue
over emoluments because they have a say in making sure
the Constitution is being enforced.
“In the emoluments clauses, we have these
ancient air bags that were placed in the
Constitution by the framers that are now
being deployed,” said Eisen, whose
nonprofit has been advising the District and
Maryland on their suit. “Trump is the
framers’ worst-case scenario; a president
who would seize office and attempt to
exploit his position for personal financial
gain with every governmental entity
imaginable, across the United States or
around the world.”
On the domestic side, the suit alleges Trump has received
unconstitutional financial favors from the U.S.
government. It says the U.S. General Services
Administration, which handles federal real estate, wrongly
allowed Trump’s company to continue to lease the Old
Post Office building, where Trump built his D.C. hotel,
even though a clause in the contract said no elected official
could remain on the lease.
The GSA initially said Trump would have to fully divest
from the hotel after the election. But after Trump proposed
increasing GSA’s budget, the suit says, the agency issued a
letter saying Trump was in full compliance.
The suit also alleges that Trump is violating domestic
emoluments by creating a situation in which states feel
compelled to compete for Trump’s favor, perhaps by
offering zoning exemptions, waivers or other benefits to
help his businesses.
After initially saying the Trump organization would not
pursue new deals while he was in office, Trump’s sons
announced last week that the company would begin
building a network of new hotels in mostly red states that
he won in last year’s election.
The suit by D.C. and Maryland says the two jurisdictions
are faced with an “intolerable dilemma”: to either go along
with the Trump Organization getting special treatment,
including possible lost local revenue, or “deny such
requests and be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis states
and other government entities that have granted or will
agree to such concessions.”
The District and Maryland file the suit at great peril,
Racine and Frosh allege, because the two have a
disproportionately large percentage of federal workers and
could be acutely affected by federal budget cuts that
Trump could seek as retribution.
But Maryland argues that it has special standing to sue. As
one of the original states that approved the Constitution,
Maryland gave up a clause in its own state declaration that
had required its governors not to take any gifts from
foreign governments or other states.
“This case represents another storm, not
just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of
trouble for Trump,” Eisen said. “Who better
than governmental actors to say our deal
was, our fundamental democratic bargain
was, we would get a president who would
follow the Constitution.”
Racine and Frosh say that unless Trump is reined in under
the emoluments clause, Americans can never be certain
that, “underlying his travel ban, withdrawal from the Paris
276
Accord climate deal or proposed tax cuts,” he is acting in
the country’s best interest and not his own.
Strict adherence to the emoluments clauses, D.C. and
Maryland argue, ensures
“that Americans do not have to guess
whether a President who orders their sons
and daughters to die in foreign lands acts
out of concern for his private business
interests; they do not have to wonder if
they lost their job due to trade negotiations
in which the President has a personal
stake; and they never have to question
whether the President can sit across the
bargaining table from foreign leaders and
faithfully represent the world’s most
powerful democracy, unencumbered by
fear of harming his own companies.”
The suit seeks an injunction to force Trump to stop
violating the Constitution, but leaves it up to the court to
decide how that should be accomplished.
 USS Carl Vinson Scheduled To Pull Into Pearl Harbor
By William Cole
June 12, 2017 - Updated June 12, 2017 4:58pm
JAMM AQUINO / 2012 - The USS Carl Vinson is scheduled to arrive
Wednesdsay at Pearl Harbor following a five-month deployment.
The San Diego-based aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson is
scheduled to pull into Pearl Harbor Wednesday after a
five-month deployment during which it and the carrier
USS Ronald Reagan conducted rare joint training in the
Sea of Japan in a massive show of force aimed at North
Korea.
The USS Nimitz carrier strike group, meanwhile, left San
Diego June 5 and is on its way to the Western Pacific and
Indian Ocean.
Following a slew of North Korean ballistic missile tests,
Adm. Harry Harris, head of U.S. Pacific Command on
Oahu, ordered the Vinson strike group to forgo a visit to
Australia and sail north in early April after it departed
Singapore.
At the time, top Trump administration officials implied the
ships were racing for the Korean Peninsula when they
were actually heading to the Indian Ocean for an exercise.
Harris later accepted blame for miscommunication over
the location of the strike group.
The Vinson strike group arrived at the end of April and
spent the next month off South Korea, conducting the joint
exercise with the Ronald Reagan carrier strike group at the
end of May and beginning of June.
277
The Japan News reported the U.S.-Japan exercise was
“unprecedented in size,” with the U.S. carriers Reagan and
Vinson sailing with Japan’s Hyuga helicopter carrier and
followed by eight U.S. warships and a Japanese destroyer.
The Vinson stopped in Guam, Busan in South Korea and
Singapore, the Navy said.
One of the ships in the Vinson strike group, the Pearl
Harbor-based destroyer USS Michael Murphy, will return
to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Tuesday after a five-
month deployment, the Navy said.
“I am incredibly proud of the hard work and
dedication the crew exhibited during this
deployment with the Carl Vinson strike
group,” Cmdr. Robert A. Heely Jr., Michael
Murphy’s commanding officer, said in a
release. “They were resilient and always up
to the task.”
Michael Murphy began the deployment by conducting
training as part of the Carl Vinson carrier strike group off
the coast of Hawaii to improve readiness, the Navy said.
The Navy said the Michael Murphy conducted an 18-day
joint mission with the U.S. Coast Guard in the Central and
South Pacific under the Oceania Maritime Security
Initiative to combat transnational crimes, enforce fisheries
laws and enhance regional security. Following that
mission, Michael Murphy linked back up with the strike
group.
“Our missions spanned from Oceania,
through the South China Sea, and ended in
the Sea of Japan as we strengthened our
partnerships within the Indo-Asia-Pacific
region,” Heely said.
 White House Bats Down Idea
That Trump Is Considering Firing Robert Mueller
Kaitlan Collins - White House Correspondent
9:38 PM 06/12/2017

The White House has refuted the idea that President

Trump is considering dismissing special counsel Robert
Mueller, who was recently appointed to oversee the
investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016
presidential election.

Senior administration officials batted down the notion that

Trump was considering firing Mueller after Christopher
Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax Media and a friend of the
president, alleged that he was thinking about it during an
appearance on “PBS Newshour” Monday.
Press Secretary Sean Spicer said:
“I think he’s considering perhaps
terminating the special counsel,” Ruddy
said. “I think he’s weighing that option. I “Mr. Ruddy never spoke to the President
think it’s pretty clear by what one of his regarding this issue. With respect to this
lawyers said on television recently.” subject, only the President or his attorneys
are authorized to comment.”
“I personally think it would be a very
significant mistake, even though I don’t “Chris speaks for himself,” a second senior
think there’s a justification,” he added. administration official told The Daily Caller.
“He did not meet or speak with POTUS
today.”
Ruddy also claimed the president interviewed Mueller for
FBI director days before he was appointed to be special
counsel: The second official added that they were not aware of any
meetings between Trump and Ruddy this week, though he
was spotted exiting the West Wing Monday.
“The president did talk with him in the days
before he was named special counsel. I
think there’s a conflict there.” Ruddy declined to comment on the record for this article.

278
 Comey Shows Americans
That Law Does Not Apply To The Elite
By Michael Scheuer
June 12, 2017
I Admire A Straight-Speaking Person
June 11, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – James
Comey admits to taking official government documents
home and then giving them to the NY Times; he directly
contradicts his 3 May 2017, under-oath testimony; he
publicly conspires with that stooge of a Special Counsel
Robert Mueller to stage-manage his testimony; he refused
to tell Americans that their president was not colluding
with the Russians; he coordinated his public language with
Attorney General Lynch to please Clinton, protect that
criminal, and fix the 2016 election; and, just after the
hearing, is reported to have been offered a $10 million
advance/payoff from a New York publisher for a book on
Trump.
The Senate committee, almost to a man and woman, tried
to aid Comey’s lie-filled, anti-republic testimony against
Trump. Only Senators Risch, Cornyn, and Rubio did the
enormously easy job of demonstrating that Comey is
nothing but a lying, two-bit Clinton-whore. A good high-
school debater would have had no problem doing the
same.
Mr. Trump, God love you for what have done and are
trying to do to resuscitate the republic. We need more jobs,
a better stock market, no unnecessary wars, the end of
government-mandated multiculturalism and diversity,
rebuilt infrastructure, elimination of illegal aliens and
street gangs, a border wall, lower taxes, the repeal of hate-
speech laws, fairer trade, a lengthy ban on all immigration,
an end to abortion, and minimal federal regulations. All of
these things are indispensable.
But more urgently important than all of these needs, Mr.
Trump, is for Americans to see you and Attorney General
Sessions vigorously use the now unenforced law to,
figuratively, draw a vast effusion of blood from the utterly
lawless American elite. Both of you already have in your
possessions the basis for indictments of:
 James Comey for perjury, and he and all FBI officials
who conspired with him to support the Clinton
campaign
 All three Clintons, both Obamas, and Loretta Lynch
279
 The Clinton Foundation, its leadership team, some of
its contributors, and all of the State Department and
other national government officials who willing aided
the Foundation while Clinton was Secretary of State
 John Podesta and his DNC leadership team
 Eric Holder and all those DoJ officials involved in
Fast&Furious
 Lois Learner and the IRS officials who persecuted
conservatives
 All leakers of classified information, most especially
serving and former senior U.S. Intelligence Community
officials
 George Soros and all U.S.-citizen, billionaire big shots
who fund the violence of Democratic demonstrators
 All the Democratic operatives who have rigged voter
lists and otherwise assisted the dead and illegal aliens
to vote
 All of the mayors, governors, judges, police chiefs,
ministers, priests, NGOs, and university leaders who
establish and maintain “sanctuary” domains
 The people who killed DNC employee Seth Rich, as
well those responsible for the long list of murders of
people who crossed the Clintons.
You must, President Trump and Judge Sessions, move
quickly on the issue of enforcing the law against the
bipartisan U.S. political elite and incarcerating those
who are convicted — no pardons, no plea bargains, no
probation, no omissions.
All the other improvements for the republic aspired to by
the Trump administration are important, even essential.
But none is as important than beginning to enforce the law
against the gangster-dominated American elite. Legally
draw their blood, gentlemen, or they will reverse whatever
advances you accomplish for the republic when they rig
the next election and defeat you. That result will bring on
civil war.
And recall, Mr. Trump and Judge Sessions, that you are
defenders of the republic and that your oaths-of-office and
the Constitution require you to make sure all of the laws
are enforced. The citizenry demands no more than that you
do your duty.
If you fail to do so, you leave Americans only one option.
Their legitimate means of eliminating the gangster-elite,
when the law fails or is not applied, is provided by our
Founders and the 1st and 2nd Amendments they
bequeathed to their posterity.
280
And after all is said and done, Mr. President and Judge
Sessions, if you fail to do your constitutional duty, or are
prevented from doing it, the gangster-elite will quickly
come to understand why the Lord allowed men of
ingenuity and skill to create the AR-15.
 Cutting To The Bone
Of American Leadership
By Michael Fuchs
Monday, June 12, 2017 At 8:57 AM
Image: Getty
The recent resignation of David Rank, a 27-year career
Foreign Service officer who was serving as acting U.S.
Ambassador to China, is just the latest U.S. diplomatic
casualty of American leadership under President Donald
Trump.
Much has been written about the damage that Trump has
already done to America’s role in the world. From
undermining alliances to ignoring human rights to
withdrawing from international agreements forged by
American leadership – including the Paris climate
agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal –
Trump has made clear that he wants to upend America’s
place in the world, seeing many of America’s alliances,
trade deals and partnerships as ripping off America
economically.
Just months into his presidency, Trump himself is no
longer trusted by leaders around the world. Sure, many
will continue to try to adapt and placate him, but
governments make policy based on assumptions about
what other governments will do, and few believe that
Trump will live up to previous U.S. commitments,
including longstanding alliances, or that Trump can be
taken at his word for fear he will change his mind.
Enter the “Axis of Adults,” as some have collectively
referred to a handful of Trump’s top national security
officials, including National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of
Defense James Mattis, and Secretary of Homeland
Security John Kelly. These were the officials who were
going to interpret, smooth over, and translate Trump’s
281
campaign promises, tweets and unpredictable actions in
office into reasonable American foreign policy.
But in doing so, they have largely ruined their own
credibility, while at the same time convincing few people
at home or abroad that they speak for the president on
policy matters. Part of the job for McMaster and Kelly has
been to publicly defend of some of the Trump
administration’s worst impulses. McMaster was selected to
explain Trump’s impulsive decision to share highly
classified intelligence with Russia without permission
from the source country. Meanwhile, Kelly has not only
executed Trump’s draconian immigration policies, but he
has also answered the White House call of duty on matters
outside of his purview at the Department of Homeland
Security. For example, he defended Jared Kushner’s
reported attempt at setting up covert communications with
Russia.
Mattis has managed to maintain his independence, and
therefore his reputation remains mostly untainted. But his
independence largely stems from the fact that his views are
conspicuously divergent from Trump’s. He’s a staunch
supporter of NATO, highly critical of Russia, and just last
week expounded on the benefits of a “rules-based order”
during a speech in Singapore, making clear that he does
not necessarily speak for his boss on fundamental issues,
such as America’s commitments to its allies.
Tillerson stands out amongst this group as a quiet follower
of Trump’s dismantling of America’s role in the world,
neither willing to make clear publicly if his views diverge
from Trump (as Mattis does) nor fight on behalf of his own
agency’s resources and influence in the policymaking
process. As Tillerson tows Trump’s line everywhere he
goes, at home, he is gutting his own department, slowly
depleting America’s leadership capabilities.
Which brings us back to the resignation of David Rank,
and perhaps the most dangerous, long-term impact of the
Trump era on American foreign policy to date – the
weakening of the State Department. While presidents,
secretaries of state, and other senior officials set policy and
direction for U.S. foreign policy, the career foreign and
civil service officers that represent the United States
around the world bridge two gaps that no elected officials
or appointees could ever fill.
First, career diplomats carry out policies determined by the
president and secretary of state. Without the support of the
career diplomats, few if any presidential initiatives could
be achieved. Private talks provided the opening for a
nuclear deal with Iran, for instance, but career experts were
needed to lobby the world to tighten sanctions on Iran to
get it to the negotiating table, and then again to hammer
out the specifics of the nuclear deal.
Second, career diplomats are the bridges between
administrations, ensuring that enduring U.S. interests
continue to be advanced around the world. They are often
the ones who have years-long relationships with their
counterparts in other countries, forming the connective
tissue of peaceful international relations. The presence of
career officials also remind governments around the world
of the continuity of American leadership – those same
career officials will one day move on and up to take on
ambassadorships, positions as assistant secretaries and
under secretaries of state – and therefore earn respect and
influence abroad. Foreign governments hoping to strike a
better deal with the next team can wait out presidential
administrations, but career officials will be present in both.
While America’s economic and military strength provide
leverage and power, America’s diplomats are the ones who
figure out how best to use that power to advance
America’s interests. From advancing the interests of U.S.
businesses in almost every country on earth, to playing key
roles in defusing conflict, to spearheading humanitarian
work, U.S. diplomats do the invisible work of maintaining
U.S. interests abroad. And interests like supporting human
rights, boosting U.S. economic growth, and preventing
conflict endure – presidents alone cannot choose to
disregard them.
The acting U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, Lew
Lukens, made clear in recent days how U.S. diplomats
282
represent the best of America. After the terrorist attack in
London, as President Trump responded by criticizing the
mayor of London and America’s judiciary for not
implementing his Muslim ban, Lukens sent the message
that America stood with England with clear statements of
support – simple yet vital aspects of American leadership
and diplomacy that President Trump couldn’t muster.
This last line of defense for American leadership around
the world is in danger. In just the first few months of
Trump’s tenure, some of America’s most distinguished
career diplomats – such as Dan Fried and Tom
Countryman – have retired. Tillerson is backing Trump’s
attempt to hollow out the State Department through
massive budget cuts, which will hurt the department’s
capability to retain, hire, and train future diplomats. And
Tillerson does not even rely regularly on those career
officials continuing to man their posts.
Media speculation over Rank’s resignation suggests that
his motivation to leave stemmed from his unwillingness to
deliver the Trump administration’s rationale for
withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement to Chinese
officials. Whether or not this is true – and whether or not
other career officials are resigning because of Trump – it is
clear there continues to be a precipitous exit of veteran
Foreign Service officers.
If seasoned career diplomats continue to flee the State
Department – combined with the administration’s intention
to unilaterally disarm America’s diplomatic toolkit – the
Trump administration will have stripped America of its
first and last lines of diplomatic defense: These public
servants are out there preventing threats like pandemic
disease and proliferation of WMD from ever harming
Americans, while also serving as the last chance to stave
off violent conflicts before they begin. They will begin
cutting into bone.
 REPORT: Comey Suspected Of Other Leaks To The New
York Times Dating Back To At Least March
Cristina Laila
Jun 12th, 2017 11:01 Pm

Fired FBI Director James Comey
admitted to giving the contents of his
‘Trump memo’ to a good friend who is a
Columbia Law School Professor so he
could leak it to the press.
Comey had a business-as-usual attitude while he admitted
to giving his memo to a friend to leak to the press. TGP
recently reported that at least 9 of 38 Deep State leaks to
the media are linked to or related to former FBI Director
James Comey.
It is now being reported that there may be a trail of other
leaks that connect Comey to the New York Times dating
back to at least March and Trump’s legal team is
reportedly preparing complaints to be filed at the DOJ.
Via Fox News:
Though Comey told the Senate Judiciary
Committee on May 3 he’d never been — or
directed another FBI official to be — an
anonymous source for news reports about
the Trump and Hillary Clinton
investigations, the then-FBI chief did not
deny orchestrating leaks using, for
instance, an old friend who works at
Columbia University, or providing the
information to a wide enough group to
ensure it would leak.
And in reference to a separate case, he
acknowledged sending his infamous letter
to lawmakers last fall announcing a revival
of the Clinton email probe knowing full well
what they’d do: “Did I know they were really
going to leak it? Of course, I know how
Congress works.”

President Trump’s legal team may be

prepared to show a trail of leaks to The
New York Times by former FBI Director
James Comey – dating back to at least
March – in a pair of complaints set to be
filed to the Justice Department inspector
general and Senate Judiciary Committee, a
source close to the team told Fox News.
An independent Fox News review of The
New York Times’ reporting dating back to
January reveals a host of stories sourced
from top FBI and DOJ officials – or those
privy to their conversations – that either
paint Comey in a positive light or push a
message he was unable to personally
disclose.

283
 FBI Asst Dir Kallstrom –
Comey Conspired With Lynch To Cover For Clinton
By IWB
June 12, 2017

Former Assistant Director of the FBI James Kallstrom

joins Lou Dobbs for a discussion of the Comey mess and
what he thinks is really going on at that agency. Dobbs
addresses the “extraordinary hearing in which we found
out, the former director confessing, that he was leaking
information to the New York Times through a conduit, if
you will, a Columbia law professor by the name of Daniel
Richmond, and at the same time portraying himself as a
weak, frankly cowardly leader of the most storied law
enforcement agency in this country’s history.”
He asks if Comey wrote a memo when the IRS was
bullying innocent Americans, and asks why did the FBI
get involved in interviews at the time – for what purpose
and what were the various outcomes? Not only did he not
stand up for those people, Dobbs points out that Comey
simply rolled over when Loretta Lynch. He asks Kallstrom
if he’s wrong, but without a grand jury the Clinton
investigation is not an investigation. Kallstrom agrees,
saying

Dobbs says, “Exactly,” and “that’s the day, Lou, that he

should have stood up, and resigned as the
FBI Director and told the American people
“I mean it was quite a performance. And
why he was resigning.”
then we hear the national left-wing media,
you would have thought that there was sort
of a draw in that, when it was clearly a Kallstrom continues,
disaster for James Comey.” Kallstrom
replies, “Yeah, that fifth column is really “Because you do not conduct an
strong and getting stronger. The facts are investigation without subpoena power,
irrelevant to them.” without compelling testimony, without
serving search warrants.
Kallstrom says,
There was so much evidence against Hillary Clinton they
“I’ve talked about Comey for a while and I didn’t even need:
don’t do that with any glee. After first
endorsing the rank and file agents as being http://rickwells.us/dobbs-fbi-asst-dir-k…r-clinton/
great, he notes that the leadership is
suspect, making what he generously 2016 – Trey Gowdy Exposes FBI Director James Comey
describes as “foolish mistakes.” He mocks For Protecting Hillary Clinton – WAKE UP AMERICA
Comey for the “flutters in his stomach” and THE LIES THAT ARE BEING EXPOSED SHOWING
his having to write the memo detailing his WHY YOUR NATION IS NOT WHAT YOU THOUGHT
conversation with the President. Kallstrom IT WAS – LIES EXPOSED!
asks if Comey felt the same need to write a
memo following the meeting between Bill
Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix
tarmac, “apparently not. ” He asks, “Did he
write a memo when the prosecutor memo
came over to the FBI and said ‘you can’t
call it an investigation…you have to call it a
matter and by the way, you can’t have a
grand jury. Did he write a memo then? I
don’t think so, at least he didn’t say he did.”

284
2016 – Trey Gowdy Exposes Lying Loretta Lynch For
Protecting Hillary Clinton – WHERE IS THE
CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM –
PRESIDENTS POSITION LIKE THE ROYALS?
IMMUNITY NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO?

285
 9th Circuit Rules Against Trump Travel Ban
Fox News
Published June 12, 2017
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled in part
against President Trump’s so-called travel ban, upholding
an injunction that prevents the administration from
enforcing a suspension on travel from six mostly Muslim
countries.
"We conclude that the President, in issuing
the Executive Order, exceeded the scope
of the authority delegated to him by
Congress," the opinion said.
The ruling Monday from a unanimous three-judge panel of
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deals the
administration another legal defeat as the Supreme Court
considers a separate case on the issue.
The judges say the president violated U.S. immigration
law by discriminating against people based on their
nationality and that Trump failed to show their entry into
the country would hurt American interests.
In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the
Justice Department disagreed with the decision, adding
that the order was "well within [Trump's] lawful authority
to keep the Nation safe."
The judges did not rule on whether the travel ban violated
the Constitution's ban on the government officially
favoring or disfavoring any religion. The 9th Circuit,
considered among the most liberal circuits in the country,
did side with the administration Monday in allowing the
government to review vetting procedures. The judges
directed a lower court to re-issue its preliminary injunction
following the new guidance.
The 9th Circuit opinion represents just one development in
the fast-moving legal battle.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia also
ruled against the travel ban May 25. The administration
has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
.
286
Earlier Monday, lawyers for Hawaii also told the Supreme
Court that letting the Trump administration enforce the ban
would "thrust the country back into the chaos and
confusion" that resulted when the policy was first
announced in January.
The state urged the justices to deny the administration plea
to reinstate the policy after lower courts blocked it. The
high court is considering the administration's request and
could act before the justices wind up their work at the end
of June.
Under the Trump policy, immigration officials would have
90 days to decide what changes are necessary before
people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and
Yemen may resume applying for visas. The U.S. refugee
program would be halted for 120 days.
It would take a majority of the Supreme Court, at least five
justices, to put the policy into effect.
The 9th Circuit weighed in Monday after a federal judge in
Hawaii already blocked the ban.
Trump signed his first executive order on travel a week
after he took office in January. It applied to travelers from
the six countries as well as Iraq and took effect
immediately, leading to commotion at U.S. airports as the
Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out
who the order covered and how it was to be implemented.
A federal judge blocked it eight days later.
In March, Trump issued a narrower order, but federal
courts that have examined it so far have blocked it as well.
On Twitter last week, Trump said the
"courts are slow and political" and he said
the government already is "EXTREME
VETTING people coming into the U.S."
 US Seize Dotcom’s Assets,
Despite Him Never Stepping Foot In The US
By Keyser Söze
June 13, 2017

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has effectively abandoned all hope

of retrieving millions of dollars of capital, real estate and luxury
goods after the US Justice Department formally filed an asset-
forfeiture with the Supreme Court on Friday.

The case is unprecedented as Dotcom has never once

stepped-foot on US soil. The US claim jurisdiction over
Dotcom because his site Megaupload operated some
servers from the US.

The Finnish-German tech entrepreneur’s bank accounts in

New Zealand and Hong Kong were seized, as well as
multiple cars, four jet skis, Dotcom’s mansion, several
luxury cars, two 108-inch TVs, three 82-inch TVs, a
$10,000 watch, and a photograph by Olaf Mueller worth
more than $100,000.
Dotcom dot-coming to the US?
Dotcom is currently on bail in New Zealand and fighting
extradition to the US in a complex legal battle. He is Kim Dotcom is a bizarre and cult-like figure within the
therefore a fugitive under US law and unable to challenge hacktivist community – the kind of antihero whose story
the US Supreme Court under the Fugitive Disentitlement would make an intensely-watchable film one day.
Doctrine.
He was an outlaw as a young teenager, gaining notoriety in
His defense claims the Justice Department is taking too his native Germany after hacking NASA, the Pentagon and
expansive a view of the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine. Citibank. He became one of the richest tech entrepreneurs
That’s because Dotcom, they maintain, isn’t a fugitive in the world by the early 2000s, predominantly through a
because he is lawfully challenging his extradition in the seed fund called Kimvestor. In 2005 he changed his
New Zealand courts. surname from Schmitz to Dotcom in homage to the
colossal fortune the internet had brought him.
See his petition to the Supreme Court below:
His other accomplishments throughout his erratic and
mutable career include achieving the number one global
287
rank at Call of Duty, contesting the 2014 New Zealand
election and getting in a drawn-out spat with Prime
Minister John Key, hacking Osama Bin Laden’s Sudanese
bank account and recording an electronica protest album
against Barack Obama.
Dotcom claims that he can provide evidence relating to the
death of Seth Rich on the condition that he is granted safe
passage to the US and back to New Zealand.

Despite the ostensible ridiculousness of his career and

persona, he commands significant influence online and
never ceases to be a thorn in the side of the US intelligence
community.

After Megaupload was taken down by the FBI, hacktivist

outfit Anonymous conducted DDOS attacks that crippled
the IT infrastructure of the US Department of Justice.

Recently, he has been contributing to noises surrounding

the mysterious death of DNC staffer Seth Rich. He
believes that a whistleblower who once contacted him,
identifying himself as ‘Panda’, was actually Rich, and is This request was denied, and the US continue to pressure
convinced that he was murdered for political reasons rather New Zealand for his extradition. To add insult to injury,
than the botched robbery which was reported in the verdict they now have his jet skis.
of DC police.
.

288
 Video Surfaces Of Seth Rich Neighbor’s
Testimony As To What He Saw The Night Of The Murder
Seth Rich Was Conscious And Breathing When Police
Arrived To The Scene.
Alex Christoforou
June 13, 2017

A new video has surfaced of a man named “Mark

Mueller”, who could be going by the alias “Scott Roberts”.

Scott Roberts claimed to be Seth Rich’s neighbor…a

neighbor who also identified Seth Rich moments after he
was shot.

The Gateway Pundit reports…

Mueller says police walked Seth Rich

past him after he was shot to identify
him and said that Rich ‘didn’t even
know he was shot’. He tried to comfort
others at the vigil saying Seth Rich didn’t
feel physical pain.

A vigil was held for slain DNC staffer, Seth Rich where
Debbie Wasserman Schultz was also in attendance.

An eyewitness came forward saying,

“I was there when he (Seth Rich) got shot

and they walked him past me so that I
could see him and identify him because I
knew him in the neighborhood, and the
police officer said, ‘he didn’t even know he
was shot’.

A tweet from “Scott Roberts DC” the night Seth Rich

A tweet from DC police issuing an alert after Seth Rich
was murdered…
was first shot…

The Gateway Pundit continues…

289
Seth Rich was conscious and breathing when police Full video of vigil. Listen to the man @at the 6:28 minute
arrived to the scene. As TGP previously reported, mark.
according to Public Incident Report CCN #16113797 dated
July 10, 2016 by the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department, former DNC employee and the leaker of
emails to WikiLeaks, Seth Rich was alive when the police
found him on that date. He died later that morning. The
report also notes that Rich was conscious and breathing
with gunshot wounds to his back when the police found
him. The report also notes that at least three of the police at
the scene wore body cameras that night.

The video from the body cameras has

gone missing.

290
 Report: Cindy McCain Headed To State Department Even
As Her Husband Remains Top Trump Critic
By Emily Zanotti
1:57 Pm, June 13, 2017
Senator John McCain has been one of President Donald
Trump’s harshest Republican critics, even going so far as
to say that America’s position in the world was stronger
under President Obama—a solid burn from a man who
found Obama’s foreign policy was responsible for
confusion and unrest, espcially in the Middle East.
But McCain’s wife may be taking a different, more subtle
tack on reforming a hapless foreign policy: working to
improve the situation from the inside. According to
reports, Cindy McCain is headed for a job in the US State
Department, helping to coordinate the administration’s
message on human rights.
US Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, introduces his
wife, Cindy McCain, co-chair of the Human Trafficking Advisory
Council at the McCain Institute, to testify during a Senate Foreign
Relations committee hearing about modern slavery on Capitol Hill in
Washington, DC, February 24, 2016. / AFP / SAUL LOEB (Photo
credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
Mrs. McCain, a media and business force in her own right,
is Trump’s top pick for “U.S. ambassador-at-large for
human rights,” a position “which would focus on anti
291
human trafficking efforts, refugees, and humanitarian-aid
matters,” according to the Daily Beast.
Trump needs a cool hand on these issues—particularly
refugees—in light of recent legal losses over his so-called
“Muslim ban,” which fell most recently in the Ninth
Circuit, with Justice’s citing the President’s own Tweets to
interpret the law.
And McCain is experienced: she’s been at the forefront of
American efforts to combat human trafficking, using the
McCain Institute to help guide policy on the issue, and has
traveled the world speaking on the issue, stressing its
importance and its prevalence.
John McCain actually used his wife’s work as one reason
he wouldn’t cast a ballot for Trump in the Republican
Primary.
“Cindy, with her strong background in
human rights and respect for women fully
agrees with me on this,” he told reporters at
the time.
Cindy herself has often publicly criticized the Trump
administration over their handling of the Syrian refugee
crisis and the broader issue of immigration.
“This is crisis mode, and I’m disappointed
in how the United States has responded to
this,” she told media last summer. “We are
at risk here of truly losing a generation of
Syrian young people to a scourge of
human trafficking—among others things—
that’s taking place as a result of this.”
But that could be why Trump made it his personal mission
to get Cindy on his team. According to the Daily Beast, all
of Trump’s overtures to John McCain were part of an
effort to establish a relationship with Cindy, and Trump
personally asked Cindy to join his administration, even
offering to create the new position for her.
A formal announcement is expected in a couple of weeks.
 Michael Moore Goes FULL TREASON, Launches
Traitorous “Leaks” Website In Yet Another Lunatic Left-
Wing Attempt To Overthrow The Government
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 13, 2017
On his Twitter account, the profile picture of Left-wing
former sportscaster Keith Olbermann, whose venomous
hatred of all things not liberal has gotten him fired even
from progressive networks, shows him wrapping himself
in an American flag (Warning) along with a vulgar
reference to President Donald J. Trump.
But if you have ever listened to or followed Olbermann,
you quickly learn that he’s not at all a supporter of what
you might call “traditional American values.” His point of
view on all things is not only political, but Alt-Left, and
like the majority of his like-minded peers, he has no
patience or use for anyone who embraces conservative
ideology.
Olbermann is certainly entitled to his own opinions, but
when you believe other people who think differently than
you aren’t entitled to theirs, well, then you ought to be
wrapping yourself in an old Soviet flag, or perhaps a
Chinese flag, because those regimes didn’t believe in
freedom of speech either. (Related: The angry Left is
destroying once grand, once patriotic Hollywood.)
Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore is cut from the
same cloth as Olbermann. He, too, only believes in a one-
sided country that shuns any and all points of view
dissimilar from his own (Left-wing) ideals. And to ensure
that his vision, and not anyone who disagrees with him,
dominates, he has started a new website called
“TrumpiLeaks” which encourages White House staffers,
Deep State types, and anyone else to violate their oaths of
292
office and leak anything negative on the president of the
United States.
You know, violating their oaths and trust of the American
people as part of their “patriotic duty.”
In a letter published by the far-Left Huffington Post,
Moore announced his new site — after months of
complaining about all of the incriminating documents
WikiLeaks published about Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic National Committee (so as a Democrat, then,
Moore also lacks the hypocrisy gene).
He begins:
Friends,
I need one of you to help me. It might get
dangerous. It may get us in trouble. But
we’re running out of time. We must act. It’s
our patriotic duty.
From the time you opened this letter to the
time you get to the bottom of it, there’s a
decent chance that our president will have
violated the constitution, obstructed justice,
lied to the American people, encouraged or
supported acts of violence, or committed
some horrible mistake that would’ve ended
any other politician’s career (or sent you or
I to jail). And just like all the times he’s
done so in the past, he will get away with
it.
Mind you, there isn’t anything Trump has done, as
evidenced by a lack of proof, that has amounted to a
violation of the Constitution or any statute in law. By
comparison, Moore’s favorite president, Barack Obama,
regularly violated the Constitution, and yet no letter from
the documentarian seeking leaks from Obama White
House staffers…wasn’t Obama a bigger danger to
American freedom and liberty?
“Donald Trump thinks he’s above the law.
He acts like he’s the above the law. He’s
STATED that he’s above the law. And by
 firing Sally Yates, Preet Bharara and
James Comey (3 federal officials with
SOME authority to hold him accountable)
he’s taken the first few steps to make it
official,” Moore continued — never
mentioning that as president, Trump has
the constitutional authority to fire anyone
(and everyone) within the Executive
Branch…because, you know, he’s the head
of the Executive Branch.
So what’s Moore’s “patriotic” plan? Four steps:
1) Mass citizen action (whatever that means);
2) Take Trump to court nonstop (because Moore and his
“patriots” have decided on their own that a duly elected
.
293
president they don’t agree with has no right to
implement his own agenda);
3) Encourage others (who are Alt-Left like him) to run for
office (you don’t think he means conservative
Republicans, do you?); and
4) “An army of satire” — again, for whatever that’s worth.
It’s not that the far-Left has no right to protest the
president, or to get involved in citizen activism. That much
is “American” enough. But the manner in which Moore —
and the Keith Olbermanns of the country — are operating,
with a political scorched-earth strategy aimed ultimately at
helping to bring Trump down — isn’t “American.” And
it’s not “patriotic.”
It’s despotic.
 New Information Suggests Guccifer 2.0
Leak Was A DNC Ruse Fabricated By “Warren Flood”
Whoever Created The Files From Guccifer 2.0 Did It Using A Version Of
Microsoft Office Registered To "Warren Flood"
By Shepard Ambellas
06.13.2017 @11:29 AM EDT
(INTELLIHUB) — The Democratic National Committee
(DNC) claims that it was the so-called Russian hacker
Guccifer 2.0 and not the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich
who hacked into the DNC servers and gave Wikileaks the
emails which later revealed how the DNC rigged the
Primary against Senator Bernie Sanders to thrust Hillary
Clinton into the forefront.
Now, new evidence has emerged which proves that either:
a. That Guccifer 2.0 is not the Russian hacker as the
DNC claims
b. That Guccifer 2.0 was set up by the DNC to be a patsy
and may be a legitimate hacker
According to a new video posted to the Mike Cerovich
YouTube channel, narrated by Devon Stack:
“There’s evidence to suggest that Guccifer
2.0 isn’t a Russian hacker as the DNC
claims but rather an invention of someone
using software registered to the DNC, a
staffer named Warren Flood.”
The videos narrator goes on to point out how Warren
Flood is a “tech worker” who has previously worked for
organizations such as Obama For America, the DNC, and
even the White House. But even more shocking is the fact
that whoever created the files from Guccifer 2.0 did it
using a version of Microsoft Office registered to
“Warren Flood.”
The metadata embedded within the Wikileaks emails, when
compared to the metadata released by ‘Guccifer 2.0,’
doesn’t match up and is not the same (i.e. the files released
by Guccifer 2.0 are not the same files released by
Wikileaks). What the metadata actually shows is that the
Wikileaks files clearly were taken from DNC Research
Director Lauren Dillon’s computer and not Warren Floods
who used Microsoft Office to create the document.
So how does all of this tie in?
294
Keep in mind that, still, to this day, the FBI has never
inspected the DNC’s servers. This fact was admitted by
Fmr. FBI Director James Comey in his recent hearing.
“In the case of the DNC and I believe the
D-triple-C, but I’m sure the DNC, we did not
have access to the devises themselves,”
Comey testified, proving that nobody has
ever inspected the DNC servers.
A timeline of events according to the video, as follows:
 June 14, 2016: The DNC announced that it had been
hacked, the Washington Post suggested “the
Russians” did it
 June 15, 2016: Crowdstrike, the company paid by the
DNC to maintain its servers, also blamed the attack on
the Russians
 June 15, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 appeared on the Internet
claiming responsibility for the DNC hack, releases
opposition research on Trump
 June 15, 2016: Vice releases opposition research on
Trump
 Aug. 9, 2016: Wikileaks offered a “$20K reward for
information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC
staffer Seth Rich”
 Aug. 25, 2016: A chat between Guccifer 2.0 and
actress Robin Young appeared on the internet in which
Guccifer 2.0 admits he got the info from Seth Rich and
that Wikileaks Julian Assange is in cahoots with the
Russians. Robin Young later claimed that all of her
direct messages were missing.
As pointed out by Stack, the new evidence
“further illustrates how baseless the
Russian conspiracy theory is and casts
suspicion on none other than the DNC and
possibly even the [Obama] White House.”
#SethRich
 Even After James Comey Outs The New York Times For
Fake News Over Russia-Trump Collusion,
Paper Won’t Correct The Record
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 13, 2017
Unbelievably, even after fired FBI Director James Comey
told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee last
week that a February 14 story The New York Times ran
implying “collusion” between Team Trump and “The
Russians” was dead wrong, the paper still won’t make the
necessary corrections.
Proving, once more, that in the Age of President Donald J.
Trump, unsourced allegations, suppositions and innuendo
can be substituted for factual reporting, so long as it is
damaging to the current occupant of the White House or
his staff.
During Comey’s much-anticipated testimony on Thursday,
he was asked by a member of the intelligence panel about
a Times report that claimed in its headline, “Trump
Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian
Intelligence.”
In the story it was reported that:
Phone records and intercepted calls show
that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016
presidential campaign and other Trump
associates had repeated contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials in the
year before the election, according to four
current and former American officials.
American law enforcement and intelligence
agencies intercepted the communications
295
around the same time they were
discovering evidence that Russia was
trying to disrupt the presidential election by
hacking into the Democratic National
Committee, three of the officials said. The
intelligence agencies then sought to learn
whether the Trump campaign was colluding
with the Russians on the hacking or other
efforts to influence the election.
The Times said no evidence had yet been found to
substantiate the claims, but nevertheless went on to report
further details about the alleged contacts and resultant
investigation. (RELATED: Americans aren’t fooled: 2/3
say ‘mainstream media’ is fake news)
There’s just one major problem with the report, per Comey
himself, who ought to know: None of it was true.
“In the main,” the story “was not true,”
Comey testified, adding that after the news
broke, he found it so troubling that he made
an inquiry within the U.S. intelligence
community to make sure he hadn’t missed
something.
He hadn’t.
Later, in response to a second question about the veracity
of the Times report from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Okla.:
“Would it be fair to characterize that story is
almost entirely wrong?” said Cotton.
“Yes,” Comey said.
Upon hearing Comey’s testimony, the Times claimed it
would ‘look into’ his statements and ‘report’ back:
“We are looking into James Comey’s
statements, and we will report back with
more information as soon as we can,” the
paper tweeted.
However, after doing some further checking, which didn’t
take long, the Times issued a statement in which the paper
said it would stick by its initial story:
The New York Times has published an
examination of Mr. Comey’s statements
today, which reviews our previous
coverage and found no evidence that any
prior reporting was inaccurate. In fact,
subsequent reporting by The Times and
other media outlets has verified our
reporting as the story makes clear.
Neither the FBI, nor Mr. Comey would
comment or elaborate on what Mr. Comey
believes to be incorrect. Should they
provide more information, we would review
that as well.
In other words, it doesn’t matter what the former FBI
director says during sworn testimony, in which he is under
.
296
penalty of perjury if he makes false statements. Nope; the
Trump hate is too strong at the Times, so even fake news
stories will stand if they cast a negative light on the Trump
administration.
Remember when Trump suggested that he may attempt to
hold the media legally liable for slanderous reporting and
false accusations? Remember the outrage among the media
and the political punditry class? This kind of garbage from
the Times is precisely what Trump was talking about — a
story that has been directly refuted by the former head of
the FBI doesn’t even earn a correction from the “news”
paper that published it. The Times should be held legally
liable for it.
Meantime, the editors and reporters at the Times and the
rest of the Trump-hating media have decided they will
continue allowing themselves to be treated like presstitutes
by the Deep State.
Judge: 'Biggest Bombshell Of The Day' Dropped As Comey
And Loretta Lynch Now In The Legal Crosshairs
By Susan Duclos - All News Pipeline
June 13, 2017
Hell-bent on sabotaging President Donald Trump,
Democrats in Congress just proved the old adage of "Be
careful what you ask for because you just might get it,"
true, as the long and eagerly awaited (by Democrats)
testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee by former
FBI director James Comey opened a huge can of worms to
which Judge Andrew Napolitano calls "the biggest
bombshell of the day."
That was Comey's testimony about Loretta Lynch and how
she intimidated Comey into lying to the American public
in regards to what he said was a "criminal investigation"
into Hillary Clinton, by ordering him to publicly refer to it
as a "matter," which mimicked the talking point being used
by the Clinton campaign.
At about the 40 second mark in the interview clip below,
the judge is asked about a statement made by President
Trump on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, which said
"A.G. Lynch made law enforcement
decisions for political purposes...gave
Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection.
Totally illegal!," to which the judge
responds saying "There is enough to
support that tweet, in my view, to justify the
commencement of a criminal investigation
of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch."
The judge explains
"The crime would be 'misconduct in office,'
the use of law enforcement resources for
political purposes."
297
He bases his assertion on the public testimony of James
Comey, as well as leaked reports of Comey's classified
session with the Senate members after his public
testimony, which reports describe a second meeting
between Comey and Lynch, discussed after the interview
clip below, where Judge Napolitano expresses his belief
that
"This thing with Loretta Lynch is the
biggest bombshell of the day."
The new report, via Circa News, is that during the
classified meeting between Comey and lawmakers after his
public testimony, Comey described a second
"confrontation" with Loretta Lynch, which is even more
damning that his public statements in regards to her
interference, quoted below:
Comey told lawmakers in the close door
session that he raised his concern with the
attorney general that she had created a
conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s
husband, the former President Bill Clinton,
on an airport tarmac while the investigation
was ongoing.
During the conversation, Comey told
lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a
highly sensitive piece of evidence, a
communication between two political
figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to
put the kibosh on any prosecution of
Clinton.

Comey said “the attorney general looked at
the document then looked up with a steely
silence that lasted for some time, then
asked him if he had any other business
with her and if not that he should leave her
office,” said one source who was briefed.
Comey "took that interaction and the fact
she had met with Bill Clinton as enough
reason to decide he would not allow the
Justice Department to decide the fate of
the case and instead would go public" with
his own assessment that the FBI could not
prove Mrs. Clinton intended to violate the
law when she transmitted classified
information through her private email and
therefore should not be criminally charged.
Another source said the "tarmac meeting
was the public excuse for not going to
Lynch when all along there was other
evidence that was more concerning to
Comey."
Following that classified briefing with Senate members
after Comey's public testimony, Democratic Senator
Dianne Feinstein called for the Senate Judiciary
Committee to investigate former AG Loretta Lynch
instructing James Comey to mislead the public about the
Clinton email investigation.
"I would have a queasy feeling, too,"
Feinstein admitted in a Sunday morning
interview on CNN. "I think we need to know
more about that and there’s only way to
know about it, and that’s to have the
judiciary committee take a look at that."
(Source with video - DC)
COMPLAINTS TO BE FILED AGAINST JAMES
COMEY
Another way the Comey testimony backfired on
Democrats and liberals that were convinced Comey would
prove once and for all that President Trump was personally
under investigation for collusion with Russia in regards to
the 2016 presidential investigation, Instead Comey verified
298
the President's assertion that he was never under
investigation.
The bigger shock was that Comey openly admitted to
orchestrating a "leak" of memos he allegedly wrote after
meetings and phone calls with President Trump. (Memos it
is important to note were never physically seen by the
MSM that first reported them, and have not been turned
over to any Congressional committee for verification, as
Judge Napolitano highlights in the interview above.)
It is also significant to remind reads that a liberal legal
scholar, lawyer and law professor Jonathan Turley says
Comey admitted to committing a crime by saying he
orchestrated that "leak," considering he used an FBI lap
top, said he was sitting in a government vehicle to create
one of those memos of a private conversation between him
and the President of the United States.
Before detailing more suspected leaks by Comey to the
press and the reports of complaints to be filed against
Comey over a trail of leaks, we would like to remind
readers that back in January, before Trump was even
inaugurated, Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer stated
in reference to Trump tweeting about the intelligence
community,
"Let me tell you, you take on the
intelligence community, they have six ways
from Sunday to get back at you. So, even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he is being really dumb to do
this........ I am told, they are very upset with
how he has treated them and talked about
them."
That statement by Schumer was made on January 3,
2017..... keep that date in mind as we proceed.
Since then, there have been dozens of "leaks" to the press,
many of which have proven to be complete "fake news"
with others holding small truths, but it clearly shows
Schumer's threat against Trump was not hot air, and that
the deep state members of the Intel community were
planning to sabotage the Trump presidency, as Comey
publicly admitted to doing when he testified last Thursday.
Which brings us to the newest bombshell with multiple
reports stating that President Trump's lawyers are set to file
complaints against James Comey with the Justice
Department inspector general and Senate Judiciary
Committee, and are "prepared to show a trail of leaks to
The New York Times by former FBI Director James Comey
– dating back to at least March," according to Fox News.
This goes a long way toward explaining President Trump's
use of the word "leaks" in the plural in regards to Comey,
rather than the single orchestrated leaks Comey admitted
to, when on the Sunday after Comey's testimony, Trump
tweeted
"I believe the James Comey leaks will be
far more prevalent than anyone ever
thought possible. Totally illegal? Very
'cowardly!'"
Fox News did an independent review of The New York
Times’ reporting dating back to January which
"reveals a host of stories sourced from top
FBI and DOJ officials – or those privy to
their conversations – that either paint
Comey in a positive light or push a
message he was unable to personally
disclose."
They begin with one on January 6, 2017, just three days
after Schumer said the intel community could get back at
Trump "six ways to Sunday." Perhaps someone needs to
ask Schumer who "leaked" that information to him about
the upcoming "revenge" of the deep state.
Jan. 6 – Comey, in written testimony, said
he briefed then-President-elect Trump
while the two men were alone in Trump
Tower on this date. The briefing dealt with
the salacious and unverified dossier
alleging that Russia had compromising
information about Trump. According to
Comey’s account, both he and ex-Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper
decided Comey should be the only one to
299
brief Trump. One of the reasons for this
arrangement, Comey wrote, was because
he was staying on as FBI director – though
no official announcement had been made
about this and subsequent reports indicate
Trump didn’t ask Comey about remaining
in his capacity until this meeting took place.
Jan. 10 – The Times reports on the
Comey/Trump dossier meeting, citing “2
officials with knowledge of the briefing.”
More inside-the-FBI information also exists
in the article, including when the FBI first
became aware of the dossier and the
troubles agents had confirming the
document’s details.
We find these two particularly significant because at the
time, after that meeting between Comey and Trump
regarding the now-debunked "dossier," it was reported that
Trump ran his own "sting" operation to try to uncover
where leaks were coming from, where he decided to tell
no one about that dossier secret briefing, "shielding even
his longtime scheduling aide, Rhona Graff, to rule out the
possibility leaks were coming from his staff," when "word
got out anyway, Trump concluded it was the intelligence
community who was putting out information."
According to Comey, the two men were alone during that
meeting, and the Daily Mail report dated January 11, 2017,
quoted above, Trump did not even tell his own staff about
the meeting, something Comey did not know at the time,
so Trump has been documenting leaks that had to have
originated with Comey, since January! No matter who
actually leaked it to the press, Comey had to have given
information on that private meeting to others, making him
the originating source.
The leak Comey admitted to, using Columbia University
Prof. Daniel Richman to provide the leak to Michael S.
Schmidt at the New York Times, led Fox News to search
for Richman, where they found 11 articles featuring
Comey and
"six of them being authored by Michael
S. Schmidt – who later wrote the 'Comey
memos' story which Comey told Congress
he directed Richman to leak."
Jan. 24 – Though Trump hadn’t made an official
announcement, The Times reports Comey would be
staying on as FBI director. Comey had reportedly told a
large group about the news, in this case special agents
in charge from across the nation. Trump’s request that
Comey remain on allegedly occurred during the Jan. 6
Trump Tower meeting. Schmidt wrote the story.
Feb. 24 – Following a CNN report about contacts
between Trump associates and Russia, The Times
reports (the same day) that both Comey and Deputy
FBI Director Andrew McCabe allegedly called White
House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to assure him the
CNN report was false. Priebus asked the FBI leaders if
they could refute the report in public, though they both
declined. When the reported calls between the FBI
officials and Priebus surfaces, Trump is infuriated and
tweets that the FBI needs to work aggressively to stop
the leaks.
March 1 – A DOJ official confirms to The Times that
Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a pair of
conversations with Russian official Sergey Kislyak
despite Sessions’ Jan. 10 testimony that he hadn’t had
contact with Russians in a campaign capacity. This
news, and the ensuing firestorm, leads to Sessions
recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Comey
said in his June written statement that he knew as far
back as mid February that Sessions would likely be
recusing himself. This was one of the reasons he gave
for not telling Sessions about his interactions with
Trump. Schmidt contributed to this article.
March 4 – Trump infamously tweets that his phones
had been “tapped” at Trump Tower by the Obama
administration during the transition. A "senior law
enforcement official from the Obama Administration"
tells The Times that Trump’s claim is “100 percent
untrue.” Schmidt contributed to this article.
March 5 – Several "senior American officials and
senior FBI officials" tell The Times that Comey argued
that Trump’s surveillance claim was false and had to be
publicly corrected, even going so far as to ask DOJ to
push back on the allegation. The Justice Department
does not do so, though Comey’s concerns are voiced in
the article without him ever giving an on-the-record
quote. Schmidt contributed to this article.
March 6 – The Trump administration pushes back on
the reported Comey concerns publicized in the previous
day’s Times story. Comey "was said to be disturbed" by
the claims because the Trump allegations insinuated
the FBI had broken the law. Schmidt wrote this
article.
April 22 – The Times publishes a very lengthy profile of
Comey featuring several in-depth, inside-the-room
details and on-the-record quotes from Richman. The
piece portrays Comey as a man attempting to "shield
the FBI" from politics while struggling to do the right
thing. Schmidt contributed to the article.
May 9 – Comey is fired by Trump.
May 10 – Richman is quoted in a Times story about
Comey and foreshadows the alleged request for loyalty
Trump made of Comey: “With a president who seems
300
to prize personal loyalty above all else and a director
with absolute commitment to the Constitution and
pursuing investigations wherever the evidence led, a
collision was bound to happen.”
May 11 – In the afternoon, Trump gives an interview to
Lester Holt in which Trump calls Comey a "showboat."
Later that night, The New York Times publishes details
of an alleged dinner meeting between Trump and
Comey in which Trump "demanded loyalty" and Comey
demurred. The article, written by Schmidt, cites
"associates" of Comey.
May 12 – A tweet from Trump, ostensibly sent in
response to the latest Times story, suggests Comey is
the source of the leak and tells him he should hope
Trump doesn’t have "tapes" of their conversations.
May 16 – Comey testified in June he woke up in the
middle of the night and decided he needed to get his
side of the story out (though most of the details were
already reported in the May 11 article). That day, the
story about Comey’s alleged memos of the Trump
meetings is reported in a New York Times story.
Schmidt wrote the article. This is the only leak Comey
has acknowledged some role in.
That is just Fox News' research into New York Times
articles, leaving an obvious questions about how many of
the leaks to CNN and Washington Post, can be traced back
to Comey, which could explain why the "intel leaks" have
decreased considerably since Comey was fired from his
position as director of the FBI.
BOTTOM LINE
Democrats and liberals could have spent four years
undermining President Trump in the eyes of the public,
constantly insinuating that he was under investigation,
consistently using the "Trump/Russia collusion" meme
they have spent the last five months pushing, but instead
they over-played their hand, insisted on Congressional
investigations and a special counsel, holding up the Comey
testimony like he was their golden boy to cast more doubt
on the president.
Instead they saw him publicly admit, for the first time in
five months of constant headlines claiming Trump was
under investigation, that he wasn't and had never been.
Instead, the media was highlighted as reporting
"inaccurate" and false stories on a mass scale, where
Comey said much of the reporting on Russia was "dead
wrong."
Instead, they saw Comey point to possible crimes and
"misconduct" on the part of the Obama administration, via
his AG Loretta Lynch.
Instead, Comey admitted to possible committing his own
crimes in orchestrating leaks to the press.
I said at the beginning of the article, I will repeat it for the
liberals:
"Be careful what you ask for, you just might
get it."
301
Now today, Attorney General Jeff Session is set to
testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
slated to begin at 2:30 p.m. ET. Live streams below.
We can only wonder how much more damage to the MSM,
Liberal narrative we will see as they get yet another thing
they asked for.
 The Trump/Russia Collusion
Narrative Is A Will-O'-The-Wisp
By Debra Heine
June 13, 2017
It has become abundantly clear in recent weeks that there
was never any collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia and the entire "investigation" has been a pretext for
a fishing expedition. The "deep state" anti-Trump
"resisters" behind the phony Russia probes figured
correctly that somewhere along the way some big fish
would get caught in their dragnet.
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn, for
example, was busted for not being totally upfront with
Vice President Mike Pence about his telephone
conversation with the Russian ambassador. That made him
vulnerable to Russian blackmail, according to former
acting attorney general Sally Yates. Because obviously the
Ruskies would use an innocuous conversation in which
nothing improper or illegal was said to blackmail
someone!
Never mind that Flynn was improperly unmasked and the
conversation was illegally leaked to the media. We're told
there's nothing to any of that.
Now, the narrative-peddlers are trying to nail Attorney
General Jeff Sessions, who has suddenly become a central
figure in the Trump Team's Russian collusion caper.
At the heart of the controversy is Sessions' answer to a
long and rambling question posed by Senator Al Franken
during his confirmation hearing regarding alleged
collusion with the Russians. Sessions answered:
"I'm not aware of any of those activities. I
have been called a surrogate at a time or
302
two in that campaign and I did not have
communications with the Russians."
Turns out Sessions had met with Sergey Kislyak,
Moscow's ambassador to Washington, twice in 2016 when
he was a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. He met briefly with the ambassador as part of
his regular duties as a senator -- not as a Trump surrogate.
Now, according to the breaking news broadcast on the
radio all day Sunday at the top of every hour, there are
(unsubstantiated) reports that he may have had a third
meeting with the Russian ambassador in April of last year,
and boy-oh-boy, do Democrat senators want to question
him about that!
Keep in mind, this is the same MSM that could barely be
bothered to report on Operation Fast and Furious, the
Obama administration's criminally insane gun-walking
program that allowed thousands of guns to cross the border
and be delivered into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico
without any attempt to trace them, leading to hundreds of
murders, including of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
That's the MSM's idea of a "nothingburger."
NBC had to give its audience a brief primer on the scandal
the week before the House voted to hold then-attorney
general Eric Holder in contempt for withholding
documents because NBC's audience had been kept totally
in the dark for 18 months. From the time the story was
broken in early 2011 to the week before Holder was held
in contempt (June 20, 2012), the network had reported on
Fast and Furious precisely zero times.
The mainstream media continues to be disinterested in the
scandal. A public hearing about Fast and Furious last week
garnered very little -- if any -- media coverage.
Via Fox News:
The House Oversight Committee also
Wednesday released a scathing, nearly
300-page report that found Holder’s Justice
Department tried to hide the facts from the
loved ones of slain Border Patrol Brian
 Terry – seeing his family as more of a
“nuisance” than one deserving straight
answers – and slamming Obama's
assertion of executive privilege to deny
Congress access to records pertaining to
Fast and Furious.
[...]
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, testified Wednesday in
front of the committee, accusing DOJ and ATF officials of
obstructing the investigation and working to silence ATF
agents who informed the Senate of Fast and Furious.
“The Department of Justice and ATF had
no intention of looking for honest answers
and being transparent,” said Grassley, now
chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee and a staunch supporter of
whistleblowers.
“In fact, from the onset, bureaucrats
employed shameless delay tactics to
obstruct the investigation.”
According to Newsbusters, while
"the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and
NBC) spent Wednesday focusing on a
Senate hearing they were hoping would
implicate President Trump in obstruction of
justice, they ignored a House Oversight
Committee report."
But it was "Katy, bar the door" on Sunday when "vague
and unsubstantiated reports" about Sessions having a third
meeting with the Russian ambassador emerged. Sessions is
so worried about this bombshell revelation that he has
agreed to a public hearing on Tuesday to answer all
questions.
According to a statement from the Justice Department:
The Attorney General has requested the
hearing be public. He believes it is
important for the American people to hear
the truth directly from him and looks
forward to answering the committee’s
questions tomorrow.
Sounds like a guy who really has a lot to hide.
At what point can we expect the Russia collusion
investigation to produce evidence of actual collusion
between Team Trump and Russia? The American people
have been strung along for the better part of a year with
.
303
promises that another big shoe is about to drop at any
minute -- but the big shoe always turns out to be a will-o'-
the-wisp that floats away and leaves disappointed
followers astray.
When the Sessions thing turns out to be another gaseous
cloud of nothingness, they'll move on to someone or
something else.
Not Carter Page, apparently.
Page, as you may recall, is an investment banker, lecturer,
foreign policy analyst, and former foreign policy adviser
for Trump who was on the periphery of the campaign. And
until very recently -- according to the narrative -- a Ruskie-
loving spy and central figure in the Trumpian plot to
collude with Russia and hack the 2016 election. But that
was five minutes ago.
Now the alleged spy can't even get Congress interested in
hearing him testify about his (allegedly nefarious)
campaign activities under oath.
Page is reportedly unhappy because he's been "completely
blocked" from testifying before congressional committees
investigating Trump/Russia collusion.
Page complained former FBI Director James Comey had
testified three times before congressional committees,
while his request to testify about the "senseless witch hunt"
had gone ignored.
"It is unfathomable that Comey got his third
chance in as many months to testify about
the senseless witch hunt that he led on
behalf of the Clinton campaign and Obama
administration, but I have been completely
blocked from testifying," Page told the
Washington Examiner in an article
published Saturday.
Don't worry. Some other devastating revelation about
Team Trump will emerge that will cause a week-
long firestorm (before it fizzles out).
Maybe we can revisit how Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka
"has been linked" to a NAZI group!!! Or how Steve
Bannon actually IS a NAZI ... or how Jared Kushner is
something or other...
There's always another big shoe to drop in the Russia
collusion scandal, sources say.
But it will turn out to be a will-o'-the-wisp. And real
scandals will be ignored because of it.
 Article Of Impeachment Against Trump
Undemocratic Democrat Brad Sherman
California’s 30th congressional district.
On June 12, he circulated an article of impeachment
against Trump to all House members, “seeking their input
and support,” he said, issuing a statement, saying:
“(A)s set forth in my letter to my colleagues:
As the investigations move forward,
additional evidence supporting additional
Articles of Impeachment may emerge.”
“However, as to Obstruction of Justice and
18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b)(3), the evidence we
have is sufficient to move forward now. And
the national interest requires that we do
so.”
“I act not for partisan advantage. Having
served with Mike Pence in the House for
twelve years, I disagree with him on most
issues of public policy.”
“But we must move forward as quickly as
possible to ensure a competent
government that respects the Constitution
and the rule of law, even if we end up with
a President who is effective and dedicated
to regressive policies.”
“I have no illusions. Articles of
Impeachment will not pass the House in
the near future. But given the risk posed to
the Republic, we should move things
forward as quickly as possible.”
Like virtually all other members of Congress, Sherman
ignores international, constitutional and US statute rule of
law principles.
Other than continuing US war on humanity Trump’s
predecessors began, supported by the vast majority of
House and Senate members, no just cause exists to
impeach and remove him from office.
The Constitution’s Article I, Section 2 empowers House
members to impeach a sitting president, Senate members
with sole power to try them.
Article II, Section 4 states
By Stephen Lendman
6-13-2017
represents “(t)he President, Vice President and all civil
officers of the United States, shall be
removed from office on impeachment for,
and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Views on any issues aren’t impeachable offenses, no
matter how extreme, offensive or different from most
others in government - only criminal acts too severe to
ignore, open to interpretation, given how egregiously
America operates at home and abroad with bipartisan
support.
Other than continuing longstanding US naked aggression
against sovereign independent states, threatening others,
and supporting wealth, power and privilege exclusively at
the expense of social justice, Trump isn’t guilty of an
impeachable offense.
Sherman lied claiming he
“prevented, obstructed and impeded the
administration of justice during a federal
investigation” into Michael Flynn’s contacts
with Russian officials, along with
(nonexistent) Moscow US election hacking
- including “threatening, and then
terminating, James Comey.”
“…Donald John Trump has acted in a
manner contrary to his trust as President
and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the
cause of law and justice and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United
States,” Sherman added.
If he’s guilty of all of the above and more, virtually the
entire Congress warrants impeachment and removal from
office.
What a wonderful idea, a clean slate, a chance to start
over for revolutionary change - ending debauched duopoly
governance, the deplorable way things are now.
Trump is part of the dirty system, much like nearly all his
predecessors.
Jack Kennedy was the most notable defender of good
governance, assassinated for wanting peace, not war,
nuclear disarmament and rapprochement with Soviet
Russia - unforgivable high crimes, according to America’s
deep state.
304
 Comey Got 'Steely Silence' After Confronting Loretta
Lynch About Clinton's Email Probeby
John Solomon And Sara A. Carter
June 13, 2017
WATCH | Ex-FBI Director James Comey had a frosty
exchange with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
UPDATE June 13, 8:50 a.m. EST: Trump chimed in on
Twitter.
ORIGINAL STORY: Ex-FBI Director James Comey has
privately told members of Congress that he had a frosty
exchange with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch last
year when he confronted her about possible political
interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after
showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the
FBI possessed, according to sources who were directly
briefed on the matter.
During his testimony before the Senate Intelligence
Committee last Thursday, Comey alluded to the exchange
after publicly discussing an encounter with Lynch, where
she ordered him not to refer to the criminal probe of
Clinton’ handling of classified emails not as an
“investigation” but rather as a “matter.” He suggested it
smacked of political spin rather than the way professional
law enforcement officers talk.
305
“That concerned me because that
language tracked the way the campaign
was talking about the FBI's work and that's
concerning,” Comey testified.
Comey said the conversation occurred well before the
email probe was shut down and shortly before both Comey
and Lynch were expected to testify in Congress and
possibly field questions about candidate Clinton’s email
issues. He said her request gave him a "queasy feeling."
On CNN Sunday, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein
said,
"I would have a queasy feeling too, though,
to be candid with you I think we need to
know more about that and there’s only one
way to know about it and that’s to have the
Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”
In multiple private sessions over the last few months,
Comey has told lawmakers about a second, later
confrontation with Lynch shortly before the email probe
was shut down.
Comey told lawmakers in the close door session that he
raised his concern with the attorney general that she had
created a conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s
husband, the former President Bill Clinton, on an airport
tarmac while the investigation was ongoing.
During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he
confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of
evidence, a communication between two political figures
that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any
prosecution of Clinton.
Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document
then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some
time, then asked him if he had any other business with her
and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source
who was briefed.
Comey “took that interaction and the fact
she had met with Bill Clinton as enough
reason to decide he would not allow the
Justice Department to decide the fate of
 the case and instead would go public” with
his own assessment that the FBI could not
prove Mrs. Clinton intended to violate the
law when she transmitted classified
information through her private email and
therefore should not be criminally charged.
Another source said the "tarmac meeting
was the public excuse for not going to
Lynch when all along there was other
evidence that was more concerning to
Comey."
Comey announced his assessment that while Clinton had
been reckless he did not believe he could prove intent to
commit a crime on July 5, 2016, a decision that has been
criticized by some lawmakers and resulted in discord
among the bureau's agents who investigated Clinton.
The FBI declined to comment when contacted by Circa for
comment. Lynch could not be reached for comment.
.
306
The sources also said that Comey’s testimony in private
conflicted with recent reports in the news media
suggesting the FBI had intercepted an email between
Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, who at the time was the Democratic
Party chairwoman, and a third party. Those media reports
suggested that the information about the email was more
than likely fake and a ruse possibly planted by the
Russians. The Washington Post story suggested the
dubious email is what motivated Comey, who still was not
sure of the intelligence, to come forward with his findings
in the Clinton investigation and shut down the case.
“Comey’s account to Congress does not
sync with those media reports,” one source
said, declining to be more specific. In
public, Comey also seemed to suggest as
much, saying some of the reports about
why he went public with the email case
findings were “nonsense.”
 Trump: "Fake News Media
Has Never Been So Wrong Or So Dirty",
Slams 9th Circuit
By Tyler Durden
Jun 13, 2017 7:43 AM

Trump wasted little time before launching his opening

salvos on Twitter on Tuesday morning, when the President
first went after the "Fake News Media" just after 6:30am,
accusing the press of publishing false stories.

"The Fake News Media has never been so

wrong or so dirty. Purposely incorrect
stories and phony sources to meet their
agenda of hate. Sad!" Trump lashed out in
"I can't manage that they're going to be
his first tweet on Tuesday.
crazy enough to go through with this
threat," Schiff said later in an interview on
MSNBC's "Hardball," adding: "I think it's
just a way of raising doubts about this very
good man who's respected by people on
both sides of the aisle."

Ruddy himself told PBS:

"I personally think it would be a very

significant mistake, even though I don't
It was not immediately clear which particular story (or think there's a justification for a special
stories) prompted Trump's ire this morning. The president's counsel in this case."
latest tweet came hours before Attorney General Jeff
Sessions is set to appear before the Senate Intelligence
In a follow up tweet, the president again went after the 9th
Committee, and shortly after Christopher Ruddy, chief
Circuit Court of Appeals early Tuesday after it ruled
executive of the conservative news site and TV network
against the president's so-called travel ban.
Newsmax, said during an interview on "PBS NewsHour"
that Trump is thinking about firing special counsel Robert
Mueller. "Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it
again - Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at
such a dangerous time in the history of our
As NBC noted last night, it is open to question how
country. S.C." Trump tweeted, referring to
reliable Ruddy's comments are. "He is often described as a
the Supreme Court.
close friend of Trump's, and reporters spotted him leaving
the White House on Monday. But a source familiar with
the visit told NBC News that any meeting Ruddy was to
have had with the president was postponed. Still, his
remarks prompted this reply on Twitter from Rep. Adam
Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the Intelligence
Committee, who said the committee would simply
reappoint Mueller and then advised the president:

"Don't waste our time."

As reported on Monday, the San Francisco-based court
affirmed in large part the Hawaii District Court ruling
blocking parts of the order, which temporarily banned
307
nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from
entering the U.S., suspended the entry of all refugees and
reduced the cap on the admission of refugees from 110,000
to 50,000 for the 2017 fiscal year. In a unanimous ruling
Monday, a three-judge panel on the court said Trump's
revised order does not offer a sufficient justification to
suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the
basis of nationality.
.
308
Trump earlier this month renewed the debate over his
order in the wake of the attack in London. In a series of
tweets following the London attack, the president referred
to his order as a "travel ban" and insisted it was necessary
to keep the U.S. safe.
Separately, a group of 17 Attorneys General filed a motion
before the Supreme Court, seeking to prevent a hearing on
Trump's appeal, effectively ending the debate before it has
even started.
 Trump: Lynch Made Politically
Motivated Decisions, 'Gave Hillary Protection'
© AFP 2017/ NICHOLAS KAMM - US
17:05 13.06.2017(updated 17:06 13.06.2017)

Lynch, who served in the administration of Barack Obama,

made politically motivated decisions.

President Trump accused former Lynch and former President Bill Clinton met at a time
Attorney General Loretta Lynch of when the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a
making politically motivated decisions. private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — US President Donald Trump Lynch declined to formally recuse herself, saying only that
claimed on Tuesday that former Attorney General Loretta she will follow FBI recommendations on whether Clinton
should be prosecuted.
.

309
 Trump Accuses Lynch
Of 'Illegal' Behavior In Clinton Email Case
By Cody Derespina
Published June 13, 2017

Trump's Twitter megaphone was the loudest strike in a

growing drumbeat of officials calling for Congress to
focus on Lynch. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said
Sunday he wanted Lynch to testify. Rep. Peter King, R-
N.Y., said he wanted to see any memos Comey may have
written about Lynch.

Trump on Tuesday also knocked one of his favorite

targets, the news media, for an “agenda of hate,” though he
didn’t specify which story or stories had riled him up.

President Trump on Tuesday accused former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch of "illegal" behavior in her
handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's secret
email server, alleging the ex-top cop provided "protection"
for the Democratic presidential nominee.
Trump wrote: “The Fake News Media has never been so
wrong or so dirty. Purposely incorrect stories and phony
sources to meet their agenda of hate. Sad!”

The president drew attention to Lynch ahead of a Senate

hearing where his own AG, Jeff Sessions, is set to testify
on the Russia investigation.

Trump's tweet appeared to draw on the related June 8

testimony of former FBI Director James Comey -- whom
Trump controversially fired. Comey revealed to Congress
that Lynch told him to call the investigation a "matter"
when speaking to the press and said he was also troubled He added later: "Fake News is at an all time high. Where is
by Lynch's meeting on a Phoenix tarmac with former their apology to me for all of the incorrect stories???"
President Bill Clinton. Comey was so disturbed by the
incidents, he held a press conference himself to discuss the
case before presenting his findings to Lynch.

"A.G. Lynch made law enforcement decisions for political

purposes...gave Hillary Clinton a free pass and protection.
Totally illegal!" Trump tweeted.

And the day after an appeals court cited one of his tweets
in the judges’ opinion to uphold the block of Trump’s
travel ban, Trump took to Twitter to rail against the court’s
decision at “such a dangerous time” for America.

Trump has frequently criticized the 9th Circuit, considered

among the most liberal in the country. Monday’s decision
by the court of appeals to uphold a lower court’s injunction
310
on Trump’s controversial executive order temporarily
banning immigration from several Muslim-majority
countries again drew the president’s ire.

“Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again – Ruled

against the TRAVEL BAN at such a dangerous time in the
history of our country. S.C.” Trump tweeted.

The “S.C.” initials at the end of the tweet likely referred to

the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump has said he intends
to continue waging his battle to implement the ban.
.

311
 EXCLUSIVE BREAKING REPORT: Sarah Huckabee
Sanders To Replace Sean Spicer As WH Press Secretary
Lucian Wintrich
Jun 13th, 2017 3:19 Pm

Spicer, a Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve, is

reported to be up for a promotion to a different
communications role within the White House once
Sanders fills his slot. The change in roles for Spicer comes
at a time when internal leaks have reached a peak.

Sarah Sanders is an apropos pick for the Trump

administration to fill the role of Press Secretary given her
tact and ability to remain calm under pressure.

Sanders also covered the firing of James Comey during a

press briefing, which you can watch a full video of below:

A restructuring is set to take place in the White House

briefing room. The Gateway Pundit has recently learned
from someone with very close ties to the Administration
that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is slated to take over for
current White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. Our
exclusive source declined a further request for additional
information regarding Sean Spicer’s future role in the
White House Administration.

The staffing change is purported to have come directly

from Sean Spicer who notified our source of the shift.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, daughter of former Arkansas

governor Mike Huckabee, will be taking over for current
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, a source close
to Spicer confirmed to the Gateway Pundit recently.
.

312
 Mattis And Dunford
Lie To Congress
By Stephen Lendman
6-13-2017
In Monday testimony before the House Armed Services
Committee, Defense Secretary Mattis mislead and
deceived its members.
He lied calling North Korea the “most urgent and
dangerous threat to peace and security,” claiming the
DPRK is America’s top threat.
Pyongyang threatens no one - not America or any other
country. Throughout its post-WW II history, it never
attacked another country.
Washington is a serial aggressor, perpetually waging wars
of choice, threatening the DPRK and all other independent
countries it doesn’t control - why Pyongyang pursues a
nuclear and ballistic missile deterrent.
It’s solely for self-defense if attacked, not for preemptive
war on America or any other countries.
Mattis:
“North Korea’s continued pursuit of nuclear
weapons and the means to deliver them
has increased in pace and scope.”
“The regime’s nuclear weapons program is
a clear and present danger to all, and the
regime’s provocative actions, manifestly
illegal under international law, have not
abated despite United Nations’ censure
and sanctions.”
Fact:
America and its rogue allies threaten world
peace and stability - their actions
“manifestly illegal under international law,”
representing “a clear and present danger to
all.”
Mattis:
“(R)esurgent (Russia and China) are more
aggressive,” placing “the international order
under assault.”
Fact:
313
Russia and China pursue policies of non-
belligerence, seeking cooperative relations
with all countries, threatening none.
Fact:
Their strong alliance, independence and
growing influence threaten America’s
desired unipolar world - wanting all other
countries dominated, seeking regime
change by color revolutions or wars against
any unwilling to observe Washington rules.
Mattis turned truth on its head, claiming he’s seen no
indication that Putin seeks cooperative relations with
America.
He’s “chosen to be a strategic competitor,”
he blustered - a bald-faced Big Lie.
Appearing with Mattis, Joint Chiefs chairman General
Joseph (“fighting Joe”) Dunford called Russia, China, Iran,
North Korea and terrorist groups America’s “key
challenges.”
In July 2015 testimony before Senate Armed Services
Committee members, Dunford said
“Russia presents the greatest threat to our
national security.”
“If you want to talk about a nation that
could pose an existential threat to the
United States, I’d have to point to Russia. If
you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short
of alarming."
In written testimony, Dunford mentioned “aggression” 15
times - referring to Russia.
“What keeps me up at night is our ability to
respond to the unexpected,” he said.
“On balance, our force can deal with
challenges that we have now. But there is
very little residual capability - an
undisguised request for greater military
spending at a time America’s only enemies
are invented ones, clearly what his Monday
testimony, along with Mattis,’ aimed for.

The so-called “terrorist” threat is a colossal hoax. America
created and supports ISIS, al-Qaeda and likeminded
groups in the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa and
elsewhere.
Along with its rogue allies, it recruits, arms, funds, trains
and directs these groups, using them as imperial foot
soldiers.
In Oliver Stone’s interview with Vladimir Putin, a four-
part documentary airing on Showtime, begun Monday
night, Russia’s leader said
“Al-Qaeda is not the result of our activities.”
“This is the result of activities of our US
friends (sic). This all started in the times of
the Soviet war in Afghanistan, when the US
security services supported different
movements of Islamic fundamentalism in
.
314
their struggle against the Soviet troops in
Afghanistan.”
“The US side has nurtured both al-Qaeda
and bin Laden.”
The same goes for ISIS and similar groups, monsters used
to serve its interests no matter the human cost.
Putin said Russia has evidence, proving CIA support for
Islamic terrorists during the 1994 - 96 and 1999 - 2000
Chechen wars.
Washington continues supporting extremist groups hostile
to Russia’s security. Its longstanding policy aims to
marginalize, weaken, contain, isolate, destabilize, weaken
and topple its government - replacing it with pro-Western
puppet rule.
Hyping a “Russian threat” is part of the strategy - a high
risk one threatening possible nuclear war.
 Jeff Sessions
Can’t Remember Anything
Mattathias Schwartz, Ryan Devereaux
June 13 2017, 7:25 P.M.
A microphone is placed on the witness table before Attorney General
Jeff Sessions’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in
Washington on June 13, 2017.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, one of the first members
of the Republican establishment to ally himself with then-
candidate Donald Trump, appeared on Tuesday before the
Senate Intelligence Committee. In his testimony, Sessions
sought to staunch the increasingly rapid flow of
embarrassing information from the Trump White House.
The attorney general is near the center of multiple
controversies dogging Trump. One is the firing of FBI
Director James Comey, which Sessions recommended in a
memo, for reasons that are still unclear. Another is contact
between Sessions and Russian ambassador to Washington
Sergei Kislyak, whom Sessions has variously claimed he
did not meet with during the campaign, met with only
twice, and now, perhaps, met with three times. The third
alleged meeting with Kislyak, during a campaign event at
the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, was one of many
important particulars that Sessions claimed he could not
remember.
He answered more than 20 questions with
some version of “I don’t recall,” “I don’t
recollect,” or “I don’t remember.”
Combined with last week’s testimony from Comey,
today’s hearing crystallized the tenor of Washington under
the Trump administration. Much of the government seems
bogged down in litigating the Russia controversy and
strange happenings in the Oval Office, where the half-life
of presidential confidences has never been shorter. Today,
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., insisted that on top of
its Russia investigation, his committee was continuing to
oversee the intelligence community’s $50 billion-plus
budget and considering the renewal of major, controversial
legal authorities for government surveillance. In public,
315
however, not much aside from the Russia investigation is
getting done.
Sessions, a small man whose gray hair cuts against his
boyish, almost elfin appearance, arrived nine minutes late,
wearing his usual expression of slightly startled amiability.
He sipped from two glasses of ice water as he tried to
convince the committee of how little he could remember
despite a sincere desire to help. The campaign moved so
quickly, Sessions said, that he often didn’t keep a diary or
contemporaneous notes. He could not say with absolute
certainty who he did and did not meet with, what was
discussed, or who other members of the Trump campaign
might have met with.
“If I don’t qualify it, you’ll accuse me of
lying,” he said in response to an aggressive
series of questions from Sen. Kamala
Harris, D-Calif. “I don’t want to be rushed
this fast. It makes me nervous.”
Sessions was unequivocal about at least one thing. He said
he never sought or received intelligence relating to Russian
efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
“I know nothing but what I’ve read in the
paper,” he said.
Sessions’s admittedly poor and incomplete memory
sharpened up considerably when the time came to discuss
a fateful meeting between Comey and Trump in the Oval
Office in February. In his own testimony, Comey said that
Trump asked to meet with him alone and that Sessions was
the last one out of the room. Then Trump, according to
Comey, brought up the FBI’s investigation into Michael
Flynn, his former national security adviser. Flynn had
resigned the previous day, and Trump, Comey alleged,
said,
“I hope you can see your way clear to
letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He’s a
good guy.”
Today, Sessions corroborated that the meeting between
Trump and Comey had taken place, and that Comey
approached him the following day with concerns.
 “I do recall being one of the last ones to
leave,” Sessions said. “Did you decide to
be one of the last to leave?” asked Sen.
Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “I don’t know how that
occurred,” Sessions replied.
He did differ from Comey on two points. In Sessions’s
version of events, it was Comey’s job, not Trump’s, to
make sure that their conversations did not stray into active
investigations. And Sessions denied remaining silent when
Comey brought up his concerns about being left alone with
the president. Instead, Sessions said, he told Comey that
the FBI and Justice Department “needed to be careful”
about following their own guidelines.
Then there were the things that Sessions could perhaps
remember, but could not discuss — his conversations with
Trump. He refused to say whether he had discussed
pardons with Trump; or whether they had talked about the
Russia investigation; or how Trump had made the decision
to fire Comey, a decision that initially rested on a memo
Sessions himself had signed, but which Trump later said,
in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, came as the
president mulled the Russia investigation. Sessions
explained his refusal to answer these questions by citing
“long-standing department policy,” but ran into some
difficulty when asked by Harris exactly what that policy
was. He had not read the policy; nor had he asked that the
policy be provided to him. He had “talked about it,” he
said, although the “it” that was talked about may not have
been a policy after all. Instead, Sessions said, it was “the
real principle” — that the Constitution guarantees what
Sessions called the president’s “confidentiality of
communications,” terms that appear in certain legal
decisions but do not appear in the Constitution.
“It would be premature for me to deny the
president a full and intelligent choice about
executive privilege,” Sessions said. Sen.
Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., took a different
view, telling the attorney general, “You’re
impeding this investigation.”
Evidently, Sessions felt that he could not speak about
anything that could conceivably fall under executive
privilege in the future, whether or not that privilege had
actually been invoked. He continued to insist that there
was a written rule, somewhere, supporting his position. He
promised Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., that he would track it
down and provide it to the committee in the future. More
than an hour after the hearing ended, the Justice
Department provided reporters with a statement pointing to
a 1982 memo justifying an attorney general’s refusal to
answer Congress’s questions.
His Deputy Under Fire, Too
316
In the run-up to the hearing, Sessions canceled a
previously scheduled appearance before a Senate
appropriations subcommittee, where he was supposed to
discuss the Trump administration’s multibillion-dollar
budget request for the Justice Department. As a candidate,
Trump vowed to be a “law and order” president, one who
would lean heavily on his hard-line attorney general to re-
make core elements of the country’s criminal justice and
immigration systems. Sessions referenced this agenda in
his opening statement on Tuesday. “The gangs, the cartels,
the fraudsters, and the terrorists — we are coming after
you,” he said. But instead of showing up to explain how
public money would be spent in the service of that
evolution, he sent Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein in his place. Rosenstein took the heat for his
boss on matters not only related to the Russia
investigation, but also on the critical and wide-ranging
work of his department’s new law-and-order agenda.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions arrives to testify at a Senate
Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on
June 13, 2017. - Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
“I won’t mince words, you’re not the
witness we were supposed to hear from
today. You’re not the witness who should
be behind that table. That responsibility lies
with the attorney general of the United
States,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the
committee’s ranking member, said in his
opening remarks. “Attorneys general of the
past did not cower at the request of
Congress to oversight responsibility, and
they didn’t agree to come and then cancel
at the last minute and then send their
second-in-command in their stead.”
Noting that the administration’s multibillion-dollar budget
request includes hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to
assistance provided to victims of crimes, as well as support
federal law enforcement investigations, Leahy questioned
Sessions’s capacity to lead the Justice Department. “I want
to know how he believes he can credibly lead the Justice
Department, for which he’s requested $28.3 billion, amid
such distressing questions about his actions and integrity,”
Leahy said, adding that the department’s workforce
deserves a justification from Sessions for the priorities
reflected in the Trump administration’s budget.
“He owes them that courtesy because the
president’s budget request for the Justice
Department is abysmal.”
Rosenstein was peppered with questions about the Russia
investigation. In May, Rosenstein defended a memo he
signed laying out his criticisms of Comey’s handling of the
Hillary Clinton email investigation and, in doing so, noted
that he had discussed with Sessions his negative view of
Comey’s behavior last winter. He repeated the claim on
Tuesday. Yet while Rosenstein declined to say who
directed him to write the document, Sessions, hours later,
testified that the president requested assessments on
Comey’s fitness to lead the FBI from both men. This
prompted Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, to suggest Sessions
was selectively choosing which communications with
Trump to disclose to lawmakers and which to keep secret.
Rosenstein declined to describe the scope of Sessions’s
recusal Tuesday, citing the ongoing nature of the
investigation.
.
317
“In matters in which he’s recused, I’m the
attorney general, and therefore I know what
we’re investigating — he does not,”
Rosenstein said. “He actually does not
know what we’re investigating and I’m not
going to be talking about it publicly.”
The deputy attorney general also testified that he and the
president have not discussed the appointment of former
FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the
Russia investigation. He shot down reports of any
involvement, on his part, of reported plans to remove
Mueller from his post.
“There is no secret plan that involves me,”
he said.
Sessions, for his part, said he hadn’t discussed removing
Mueller with anyone.
“I have known Mr. Mueller over the years
and he served 12 years as FBI director. I
knew him before that. I have confidence in
Mr. Mueller,” Sessions said. “I know
nothing about the investigation. I fully
recuse myself.”
 How Serious Was Russia’s
“Probing” Of U.S. Election Systems?
By Washingtonsblog
Posted On June 13, 2017
NSA contractor Reality Winner allegedly leaked
documents showing that Russia probed U.S. election
systems days before the 2016 presidential election.
How big a crisis is this?
Washington’s Blog asked Bill Binney, the NSA executive
who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for
digital information, who served as the senior technical
director within the agency, who managed six thousand
NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded
as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever
analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet
command-and-control structure before anyone else knew
how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they
happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s
command system, which provided the US and its allies
with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements
and Russian atomic weapons”).
Binney told us:
If you think about this article [the story by
the Intercept], and assume it’s true, then
hacking a few days before the election is a
little late if they really wanted to influence
the voting.
To me, this sounds more like fishing for information to
find out as much as they could about the democratic party
much like the Chinese did hacking the OPM [U.S. Office
of Personnel Management] files. I’m sure the Chinese
found more use for the data they got then the Russians did
on the Democratic party because Hillary did not win.
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi agrees:
The Intercept article cites an unnamed
intelligence official who “cautioned against
drawing too big a conclusion from the
document because a single analysis is not
necessarily definitive.” To that I would add,
“even if it is all true as described.”
And I would also make some additional observations about
what the report and Intercept article are suggesting. First
and foremost would be the questions of scale and timing.
318
There is no evidence that the Russians,
or whoever carried out the probes, were
able to tamper with either the actual
voting process or the tabulation of
votes.
Indeed, the NSA report dismisses any such possibility.
Second, corrupting an election in a country as large as the
United States with an electoral system that is largely
decentralized would require much more than a probe of
122 local officials starting a week before the balloting.
So there was clearly no intention to
disrupt the election or to tilt it in a
certain direction based on the evidence
provided by the NSA report.
I would also note that there is no proof provided in the
report to support the assertion that the GRU, Russian
military-intelligence service, carried out the probes.
Would a highly-sophisticated
intelligence service behave so
transparently in an operation that would
certainly be regarded as highly
sensitive?
I think not. Cut-outs would have been used to misdirect
anyone looking to determine the hand behind the hacks.
All of which is not to say the Russian
government didn’t do it or order it done, but
it seems to me that the revelations
provided in the NSA report do not go very
far beyond the kind of random probings
that are part and parcel of foreign-
intelligence operations as carried out by
any sophisticated service.
Did someone in Moscow think it might be useful to have
some kind of idea of how to meddle with U.S. election
technology if that type of info might prove useful down the
road? Quite possibly. It should be noted that the U.S.
National Security Agency illegally collects vast quantities
of information on ordinary Americans but that does not
necessarily imply intent to use it in a malicious way. It is a
desirable capability and intelligence agencies are always
working to expand their reach.
So was Russian intelligence probing U.S. electoral
systems? Quite plausibly yes, and it should be a matter of
concern for every American as it suggests a vulnerability
in the electronics behind how we vote. But did Russia
actually interfere with the election or seek to use the
probing to elect a particular candidate? The answer is
clearly no. The article and the document it is based on
should serve as a wake-up call to those who are
complacent about the security of our technologies. But on
a political level, we are back to square one, with often
hysterical allegations surfaced as part of the media and
political storm we now refer to as Russiagate.
(And even the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
apparently probed U.S. election systems without
permission in 2016.)
319
Indeed, it might be a little bit hypocritical for U.S.
politicians to rail about Russian interference with our
election when:
 The Washington Post says the U.S. tried to
change other countries’ governments 72 times
during the cold war
 The Los Angeles Times notes that the U.S. has
interfered in other countries’ elections as many as
81 times
 This includes recent elections
 And as Time magazine notes, this includes the
U.S. swaying Russia’s election of its top leader
Those who live in glass houses should probably not be
throwing stones.
 Poll: Voters Trust Comey More Than Trump
The Former FBI Director Holds A 13 Percentage-Point
Lead Over The President
By Timothy Bella
Jun 14, 2017 At 8:35 AM ET

dwarfing the 32 percent who preferred Trump. Another 23

percent have no opinion on the question.

The findings come after Comey’s testimony about his

personal interactions with the president. Despite voters in
the Politico poll indicating by a two-to-one margin that
Comey’s statements have hurt the president, Trump has
maintained that he feels vindicated by the former FBI
director’s testimony.

But even with the Comey testimony, the Republican base

Former FBI Director James Comey last week. — Getty Images
Less than a week following his sworn testimony in front of
the Senate Intelligence Committee, voters trust former FBI
Director James Comey more than President Donald
Trump, according to a new poll.
The results, which were a part of a Politico/Morning
Consult poll released on Wednesday, found that 45 percent
of voters said they trust Comey more to tell the truth,
.
remains supportive of the president, with 81 percent of
GOP voters polled by Politico saying they approve of
Trump’s performance. That is much higher than the
feelings among Democrats and independents, who come in
at 16 percent and 39 percent, respectively.
On Monday, the latest Gallup poll found that Trump had
hit his lowest approval and highest disapproval ratings to
date. The Comey testimony, as well as fallout from
Trump’s decision to back out of the Paris climate
agreement, brought his approval rating down to 37 percent,
while his disapproval rating climbed to 58 percent.

320
 Was The Appointment Of A Special Prosecutor To
Investigate Team Trump Just A Set Up That Comey Helped
Initiate To Bring Down The President?
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 14, 2017
There was much learned from fired FBI Director James
Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence
Committee on Thursday which helps explain a year’s
worth of events that, heretofore, seemed unrelated and
disconnected.
For one, we discovered that Obama’s attorney general and
Comey’s former boss, Loretta Lynch, completely
politicized his agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s
illegal and improper handling of classified intelligence
data via her home-brew email server.
For another, we learned that President Donald J. Trump
was never under any investigation for suspected ties to
Russia, and that was just about the only factual thing that
could have been leaked to the disgusting “mainstream”
media, but wasn’t. (Related: Read All the times James
Comey cleared President Trump and his administration
during his Senate testimony — while admitting to potential
crimes.)
For for a third, we learned that Comey himself was a
leaker of information that very well may have been a
protected conversation he had with the commander-in-
chief over sensitive intelligence matters (like Russia) — in
violation of U.S. statutes.
And, as Joel Pollack of Breitbart News posits, his
testimony could have been the culmination of a plot to not
only undermine the current lawful occupant of the Oval
Office, but also to bring him down.
321
Early in Comey’s testimony, Pollack points out, he was
complimentary of the special counsel as a “tool” that is
“critical” to learning what is real and what isn’t about
Russia’s alleged 2016 election interference when he said:
“Understanding what efforts there were or
are by the Russian government to influence
our government is a critical part of the FBI’s
mission, so — and you’ve got the right
person in Bob Mueller to lead it.”
But remember when Comey dropped the bombshell that he
was the one who leaked his memo to The New York Times,
routing it through a friend and confidant? He said he hoped
the leak would “prompt the appointment of a special
counsel” and for reasons that didn’t have a thing at all to
do with Russia.
Well, that’s just what happened: After Attorney General
Jeff Sessions recused himself months ago from any Russia
investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
made the decision to appoint Mueller, himself a former
FBI director, as a special counsel to ostensibly look into
this Russia business.
Only, as Pollack notes, “Comey leaked his memo, he said,
so that he could corroborate claims by aides that he told
them Trump had asked for his ‘loyalty.’” The Times
reported those claims May 11, and the president summarily
denied the following day, even accusing Comey of leaking
them to the press. Then, just three days later, Comey told
the Senate during his testimony, he remembered he had
written the memo (on a government computer?) and then
proceeded to leak it.
The thing is, Comey knew all along, as did several
members of Congress (confirmed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-
Fla.), but never acknowledged that publicly (though he had
no trouble publicly divulging the particulars of the Hillary
Clinton investigation last July, before announcing she
wouldn’t be charged).
And yet, Comey still pushed for a special counsel to be
appointed — why? Because “he wanted to take revenge on
the president,” Pollack insists.
It makes sense:
He leaked through Columbia Law School
professor Daniel Richman, who
approached the New York Times. (It was a
left-wing trifecta: a former government
bureaucrat, an Ivy League academic, and a
liberal mainstream media outlet.)
Moreover, the special counsel that was
appointed was — coincidentally? — one of
Comey’s long-time associates, the FBI
director when Comey was Deputy Attorney
General.
“For Mueller to be brought in to investigate
the behavior of the guy who sacked Comey
seems a conflict of interest,” writes Carl M.
Cannon of RealClearPolitics. “These two
guys, working in tandem, have a track
.
322
record of bureaucratic infighting — with
another Republican White House as their
shared adversary — that belies their
reputations for being above political
intrigue.”
Comey didn’t have to tell the Senate he leaked his memo
to ensure the appointment of a special counsel — who just
happened to be a close former colleague. He could have
just revealed it during testimony.
“Instead, Comey blurted out the truth: He
had seen a chance to make the political
case for a special counsel through the
power of the mainstream media,” wrote
Pollack.
 Special Counsel Is Investigating President Trump
For Obstruction Of Justice, New Report Says
Fox News
Published June 14, 2017
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into
Russia’s interference in the 2016 election has expanded to
include an examination of whether President Donald
Trump attempted to obstruct justice, according to a new
report from The Washington Post.
Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence,
Adm. Mike Rogers, the head of the National Security
Agency and Richard Ledgett, Rogers’ departed deputy, all
agreed to participate in interviews with Mueller’s
investigators as early as this week, five anonymous sources
briefed on the requests told the Post.
It wasn’t immediately clear if others have been questioned
by the FBI.
Investigators have also been looking for proof of possible
financial crimes committed by Trump associates, officials
told The Post.
“The FBI leak of information regarding the
President is outrageous, inexcusable and
illegal,” Mark Corallo, a spokesman for
Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz,
told The Post.
The Special Counsel’s office declined to comment.
323
The president previously said he had received private
assurances from fired FBI Director James Comey that he
was not personally under investigation as part of the probe.
Comey confirmed that he provided those assurances in
testimony he gave to the Senate Intelligence Committee on
June 8.
That changed following Comey’s firing, sources told The
Post.
The investigation into obstruction of justice into Trump
started days after Comey was let go on May 9, people
familiar with the matter told The Post. Mueller’s office has
resumed that work and early interviews scheduled to take
place with intelligence officials indicate that his team is
actively pursuing potential witnesses in and out of the
government.
A March 22 exchange is allegedly of potential interest to
Mueller, officials told The Post. Coats was attending a
briefing at the White House then with officials from other
government agencies. When that ended, Trump allegedly
asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and
CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
Coats said that Trump had asked him if he could intervene
with Comey to get the FBI to back off its focus on former
national security adviser Michael Flynn as part of the
Russia probe, The Post previously reported.
In his testimony last week Comey claimed that Trump
urged him to “see your way clear” of letting Flynn go.
Trump has denied the comment.
Fox News’ Jake Gibson and John Roberts contributed to
this report.
 Oliver Stone Tells Colbert
Israel Had More Influence Than Russia On 2016 Election
Source: Jewish Press
Published: June 14, 2017
Film Director Oliver Stone on Monday night started a fight
about Israel with host Stephen Colbert, on the CBS “Late
Show” that never made it to air, the NY Post Page Six
reported. A source in the audience said the political brawl
was “painful to watch.”
The Oscar-winning Stone appeared on the show to
promote his latest documentary, “The Putin Interviews.”
Stone was granted unprecedented access to both Putin’s
professional and personal worlds, and interviewed the
Russian leader more than a dozen times over the course of
two years, most recently in February following the U.S.
presidential elections.
After showing a clip in which Stone clearly accepted
without a hint of criticism Putin’s statement that Russia,
unlike the US, never interferes in other countries’
elections, Colbert harangued Stone on his pussyfooting
around the tyrant from Moscow.
.
324
It’s hard to believe, but the maker of “JFK”
actually grunted that Putin “has been
through a lot. He’s been insulted and
abused . . . abused in the press, in the
media.”
Say it ain’t so, Oliver…
In the segment that made it to air, the audience cheered
wildly when Colbert said, “Anything about him negative
that you found? Anything? Anything?” and, “What do you
say to the people who will say this is a fawning interview
of a brutal dictator?”
Soon enough, Stone, unable to convince Colbert or his
audience that he was not Putin’s lackey, tried to shift the
talk to Israel.
The source told Page Six they “watched from behind
[their] hands” as Stone claimed, more or less, that “Israel
had far more involvement in the US election than Russia,”
challenging Colbert:
“Why don’t you ask me about that?” to
which the ever-nimble host responded, “I’ll
ask you about that when you make a
documentary about Israel.”
Stone was obviously pulling the old anti-Israel, leftist line
about how AIPAC is controlling Washington (much the
way the “Jews” control Hollywood) – and in his haste to
save face apparently forgot the difference between
contributing to political campaigns and hacking DNC
computers.
 Constitutional Law Professor Turley:
Comey’s Actions In Leaking Memo To Harm Trump
“Clearly” Violated Federal Rules, Regulations
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 14, 2017
Much of the political pundit class has come out in support
of fired FBI Director James Comey’s role in leaking a
memo in which he claimed President Donald J. Trump
pressured him to drop an investigation into Trump’s first
national security advisor, Michael Flynn.
But there are two reasons for that: 1) They are
#NeverTrump fanatics, and 2) they don’t know jack about
the law.
And that latter point is important because, as constitutional
law professor Jonathan Turley wrote on his personal blog
this week, it seems fairly obvious that Comey “clearly”
violated federal rules and regulations for his role in leaking
that memo.
While he doesn’t think that the Justice Department will
actually file any charges against Comey at this point,
“there are laws that could be relied upon for a formal
charge in court” nevertheless, he wrote, because “the
disclosure clearly violated a host of federal rules and
regulations that bar such use of FBI information.”
In addition to being unlawful and unprofessional, Turley
said, Comey’s actions were “potentially unethical” under
rules of the bar. (RELATED: Trump lawyers: Did
Comey leak more than just one memo to the press?)
In a column for The Hill, which he reproduced on his site,
Turley argued that the public portion of Comey’s much-
anticipated testimony before the Senate Intelligence
325
Committee last week provided much theatrics and
“atmospherics,” but in terms of substance it was “short on
ethics” while not revealing any smoking gun evidence of
presidential misconduct.
“While many were riveted by Comey’s
discussion of his discomfort in meetings
with President Trump, most seemed to
miss the fact that Comey was describing
his own conduct in strikingly unethical
terms,” Turley wrote. “The greatest irony is
that Trump succeeded in baiting Comey to
a degree that even Trump could not have
imagined. After calling Comey a ‘showboat’
and poor director, Comey proceeded to
commit an unethical and unprofessional act
in leaking damaging memos against
Trump.”
He went on to note that Comey demonstrated a pattern of
unethical conduct beginning with his appointment as FBI
director during the Obama administration. Specifically,
Turley and other constitutional experts have noted that
Comey’s acquiescence to former Attorney General Loretta
Lynch’s order for him to refer to the FBI’s investigation
into Hillary Clinton’s illegal handling of classified
materials, via an unsecured email server, as a “matter”
rather than a criminal investigation proved that he lacked
the integrity necessary for someone who treasures the
FBI’s supposed political independence.
Further, they note that Comey apparently did not inform
Trump that it was improper for a president to ask the FBI
to drop investigations or to seek loyalty pledges, but rather
chose to write “a memo to file” while informing “close
aides,” Turley wrote.
But the “clearest violation” of federal law that Comey may
have committed came after he was fired by the president.
During his testimony the former FBI director admitted to
leaking his memo to a friend and former colleague at
Columbia Law School with, as Turley noted,
“the full knowledge that the information
would be given to the media.”
That was extremely odd and inappropriate, given that
Trump had asked Comey to investigate and stop various
leakers within the government before Comey himself
became a leaker.
Why was releasing the memo potentially a violation of the
law? Turley says because it was most likely created using
a government computer and because it addressed
“a highly sensitive investigation on facts
that [Comey] considered material to that
investigation.”
In fact, Comey communicated that information
confidentially to top aides, and later noted that we sought
to give it to the special counsel (which he helped facilitate
.
326
with the leak) because he felt it was vital to the ongoing
‘Russia’ investigation.
“Many in the media have tried to spin this
as not a ‘leak’ because leaks by definition
only involve classified information,” Turley
wrote. “That is entirely untrue as shown by
history. Leaks involve the release of
unauthorized information — not only
classified information.
“More importantly, federal regulations refer
to unauthorized disclosures not just
classified information,” he said, adding that
the disclosure effectively guts “a host of
federal rules and regulations.”
 Trump Accuses Comey Of Lying Under Oath
Posted By Stephen Lendman
Date: June 14, 2017
(image: GettyZach Gibson/Salon)
Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz said Comey leaked
government information and “privileged communications”
to The NYT through his legal advisor, Columbia Law
Professor Daniel Richman.
“We will leave it the appropriate authorities
to determine whether this leak should be
investigated” as a possible criminal
violation, he said.
On Friday, Trump accused Comey of lying under oath
during his Senate Intelligence Committee testimony.
He denied saying he hoped Comey would “let go” of the
Michael Flynn investigation, or asked him to pledge
loyalty.
Asked if their conversations were taped, he
said he’d explain in “a short period of time,”
adding “(y)ou’re going to be very
disappointed.”
It’s unclear what he meant until he clarifies things. Did he
or did he not tape his face-to-face and phone conversations
with Comey – nine in all?
After he sacked the former FBI director, he cryptically
tweeted
“James Comey better hope that there are
no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he
starts leaking to the press!”
If so, verified accurate and unaltered, as well as publicly
released, what they each said will be known. Otherwise it’s
327
the word of one party against the other. Neither has
credibility.
Leaking is a separate issue. Comey admitted it during
Senate testimony. Asked if he would testify under oath
about his version of what happened, Trump said “100
percent,” adding:
He’ll cooperate fully with special counsel
Robert Mueller, saying “I will be glad to tell
him exactly what” he just said.
This saga has a long way to go. Comey has media
scoundrel power on his side, denigrating Trump for the
wrong reasons, a very ugly situation, little likelihood of
positive resolution.
A Final Comment
Law Professor Jonathan Turley explained
“the greatest threat facing officials in a
scandal of this kind is a false statements
prosecution…”
“Given Trump’s notorious habit for going off
script, the risks of such a violation would be
much higher for counsel prepping him for
such a deposition or testimony.”
“(T)his is a criminal matter.” Any Trump
“exaggeration…evasion” or false
statements under oath constitute an
impeachable offense.
Under the Constitution’s Article I, perjury is a high crime
and misdemeanor, an impeachable offense.
If Trump/Comey conversations weren’t taped, the issue is
no more than a dispute between two parties, not a criminal
offense for either.
Whether Comey’s leak of privileged information to The
NYT through Law Professor Richman was unlawful is for
special counsel Robert Mueller to decide, and if
prosecution is warranted.
 Trump Gives Pentagon Unilateral
Authority To Set Afghan Troop Levels
By Tyler Durden
Jun 14, 2017 8:24 AM
President Donald Trump has has given the Pentagon
unilateral authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan, the
WSJ and Reuters reported overnight, clearing the way for
the military to intensify its fight against the Taliban and
opening the door for future troop increases requested by
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. While no immediate
decision had been made about the troop levels, which are
now set at about 8,400, the Pentagon is currently weighing
plans to send between 3,000 and 5,000 additional troops.
The news comes after Mattis said in testimony to the
Senate Armed Services Committee that "We are not
winning in Afghanistan right now. And we will correct this
as soon as possible." Mattis said the Taliban were
"surging" at the moment, something he said he intended to
address.
The decision is similar to one announced in April that
applied to U.S. troop levels in Iraq and Syria, and came as
Mattis warned Congress the U.S.-backed Afghan forces
were not beating the Taliban despite more than 15 years of
war. After the official announcement control over troop
decisions to the Pentagon, expected to be announced on
Wednesday, sets the stage for U.S. commanders to decide
to reverse course in Afghanistan and begin sending more
forces to the country after years of reductions in the hope
that Kabul could handle internal threats on its own, the
WSJ notes.
According to the WSJ, the White House decision to cede
authority to Mr. Mattis is another reflection of Mr.
Trump’s push to give the military wide latitude around
the world. The White House has already given the
Pentagon more power to carry out strikes in Yemen and
Somalia. Mr. Trump removed a cap on troop levels in Iraq.
And he approved Pentagon plans to send more U.S. troops
and firepower into Syria to fight Islamic State.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has been urging
the Trump administration for months to send more troops
to Afghanistan. But a decision to do so has met with
resistance from some members of the Trump
administration, who are wary of being dragged back into a
fight that could require more forces, firepower and money.
328
A former U.S. official told Reuters such a decision might
allow the White House to argue that it was not
micromanaging as much as the administration of former
President Barack Obama was sometimes accused of doing.
Critics say delegating too much authority to the military
does not shield Trump from political responsibility during
battlefield setbacks and could reduce the chances for
diplomats to warn of potential blowback from military
decisions.
It has been four months since Army General John
Nicholson, who leads U.S. and international forces in
Afghanistan, said he needed "a few thousand" additional
forces, some potentially drawn from U.S. allies.
As a reminder, the U.S. once had 100,000 troops in
Afghanistan, after then-President Barack Obama approved
a military surge in 2009 at a time when the war against the
Taliban appeared to be in danger of failure. Before leaving
office, Mr. Obama declared an end to major military
operations and dramatically scaled back the U.S. military
presence in Afghanistan. There now are fewer than 9,000
U.S. troops in Afghanistan, primarily to help advise and
train Afghan forces, which have struggled to secure their
country.
The Pentagon has been weighing plans to send between
3,000 and 5,000 troops to Afghanistan. But that decision
could still take weeks, the U.S. official said. Mattis,
testifying Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, said that he expected to complete a military
strategy for Afghanistan by next month. That could mean
that a decision on troop numbers could occur
simultaneously, or sometime afterward.
Still, some officials have questioned the benefit of sending
more troops to Afghanistan because any politically
palatable number would not be enough to turn the tide,
much less create stability and security. To date, more than
2,300 Americans have been killed and more than 17,000
wounded since the war began in 2001.
 Trump Lets Mattis Decide On
Troop Levels In US War
By Stephen Lendman
6-14-2017
Straightaway in office, Trump delegated warmaking to
hawkish generals - Defense Secretary Mattis, National
Security Advisor McMaster and Joint Chiefs Chairman
Dunford in charge, assuring endless wars continue.
Battlefield decisions were delegated to local commanders,
including drone strikes and special operations missions in
countries where America is not officially at war.
Trump administration militarism and warmaking are more
muscular than his predecessors. Diplomacy gets short
shrift.
Pentagon and intelligence community power holds the
Trump administration, Congress and the courts hostage.
Diplomacy is relegated to show. Tillerson has no say over
geopolitical policymaking.
A nuclear war could start without Trump, civilian cabinet
members, and congressional leaders’ knowledge and
involvement until they’re told.
With Pentagon commanders and intelligence community
bosses in charge of warmaking and other key geopolitical
issues, a potential nightmarish scenario could unfold.
In April, the Pentagon said Trump gave Mattis broad
authority to set US troop levels in Iraq and Syria.
After Obama promised no US boots on the ground in both
countries, thousands of special forces and other combat
troops were deployed.
In March, Mattis ordered another 2,500 82nd Airborne
Division and other US combat troops sent to Kuwait for
possible deployment to Iraq or Syria - on the phony pretext
of combating ISIS America created and supports.
On Tuesday, reports indicate Trump gave Mattis authority
to determine US troop strength in Afghanistan.
.
329
Thousands more are likely to be deployed to continue the
nation’s longest war, long ago lost with no prospect of
reversing things no matter how many additional forces are
sent to try.
Increasing US troop strength in Afghanistan is the latest
example of Trump delegating warmaking authority to
neocon generals, eager for endless conflicts and large
increases in America’s so-called “defense” budget.
In Tuesday Senate Armed Services Committee testimony,
Mattis said
“(w)e are not winning in Afghanistan…(W)e
will correct this as soon as possible.”
His aim isn’t winning. It’s waging endless wars - in
Afghanistan and elsewhere, getting Congress to supply
tens of billions of dollars more for militarism and
warmaking.
Since Washington launched naked aggression on
Afghanistan in October 2001, thousands of US and other
NATO forces were killed or wounded.
Millions of Afghans perished from war, related violence,
preventable diseases, starvation and overall deprivation.
With over 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan in 2011, their
peak number, the war was a lost cause.
It’s no different now or as far ahead as anyone dares
imagine.
Over half a million forces in Vietnam when US troop
levels peaked couldn’t defeat Hanoi’s redoubtable
resistance.
Nor will any numbers sent to Afghanistan fare better - the
war lost years ago, yet fighting continues endlessly.
 Scott Uehlinger: ‘Reality Winner Is The Canary In The
Coal Mine’ For Intel Leaks By ‘Brainwashed Youth’
By John Hayward
14 Jun 2017
Former CIA officer Scott Uehlinger, host of “The Station Chief”
podcast, discussed Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony before the
Senate Intelligence Committee, and the dangers of politically motivated
intelligence leaks, on Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily.
Uehlinger, who was the CIA station chief in what he
described as “a country that was adjacent to Russia” for
about 12 years during the Soviet era, suggested we might
have seen the beginning of the end of the Democrats’
“Trump collusion with Russia” narrative –
or, as he put it, “the beginning of the
deflation of this ridiculous balloon.”
“Senator Cotton, I think, did a great job with
basically addressing the idiocy of this false
narrative about Russian collusion with the
Trump campaign,” he told SiriusXM host
Raheem Kassam. “I think he did a good job
by bringing that up in pretty stark terms
yesterday, discussing James Bond novels
and the ridiculousness of a Russian
ambassador – who, by the way, would not
be a trained intelligence officer – a Russian
ambassador, in this case Kislyak, meeting
at the Mayflower Hotel with Jeff Sessions
with hundreds of people present. He kind
of, I hope, largely deflated this balloon.”
Kassam asked what Uehlinger anticipated moving forward,
noting that some critics of the deflating Russia
Kassam asked how many “Reality Winners” might still be
investigation argue Attorney General Sessions should not
lurking in the U.S. government.
recuse himself and that special counsel Robert Mueller has
conflicts of interest in the case.
330
“I think the right thing to do at this point
would be to perhaps send Mueller home,”
Uehlinger replied. “I mean, if the mandate
of his investigation is just to check into the
possibility of collusion, that has been
largely debunked in some of this testimony
we heard yesterday.”
“On the other hand, we have learned last
week with some of the leaks, like with
Reality Winner the intel contractor, that in
fact Russia’s efforts to affect our election
are a little deeper and more widespread
than previously thought,” he continued.
“However, ironically that revelation I think
further erodes this baseless accusation of
Russian collusion, because if the Russians
had such a widespread campaign, why
would they even seek the help of the
Trump administration? It logically doesn’t
make any sense, and then of course just
the very mechanics of it are ridiculous.”
“It’s going to be perhaps difficult politically
to move forward with perhaps sending
someone like Mueller home, but perhaps it
is in order,” he said.
“The problem is that these perpetual
Democratic-inspired Russia histrionics, it
has real effects on the perception of the
United States abroad,” Uehlinger warned.
“That’s what I really fear as a Russian
expert. These attacks by the Dems build up
Russian prestige on the world stage and
makes their intel out to be about 10 feet
tall, and at the same time diminishes the
perception of America in the world.”
“That is the Number One goal of Russian
intelligence, and so their Number One ally
turns out to be – what a surprise! – the
mainstream media, because they’re
empowering the very people they seek to
demonize, the Russians,” he said.
 “That’s a very good question,” Uehlinger
replied. “I just wrote an article on this topic.
It’s on my Newsmax.com blog. Actually, I
was seeking to write an expanded version
of this article for Breitbart.”
(Kassam interjected to commission that article from
Uehlinger live on the air.)
“This is a very important topic,” Uehlinger
continued. “Reality Winner is the canary in
the coal mine. The problem is that there
are a lot of people like her. The main
problem is, the United States, the
intelligence community, the military,
whoever is reaping the bitter harvest of a
liberal progressive education system.
These young people have been
brainwashed.”
“In the article I wrote, I have numerous
references, there are many articles written
about a lack of critical thinking skills being
seen in today’s youth by business leaders,
not people in the intelligence community,”
he pointed out. “Everywhere there is
evidence that young people are being ill-
equipped in life skills as they graduate from
college or high school.”
“These people are entering the workforce,
and they’re entering the intelligence
community workforce, and they’re entering
the legal workforce, and the journalistic
workforce. We are going to start to see
continued problems because of this
education system, which has brainwashed
a lot of youth and ill-prepared them for
today’s world,” he warned.
.
331
Kassam quoted a passage from
Uehlinger’s Newsmax post on the subject
and pronounced it the most important
words he might read all month: “The future
will bring many more Reality Winners.
Millennials will soon dominate the U.S.
workforce. No counterintelligence system in
the world can compensate for the fact
conservatives long ago abdicated the
education field of battle to the forces of
liberal progressivism.”
“I speak about this stuff very passionately
because I’ve seen it myself,” Uehlinger
said. “I’m not an educator, but I taught at
NYU last semester. I will probably teach an
intelligence course next semester. And,
believe it or not, I do substitute teaching in
rural Pennsylvania where I live sometimes
because I want to see what’s going on with
today’s youth. This is based on a lot of
personal observation.”
“Even in a place such as where I live –
which is not a city, an urban area – it’s
dominated by a liberal progressive
ideology. You can see the students are
desperate to hear some other viewpoint,
and they’re not getting it – except with
people such as myself who maybe
occasionally pop in,” he said.
“This is going to affect the intelligence
community, and of course no one in the
intelligence community is going to have the
guts to speak about this because to do so
would be a career killer,” Uehlinger
predicted.
 Tucker Carlson: Deep State Leaks
An 'Utter Perversion Of The System'
By Zeropointnow
Jun 14, 2017 5:52 AM
Tucker Carlson went in with guns blazing after
yesterday's Senate testimony by Attorney General Jeff
Sessions - calling elements of the US Intelligence
community 'corrupt' and 'politicized' for illegally leaking
information with the intention of damaging President
Trump.
In a Democracy we're in charge - not unelected
bureaucrats... Once the beurocracy has shoved asdie an
elected government, they can do it again - and at that point
it's over... democracy is dead.
Tucker counts the ways...
For months, conspiratorial propaganda has been making
it's way from the United States surveillance apparatus to
mainstream outlets such as the New York Times and
the Washington Post - which was instrumental in
seeding the phrase 'fake news.' For more salacious
material such as the discredited 35-page 'pissgate'
dossier (cobbled together in part through a 4chan trolling
effort), tabloid outlets such as Buzzfeed are utilized.
Tucker ran through a list of several deep state leaks meant
specifically to harm Trump and his administration -
beginning with the fact that yesterday's testimony took
place in large part due to former FBI Director James
Comey's previously leaked suggestion that Sessions may
have met with the Russian Ambassador last April during a
crowded event at the Mayfower Hotel.
In December,
unnamed intel sources told the
Washington Post that Russia helped
Donald Trump win the Presidency. A week
later, unnamed senior Intel officials told
NBC news that Putin personally was
involved in helping Trump win.
In February,
current and former American officials
released the details of a phone call
between incoming National Sec Advisor
Mike Flynn and ambassador Kislyak of
332
Russia. [Flynn's] career and reputation
were subsequently destroyed by all of that.
Trump's private phone call with the President of
Mexico
surveilled by American Intelligence and
then leaked.
His call with the Aussie PM,
same thing...
With Vladimir Putin
- again, leaked by the Intel community.
How could this possibly have advanced American National
Security interests, which is what they're supposed to be
doing?
None of it did - it was entirely political.
And then in March,
as if to prove this point, a half dozen
current and former Intel officials told the
NYT that they'd sought to spread classified
intel information about the Trump campaign
as widely as possible throughout
government to ensure it would all
eventually leak!
[And let's not forget the time former Obama DoD official
Evelyn Farkas slipped up and corroborated the report]
In closing, we are reminded exactly why
this is so important
In general the public ought to know a lot more about
government than it does, but we're seeing something new
here.
These are strategic leaks - the release of
classified intelligence from people
whose job it is to collect and safeguard
 that intelligence - and in that way it's an
utter perversion of the system.

We give enormous power to our intelligence agenices -

CIA, NSA, the rest of them. We let them listen to our
phone calls, read our email, watch us from satellites.
We let them do that so they can keep us safe from foreign
threats - not so they can pick our political leaders or devise
our policies... (cont.)

Enjoy:

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com [see previous article]

.

333
 A Presidency Consumed By Pettiness
By Fixating On His Election Victory, Trump May Ensure
It's His Most Impressive Accomplishment
Jacob Sullum
June 14, 2017
Last month Donald Trump interrupted his own comments
on Republican health care legislation to marvel once again
at the victory he had won six months before.
"I'm president!" he exclaimed. "Hey! I'm
president! Can you believe it, right?"
Trump's comical obsession with his own electoral
accomplishment is at the root of his current political
troubles, including investigations that will hobble him for
months, even if they ultimately find no criminal
wrongdoing. By constantly revisiting his unexpected
defeat of Hillary Clinton and insisting that everyone
acknowledge how amazing it was, he may ensure that
nothing he does in the White House will be nearly as
impressive.
After the election, Trump called his victory a "landslide."
It wasn't. As political scientist John J. Pitney Jr. pointed
out, Trump's share of the electoral vote ranked 46 out of 58
presidential contests.
Trump said his feat was still impressive because, as he put
it last week,
"it's almost impossible for the Democrats to
lose the Electoral College."
That is not true either. If anything, Republicans have a
slight advantage in the Electoral College, because
Democrats are more concentrated in certain parts of the
country and therefore tend to waste more popular votes by
far exceeding the threshold needed to win a state.
Trump said he would have won the popular vote were it
not for "the millions of people who voted illegally." Nearly
every study of the issue has found that voting fraud is rare,
and there is no evidence that it happened last year on the
scale suggested by Trump.
Even the ridiculous spat over the size of the crowd at
Trump's inauguration was a proxy for the debate about
how big his victory was. By insisting, contrary to
photographic evidence, that something like 1.5 million
people showed up, Trump was again suggesting that the
334
official tally on Election Day underestimated his popular
support.
All of these Trump-generated tiffs were counterproductive
distractions from the president's avowed policy goals. But
none compares to the ongoing controversy over the FBI's
investigation of Russian meddling in the presidential
election, which Trump has magnified because he cannot
abide any implied diminishment of the achievement he
commemorates by handing election maps to White House
visitors.
Trump calls the FBI investigation, which includes possible
ties between his campaign and the Russians who hacked
emails that made Clinton look bad, a "witch hunt" and a
"taxpayer-funded charade." After he fired FBI Director
James Comey last month, he admitted that the Russia
investigation was a factor, lending credibility to the charge
that he was trying to obstruct justice.
"When I decided to just do it," Trump told
NBC News, "I said to myself...this Russia
thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up
story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for
having lost an election that they should
have won."
Last week, after Comey cited that interview in his Senate
testimony by way of explaining his dismissal, Trump
returned to the theme.
He told reporters that Russia's election
meddling "was an excuse by the
Democrats, who lost an election that some
people think they shouldn't have lost."
Trump is understandably upset about the unproven claim
that his associates had something to do with the Russian
operation. But what really gets his goat is the suggestion
that he would not have won the election without Russian
help.
The president was annoyed when Comey publicly
acknowledged in March that the FBI was looking at
possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign.
But he also was angry when the FBI director testified last
month that felt "mildly nauseous" about the possibility that Both comments irked Trump because they cast doubt on
his investigation of Clinton's sloppy email practices as the credit he deserves for the "landslide" that wasn't. If he
secretary of state helped tip the election to Trump. cannot manage to contain those feelings, his presidency
will be consumed by his own pettiness.

335
 Washington Liberals Blast ‘Heartless’ ‘Immoral’ Trump
Budget At The Center For American Progress
By Alex Clark
14 Jun 2017

who will say that Muslims should not be allowed to come

into this country.”

While Congresswoman Lee recognized division, she saw it

as one-sided, as she made no mention of the documented
rise in violence against Trump supporters.

“I was shocked when I learned that Special

Olympics was eliminated, that program for
disabled children has been zeroed out.
That is mean,” she continued in her
excoriation of the Trump budget.

Pictured above: Left to Right – Representatives Lee, DeLauro, Yarmuth

and Moderator Carmel Martin at the Center for American Progress

Members of Congress angrily shredded

President Trump at a Leftist think tank
confab on Tuesday. “Mean,”
“heartless,” and “immoral” were just
some of the insults hurled at President
Trump and his budget during the
discussion at the Center for American
Progress in Washington.

The event, titled “How Trump and Congressional GOP

Budgets Leave Behind the Forgotten Man and
Woman,” attempted to reach out to working class
Americans who largely rejected the Democrat platform in
the 2016 election.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal predicted the destruction
of “drinking water systems in rural areas that voted for
Trump” due to EPA funding cuts. She continued to unload
on the budget, classifying it as “wreaking havoc” on
Trump supporters and Trump opponents alike.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee associated President Trump
with a country “more polarized and more divided as you
look at what is taking place in terms of the emergence of
more hate crimes, nooses being found in the Museum of
African American History and Culture. You see many
people being threatened with violence unfortunately
because of who they are, their religion, their background,
their race. It’s almost as if it’s alright now to be mean-
spirited, to be racist, to be homophobic, it’s okay to be one
336
Above: Attendees at The Center for American Progress
Despite this implication that the Special Olympics would
cease to exist under Trump’s budget, the Washington Post
reported that the Trump budget merely cuts $12 million
allocated to Special Olympics education programs, not the
entire program.
The Trump Administration’s agenda is “to
eliminate the public sector,” she alleged.
“It really is heartless. It’s immoral,” she
continued, referring to Trump’s proposed
budget cuts to after-school programs.
The gathering at the left-wing DC-based think tank
included Congress Representatives Rosa DeLauro, Pramila
Jayapal, Barbara Lee and John Yarmuth. Carmel Martin,
Executive Vice President of Policy at the Center for
American Progress Action Fund moderated the discussion.
 Sessions Denies Any Role In
Alleged Collusion Between Trump & Russia
By Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor
June 14, 2017

This includes research, needed field trips, Heritage TV

Legacy archiving, and more – Thanks for helping out

Attorney General Jeff Sessions testifies about the Russia probe at an

opening hearing conducted by the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence (SSCI) on Tuesday, June 13, 2017

[ Editor’s Note: Attorneys have a job to protect their clients from

giving false testimony, so they advise them to say they can’t
remember versus “winging it” with an answer that might come – First aired … June 14, 2017 –
back to bite them in the butt legally. But to have the Attorney
General of the United States using the term “I can’t recall”, or “to The US attorney general has strongly rejected any
the best of my recollection” puts the mark of Cain on his collusion with the Russian government to undermine the
reputation. 2016 US presidential election. Jeff Sessions made the
comments as he was testifying before the senate
His fellow Republicans spared him nothing, not wanting to miss intelligence committee investigating links between the US
out at getting themselves national news coverage by asking him president and Russia.
a zinger that tripped him up. Welcome to politics in DC, folks,
where it is really a blood sport. Sessions insisted that nothing improper occurred during his
two meetings in 2016 with Russian ambassador to the US
The battle over the privacy of Sergey Kislyak.
Presidential conversations is an old one
and will probably be with us forever.
When staff see a clear benefit, they will
share them to the best of their ability,
and clam up when they are not, as
Sessions did in his testimony. I tend to
come down on protecting the privilege,
but obstruction of justice would not be
included in my book.

And last, the talk of Trump firing Mueller as special prosecutor

would be pulling the pin on a hand grenade and sticking it in his
underwear. This is the most self-destructive president we have
seen in modern history. We may get to see the big event on
phone video yet… Jim W. Dean ]
Jim’s Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
– JimWDean@aol.com
The attorney general defended the decision to recuse
himself from the investigation saying the department of
justice rules required him to do so. However Sessions said
recusing himself did not limit his powers to recommend
the firing of former F-B-I chief James Comey.

337
 Trump Rages: ‘You Are Witnessing The Single Greatest
Witch Hunt In American Political History’
Dr. Fly
Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:56am EST

The President ripped into what he called a ‘WITCH presidency.

HUNT’ this morning, after reports by the Washington Post
that suggested the new special counsel, Robert Mueller,
was set to launch a fresh inquiry into obstruction by the
President. Having not been able to find any collusion
between Russia and Trump, the democrats and their deep
state shills have now switched focus on the obstruction
topic — all to do with former FBI director, James Comey.

Incidentally, there is now a push by those loyal to Trump

to impugn the integrity of Robert Mueller. Last night, long
term Trump ally and former chief of staff, Roger Stone,
said that Mueller had coached Comey before his senate
and was hiring a slew of never Trumpers to head up the
investigation into the President.
Yesterday, Ann Coulter concluded Mueller was being
weaponized by deep staters to take down Trump, helped
by Rod Rosenstein — something Stone agreed with.
The tweets by the former speaker set off trip wires by
Never Trump deep staters. One of their key mouthpieces,
Joe Scarborough, hit Newt tit for tat this morning,
vigorously defending Mueller, attempting to shame him
into cowing his opinions in light of yesterday’s baseball
field shootings.

Early this morning, former speaker of the house and

Trump ally, Newt Gingrich, went on a twitter rampage
over the Mueller investigation, saying that he was ‘the tip
of the deep state spear aimed at destroying’ the Trump

338
 One thing is for certain, chaos is in the air and markets
Earlier this week, Trump’s good friend, Chris Ruddy, don’t like it.
floated the idea that Trump, might in fact, fire Mueller.
.

339
 Mueller Is Investigating Trump
For Possible Obstruction Of Justice: Wapo
By Tyler Durden
Jun 15, 2017 5:17 AM

If Trump wasn't under investigation before for colluding
with Russian spies to steal the election from Hillary
Clinton, it seems that he may be now for claims that he
intentionally obstructed justice by firing FBI Director
James Comey just over a month ago...at least according to
more anonymous sources from the Washington Post which
have proven themselves to be slightly less than completely
'accurate' several times in the recent past.
infuriated response by Trump, which would assure he digs
himself into an even deeper hole. Here is today's 'hedge':
The interviews suggest Mueller sees the attempted
obstruction of justice question as more than just a “he
said, he said” dispute between the president and the
fired FBI director, an official said.

According to Wapo, this new revelation marks a "major

turning point" in the investigation of the Trump
administration and will get underway with interviews of
numerous "senior intelligence officials" as early as this
week.

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into

Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior
intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that
now includes an examination of whether President
Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to

Of course, as we pointed out last week, Senator Jim Risch
investigate Trump’s own conduct marks a major turning
did a masterful job of dismantled any 'hopes' of an
point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which
obstruction of justice case when he essentially got Comey
until recently focused on Russian meddling during the
himself to admit there was no 'there' there:
presidential campaign and on whether there was any
coordination between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3,
evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the
associates, officials said. words so we could all have the words in front of us now.
There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I
hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can
Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on
see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn
condition of anonymity because they were not
go...I hope you can let this go.'"
authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Daniel
Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Adm.
Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and "Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Rogers’ recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed
to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as Comey: "Correct."
this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy
and it’s unclear how many others have been questioned by Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in
the FBI. quotes?"

And, like many of these stories from the past 6 months, the Comey: "Correct."
breathless headline from Wapo is followed, some 10
paragraphs into the story, with a slightly more realistic Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let
'hedge' which suggests that the whole story may just it go."
another fishing expedition into prompting yet another

340
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did
100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with
criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of
the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been
charged. Do you know of any case where a person has
been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter
of any other criminal offense, where they said or
thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the
reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is
not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of
anyone who has ever been charged for hoping
something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
341
So, to summarize, for anyone who has managed to ignore
all the mass hysteria of the past 6 months, the intelligence
community basically forced Trump's hand by slowly
leaking out damaging innuendos and accusations over the
past several months, all while refusing to confirm that he,
himself, was never actually under investigation. In the
end, those damaging leaks, combined with Comey's refusal
to confirm publicly that Trump was not under
investigation, resulted in Comey's sudden dismissal on
May 9th. And now, even though he was never a target of
any investigation, leaks from the intelligence community
have forced a situation where Trump may be under
investigation by the intelligence community, a rather
confounding, if perhaps well-orchestrated, outcome.
 JOURNO-TERRORISM: New York Times Now Openly
Sponsoring A Public Depiction Of The
Assassination Of President Trump
By: Robert Jonathan
Date: June 15, 2017
Is it possible that the New York Times could discredit itself
even more?
It’s bad enough that it is essentially a fake news conveyor
belt for the Deep State and the Democrats, but now it turns
out that it is also bankrolling the Public Theater
“Shakespeare in the Park” production of a contemporary
interpretation of Julius Ceasar that depicts an assassination
of a Donald Trump lookalike. The main character has
reddish-blonde hair and wears a business suit rather than
Roman robes.
To make matters worse, Ceasar’s wife Calpurnia is said to
resemble First Lady Melania Trump in the production.
The stage play is being presented at the Delacorte Theater
in New York City’s Central Park as part of the annual
Shakespeare in the Park production.
Some corporate sponsors, like Delta Air Lines and Bank of
America, have withdrawn their financial support for the
Public Theater’s production because of the play’s
offensive content. However, other sponsors seem the think
the play is just business as usual, with no care at all given
to the questionable content. The New York Times, for
example, is still bankrolling the dramatization, according
to a statement included in a June 11 article addressing the
controversial production.
As an institution that believes in free
speech for the arts as well as the media,
342
we support the right of the Public Theater
to stage the production as they chose.
Unless taxpayer funding is involved, this is not a matter of
free speech. It is, however, an issue of proper judgment,
rule of law, a civil society, and patriotism.
Time Warner, the parent company of the equally
relentlessly anti-Trump CNN, is also a backer, prompting
this observation from John Nolte of The Daily Wire.
One of America’s largest news
organizations is owned by a company that
is sponsoring a nightly theater production
where live on stage the sitting president of
the United States is brutally and bloodily
assassinated, murdered, stabbed to
death… For every night, thanks in large
part to CNN’s owners, from a public stage
in a major public park, the news that it is
both a righteous and patriotic act to
assassinate President Trump is blared
loudly and clearly.
For every night, thanks in large part to
CNN’s owners, from a public stage in a
major public park, the news that it is both a
righteous and patriotic act to assassinate
President Trump is blared loudly and
clearly.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/874996974965182
464
This kind of violent imagery may be responsible for
prompting a leftist gunman to open fire on Republican
lawmakers at an Alexandria, Va., softball field on June 14
that left U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, two Capitol Hill police
officers and at least one staffer wounded. According to a
congressman who was present, the gunman wanted to
“to kill as many Republican members as
possible,”
TheWeek reported.
Recall that crybully Kathy Griffin posted a video of herself
holding the decapitated head of a Donald Trump mask,
which was even too much for CNN, which fired her from
the network’s annual New Year’s Eve broadcast. As
Natural News founder Mike Adams wrote last month, the
Griffin incident sends a message that violence against
President Trump or his supporters is “a normal, acceptable
activity.”
During his long career in the pre-politics media spotlight,
Donald Trump — a former Democrat and independent
who ran for president on the GOP ticket — regularly
mixed with the celebrities and they with him. It’s only
after he became a political candidate that Trump became
unacceptable to those in the show business circuit,
although some of the outrage is obviously orchestrated for
propaganda purposes.

Adams also pointed out, prophetically, that

“journo-terrorists” in the tolerance-

preaching left-wing media now function as
part of “a fascist propaganda machine that
advocates murder.”

(RELATED: Read more about journo-terrorists at

Journalism. news.)

Although currently, it is the very opposite of edgy, Trump

bashing also seems to be a part of political “theater” in the
entertainment community at large, apart from the Julius
Ceasar production.
.
TV host Chuck Woolery recently quipped that Trump
Derangement Syndrome coverage should be included in
the Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill that is pending in
the U.S. Senate.

343
 CBS Anchor Blames Trump's Tweets
For Congressional Baseball Field Shooting
By The_Real_Fly
Jun 15, 2017 11:23 PM
Now this is the sort of journalism that gets the blood
pumping. Scott Pelley from SHEE-BEE-ESH News asked
the question last night,
'Was the congressional shootings self
inflicted?'
To prove his case, Pelley didn't cite the endless barrage of
violent protest by leftists in the streets or Democratic
politicians calling for 'resistance.' Instead, Pelley called
into question President Trump's tweets, especially one that
said the enemy of America was the media -- as the
millstone from which killers like Hodgkinson drew energy
from to activate into seditious violence.
Source: SHEE-BEE-ESH News
It's time to ask whether the attack on the
United States Congress Wednesday was
foreseeable, predictable and, to some
degree, self-inflicted.
Too many leaders, and political commentators, who set an
example for us to follow have led us into an abyss of
violent rhetoric which, it should be no surprise, has led to
violence.
344
Wednesday was not the first time.
In December last year, a man with an
assault rifle stormed into a Washington-
area pizzeria to free child sex slaves
whom Hillary Clinton was holding there
-- or at least that's what political blog sites
had said. He fired into a locked door to
discover no children in chains.
Sen. Bernie Sanders has called the president the "most
dangerous in history." The shooter on Wednesday was a
Sanders volunteer.
You might think that no sane person would
act on political hate speech, and you'd be
right. Trouble is, there are a lot of
Americans who struggle with mental
illness.
In February, the president tweeted that
the news media were the "enemy of the
American people."
Later, at a lunch for reporters, President Trump was asked
whether he worried that language would incite violence.
His pause indicated it had never crossed his mind. Then he
said,
"No, that doesn't worry me."
As children we're taught, "Words will
never hurt me."
But when you think about it, violence almost always
begins with words. In "Twitter world," we've come to
believe that our first thought is our best thought.
It's past time for all of us -- presidents, politicians,
reporters, citizens, all of us -- to pause to think again.
It's past time for all of us -- presidents, politicians,
reporters, citizens, all of us -- to pause to think again.
In summary, Hodgkinson shot up a baseball field filled
with GOP politicians because of pizzagate, which Pelley
said inplicated Hillary Clinton in holding child sex slaves
inside of Comet Ping Pong's basement (even the most
extreme conspiracy theorists never implicated Clinton, just
Podesta), Trump's hatred for the media, and also mental
illnesses pervading America's collective psyche. CBS
never bothered to mention, in this disgraceful display of
agitprop, the fact that left wing extremists have been
slandering the President of the United States with false
accusations of treason, blatant lies regarding Russia's
.
345
involvement in the elections, and a wholesale disregard
and contempt for the highest office in the land. To blame
right wingers for inciting violence conducted by a left
wing Berniebro is reprehensible, but not unexpected by the
cromagnons who traverse the indecorous halls of SHE-
BEE-ESH News.
 Why Did Sanders Supporter Want To Assassinate
REPUBLICANS When DEMOCRATIC Rigging And
Corruption Is Why
He Lost His Party’s Nomination?
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 15, 2017
Following James T. Hodgkinson’s attempt to kill “as many
Republicans as possible” as they practiced for their annual
softball game against Democrats on a ball field in northern
Virginia Wednesday morning, reporters looking into the
former Belleville, Ill., resident have identified a political
pattern — namely, that Hodgkinson was a huge supporter
and former campaign volunteer for 2016 Democratic
presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders.
That’s an important point to make for a number of reasons,
not the least of which is that far-Left Democrats and their
journo-terrorist friends in the “mainstream media” are
directly responsible for excusing, fomenting and
encouraging violence against anyone who supports
President Donald J. Trump and Republicans in general.
But it’s also an important point to make because this guy
has a well-established connection to Sanders and to the far
Left, and yet he took out his anger on Republicans.
Why Republicans? (RELATED: Deranged Bernie
Sanders supporter attempts mass political executions of
Republicans at softball game… has civil war begun?)
Okay, superficially, his political ideology appears to be far
Left:
 He was an early Sanders supporter
 He displayed a palpable hatred for Trump
 He campaigned for Sanders
346
 He belonged to several anti-GOP groups, and once
said he wanted to “terminate the Republican Party”
 He was upset over the election results (key point here)
 He often wrote letters to the editor of the local
newspaper denouncing Republicans and GOP policies
 He voted for Democrats in the last several elections
So I get it: He doesn’t like Republicans. Fair enough.
But what’s odd about this — and why I have often said
that Alt-Left Democrats have no hypocrisy gene — is
because, for all of his anger and hatred of the Republican
Party, it was the Democratic Party that cheated his chosen
candidate in the last election cycle.
Remember? Several documents and emails leaked by
WikiLeaks during the primary and campaign seasons last
year proved that the Democratic National Committee had
the fix in for Hillary Clinton, while its operatives did all
they could to hijack the nomination and shut Sanders out.
As noted by Zero Hedge, three things became apparent
from those leaks:
1) There was a plot to shut Sanders out and hand the
nomination to the DNC’s chosen (anointed?) candidate,
Hillary
2) There was repeated collusion — not with Russia —
between the DNC and members of the media to
accomplish No. 1 above
3) There has been some questionable fundraising both for
the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Zero Hedge reported further:
An initial read of the thousands of emails in
the data dump reveals top officials at the
Democratic National Committee privately
plotting to undermine Bernie Sanders’s
presidential campaign, confirming a long-
running allegation by the Sanders
campaign who has claimed that the DNC
and Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman
 Schultz had tipped the scales in favor of
Hillary Clinton during the party’s
presidential primary. They also reveal
instances of media collusion as well as
various questionable instances of
fundraising.
So devious was the DNC’s behavior that a number of
Sanders supporters are suing the organization, alleging a
breach of its own rules regarding the presidential
nomination process. But what’s really amazing, as The
National Sentinel reports, is that in court papers the
organization’s attorneys essentially admitted they screwed
poor Bernie over.
“People paid money in reliance on the
understanding that the primary elections for
the Democratic nominee – nominating
.
347
process in 2016 were fair and impartial,”
attorney for the plaintiffs, Jared Beck, said.
“And that’s not just a bedrock assumption
that we would assume just by virtue of the
fact that we live in a democracy, and we
assume that our elections are run in a fair
and impartial manner. But that’s what the
Democratic National Committee’s own
charter says. It says it in black and white.
And they can’t deny that.”
So what drives someone whose candidate got back-doored
by his own party to hate Republicans so much? Why not
be upset at the DNC?
Only someone who knows not what hypocrisy is can
answer that.
Time For A National Conversation About MSM Incitement
Of Violence Against Trump, The GOP…And You
James Kirkpatrick
June 15, 2017
This was inevitable. As of this writing, Congressman Steve
Scalise remains in critical condition after being shot by a
fanatically anti-Trump, Bernie Sanders supporting white
male.
Needless to say, after the Main Stream Media has spent
months screaming Republicans are literal traitors in service
to a foreign power and that the President of the United
States won office illegitimately in a “hacked election,” it’s
348
not surprising elected officials are going to be attacked by
Leftist partisans gaslit into shrieking hysteria.
Consider the New Normal:
 Celebrities feeling emboldened to make “art”
celebrating the murder or even decapitation of the
Commander-in-Chief
 Journalists abandoning even the pretense of objectivity
 Street violence against conservatives and right wingers
being openly celebrated
 Intelligence and enforcement agencies trying to bring
down the elected chief executive
 Accusations of “treason” being made by “mainstream”
Democrats backed by literally no evidence
What’s really remarkable is that there hasn’t been even
more violence.
Yet this actually understates the malevolence of what is
occurring. As the irreplaceable Vox Day put it in his
classic book SJWs Always Lie, one of the rules of far-Left
“Social Justice Warrior” behavior is that “SJWs Always
Project.” It’s not just that the Left is encouraging violence
while blaming conservatives. It’s that the Left is using this
non-existent wave of supposed Right-wing violence to
justify a sweeping crackdown on freedom of speech.
Just before Donald Trump’s election, we were told the
Republican campaign had unleashed a wave of terror
against racial minorities nationwide, including, most
spectacularly, the burning of a black church, with the
words “Vote Trump” triumphantly plastered on the ruins.
This, of course, turned out to be fake.
After Donald Trump became President Trump, we were
told of a wave of “hate crimes” nationwide allegedly
inspired by the new Chief Executive. This became the
rationale for a whole new round of MSM condemnations
of the president for allegedly not “speaking up” to
denounce the crimes which he, after all, had nothing to do
with [Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Are Spiking In The U.S.
Donald Trump Won’t Speak Up, by Carol Kuruvilla,
Huffington Post, February 27, 2017].
Of course, many of these “crimes” were either nonexistent
or not even crimes as all (such as putting up flyers which
Communists find “hateful” or allegedly saying mean
words) [Big Spike In ‘Hate Crimes?’ Not So Fast, by Leo
Hohmann, WND, November 21, 2016]. Nonetheless, our
money-grubbing friends at the Southern Poverty Law
Center demanded President Trump “apologize” for
allegedly unleashing this supposed spate of nonexistent
crimes. [Trump ‘Must Apologize For Unleashing Hate
Crimes,’ by Art Moore, WND, November 29, 2016]
This was taken to its most spectacular extreme when there
was a wave of “anti-Semitic bomb threats” supposedly
made against Jewish community centers nationwide. The
MSM screamed Donald Trump was to blame and accused
349
him of not doing enough to combat this dire threat, even
after the president actually acknowledged it at the
beginning of his first State of the Union [Trump notes anti-
Semitic threats and vandalism in speech to Congress, by
Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 28,
2017. However, it then emerged some of the threats had
been made by Juan Thompson, a black journalist. And an
Israeli-American dual citizen was eventually found to be
responsible for the rest.
Yet incredibly, the story didn’t just disappear down the
memory hole; the “wave of anti-Semitism” story continued
on without any acknowledgement that many of the threats
were simply invented out of whole cloth.
For example, in a recent story about anti-Semitic
comments at a high school, Vice declared: “So far this
year, 150 bomb threats have been leveled at Jewish
institutions in North America and several Jewish
cemeteries have been vandalized, among other hate-fueled
incidents”. [The Disturbing Spike in Anti-Semitism at
Northern California Schools, by Max Cherney, May 25,
2017]
Similarly, your tax dollars funded a gushing interview on
NPR with Heidi Beirich decrying the “almost 900 hate and
bias incidents between the election and 10 days later”—
with no mention of the fact that many of the tales being
circulated by the MSM are as real as the UVA Rolling
Stone Rape Hoax [SPLC Has Seen Rise In Hate Crime,
Domestic Terrorism Attacks, NPR, May 27, 2017].
All of this is reminiscent of how the Black Lives Matter
movement continued to use the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”
gesture that came out of Ferguson, Missouri, even after it
was determined the late Michael Brown attacked Officer
Darren Wilson, rather than meekly surrendering as the hatemongers”] [who]… visit websites
lying journalists had wanted us to believe. steeped in hate speech” [The four reasons
people commit hate crimes, by Daniel
Even when the lie has been definitively disproven, it still Burke, June 12, 2017]. “Many hate-crime
lives on and is referenced by journalists as common offenders believe that society supports their
wisdom. violent prejudices,” author Burke
complains. “The Internet, with its hives of
hate groups, has fed that feeling, especially
Meanwhile, the truth is pathologized. Revealingly,
with the ascendency of the alt-right during
journalists and progressive activists are especially angry at
the 2016 presidential election.”
Donald Trump not because of any policy decision he has
made, but because he has emboldened normal Americans
to speak their minds on issues surrounding race, But it’s not the “alt-right” driving violence. It’s the “alt-
immigration and Islamic terrorism. right” which is having violence inflicted upon it—
especially as the MSM’s definition of the “alt-right” is so
expansive it includes practically every supporter of the
The campaign against Trump and his supporters should be
President of the United States.
seen, not so much as an effort to drive out a political
figure, but to restore the hegemony of the MSM over the
Narrative, returning to Establishment journalists the power And if we accept the MSM’s premise that “hate crimes”
to determine who does and does not have the right to be are increasing because Donald Trump emboldened
heard. ordinary Americans to openly state what they consider
“hate speech,” then what do we make of today’s violence?
Unlike the Alt Right,” Leftist journalists enjoy staggering
Even figures once useful to the Left, such as Megyn Kelly,
resources, all but unlimited reach, and the ability to
are now being savagely attacked by journalists for
popularize entire Narratives even when there is absolutely
supposedly “normalizing” alternative media personalities
no evidence to support their claims.
like Alex Jones of Infowars [Advertisers withdrawing from
Megyn Kelly’s show due to Alex Jones interview, by Brian
Stelter, CNN, June 14, 2017]. Her career is now being Thus for months now, they have portrayed the President as
targeted. a Manchurian Candidate, his supporters as Nazis, and
members of his party as collaborators. What’s more,
academics and journalists are increasingly blunt about
As shown by the purge of Katie McHugh, Breitbart has
declaring their open racial hatred against whites and telling
been successfully cowed by effort to pressure their
non-whites that all whites are “racist,” and thus subject to
advertisers.
justified violence.
Similarly, at least part of journalists’ hostility to Russia
Media-sanctioned hate speech has already led to the
isn’t simply ethnic hatred, but by their fear that Russia’s
murder of European-Americans; now, it has struck down a
media outlets are competitive threat, more open as they are
Congressman. And many journalists and activists don’t
to alternative points of view than websites and newspapers
even have the decency to keep from celebrating [Left-
in the so-called “Free World.”
Wing Twitter Celebrates Shooting Of Rep. Scalise,
Grabien News, June 14, 2017].
Aside from wild claims about Russia, the
main argument journalists use to attack
By their own standards, the Leftist media stands
dissident organizations is accusing them of
condemned. It is responsible for the violence today,
“hate speech” which leads, inevitably, to
violence it continues to cultivate. And as the situation in
“hate crimes.” For example, CNN ran an
this country continues to spiral out of control, it will be the
article bemoaning the rise of “hate crimes,”
“mainstream,” “moderate” journalists who will bear the
especially by “mission-offenders [defined
most responsibility for the blood that will be shed.
as “rare but often lethal hardcore
.

350
 Huff Post Writer: GOP Shooting Didn’t
Go Far Enough, Violent Resistance Needs Organizing
By Alex Xenos
June 15, 2017 3:27 PM EDT

In the aftermath of the shooting targeting Republican

congressmen in Alexandria, VA, the media has called for
both sides to cool down their rhetoric. As if the vitriol and
hate were equal on both sides. The truth is it isn’t.
Huffington Post writer Jesse Benn is case and point. The
publication has long been a place for the fringe-left to
spew their venom.

Benn has defended violence against Trump supporters in

the past and actually argued for violent “resistance.” So it
should have come as no surprise when he tweeted the
following:

I’m sure the Huffington Post is proud to have somebody

representing how they truly feel.

351
 CIA Backed Washington Post
Cites “Anonymous Sources” Saying Trump Is
Under Investigation For Obstructing Justice
More "Anonymous Sources" Trotted Out By The
Radical Liberal Left Washington Post
Alex Christoforou
June 15, 2017
James Comey admitted under oath, on live TV, and in
writing that President Trump was not under investigation
before for “colluding with Russia” (whatever that means).
As with all open-ended investigations that start with no
evidence, in order to find evidence, in order to
manufacture a conviction…if the Washington Post is to be
believed, special counsel Robert Mueller is now
investigating whether President Trump intentionally
obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey
over a month ago.
The sources for the WaPo story are of course,
“anonymous”, but it has not stopped the Jeff Bezos
funded, CIA driven newspaper to call this latest
revelation a “major turning point” in the investigation of
POTUS Trump….
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into
Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior
intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now
includes an examination of whether President Trump
attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.
The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to
investigate Trump’s own conduct marks a major turning
point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until
recently focused on Russian meddling during the
presidential campaign and on whether there was any
coordination between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any
evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump
associates, officials said.
Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on
condition of anonymity because they were not authorized
to discuss the matter publicly, said Daniel Coats, the
current director of national intelligence, Adm. Mike
Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and
Rogers’ recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed
to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as
this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy
352
and it’s unclear how many others have been questioned by
the FBI.
Zerohedge notes that like many of these stories from the
past 6 months, the breathless headline from Wapo is
followed, some 10 paragraphs into the story, with a
slightly more realistic ‘hedge’ which suggests that the
whole story may just another fishing expedition into
prompting yet another infuriated response by Trump,
which would assure he digs himself into an even deeper
hole. Here is today’s ‘hedge’:
The interviews suggest Mueller sees the attempted
obstruction of justice question as more than just a “he
said, he said” dispute between the president and the
fired FBI director, an official said.
As all this plays out, it is hard to not believe that all of this
was nothing more than a well orchestrated ploy to launch a
special counsel onto the Trump administration with the
sole purpose of getting Trump impeached, and thus keep
the swamp in tact.
You can investigate just about anything if you don’t
need evidence.
As Zerohedge summarizes…
–for anyone who has managed to ignore all the mass
hysteria of the past 6 months, the intelligence community
basically forced Trump’s hand by slowly leaking out
damaging innuendos and accusations over the past several
months, all while refusing to confirm that he, himself, was
never actually under investigation. In the end, those
damaging leaks, combined with Comey’s refusal to
confirm publicly that Trump was not under investigation,
resulted in Comey’s sudden dismissal on May 9th. And
now, even though he was never a target of any
investigation, leaks from the intelligence community have
forced a situation where Trump may be under investigation
by the intelligence community, a rather confounding, if
perhaps well-orchestrated, outcome.
What is perplexing is that last week James Comey did
reveal that obstruction of justice had taken place, just not
under Trump’s watch, but under the guidance of Hillary
Clinton and Loretta Lynch. Expect no investigation into
Lynch’s meddling into the FBI’s investigation of Hillary.
As Zero hedge reported, Senator Jim Risch did a masterful
job of dismantled any ‘hopes’ of an obstruction of justice
case when he essentially got Comey himself to admit there
was no ‘there’ there:
Risch:
“Boy you nailed this down on page 5
paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words
matter, you wrote down the words so we
could all have the words in front of us now.
There are 28 words there that are in quotes
and it says,
‘I hope’, this is the President speaking, ‘I
hope you can see your way claer to letting
this go, to letting Flynn go…I hope you can
let this go.'”
“Now those are his exact words, is that
correct”
Comey:
“Correct.”
Risch:
“And you wrote them here and you put
them in quotes?”
Comey:
.
353
“Correct.”
Risch:
“Thank you for that. He did not direct you to
let it go.”
Comey:
“Not in his words, no.”
Risch:
“He did not order you to let it go.”
Comey:
“Again, those words are not an order.”
Risch:
“He said ‘I hope’. Now, like me you
probably did 100’s of cases, maybe 1,000s
of cases charging people with criminal
offenses. And, of course, you have
knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there
where people have been charged. Do you
know of any case where a person has been
charged for obstruction of justice, for that
matter of any other criminal offense, where
they said or thought they hoped for an
outcome?”
Comey:
“I don’t know well enough to answer. And
the reason I keep saying ‘his words’ is I
took it as a direction…”
Risch:
“You may have taken it as a direction
but that is not what he said. He said, ‘I
hope.’ You don’t know of anyone who
has ever been charged for hoping
something, is that a fair statement?”
Comey: “
I don’t as I sit here.”
 Comey Violated FBI Protocols In Handling Memos
Attorney General Says Comey Did Not Provide Justice Department With
'Facts Of Any Kind' On Alleged Improper Communications
By Joshua Philipp, Epoch Times |
June 15, 2017 AT 12:16 PM

He mentioned no facts of any kind. He did

not mention to me that he had been asked
to do something he thought was improper.
— Attorny General Jeff Sessions
“He mentioned no facts of any kind. He did
not mention to me that he had been asked
to do something he thought was improper,”
Sessions said when asked by Blunt
whether Comey had brought up the alleged
Flynn conversation when they met.

If Comey had thought something was improper, the normal

protocol would have been for him to report the issue to his
Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate supervisor, the deputy attorney general. But Comey did not
intelligence committee on June 8. (BRENDAN follow protocol, which Sessions said he “certainly knew.”
SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

Sessions said that according to

Former FBI Director James Comey has become a center of
“longstanding written policies of the
attention for the memos he made of private conversations
Department of Justice,” if Comey were in a
he had with President Donald Trump. In handling those
one-on-one conversation with Trump and
memos, Comey chose not to follow FBI protocol, which
the conversation moved into “certain
has damaged their value as evidence while perhaps
areas,” then it would be the “duty of the FBI
reducing any penalty for disclosing them.
agent to say, ‘Mr. President, I can’t talk
about that.'”
Comey’s failure to follow protocol became a topic of
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s testimony before the
Instead of following protocol, Comey testified that he
Senate intelligence committee on June 13, regarding
began recording his conversations with Trump in
Comey’s account of a meeting between him and Trump on
memorandums, starting with their Jan. 6 meeting, during
Feb. 14. At that meeting, Comey claims Trump expressed
which Comey briefed Trump on the “dossier” of
his hope that former national security adviser Gen.
uncorroborated accusations that had been given to the FBI.
Michael Flynn could be “let go.” Flynn is currently under
investigation by the FBI.
It does not appear Comey’s memos were filed with the FBI
as official documents. Instead, Comey provided the
Both the president and his lawyer have strongly denied that
information in them to a small circle of his associates, and
Trump asked in any form for Comey to let Flynn go.
someone later leaked a recollection of Comey’s meetings
with Trump to the media.
Comey, in his June 8 testimony before the Senate
intelligence committee, alleged he had informed Sessions
Fox News has identified 10 New York Times stories dating
of Trump’s request at a meeting the day after he met with
back to Jan. 10 that are sourced to anonymous FBI or
Trump.
Department of Justice officials
In response to questioning from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.),
“that either paint Comey in a positive light
Sessions said Comey did not inform him at that meeting of
or push a message he was unable to
any inappropriate requests made by the president.
personally disclose,” according to Fox.

In his June 8 testimony to the Senate intelligence

committee, Comey admitted that through a friend, he
354
himself leaked a memo of his Feb. 14 meeting with If Comey followed protocol, he would have shown his
Trump, during which Comey alleges Trump expressed his memos to the deputy attorney general or the director of a
hope that Flynn could be let go. legal division, then entered or uploaded those files to
government record.

“Then it’s an official document, and it’s

valuable as an official document because
it’s in an official file,” Ruskin said.

If this were the case, the memos would have been time-
stamped and more official, but it would also have meant
Comey admitting to leaking government documents that
potentially contained classified information.

On the other hand, if Comey did not follow protocol,

Ruskin said it’s less of a problem that Comey leaked the
memos, but the memos would also lack any probative
Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate value—they could not be used to prove anything. And
intelligence committee on June 8, 2017. (MANDEL lacking any official date, it would even be difficult for
NGAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
Comey to prove he didn’t write them on the spot.
Comey seems to have been selective about to whom he
“They don’t corroborate anything if they
provided the memos.
weren’t submitted for filing,” Ruskin said.
While he has not provided them to the House and Senate
Regardless, Ruskin noted it’s problematic for an FBI
committees leading the Russia investigations, Comey or
director to leak documents to the press.
one of his associates has provided them to The New York
Times—known for its strong anti-Trump bias—and Comey
has given them to special counsel Robert Mueller, his Comey told the committee that he leaked the memo about
long-time friend. the Feb. 14 meeting with the intention of having a special
counsel assigned to the Russia investigation. Ruskin said,
Protocol for Memos
“There are other ways he could have gone
about it that would have made more
According to Marc Ruskin, a former FBI agent for 27 sense.”
years and author of “The Pretender: My Life
Undercover for the FBI,” a crucial piece of information “To me it sounded like something you’d
is whether Comey followed protocol with his memos. come up with after the fact,” he said,
referring to Comey’s claim he leaked the
memos to get a special prosecutor
Under normal protocol, if an FBI agent is asked to do
assigned. Ruskin said it sounded similar to
something that’s potentially unethical or illegal, Ruskin
something that would come out of a
said, “the agent would normally write a memo
meeting with a lawyer trying to create an
documenting this situation.” The agent would then show
alibi, “and that was the best they could
the memo to their supervisor and consult on what would
come up with.”
be the proper response. Then, if no further action
was needed, an official would sign off on the memo, which
would then be entered into an official file.

355
 Feinstein Wants Comey Back On The Hill —
And Will Back A Subpoena If Necessary
By Austin Wright
06/15/2017 05:56 PM EDT
In her letter Thursday, Feinstein says the Judiciary panel needs to
schedule a hearing before the August recess with Attorney General
Jeff Sessions, who appeared earlier this week before the Senate
Intelligence Committee to discuss his role in Comey’s firing and
other issues. | Getty
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, wants former FBI Director James
Comey to return to Capitol Hill to testify before her panel
— and says Democrats are willing to back a subpoena for
Comey if he refuses.
Feinstein’s demand came in a letter Thursday to the
committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), in
which she makes recommendations for how the panel
should proceed in its investigation into Comey’s firing.
On Wednesday, Grassley announced the committee was
launching a wide-ranging probe into the circumstances of
the firing, along with attempts to influence FBI
investigations during the Obama administration.
In her letter Thursday, Feinstein says the Judiciary panel
needs to schedule a hearing before the August recess with
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who appeared earlier this
week before the Senate Intelligence Committee to discuss
his role in Comey’s firing and other issues.
“The committee needs to have an
opportunity to question the attorney general
about the department’s policies and
priorities,” Feinstein wrote. “There also
remain unanswered questions about the
attorney general’s prior testimony before
.
356
the committee and his role in firing Director
Comey.”
Secondly, she writes, Comey must testify before the
Judiciary panel
“regarding serious concerns that have been
raised about political interference with FBI
investigations and possible obstruction of
justice.”
Comey previously declined an invitation from the
Judiciary Committee to testify on the circumstances of his
firing and his conversations with President Donald Trump,
instead appearing before the Senate Intelligence
Committee in one of the most closely watched
congressional hearings in years.
“I am disappointed that Mr. Comey
declined our initial request and hope he will
reconsider,” Feinstein writes. “If not, the
committee should take steps to compel his
attendance. Be assured my Democratic
colleagues are supportive of issuing a
subpoena should it become necessary.”
Her letter also recommends that the committee speak with
individuals with whom Comey discussed his private
interactions with Trump, including acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe and other senior FBI officials.
And she writes that the committee needs to “address the
refusal of multiple government witnesses to answer
questions posed by senators in the Intelligence and
Appropriations Committees.” She specifically cites
Sessions’ testimony from earlier this week, when he
declined to answer questions about his conversations with
Trump.
“These witnesses did not assert a privilege
or specify a concrete legal basis upon
which they relied upon for their non-
answers,” Feinstein writes.
 Judicial Watch Warns FBI Of Obligation To Recover
Records Unlawfully Removed By Former
Director James Comey
JUNE 15, 2017
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it
sent Acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe a warning
letter concerning the FBI’s legal responsibility under the
Federal Records Act (FRA) to recover records, including
memos Comey subsequently leaked to the media,
unlawfully removed from the Bureau by former Director
James Comey. The June 14 letter from Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton states:
As you are well aware, former FBI Director
James Comey gave sworn testimony last
week before the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence. Among other things, Mr.
Comey confirmed that, while in office, he
created various memoranda regarding his
meetings with President Trump. Mr. Comey
also confirmed that, after his departure
from the FBI, he provided at least some of
these memoranda to a third party,
Columbia Law School Professor Daniel
Richman, for the purpose of leaking them
to the press. Various media outlets now
have reported that Professor Richman has
provided these memoranda to the FBI. It is
unclear whether he still retains copies of
the memoranda.
I am writing to you on behalf of Judicial Watch, Inc., a
not-for-profit educational organization that seeks to
promote transparency, accountability, and integrity in
government and fidelity to the rule of law. In furtherance
of its public interest mission, Judicial Watch regularly
requests access to the records of the FBI through the
Freedom of Information Act and disseminates its findings
to the public. In fact, on May 16, 2017, Judicial Watch
submitted a FOIA request seeking these specific
memoranda removed from the FBI by Mr. Comey. Judicial
Watch also has pending FOIA lawsuits in which the
memoranda may be at issue.
These memoranda were created by Mr. Comey while
serving as FBI director, were written on his FBI laptop,
and concerned official government business. As such,
they indisputably are records subject to the Federal
Records Act. 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-18, 2901-09, 3101-07,
and 3301-14. The fact that Mr. Comey removed these
memoranda from the FBI upon his departure, apparently
357
for the purpose of subsequently leaking them to the press,
confirms the FBI’s failure to retain and properly manage
its records in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
Even if Mr. Comey no longer has possession of these
particular memoranda, as he now claims, some or all of
these memoranda may still be in possession of a third
party, such as Professor Richman, and must be recovered.
Mr. Comey’s removal of these memoranda also suggests
that other records may have been removed by Mr. Comey
and may remain in his possession or in the possession of
others. If so, these records must be recovered by the FBI as
well.
As you may be aware, the Federal Records Act imposes a
direct responsibility on you to take steps to recover any
records unlawfully removed from the FBI. Specifically,
upon learning of
“any actual, impending, or threatened
unlawful removal, defacing, alteration,
corruption, deletion, erasure, or other
destruction of records in the custody of the
agency,”
you must notify the Archivist of the United States. 44
U.S.C. § 3106. Upon learning that records have been
unlawfully removed from the FBI, you then are required to
initiate action through the Attorney General for the
recovery of records. Id.
In the event you fail to take these steps, you should be
aware that Judicial Watch is authorized under the law to
file a lawsuit in federal district court seeking that you be
compelled to comply with the law. Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Armstrong v.
Bush, 924 F.2d 282,296 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Please advise us
no later than June 26, 2017 if you intend to take the action
required under the law. If we do not hear from you by that
date, we will assume that you do not intend to take any
action. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
“Mr. Comey took government records and
the FBI and Justice Department are
obligated to get them back,” added Judicial
Watch President Tom Fitton. “The former
FBI director isn’t above the law and current
 leadership of the FBI should stop protecting
him and take action.”
Judicial Watch is pursuing a lawsuit challenging the State
Department’s failure to take any action to recover emails
of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other
employees unlawfully removed from the agency seeks to
358
force State Department compliance with the Federal
Records Act (FRA). Judicial Watch argues the State
Department and FBI never bothered to do a full search for
Hillary Clinton’s government emails. This is one of several
of Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits seeking government
records and information about the non-government email
system used by Clinton.
 Oliver Stone Shocked
At How The CIA Is Treating President Trump
Famous Hollywood Director Surprised By The
"Overtness" Of The "Deep State"
By Shepard Ambellas -
06.16.2017 @10:24 AM EDT
(INTELLIHUB) — Hollywood producer Oliver Stone,
who recently spent 20-hours with Russian President
Vladimir Putin, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to
offer his insight on the current geopolitical state.
The 70-year-old told Carlson that the left is fractured at
that Hillary Clinton has become a “neoconservative” with
.
359
her backing of the destruction of Libya, the Iraq war, and
now Syria.
“In a sense we have destroyed the
sovereignty of these countries in the Middle
East,” Stone said. “If this crumbles, the
world order crumbles.”
Stone also pointed out that there is only a
“thin amount of evidence” suggesting that
the Russians interfered with the U.S.
electoral system and that the CIA has been
“creating a fear, a paranoia without
evidence.”
“Trump was essentially slapped in the face
with two weeks to go,” he said.
Additionally, Stone said he is surprised by the “overtness”
of the “deep state” in 2017.
 Grassley Rankles GOP
With New Comey Investigation
By Alexander Bolton
06/16/17 06:00 AM EDT
Republicans are wary of Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa)
decision to launch a Senate Judiciary Committee
investigation into the firing of former FBI Director James
Comey.
Grassley, the panel’s chairman, took the step this week
partly at the urging of Democrats, but said that it’s his
committee’s job to make sure there’s a firewall protecting
the FBI from political influence.
“There should be no improper interference
with FBI investigations to favor any elected
official or candidate of either party,”
Grassley wrote in a Wednesday letter to
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking
Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Grassley’s announcement took his Republican colleagues
by surprise, and several said they are uncomfortable with
the addition of yet another investigation that could target
the Trump administration.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a senior member of the
Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that he did not think it
necessary for the Judiciary Committee to investigate
Comey’s firing. Still, he said the investigation was
Grassley’s choice to make as chairman.
“I’m sure it’s being pushed rather hard by
Democrats because I don’t know one
Republican pushing that,” Hatch said of an
investigation into Comey’s firing. “It’s not
that they don’t want to have an
investigation, they don’t see a need for it.”
Several GOP lawmakers on Thursday told The Hill that
Grassley’s investigation could conflict with the work of
special counsel Robert Mueller at the Justice Department.
“We already have a special counsel. I don’t
think we should have any more
investigations. I don’t see how that doesn’t
fall within his purview. That should all be
left to the special counsel,” said a
Republican senator who requested
anonymity to comment candidly.
360
A second Republican senator said Grassley jumping in
“isn’t particularly helpful, but at this point I
don’t know what you can do about it.”
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) warned said
Judiciary should be careful not to interfere with Mueller’s
work.
“I’ve heard Sen. Feinstein say we ought to
have a hearing on obstruction of justice.
That is in my view within the exclusive
purview of the special counsel,” Cornyn
said.
A spokesperson for Grassley said the Judiciary Committee
has a responsibility under the Constitution and Senate rules
to consider the nomination for Comey’s successor as FBI
director.
“The committee cannot do its duty
responsibly without examining allegations
of improper political influence,” said Taylor
Foy. “This is crucial to maintain the
American people’s trust in these
institutions.”
Foy noted the Senate Intelligence Committee does not
oversee the prosecutorial function of the Justice
Department.
In the letter to Feinstein, Grassley said he found Comey’s
testimony last week about the growing influence of
political considerations among the Department of Justice’s
senior leadership “extremely troubling.”
Comey testified last month that he worried that
Department of Justice leaders “could not credibly complete
the investigation” last year into former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information.
One thing that made Comey suspicious was the insistence
of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who served
under President Barack Obama, that the Clinton
investigation be referred to strictly as a “matter.” The
language dovetailed with talking points Clinton's
presidential campaign used to insist that the Democratic
nominee was not under investigation.
But Grassley’s investigation could backfire, Republicans
fear, if it begins to zero in on the question of whether
Trump or senior officials in his administration acted
improperly with regards to Comey’s firing and the broader
Russia investigation at the FBI.
While some Senate Republicans think it’s worth reviewing
whether Lynch sought to influence the FBI’s Clinton
investigation or soften its impact, several wonder whether
it’s worth the price of also investigating Comey’s firing.
A third Republican senator said
“if it’s opening up old Clinton stuff, the base
loves it,”
but warned that there’s a risk of the probe metastasizing
into something that could embarrass the president.
The lawmaker added the decision to investigate Comey’s
dismissal could be “awful” politically.
For months, Senate Republican leaders had argued that it
was best for one committee to focus on Russia-related
inquiries so that the brewing controversy doesn’t crowd
out the legislative agenda.
“It makes sense of one committee to take
the lead. That’s not to denigrate the
jurisdiction of other committees, but we’ve
got a lot of work to do, and if you have a lot
of committees basically doing duplicative
things, it doesn’t strike me as an efficient
way to get our work done,” Cornyn said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had
sought to keep all of the Russia investigation under the
purview of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is
headed by one of his closest allies, Sen. Richard Burr (R-
N.C.).
In December, McConnell said the Intelligence panel
should take the lead on Russia and is
“more than capable of conducting a
complete review of this matter.”
McConnell expressed concern last month that creating new
investigations could “only serve to impede the current
work being done” to understand how Russia tried to
interfere in the election and prepare countermeasures to
prevent future meddling.
361
A senior Senate GOP aide said that McConnell was
referring to talk of creating a congressional super
committee or special counsel on Russia. The aide was not
aware of McConnell commenting on a potential Judiciary
Committee investigation.
Despite their misgiving, Grassley’s investigation could
yield political dividends for Republicans if it uncovers
efforts by Lynch to influence the Clinton probe, which was
investigating whether Clinton had mishandled classified
information while secretary of State through her use of a
private email server.
The White House has seized on Comey’s interactions with
Lynch, saying it’s the real scandal that lawmakers should
be looking into.
“A.G. Lynch made law enforcement
decisions for political purposes...gave
Hillary Clinton a free pass and
protection. Totally illegal!” Trump
tweeted this week.
While Cornyn said questions of whether the Trump
administration obstructed justice should be left to the
special counsel, he stressed that it is within the Judiciary
panel’s jurisdiction to look at Comey’s handling of the
Clinton email case.
Democrats, however, want to go beyond that.
Feinstein on Thursday said the Judiciary Committee
review should look at the question of whether Trump
administration officials obstructed justice.
“I think that’s going to be a part of it. First I
think it’s important that we have Attorney
General [Jeff] Sessions before us. This is
our oversight responsibility,” she told
reporters.
That could put the attorney general in the panel’s
crosshairs.
Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee
last week that FBI leaders knew that Sessions would likely
have to recuse himself from overseeing their work on the
Russia probe.
“We were also aware of facts I can’t
discuss in an open setting that would make
his continued involvement in a Russian
investigation problematic,” Comey testified,
referring to Sessions.
The attorney general ripped the remark as “innuendo” week.
during testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee this
.

362
 The Fallacies Of The ‘Russia-Truthers’
By James W. Carden
June 16, 2017
Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria – now rivaling past
Red Scares with Russians hiding under every bed – has led
to factual errors in press accounts and has erased standards
of political fairness, reports James W. Carden.
One of the more extraordinary developments since the
U.S. presidential election is that the paranoia and the
grotesque disregard for facts, evidence and logic that
characterized the Trump-inspired “birther movement” can
now be reasonably said to characterize the Left’s stance
toward Donald J. Trump.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN
General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
There seems to be nothing that Trump opponents will not
say and no charge, however low, they will not stoop to
making as long as it furthers the goal of removing Trump
from office. But, alas, the liberal case against Trump rests
upon little more than widely shared fictions and
unsubstantiated claims about Trump’s alleged ties to
Russia.
For instance, testifying before the Senate Intelligence
Committee on June 8, former FBI Director James Comey
cast doubt on a Feb. 14 New York Times report titled
“Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With
Russian Intelligence.”
The article,
which relied on “four current and former
government officials,” said that “Phone
records and intercepted calls show that
members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016
363
presidential campaign and other Trump
associates had repeated contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials in the
year before the election” and that “the
intercepts alarmed American intelligence
and law enforcement agencies, in part
because of the amount of contact that was
occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking
glowingly about the Russian president,
Vladimir V. Putin.”
Comey was asked about the report during an exchange
with Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho.
RISCH: I remember, you — you talked
with us shortly after February 14th, when
the New York Times wrote an article that
suggested that the Trump campaign was
colluding with the Russians. This is not
factual. Do you recall that?
COMEY: Yes.
RISCH: OK. So — so, again, so the
American people can understand this, that
report by the New York Times was not true.
Is that a fair statement?
COMEY: In — in the main, it was not true.
Later in the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, asked
Comey:
“Would it be fair to characterize that story
as almost entirely wrong?” To which
Comey replied: “Yes.”
Spreading Hysteria
However, the anti-Russian hysteria has spread well beyond
the pages of The New York Times and even beyond the
circumstances of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Allegations about Russian meddling have included U.S.
government attacks on Russia’s RT network for allegedly
undermining Americans’ faith in their democracy by
broadcasting debates among third-party presidential
candidates and covering the Occupy Wall Street
movement.

The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C.
(Photo credit: Washington Post)
Even American journalists have come in for a taste of the
lash for not joining in the Russia-bashing. Last
Thanksgiving Day, The Washington Post ran a front-page
story based on an anonymous Web site called PropOrNot
that accused 200 Web sites – including
Consortiumnews.com, Counterpunch, Truthout, Truthdig
and other leading independent news sources in America –
of peddling “Russian propaganda,” presumably in part,
because they questioned the State Department’s narratives
about the Ukraine crisis or the Syrian conflict.
The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank
founded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John
Podesta, recently issued a report warning that Russian
President Putin is building a European “5th column” to
advance a goal of undermining Western democracy.
Anybody who does not join in the ritual denunciations of
Putin and Russia is under suspicion.
Yet in light of Comey’s testimony, perhaps it is worth
recalling a number of other instances in which Russia was
accused of seeking to disrupt and discredit Western
democracies and see how well they’ve held up.
In April of last year, Dutch voters rejected a referendum on
whether to approve an Association Agreement between the
European Union and Ukraine. Russia was quickly accused
of meddling in the referendum.
One New York Times headline screamed:
“Fake News, Fake Ukrainians: How a
Group of Russians Tilted A Dutch Vote.”
The Times reported that two Russians had worked against
the referendum for the Dutch Socialist Party.
But, as the Dutch journalist and author Chris Kaspar de
Ploeg points out, the Times story credits
“these mere two (!) individuals” with having
“tilted the Dutch vote.” In the end, De Ploeg
notes, the Times was forced to admit that
364
“no one has yet come up with concrete
evidence that the Russian state, rather
than individual Russians, is working to
skew the election and many wonder why
Moscow would even bother trying to do so
in a small country.”
Brexit Accusations
Similar accusations of meddling were leveled against
Russia in the run-up to the June 2016 Brexit vote. Joerg
Forbrig of the German Marshall Fund told the Daily Beast,
“I do think that the Kremlin has been trying
to reach out to the leave campaign. There
may well be support but it will be very hard
to find out about this because they will be
extremely discrete.”
Russians taking part in an Immortal Regiment march, honoring
family members who died during World War II, on May 9, 2017.
“We do know,” said Forbrig, “that the
Kremlin is also materially supporting other
actors that have potential to undermine
European unity, and the European Union.”
After the “Leave” campaign emerged
victorious, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw told
the House of Commons “I don’t think we
have even begun to wake up to what
Russia is doing when it comes to cyber
warfare.”
And yet, despite all the handwringing, U.K. Foreign
Minister Boris Johnson was recently forced to admit:
“We have no evidence the Russians are
actually involved in trying to undermine our
democratic processes at the moment. We
don’t actually have that evidence. But what
we do have is plenty of evidence that the
Russians are capable of doing that.”
A December 2016 New York Times editorial also
expressed concern that Putin had set his sights on Europe,
citing
 “ominous signs that Russia is spreading
propaganda and engaging in cyberattacks
in Europe in advance of several national
elections next year.”
And yet, according to Politico Europe, a year-long
investigation by German intelligence issued in February
2017
“failed to uncover evidence of Kremlin-
backed meddling” and “found no concrete
proof of disinformation campaigns
targeting the government.”
In the run-up to May’s presidential election in France, Sen.
Richard M. Burr, R-North Carolina, chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, told the New York Times:
“I think it’s safe by everybody’s judgment
that the Russians are actively involved in
the French elections.”
Speculation about Russian interference went into overdrive
just hours before the vote when emails from the campaign
of pro-E.U. candidate Emmanuel Macron were leaked. The
culprit? You guessed it! According to a May 6 report in
The Independent,
“Vitali Kremez, director of research with
US-based cyber intelligence firm
Flashpoint, said his analysis indicated that
APT 28, a group tied to Russia’s GRU
military intelligence directorate, was behind
the leak.”
But once again, no evidence was to be found. In an
interview with the Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard,
director general of France’s cyber-defense agency, said his
agency
“found no trace that the Russian hacking
group known as APT28, blamed for other
attacks including on the U.S. presidential
campaign, was responsible” for the leak.
But that didn’t stop Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, from
repeating the accusations. After all, why let facts get in the
way of a good story?
Raskin screeched to protesters at the so-
called “March for Truth” that Russia
“hacked and trashed Macron, in a bid to
elect the right-wing, immigrant bashing
Marine Le Pen.”
Viral Distortions
365
Needless to say there have been many reports of Russian
cyber attacks in the U.S. that have gone viral but were
quickly shown to be untrue.
A busy tourist scene in St. Petersburg, Russia.
(Photo by Robert Parry)
Of these, perhaps the best known was a story in Slate by
former New Republic editor Franklin Foer in which Foer
claimed a computer server belonging to the Trump
Organization was secretly communicating with what
Hillary Clinton described as a “Putin-tied bank” in Russia.
And yet, as On the Media’s Bob Garfield sardonically
noted, “it took cyber experts about 5 minutes to knock that
story down.” As it turns out, the “secret server” wasn’t
secret and the domain in question didn’t even belong to
Trump; it belonged to a marketing company called
Cendyn.
The link to the Russia’s Alfa bank? Executives from Alfa
frequented Trump hotels and as a matter of course received
marketing/promotional emails from Cendyn on behalf of
the Trump Organization. Cyber expert Robert Graham
described Foer’s story as “nonsense.”
Yet Foer, was if anything, in good company. The
Washington Post, in a December 2016 story accused the
Russian government of hacking into an electrical grid in
Burlington, Vermont. The sensational headline read:
“Russian operation hacked a Vermont
utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical
grid security, officials say.”
Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin was quick to denounce
the Kremlin, declaring
“Vermonters and all Americans should be
both alarmed and outraged that one of the
world’s leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has
been attempting to hack our electric grid,
which we rely upon to support our quality-
of-life, economy, health, and safety.”
But, alas, the story was quickly debunked by the electrical
utility in question, which released a statement, which read,
in part:
“There is no indication that either our
electric grid or customer information has
been compromised. Media reports stating
that Burlington Electric was hacked or that
the electric grid was breached are false.”
The Post had to append an embarrassing editor’s note
explaining why their story didn’t hold up to the minutest
scrutiny.
366
Given all this, our hardy band of “Russia Truthers” might
do well to curb their hysteria until such time as
Independent Counsel Robert Mueller concludes his
investigation. Maybe then there might be at least some
evidence attached to the various allegations. But the
prospects for such self-control are not good. There is too
much momentum – and political self-interest – behind the
sordid campaign to paint the 2016 election result as the
product of sinister Russian interference.
 Huffpost's Sam Stein Is 'Weirded Out' By Trump's
Comments On Scalise's Condition
By Tom Blumer
June 16, 2017 11:30 AM EDT

HuffPost — previously known as the Huffington Post —  Claimed that "this was poorly phrased and I'm sorry i
the far-left entity whose cashed-out original owners made posted it. I've tried to explain what i meant to a few
themselves millionaires on the backs of thousands of folks. but twitter's not the right forum."
unpaid bloggers —  Announced that "i'm going to delete it now."

"laid off 39 staffers on Wednesday, a move Stein was "weirded out" by a grand total of two
that follows parent company AOL's Wednesday Trump tweets and a separate statement
acquisition by telecom giant Verizon." Thursday.

On Thursday, Sam Stein, the website's senior politics Here are the tweets:
editor, demonstrated such tone-deafness that one has to
wonder how he escaped being among those who were let
go.

Despite the layoffs, Stein, who also appears regularly on

MSNBC, clearly has too much time on his hands — time
which he is apparently spending looking for ever more
bizarre reasons to be bothered by President Donald Trump.

In a now-deleted Thursday morning tweet, Stein

questioned why Trump is communicating updated medical
news about Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise, who
was shot early Wednesday morning at the Republican
Party's men's congressional baseball team practice (HT
Weasel Zippers):

Then on Thursday, minutes before Stein's "weirded out"

tweet, Trump indicated that Scalise was "in some trouble":

"It's been much more difficult than people

Moments later, Stein tweeted:
"it's not a big deal. it's just... odd."
Then why did he publish it in the first place? How many
people in a position similar to Stein's have the time to bore
their readers with tweets that aren't "a big deal"?
even thought at the time," Trump said
Thursday at the start of a White House
event on apprenticeship.
"He's in some trouble, but he's a great
fighter and he's going to be OK, we hope."
What's "odd" is that the senior political director for a
formerly leading but now shrinking far-left news source
finds the President's interest in the health of a congressman
who has just been shot "odd."

Stein, in two tweets several hours later: I don't know, Sam, it just might be possible that Trump
actually cares about the health of a congressman who was
shot.
367
And this is a guy the HuffPost kept?
As of 11 a.m. on Friday, the latest on Scalise's condition
was as follows:
June 15, 2017, 8:10 pm
Earlier today, Congressman Steve Scalise
underwent a second surgery related to his
internal injuries and a broken bone in his
leg. He remains in critical condition, but has
.
368
improved in the last 24 hours. The
Congressman will require additional
operations, and will be in the hospital for
some time. At the request of the family, we
will continue to provide periodic updates.
That wasn't a trauma-inducing statement from Trump. It's
last night's official statement from MedStar Washington
Hospital Center. We wouldn't want to "weird out" Sam
Stein any more than he already is — if that's even possible.
 Furious Trump Lashes Out
In Afternoon Tweetstorm
Zero Hedge | Www.Zerohedge.Com
June 16, 2017
An increasingly furious President Trump has taken to
Twitter this afternoon to express his outrage, in a way only
the President can, over the thinly veiled double standard
within the U.S. intelligence community and mainstream
media over how they basically ignored the Hillary Clinton
email scandal while endlessly pursuing his administration
without being able to present a single shred of tangible
evidence that any wrongdoing ever occurred.
“Why is that Hillary Clintons family and
Dems dealings with Russia are not
looked at, but my non-dealings are?”
“Crooked H destroyed phones w/
hammer, ‘bleached’ emails, & had
husband meet w/AG days before she
was cleared- & they talk about
obstruction?”
369
Of course, he seems to have a point on this one. Last
summer, we reported fairly extensively on the Hillary
email scandal while it was virtually glossed over by the
mainstream media.
And, like many people, we were astonished when FBI
Director Comey made the unilateral assessment that,
despite Hillary’s “extreme carelessness,” no “reasonable”
prosecutor would bring charges against her.
Unlike the current “Russia probe” which has revealed
precisely zero tangible evidence, the FBI’s own reports
from last summer revealed that Hillary and her staff
intentionally destroyed official State Department emails
despite confirming they were aware of the existence of a
federal subpoena demanding the preservation of those
emails (we covered it extensively here: The “Oh Shit”
Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit
Despite Subpoena).
For the record Mr. Comey, destruction of
evidence is actually a federal crime and
it was actually admitted to in actual FBI
testimony, but only after you, Mr. Comey,
decided to pass out immunity deals to
Hillary’s staff “like candy”
(see: “FBI Is Handing Out Deals Like Candy” – Cheryl
Mills And 2 Other Clinton Aides Get Immunity).
And, even though Comey couldn’t seem to
find “intent” in Hillary’s destruction of
federal property, as we pointed out last
September, one lone internet sleuth was
able to find it for him with a couple of
simple internet searches (see “Dear FBI,
This Is Intent: Hillary’s “Oh Shit” Guy
Sought Reddit Advice On How To “Strip
VIP’s Emails“)…which does make you
wonder just how hard he tried?
Of course, until someone within the Trump administration
or Republican Party smartens up and calls for the
appointment of a ‘Special Counsel’ to look into Hillary’s
email scandal, something that should have been done long
ago, and not for retaliatory reasons but simply due to
Comey’s and AG Lynch’s blatant mishandling of the
investigation (a point which Deputy AG Rosenstein suspect that Hillary might just be able to ‘convince’ her
obviously agreed with), the Democrats have no reason to party to exercise some form of reasonable judgement.
calm their mass hysteria. Then, and only then, do we
.

370
 FUN FLASHBACK: DNC/Clinton Camp Consultants
Dispatched Nutters to Provoke Trump
Rally-Goers to Violence
By Liz Sheld
June 16, 2017
A Trump supporter is injured after sides clash at a rally for
President Donald Trump at Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center
Park in Berkeley, Calif., Saturday, March 4, 2017. Berkeley Police
officers in riot gear arrested at least one person at the rally that
attracted hundreds of pro-Trump supporters and opponents at a
park less than a mile from the University of California, Berkeley
campus. (Dan Honda/East Bay Times via AP)
Our small window of civility is quickly closing, but before
it does I would like to remind the "everyone has to tone
down their rhetoric" crowd that one side is more violence-
oriented than the other. One side has its leaders,
figureheads, and celebrities fomenting anger with their
violent rhetoric on the news and on their late-night TV
"entertainment" shows. When there is an incident, these
leaders make excuses for the perpetrators. The right
certainly has its share of folks that step over the line. The
difference is that the RNC, the party leadership, the leaders
of our various groups, and the anchors on Fox News or
radio aren't agitating for confrontations with alarmist and
dire warnings -- and they condemn such confrontations
quickly when they do happen.
371
Jennifer Sterling, one of the organizers of the pro-Donald Trump rally
reacts after getting hit with pepper spray in Huntington Beach, Calif.,
on Saturday, March 25, 2017. Violence erupted when a march of about
2,000 Trump supporters reached a group of about 30 counter-
protesters, some of whom began spraying pepper spray, said Capt.
Kevin Pearsall of the California State Parks Police. (Mindy
Schauer/The Orange County Register via AP)
So let's take a walk down memory lane to last year when
we learned the DNC/Clinton campaign's hired thugs were
"bird-dogging" and sending mentally unstable people to
Trump rallies to provoke attendees with hopes of getting
some violence on tape to broadcast how dangerous Trump
supporters are.
Now why would you want to show the
public how dangerous Trump supporters
are? It's a helpful tool if one is trying to get
people agitated over the deadly and dire
circumstances President Trump and his
supporters present.
Here is some of the transcript of a conversation with a
Project Veritas Action journalist secretly recording some
of the DNC mercenaries boasting about their operations:
"One of the things we do is we stage very
authentic grassroots protests right in their
faces at their own events. Like, we
infiltrate."
"So the term bird dogging: You put people
in the line, at the front which means that
they have to get there at six in the morning
because they have to get in front at the
rally, so that when Trump comes down the
rope line, they’re the ones asking him the
question in front of the reporter, because
they’re pre-placed there," explains Foval.
"To funnel that kind of operation, you have
to start back with people two weeks ahead
of time and train them how to ask
questions. You have to train them to bird
dog.”
“I just had a call with the campaign and the
DNC, every day at one o’clock,” says [Bob]
 Creamer subordinate Zulema Rodriguez in
the video.
"The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays
Democracy Partners, Democracy
Partners pays the Foval Group, the
Foval Group goes and executes the shit
on the ground... Democracy Partners is
the tip of the spear on that stuff."
"We're consultants so we're not the official
entity and so those conversations can be
had between consultants," Foval explains,
“The campaigns and DNC cannot go near
[Democratic super PAC] Priorities [USA],
but I guaran-damn-tee you that the people
who run the Super PACs all talk to each
other and we and a few other people are
the hubs of that communication.”
“I’m saying we have mentally ill people,
that we pay to do shit, make no
mistake,” says [Democrat activist Scott]
Foval in the video. “Over the last twenty
years, I’ve paid off a few homeless guys
to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also
taken them for dinner, and I’ve also made
sure they had a hotel, and a shower. And I
put them in a program. Like I’ve done that.
372
But the reality is, a lot of people especially
our union guys. A lot of our union
guys…they’ll do whatever you want.
They’re rock and roll. When I need to get
something done in Arkansas, the first guy I
call is the head of the AFL-CIO down
there, because he will say, ‘What do you
need?’ And I will say, I need a guy who will
do this, this and this. And they find that
guy. And that guy will be like, Hell yeah,
let’s do it.”
"It doesn't matter what the friggin' legal and
ethics people say, we need to win this
motherfucker," Foval also said.
So, no, our visible, high-profile advocates don't control the
network news and most of the cable news. They don't
control the entertainment industry, the higher education
institutions, or, in short, almost all the major means of
communication. These means are used to cover up and
excuse violence and to encourage "action" over whatever
the political "urgency" of the moment is. They have not
learned from the latest incident.
This is primarily an issue coming from one side of the
aisle.
 Putin Believes Trump’s Victory
Proves That US Voters Are Longing For Change
When The Russian President Watched Trump's Campaign Speeches, He
Thought The Future US President "Went Over
The Top On Certain Issues"
June 16, 8:30
NEW YORK, June 16. /TASS/. The results of the latest
presidential election in the United States show that US
voters are longing for a serious political change in the
country, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during the
fourth and final episode of The Putin Interviews
documentary, aired in the United States on Thursday night.
373
"Apparently, people of the United States
expect some serous changes," he said.
"This applies to security problems, as well
as issues of unemployment and creating
jobs."
"Trump and his team were very
professional in organizing their electoral
campaign," Putin continued. "They were
perfectly aware of where their electorate
lives and what states are entitled to send
more electoral delegates."
"When I watched his campaign speeches, I
thought that he went over the top on certain
issues. But it turned out that he was right.
He managed to strike the right note," Putin
added. "I think that no one would be able to
challenge the results."
 MSM Propaganda Cause Left Hate,
Trump Obstruction – Not,
Obama Administration Treason
By Greg Hunter
June 16, 2017
You want to know why the “Left” hates Donald Trump?
Look no further than the lies, false narratives and fake
news of the mainstream media (MSM). Several U.S.
Congressmen were shot while practicing for a charity
baseball game in Washington, D.C. The lone shooter is a
self-described Trump hater and volunteered for the Bernie
Sanders campaign. Looks like the propaganda of the MSM
worked on the extreme in the thought shaping in this case.
For weeks, everybody on Capitol Hill knew that Donald
Trump was NOT the subject of the so-called Russian
collusion and Russian hacking stories. Funny how the
MSM propaganda machine never brought this up. Funny
how the FBI never “leaked” this fact out. The MSM
propaganda machine continued to paint a false narrative
that the investigation centered on President Trump when,
according to fired FBI Director James Comey, it did not.
Now, a new story leaks that Trump is the center of an
Obstruction of Justice case by the Special Prosecutor, even
..
374
though James Comey testified there was no obstruction by
Trump or his Administration. Trump calls this a “witch
hunt” and points to several instances of obvious
obstruction that James Comey and the Obama Justice
Department refused to prosecute in the Hillary Clinton
email investigation. There is no “there” there on this story,
just like the phony Russian collusion story.
You wonder why all the leaks and so-called investigations
that go on and on lead to nowhere? Why the real story of
an outgoing Administration using the resources of the FBI
and Intel agencies to try to sink Trump and his
Administration are not reported? Could it be the Obama
Administration is desperate to cover up crime and treason
that will surely be revealed by the Trump Administration?
The only reason I can come up with why people would
commit felony leaks is to cover up bigger felonies and
even treason.
 Trump: I’m Being Investigated For Firing The FBI
Director By The Man Who Told Me To
Fire Him “Witch Hunt”
Cristina Laila
Jun 16th, 2017 11:45 Am

President Trump announced Friday morning that he is
being investigated for firing former FBI Director
James Comey by the man who told him to fire him–
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
the content of a recent Washington Post
story.
Rosenstein’s May memo critical of ex-FBI Director James
Comey’s performance was among the reasons cited by
Trump and others in Comey’s firing. Soon after Comey’s
ouster, Rosenstein — who had been Comey’s direct
superior at the Justice Department — appointed Mueller, a
former FBI director himself and a friend of Comey’s, to
lead a wide-ranging probe, ostensibly focused on Russian
meddling in the U.S. presidential election but also
encompassing a host of allegations made against Trump
and his associates.

TGP recently reported on the Washington Post story that
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating President
Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. The Post noted
that Mueller was actually picking up an investigation into
Trump that was started after he fired FBI Director James
Comey on May 9.
President Trump also tweeted,
‘After 7 months of investigation and
committee hearing about my “collusion with
the Russians,” nobody has been able to
show any proof. Sad!’

POTUS Trump tweeted, “I am being investigated for

firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the
FBI Director! Witch Hunt

President of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton reacted to

President Trump’s tweet this morning, ‘Rosenstein has no
control over the special counsel, which makes the position
unconstitutional.’
Fox News reports:

A source confirmed to Fox News that

Trump’s tweet was referring to Rosenstein.
However, a seperate source close to
Trump’s legal team said the president was
NOT confirming he was under
investigation. He was simply referring to

375
 The Deplorable Witch-Hunt Targeting Trump
By Stephen Lendman
6-16-2017
He’s dead wrong on vital domestic and geopolitical issues
- serving wealth, power and privilege exclusively, harming
most others at home and abroad.
He’s right about a deplorable witch-hunt - dark forces
assaulting the office of the presidency and the nation if
successful, an undeclared coup d’etat attempt, wanting
easily controlled Pence replacing him.
He may have been the deep state’s choice for president all
along, once Trump emerged last aspirant standing among
the array of GOP hopefuls - Pence a neocon Tea Party
hardliner, an imperial war cheerleader, an Islamophobe
and Russophobe, hostile to immigrant rights, and much
more of concern.
He’s anti-progressive, anti-social justice, anti-governance
serving everyone equitably, anti-abortion rights, anti-
LGBT and women’s rights, anti-gay marriage, an
evangelical supporter of Israel’s worst crimes.
He’s part of the lunatic fringe infesting Washington, a
bigoted Christian white supremacist, a far-right religious
fundamentalist, serving in the nation’s second highest
office.
He’s for virtually everything free societies abhor.
Americans have just cause to fear a Pence presidency if
Trump’s ousted from office - from the frying pan to the
fire, as the saying goes.
Trump made a colossal mistake appointing him. GHW
Bush was much wiser choosing Dan Quayle, unqualified
for any public office, unlikely any Washington power
broker would want him replacing GHW.
Democrat VP candidate Lloyd Bentsen put him down
resoundingly in their one vice-presidential debate,
memorably saying “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Neither was Bentsen or any US president past or present.
It’s too late for second thoughts on his VP choice, Trump
stuck with Pence, a decision he may long regret if things
go against him.
Responding to the assault on his presidency, he tweeted
.
376
“(y)ou are witnessing the single greatest
WITCH HUNT in American political history
- led by some very bad and conflicted
people!”
“They made up a phony collusion with the
Russians story, found zero proof, so now
they go for obstruction of justice on the
phony story. Nice”
Tweets aren’t the solution to his dilemma, a clear attempt
to further denigrate, weaken and oust him from office by
whatever means it takes.
He’s responsible for appalling domestic and geopolitical
policies - including war crimes for escalating aggression in
multiple theaters, along with other abuses of rule of law
principles.
No legal basis exists for charging him with obstruction of
justice. No evidence suggests it. Nothing indicates he or
his team colluded improperly or illegally with anyone in
Russia.
Law Professor Jonathan Turley advises no tweeting about
special counsel Mueller’s investigation - calling it “highly
damaging to both his public and legal case.”
He should consult his legal team before saying, doing, or
tweeting anything relating to the ongoing investigation.
They know what’s in his best interest, and what can cause
him further trouble.
According to Turley, his comments
“into aspects of the investigation could put
his position under great scrutiny.”
As they say, anything he says can be used against him.
Trump should follow the advice of competent attorneys
representing him.
Perhaps it’s his only chance to stay in office - besides
avoiding one or more assassination attempts.
 US Ethics Office Releases
Trump Financial Disclosure Forms
Published Time: 16 Jun, 2017 21:35 Edited Time: 17 Jun, 2017 15:46

The initiation fee for Mar-A-Lago doubled after Trump

became president, from $100,000 to $200,000.

He reported nearly $11 million in revenue for the Miss

Universe Pageant.

Trump also reported a total of $288 million in income

from his golf courses alone last year.
US President Donald Trump © Joshua Roberts / Reuters
First Lady Melania Trump, however, did not earn an
President Donald Trump reported at least $585,581,420 in income from the five different companies she's associated
income and employment assets in financial disclosure with.
forms released Friday evening. Included was about $57
million from both the Trump International Hotel in
Washington, DC, and his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm
Beach, Florida.

In the filing, Trump reported at least $6,255,600 in other

assets and income, which includes real estate and growth
funds for Barron, checking and savings accounts, stocks,
and more.

In addition to the $19.7 million from the Trump Hotel in

DC, which opened in September 2016, Trump also
reported $37.2 million in income from his private resort in
Florida, Mar-a-Lago. The Mar-a-Lago figure is up from
$29.8 million in his 2015 disclosure.

Critics have pointed to Trump’s hotel in DC as a conflict

of interest, and he has been sued twice for violations of the
Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution over the hotel.
Trump reported over $80,000 in pension from the Screen
Actor’s Guild.

Between $100,000 and $1 million was earned in royalties

for his book, “The Art of the Deal.” In total, the president
reported up to $7 million in book royalties, including up to
five million from his book, "Great Again: How to Fix Our
Crippled America."

Five liabilities valued above $50 million each, including at

least $130 million to Deutsche Bank, were disclosed. In
total, Trump reported about $315 million in liabilities,
around the same as last year.

377
The filings reflect the president’s investments, assets,
income, liabilities and other holdings from January 2016 to
April 2017. It is not the same as a tax return, which would
show more detailed financial information and his business
dealings.
The report shows Trump resigned from more than 500
positions, mostly just before his inauguration. In January,
Trump announced that he would not divest from his
businesses, and handed control over to his sons through a
revocable trust.
The Office of Government Ethics released the 98-page
document.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer released a
statement Friday, saying that Trump “welcomed the
opportunity to voluntarily file his personal financial
disclosure form,” adding that the filing was certified by
the OGE.

President Donald Trump's 2016 Financial Disclosure Report by RT America starts here:

378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
 Trump Reports Income Of $594 Million,
Net Worth Of At Least $1.1 Billion
By Tyler Durden
Jun 17, 2017 9:39 AM
Late on Friday, the U.S. Office of
Government Ethics released a 98-page
financial disclosure form according to which
President Trump reported income of at
least $594 million for the period from
2016 and through April 2017 and assets
worth at least $1.4 billion; he also had
personal liabilities of at least $315.6
million to German, U.S. and other lenders
as of mid-2017 implying a net worth of just
over $1.1 billion. The disclosure form was
Trump's first since taking office.
"President Trump welcomed the
opportunity to voluntarily file his personal
financial disclosure form," the White House
said in a statement, adding that the form
was "certified by the Office of Government
Ethics pursuant to its normal procedures."
On the income side, the largest component was $115.9
million listed as golf-resort related revenues from Trump
National Doral in Miami, down from $132 million a year
ago. Income from his other hotels and resorts largely held
steady according to Reuters. Revenue from Trump
Corporation, his real-estate management company, nearly
tripled, to $18 million, and revenue from Mar-a-Lago grew
by 25%, to $37.25 million helped perhaps by the doulbing
of the club's initiation fee to $200,000 after Trump's
election.
While royalties for his book "Art of the Deal" at least
doubled, revenues for condo sales in his properties
decreased. At Trump Park Avenue, for example, condo
sales in 2015 totaled $44.3 million. Last year, those sales
only reached $29.9 million, a 33% drop.
451
Trump had roughly $20 million in income from his new
marquee Washington hotel, which opened just down the
street from the White House last September. The president
also earned $11 million from the Miss Universe pageant,
after selling the beauty contest back in 2015, while
revenue from television shows like "The Apprentice"
tumbled to $1.1 million, down from $6 million a year
earlier.
The disclosure reflects income of between $2.5 million and
$15.5 million from stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Trump
sold all of his stocks in June 2016, a spokesman said in
December.
In 2015, Trump's airline — Tag Air — which leases a 757
from one of his businesses, earned $3.7 million in revenue.
The next year, it reported earning $7.7 million in revenue
and travel reimbursements. Trump used Tag Air to travel
during the campaign, according to The Hill. The president
also disclosed $10.8 million from two entities affiliated
with the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, which he
co-owns with entrepreneur Phil Ruffin. The figures,
described as development fees and a sponsor fee, are
attributed to companies for which the previous disclosures
show no income. There has been an uptick in hotel condo
purchases at the tower by limited liability corporations
during the past year, where Trump and Ruffin still own
more than 300 units.
On the liability side, Trump reported debt of at least $130
million to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, a unit
of German-based Deutsche Bank AG. Of this, Trump
disclosed a liability to Deutsche exceeding $50 million for
the Old Post Office, a historic Washington property where
he has opened a hotel. Trump also reported liabilities of at
least $110 million to Ladder Capital Corp , a commercial
real estate lender with offices in New York, Los Angeles
and Boca Raton, Florida. In total, Trump has five liabilities
worth $50 million or more, such as the lease on his
Washington D.C. hotel.
His assets were reported to exceed $1.4 billion because the
disclosure form provided ranges of values. Last May,
Trump released a disclosure form that his campaign at the
time said showed his net worth was $10 billion, a number
many said was overblown. Trump also disclosed three
checking and savings accounts holding a total of at least
$57 million.
Furthermore, The document showed Trump held officer
positions in 565 corporations or other entities before
becoming U.S. president. His tenure in most of those posts
ended on Jan. 19, the day before his inauguration, and in
others in 2015 and 2016. According to a Reuters
breakdown, most of the entities involved were based in the
United States, with a handful in Scotland, Ireland, Canada,
Brazil, Bermuda and elsewhere.
.
452
Meanwhile, Trump has refused to release his tax returns,
which would give a much clearer indication of his wealth
and business interests; they would likely also indicate his
extensive use of NOLs to minimize his tax liability. Trump
has, however, submitted federal forms disclosing the
ranges of his and his family's income, assets and liabilities.
 Putin Slams Washington Hypocrisy —
US Admitted to Meddling In Russian Elections Before
Claire Bernish
June 17, 2017
Russian President Vladimir Putin, doubtlessly having
reached his fill of mudslinging by the U.S. political
establishment — which insists Russia tampered, somehow,
in the presidential election to throw the election in favor of
Donald Trump — reiterated to filmmaker Oliver Stone in
an interview those yet-unproven allegations amount to the
United States pompously throwing stones from inside a
glass house.
For the final segment of the long-anticipated documentary
series, Putin Interviews, on Showtime Thursday night,
Putin recounted how the U.S. government effectively
meddled in a number of Russian elections via diplomatic
staff and through funding non-governmental organizations
— which, the Russian leader asserted, “are frequently
financed through a number of layers and structures either
from the State Department or some other quasi-
governmental sources.”
Washington influenced Russia’s elections, Putin told
Stone,
“in 2000, and in 2012, this always
happened. But especially aggressively in
2012. I will not go into details,”
but, he added, the U.S. has done the same with elections in
every nation spawned through the breakup of the Soviet
Union.
“As one of the most glaring examples,”
Russian state-run RT reports, “Putin
pointed out that US diplomatic workers had
453
actually campaigned for the Russian
opposition.”
Diplomatic staff, Putin noted, should be attempting to
“establish interstate relations,” but Washington’s pawns
instead “gathered opposition forces and financed them,
went to opposition rallies,” thus, actively interfering in a
sovereign state’s affairs.
Putin balked at the running contention in the U.S., insisting
the ongoing narrative of Russian election tampering is a
mere “lie” manipulated by D.C. establishment as
“a tool in the intra-political fight in the
United States.”
Further, he stated,
“We have not engaged in any cyberattacks.
It is hard to imagine that any country,
including a country like Russia, could
seriously influence the electoral campaign
and its results.”
Election meddling, ironically enough, is so common a
tactic by more powerful nations as to be virtually expected
in elections at every level of government — but
Washington’s obdurate stance on Russian hackers having
penetrated voting machines or other electoral infrastructure
has not been proven, despite months of supposed
investigations into the matter.
But at least one glaring instance of election meddling
decades ago proved influence over the popular vote can
indeed be accomplished by a State determined in its goals.
“Since the early 1990s, we assumed that
the Cold War was over,” Putin continued.
“We thought there was no need to take any
extra security measures because we were
an organic part of the world community.”
In 1996, Washington attempted successfully to prop up the
re-election campaign of Russian President Boris Yeltsin —
whose approval ratings had plummeted, but whose politics
matched the U.S. agenda.
TIME Magazine’s Michael Kramer authored Rescuing
Boris on July 15, 1996 — an in-depth exposé covering
admitted election manipulation by the United States,
whose subtitle summarily extinguishes all firey
sanctimony from the current politik on just about anything
blaming The Russians:
“THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR
U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS
GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND ALL
THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF
AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP
BORIS YELTSIN WIN.”
Kramer summarized the lengthy piece,
“The outcome was by no means inevitable.
Last winter Yeltsin’s approval ratings were
in the single digits. There are many
reasons for his change in fortune, but a
crucial one has remained a secret. For four
months, a group of American political
consultants clandestinely participated in
guiding Yeltsin’s campaign. Here is the
inside story of how these advisers helped
Yeltsin achieve the victory that will keep
reform in Russia alive.”
Yeltsin falling out of favor with the Russian public
concerned Washington because, TIME noted, at the time
he was
454
“arguably the best hope Russia has for
moving toward pluralism and an open
economy.”
Kramer’s expository should be required reading for the
American public, not to mention D.C. politicians, amid
this astonishing revival of Red Scare propaganda; but one
statement explaining the gist from an insider involved in
the effort — George Gorton, then-California Governor
Pete Wilson’s longtime top strategist — as told to the
TIME journalist truly encapsulates the hypocrisy Putin
underscored.
“We were brought in to help win,”
Gorton told Kramer, “and that’s what we
did. The Russians are prideful and say that
people like us won’t be necessary in the
future because they’ve learned what to do.
You hear that everywhere after the hired
guns have done their work — and it may be
true. All I know is that for every guy who
thinks he can go it alone, there will always
be another guy who knows he can’t.”
Perhaps Washingtonian pols would appreciate a reminder
from their constituents that election rigging has
traditionally been a two-or-more-way street — and the
pomposity of mounting a political high-horse on the topic
is little more than farcical façade covering guilt over
similar or worse tactics in a succession of years.
 "Someone's Going To Jail" Gingrich Warns
Mueller's Russia 'Witch Hunt' Too Big To Fail Now
By Tyler Durden
Jun 17, 2017 10:01 PM
After the Washington Post-New York Times-CNN axis got
the public worked into a lather by effectively trying
President Donald Trump and his administration in the
court of public opinion, Americans are desperate to see
somebody held accountable for…wait…what is it again?
Collusion? Obstruction? The narrative changes so quickly,
it's difficult keeping track.
Enter Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who
told Fox’s Sean Hannity on Friday that the
investigators who’ve been hired by
Special Counsel Robert Mueller won’t
quit until they’ve found their own
Scooter Libby-type figure to play the
role of political pariah.
"Somebody" will likely go to jail following
the FBI's investigation into Russian election
meddling, but said it won't be
President Trump.
“There are too many lawyers who are
high powered to go home without a
scalp. They're going to get somebody. I
don't think they're going to get the
president, but they're going to get
somebody, and they're going to get him
for something. And they're probably
going to go to jail," Gingrich told Fox
News's Sean Hannity.
Investigators smell blood in the water, Gingrich said. And
it’s making them desperately hungry for what will likely
be a historic bust.
455
"This is like watching an old-fashioned
Western movie. This is an Indian hunting
party," Gingrich said. "They're out looking
for a couple scalps, and they're not
going to go home until they get some."
The hypocrisy of the investigation into Trump’s inner
circle is staggering, as Gingrich rightfully pointed out.
Even high-ranking Democrats are now questioning
whether one of their own, former Attorney General Loretta
Lynch, illegally tried to influence the outcome of the FBI’s
investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of
classified information. Former FBI Director James Comey
admitted as much during his testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee in May that the suspicious
“impromptu” meeting inspired him to unilaterally
announce the end of the Clinton investigation because he
was worried about the optics.
As Gingrich noted, following Comey’s testimony,
California Senator Dianne Feinstein suggested that
“something stinks” with that situation.
“What’s amazing to me about the
Republican passivity here is that Senator
Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on
the intelligence committee, said last week
after Comey’s testimony ‘you know we
really have to look into exactly what’s going
on with Loretta lynch and with president
Obama.' Now I was waiting for one of the
intel chairmen in the House and Senate
to get up and say they’re opening a new
investigation into exactly what Loretta
lynch said to Comey”
 “They said we have to look into it. Fine:
Let’s look into it.

The conversation then turned to a discussion of the

relationship between Special Counsel Robert Mueller and
Comey, who have shared a long-time, well-documented
friendship.

“Mueller has a legal obligation to recuse

himself from anything involving Comey.
Why would they have picked a guy who’s
close friends with him to investigate
anything involving Comey?”
Mueller has reportedly hired 13
lawyers for the federal investigation into
possible ties between the Trump
campaign and Russia, and plans to hire
more. Conspiratorial? The only thing conspiratorial here is the
seeming agreement between lawmakers of both parties to
Gingrich took to twitter on Thursday to criticized the let Lynch slide, while continuing to stomach the
special counsel for intentionally undermining the Trump Congressional and FBI “witch hunts” into the conduct of
presidency, eliciting an amusing response from none other Trump and his associates – even though not a shred of
than NBC’s very own Chuck Todd. evidence to back up their claims has been made public.

456
 Case Builds To Impeach
Trump For The Wrong Reasons
By Stephen Lendman
6-17-2017
There’s ample cause to impeach him for high crimes of
war and against humanity in multiple US war theaters.
America’s anti-interventionist candidate about-faced as
president. Endless belligerence defines his agenda -
inheriting his predecessors’ wars of aggression, perhaps
intending new ones.
Public anger should rage over his escalating war in Syria,
Iraq, Yemen and now Afghanistan with the announced
deployment of another 4,000 US troops for a lost cause - a
war lost years ago, no prospect whatever of turning things
around.
He escalated deployments of US special forces and other
combat troops to multiple theaters, including northern and
central Africa - Somalia his latest battleground, surely not
his last new one.
His hostility toward Iran could erupt into eventual conflict,
what Israel couldn’t get other US administrations to do.
An “Impeach Trump Now” movement, sponsored by
Free Speech for People and RootsAction, includes Law
Professor Laurence Tribe as one of its legal advisors.
In a May neocon/CIA-connected Washington Post op-ed,
he shamefully said
“(t)he time has come for Congress to
launch an impeachment investigation of
President Trump for obstructive of justice” -
despite nothing proving his accusation.
Tribe:
“(T)he country is faced with a president
whose conduct strongly suggests that he
poses a danger to our system of
government.”
Fact:
The problem is America’s debauched
system, Trump a symptom of the greater
issue.
Fact:
457
No matter who serves as president, in key
congressional positions, or on the nation’s
highest court, US policy is humanity’s
greatest threat.
Fact:
Names and faces change in Washington.
Outrageous policies continue with
bipartisan support.
Fact:
Impeaching and removing Trump from
office, if occurs, won’t change a thing -
other than making things worse, not better.
Tribe accused Trump of
“making misleading statements to, or
withholding material evidence from, federal
investigators or other federal employees;
trying to interfere with FBI or congressional
investigations; trying to break through the
FBI’s shield surrounding ongoing criminal
investigations; dangling carrots in front of
people who might otherwise pose trouble
for one’s hold on power.”
Omitted from his argument was verifiable proof.
Accusations without it are groundless. Tribe staunchly
supported Hillary’s candidacy for president, ignoring her
high crimes, perhaps revengefully attacking Trump for
defeating her.
The Impeach Trump Now movement claims he has
“unprecedented conflicts of interests” because of his
personal and business holdings.
Its initiative and similar ones ignored Hillary, as secretary
of state, using her position for profit-making - the Clinton
Foundation used as a money-laundering, pay-to-play, self-
enrichment racket, masquerading as a charitable NGO.
Federal, state and international laws prohibit operating so-
called public charities for private gain. The Clinton
Foundation systematically ignores its legal obligations,
remaining unaccountable for its lawlessness.
A controversial uranium deal involved Canadian company
Uranium One, a majority-owned Rosatom subsidiary,
Russia’s atomic energy agency.
Shortly after the deal was announced,
Hillary was paid $500,000 from a
Russian investment bank for a Moscow
speech - an obvious conflict of interest
for her as secretary of state at the time.
.
458
Media scoundrels ignored her
wrongdoing. So did groups behind
Impeach Trump Now and others like it.
The hypocrisy needs no further
elaboration.
Wanting Trump impeached and
removed from office for the wrong
reasons destroys the credibility of
individuals and groups wanting him
ousted.
 ‘Witch Hunt’: Trump Takes To Twitter
To Lash Out At ‘7 Months Of Collusion Probes’
Published Time: 17 Jun, 2017 16:42 Edited Time: 18 Jun, 2017 10:52

Reuters also cited an anonymous source close to Trump’s

outside legal team who said Trump was reacting to a
Washington Post story about the probe, and didn’t intend
the tweet to confirm an investigation.

Trump published a series of tweets in which he decried

both the alleged investigation and media coverage thereof.

U.S. President Donald Trump © Carlos Barria / Reuters

Donald Trump has made a series of tweets about the

prolonged investigations into alleged collusion with the
Russian government and obstruction of justice, which he
says yielded no proof. One of the tweets refers to his firing
of FBI Director James Comey.
“I am being investigated for firing the FBI
Director by the man who told me to fire the
FBI Director! Witch Hunt,” Trump tweeted,
sending users and media into a guessing
game of what exactly he meant.

Trump appeared to be referring to Deputy Attorney

General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote a memo
recommending that Comey be fired.

Rosenstein also appointed Robert Mueller to investigate
ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Mueller is said to be investigating whether Trump
obstructed the course of justice in the probe into Russian
interference in the US elections.
CNN, however, referenced an unnamed “person familiar
with Trump’s tweet” who said the president was referring
to news reports claiming he is under investigation for
obstructing justice.
Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee last
week that he believed he was fired to undermine the FBI
investigation, and said the president told him to drop the
investigation into former national security advisor Michael
Flynn as part of the Russia probe.
The former FBI chief said it would be up to Meuller to
determine whether Trump had obstructed justice.

.
459
 The Madness Of King Donald Trump,
The 45th President Of The United States
His Aggrandizing And Self-Defeating Leadership, Conducted Via A
Modern Royal Court, Suggests Trump May Be Unfit For Office. The
History Of Removing Incompetent Regal Rulers Shows That It Is Those
Closest To Him Who Bear The Closest Watching.
By Richard Evansforeign Policy
Sun., June 18, 2017
His excellency: A billionaire businessman, Donald Trump has
appeared increasingly frustrated by the bureaucratic structure and
restrictions of democratic government. (MANDEL NGAN /
AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has
not been in office for very long, but already the contours
and characteristics of his rule have become clear. Rather
than govern conventionally, through officers of state
appointed for their competence and experience and with
the agreement, however reluctant, of Congress, he has
chosen to gather around him an informal coterie of friends,
advisers and relatives — many of them, like himself,
without any experience of government at all — while
railing against the restrictions imposed on him by
constitutional arrangements such as the independence of
the press and the judiciary.
Trump’s entourage resembles nothing more closely than
the court of a hereditary monarch, with informal structures
of rule elbowing aside more formal ones. Trump did, after
all, win widespread support in the electorate by promising
precisely this: shaking up, bypassing or overthrowing the
Washington establishment and trying something new.
The result, however, has been chaos and confusion,
contradiction and paralysis. It has become clear that the
president of the United States is someone who does not
read his briefs; who does not take the advice of experts in
460
the intelligence field or indeed in any other; who fires off
brief statements without thinking whether they are
consistent with his administration’s declared policies; who
is seemingly incapable of putting together a coherent
sentence with a subject, a verb and an object; who is apt to
give away state secrets to a foreign power; and who seems
to have no respect either for the truth or for the
Constitution (not least in respect of freedom of religion
and freedom of speech). He may not be mad, but a
growing number of commentators allege that Trump is
suffering from dementia, or is mentally subnormal, or is
suffering from a personality disorder of some kind.
In a situation where a head of state is incapable of carrying
out his duties properly, what guidance can history offer us?
The relevant history isn’t so much the history of the
presidency of the United States, where no incumbent has
ever been successfully removed from office by Congress,
but rather the history of incompetent — or allegedly
incompetent — rulers at other times and in other parts of
the world.
What happens when a political elite concludes that the real
or titular head of state has to be deposed in the interests of
the country as a whole? Of course, given Trump’s
leadership style, the pertinent question might be narrowed
down further: What happens when a monarch is judged as
mentally unfit to rule?
In modern times, just as further back in history, madness is
a slippery concept, hard to pin down unless there are
obvious signs of delusion, derangement, paranoia or actual
physical aggression.
But madness of that sort was far from uncommon in
Europe’s royal families, not least because of the inbreeding
favoured by their convention that members of a royal
family could not marry beneath their station. As H.C. Erik
Midelfort explains in his entertaining 1996 monograph
Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany, in 16th-century
Germany nearly 30 dukes, landgraves and counts were
regarded by their courts and ministers as mad enough to
require medical attention or removal from office. But what
exactly was meant by “mad”? Midelfort explains that
advisers and family members spoke of “weakness, folly,
debility, and the condition of not being right,” or
sometimes “furor, or melancholy, or sickness” when they
encountered princes who seemed to be mentally unsuited
to rule. The notion of clinical insanity or certifiable
madness is one that only became current in the 19th
century.
In the early modern period, a few princes were clearly
completely deranged, such as Don Julius Caesar d’Austria,
son of Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II, who tortured his
mistress to death and walked about for days covered in her
blood and brains, attacked his servants, destroyed his
furniture, tore up his clothing, babbled and roared
nonsensically, and was (allegedly) eventually strangled on
his father’s orders in 1609. Some suffered from delusions,
such as Duke Albrecht Friedrich of Prussia, who slept in
his clothes in case the Turks came for him in the night,
poured his medicines on the floor, spoke to people who
were not present in the room and threw a clock at an envoy
sent by Emperor Maximilian II. Relatives were appointed
to carry out the business of ruling, bypassing the
unfortunate duke, who was left to amuse himself with his
collection of 100,000 coins while being subjected to a
variety of grotesque “cures” applied by rival schools of
medicine.
The king's courtiers: From left, son-in-law Jared Kushner, Stephen
Miller and Stephen Bannon. The trio of close advisers have
alternately vied for more influence over their often-distracted patron.
(Jabin Botsford)
More common, however, was “melancholy,” or, as we
would put it today, depression, sometimes attributed in the
medieval or early period to demonic influences. And
debilitation from such melancholy — or through paralysis
or speech impediments caused by strokes, senility,
dementia and other afflictions of old age — were typically
dealt with by finding someone else to rule without actually
deposing the prince.
461
But not always. Consider the example of the 1848
revolutions in Central Europe. The fact that the Austrian
Empire’s ruler, Ferdinand I, was barely capable of carrying
out his duties had been known from the moment he came
to the throne, following the normal line of hereditary
succession in the House of Habsburg. Stories of his limited
intellectual capacity were legion. When he was told one
day that he could not have apricot dumplings because they
were out of season, he lost his temper. “I’m the emperor,”
he shouted at his cook, “and I want dumplings!” The
offspring of double first cousins — his parents, in other
words, shared all four grandparents — he was slow to
learn to read and write, subject to epileptic fits, had a
speech impediment and was clearly incapable of carrying
out his imperial duties. When he came to the throne in
1835, the country’s leading statesman, Prince Klemens von
Metternich, ensured that the business of the emperor was
carried out by a council consisting of himself, another
politician and the emperor’s uncle, Archduke Louis.
But this situation could not stave off the revolution that
came in 1848. As the crowds marched toward the imperial
palace in Vienna, Ferdinand summoned Metternich and
asked, “What are all those people doing there, then?”
“They are making a revolution,” Metternich replied.
“What, are they allowed to do that?” Ferdinand asked in
astonishment. Not surprisingly, as the revolution took a
grip, he was persuaded by his family to abdicate in favour
of his 18-year-old nephew, who became Franz Joseph I.
(The Habsburgs were always optimists, but there never
was a Ferdinand II or a Franz Joseph II.) As Franz Joseph
was defeated by Otto von Bismarck’s Prussian armies in
the war of 1866, Ferdinand had the last laugh. “I don’t
know why they appointed Franz Joseph,” he is said to have
remarked: “I could have been just as good at losing
battles.”
The Habsburg Empire in the mid-19th century was in a
desperate situation requiring desperate remedies, which is
why the hapless Ferdinand accepted his deposition, if with
great reluctance. In the case of monarchical incapacity,
deposition was seldom resorted to because a general belief
in the divine right of kings got in the way. If God had put
the monarch on the throne — and the belief was a central
part of monarchical legitimacy — then only God could
remove him; mere humans had no right to. So, in more
normal times, when the political structure as a whole was
not under threat, abdication was typically avoided.
It was usual instead to appoint a regent to take care of
royal business when the monarch became incapacitated, as
for example during the few weeks in 1878 when the
German Kaiser Wilhelm I was recovering from a nearly
successful assassination attempt. Regents assumed all the
powers of the monarch, just not the title of king.
The most famous appointment of a regent was to King
George III, after he began talking to trees and speaking
continuously to nobody in particular for hours on end in
the early 19th century. In a rare moment of lucidity, he
agreed he was no longer capable of ruling, and in 1811
conceded the appointment by Act of Parliament of his
eldest son George as prince regent. The prince regent, who
later became King George IV on his father’s death, was
not exactly a model monarch either: Addicted to opium, a
heavy drinker and a gluttonous eater, he weighed 245
pounds and had a 50-inch waistline. His extravagance and
drunkenness made him unpopular, and his brother William
IV, who succeeded him in 1830 at the age of 64, the oldest
person to come to the throne so far, was accustomed to
wander the streets off on his own, going up to ordinary
citizens to speak to them (“I’m the king, you know”). The
courtier and diarist Charles Greville declared that William
IV “made a number of speeches, so ridiculous and
nonsensical, beyond all belief but to those who heard them,
rambling from one subject to another, repeating the same
thing over and over again, and altogether such a mass of
confusion, trash and imbecility as made one laugh and
blush at the same time.” Greville thought the king was
mad, and indeed the monarch was known as “Silly Billy”
by the populace at large.
The abdicator: By 1936, when King Edward VIII scandalously
wanted to marry an American divorcee, there was no need to remove
him as unfit; he departed willingly. (Toronto Star file photo)
But the British monarchy of the early 19th century, for all
the weaknesses of its incumbents, survived because by this
stage of history, the kings and queens of England had very
little real power. Over time, leading politicians became
less hesitant to transgress alleged monarchial power that
was no longer extant. It was not long before the idea of a
regency fell entirely out of favour in Britain and elsewhere
in Europe. When a British monarch transgressed the
largely unwritten rules of the job, as King Edward VIII did
462
in 1936 by declaring his intention of marrying an
American divorcée, Wallis Simpson, the politicians had
little difficulty in simply removing him from the throne.
Europe’s last enactment of a regency was in the case of
King Otto of Bavaria, younger brother of the eccentric
Ludwig II, builder of the fairy castles of Neuschwanstein
and Hohenschwangau. On Ludwig’s unexplained and
sudden death, Otto succeeded to the throne, but succumbed
rapidly to a deep and incurable depression, probably
caused by syphilis (he was paralyzed during the final
period of his life). A prince regent, Otto’s uncle Luitpold,
took over for Otto, ruling from 1886 to 1912, followed by
a cousin, Ludwig, who quickly got the Bavarian
parliament to depose Otto and declare himself king.
In a situation such as this, the royal family’s role was at
least as important as that of the political elite. Both had a
strong interest in ensuring the business of government was
carried on in the usual way, just not by the existing
monarch. The most favoured way of removing from office
a monarch who has shown himself to be unfit to rule has
indeed in modern times been abdication at the behest of
leading politicians, usually with the support of the royal
family. After the Ottoman Sultan Abdulaziz was deposed
by his ministers because of incompetence, his chosen
successor, his nephew Murad V, threw himself into a pool
in the palace gardens, shouting to the guards to save him
from assassination, and was reported to have vomited
continuously for a day and a night in sheer terror. He had
reason to be frightened: Within a few days it was
implausibly reported that Abdulaziz had committed suicide
by cutting both his wrists simultaneously with a pair of
scissors. Within a few months, Murad V was deposed by a
coalition of family members and government ministers
amid allegations of paranoia and schizophrenia and
imprisoned for the rest of his life. (Two assassinations of
Ottoman sultans in a single year would have aroused too
many public suspicions.) The young man was probably
glad to be relieved of the burdens and cares of royal office.
What would happen if a monarch does not co-operate with
political elites who consider him deranged? In that case,
removal by force becomes an option, though sometimes it
can only be effected through the intervention of a foreign
power. This is what occurred to the self-styled Emperor
Bokassa of what is now the Central African Republic in
1979. Bokassa had himself come to power in a military
coup, and almost immediately dissolved the national
assembly and banned all political parties except his own.
Until that point, his career was similar to that of any other
tin-pot dictator.
But he soon began to show signs of megalomania. In 1976,
he had himself crowned emperor, in a lavish ceremony that
cost a third of his impoverished country’s annual budget.
His extravagant pseudo-Napoleonic display and absurd,
self-awarded titles earned him the mockery of the rest of
the world, but there was a darker side to his rule: He
arrested, tortured and personally murdered many of his
opponents. He killed a number of schoolchildren who had
thrown rocks at his car in protest against their families
being forced to buy expensive school uniforms with a
picture of his head on them from a firm owned by one of
his many wives.
What may have done him in were the lurid allegations that
he had eaten the bodies of some of his victims — or, more
specifically, that he had them cooked and served up to the
visiting president of France, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.
Afterward, in 1986, he was deposed and arrested by a
military expedition sent by France to restore order in its
former colony, and then put on trial in the Central African
Republic. Found guilty on charges of murder and many
other offences (though not including cannibalism), he was
sentenced to life imprisonment but subsequently released
on amnesty in 1993. Meanwhile, his mental state
deteriorated still further until, within a few years, he was
claiming to be the 13th apostle of Christ.
The African emporer: Central African Republic President Jean-
Bedel Bokassa declared himself "emperor" in 1976. He was deposed
by a force from France amid rumours he was killing -- and eating --
his opponents. (Associated Press file photo)
Emperor Bokassa’s power was not only real, it was
absolute, and in general, it is a fairly obvious point that the
more actual political power a monarch possesses, the more
difficult he is to remove through legal means, and the more
likely it is, therefore, that he will be coerced into
abdicating, whether by his own subjects, or by outsiders.
If we look back beyond the 19th and 20th centuries to
more remote periods of history, we encounter many such
examples. One of very few monarchs to have earned
madness as a title, the 16th-century Spanish Queen Juana
la Loca, was dealt with by being forcibly confined to a
nunnery. An earlier insane monarch, Charles the Mad of
France, was not actually deposed, but after he murdered
several of his entourage without warning in 1392, he was
pushed aside by his wife and his closest male relatives and
completely excluded from power. This was just as well,
since his madness grew more pronounced and manifested
463
itself in disagreeable episodes, such as his refusal to wash
or change his clothes for several months in 1405.
History is littered with scores, even hundreds of examples
of coups d’état, revolutions, rebellions and revolts,
assassinations, murders, and other ways of overthrowing a
monarch, including imprisonment and banishment. But
more often than not, such incidents are political in nature:
the outcome of intense rivalries of one kind or another,
from family feuds to ideological upheavals.
Constitutional systems have the great advantage of
channelling such rivalries into legal provisions that are
almost always already in place providing for the dismissal,
impeachment, or prosecution of politicians. American
legal scholars have argued, for instance, that the 25th
Amendment of the United States Constitution, which
allows for the removal of a president “unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office,” would apply in the
instance of mental debilitation.
But a note of caution is required. Donald Trump has
proven unwilling to play by the rules or respect the
constitution of the country that elected them. But that isn’t
necessarily proof of insanity; it may just be a
demonstration of his commitment to populism, which
consists in showing precisely such disrespect to
convention.
Populists’ contempt for the rules and conventions of
politics generally gets them into trouble if ever they
succeed in assuming power. A case in point is the
Hamburg judge Ronald Schill, whose upstart right-wing
party won 20 per cent of the vote in state elections in 2001
and entered a coalition government with the moderate-
conservative Christian Democrats. Schill announced he
would cut crime by 50 per cent, called for the legalization
of cannabis, demanded that sex offenders be castrated and
urged the use of poison gas to paralyze hostage-takers (not
a tactful suggestion in postwar Germany). Parents who did
not bring up their children the “right way” should be jailed,
he said. After denouncing German politicians in general
for incompetence, he was removed from office, his
electoral support collapsed and he fled to South America,
where he was secretly filmed by a German tabloid
newspaper snorting cocaine.
Schill was not insane, he was merely incapable of
following the rules of German politics. Like other
populists, he had gained support because he promised not
to play by the rules. But the rules are usually there for
good reason — for example, to prevent nepotism
(appointing family members as government officials and
advisers), to stop corruption (using office for private gain)
or to ensure a reasonable measure of consistency and
responsibility in the formulation and announcement of
policy. If a government is run by someone who ignores
these rules, it rapidly loses in coherence and influence,
both at home and abroad. It is inevitable in such situations
that others in the government will ask themselves what can
be done to protect it.
The fallen German populist: Ronald Schill landed a spot in
government in 2001 by denouncing politicians and threatening to jail
poor parents. His support collapsed and he was soon removed from
office. (JAN BAUER)
The only formal and legal way of removing U.S. President
Trump and restoring strong and stable government is by
impeachment. But as with many other aspects of the 18th-
464
century Constitution by which the United States is still
governed, this may prove a long, complicated and difficult
process. Republican members of Congress are
understandably reluctant to spend many months removing
a Republican president. And in the end, an attempt at
impeachment may not succeed.
But that still leaves other options. If Trump rules through
what is in effect the modern American equivalent of a
royal court, then perhaps it is the courtiers, as in so many
examples from history, together with his family, who
might have to get together and remove him, or at the very
least, neutralize him. The incoherence and inconsistency of
his tweets and his speeches (unless they are written for him
in advance and unless he sticks rigidly to the text) has
prompted speculation that this has happened already.
Only a few weeks into his presidency, Steve Bannon was
being described by many journalists as “President
Bannon.” Now that he himself seems to have been
sidelined, it looks increasingly as if Trump’s family, with
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump alternating at the fore, is
beginning to take over the show. If Americans prove
incapable of deposing their debilitated president, they may
soon earn the mild relief of one, or more, informally
appointed American regents.
 More Evidence Of US Support For ISIS
By Stephen Lendman
6-18-2017
Straightaway after Trump’s January 20 swearing in
ceremony, a White House statement said defeating ISIS
and other terrorist groups is the administration’s “highest
priority,” adding:
“To defeat and destroy these groups, we
will pursue aggressive joint and coalition
military operations when necessary.”
“In addition, the Trump Administration will
work with international partners to cut off
funding for terrorist groups, to expand
intelligence sharing, and to engage in
cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable
propaganda and recruiting.”
Instead of “defeat(ing) and destroy(ing) these groups,” the
Trump administration actively supports them.
Photographic evidence shows ISIS firing US-made TOW-
guided anti-tank missiles against government forces.
In last year’s battle for Aleppo, al-Nusra terrorists used
these weapons, according to Russian General Sergei
Rudskoi - supplied by the Obama administration.
ISIS was earlier supplied with shoulder-launched, man-
portable, easy to operate, surface-to-air missiles (SAMS),
able to down helicopters and low-flying aircraft.
These weapons are still likely being supplied to the group
and other anti-government forces. Washington and its
rogue allies covertly support the scourge they claim to
oppose.
Numerous times Bashar al-Assad accused Western and
regional countries of supporting ISIS and other terrorist
groups combating government forces.
On Saturday, his political and media advisor Bouthiana
Shaaban accused Washington of arming and financing
ISIS, flagrantly violating Security Council Resolution
2253 (December 2015) - sponsored by Russia and
America, unanimously adopted.
465
It covers an asset freeze, travel ban, arms embargo and
lists criteria for designating ISIS, al-Qaeda, and
“associated individuals, groups, undertaking and entities”
as terrorist groups.
It states parties responsible for committing, organizing or
supporting terrorist acts must be held accountable. It called
on member states to cooperate fully in investigating
incidents involving these groups.
It stressed the obligation of member states to prevent their
nationals or persons in their countries from aiding them
economically and/or militarily.
Russia and Iran scrupulously observe its principles.
America and its rogue allies repeatedly violate them.
Separately, according to Libya’s Al-Manar TV, Iraqi
forces regained control of the strategically important al-
Waleed checkpoint on the Syria border - located near the
al-Tanf border crossing, along the important
Syrian/Iraqi/Jordanian triangle.
Last week, Syrian Defense Ministry officials held talks
with their Iraqi counterparts in Baghdad on coordinating
border security and combating “a common enemy, which
is the terrorist Daesh (ISIS) organization,” adding:
“We discussed holding Syria-Iraq borders
to maintain pressure on the terrorist enemy
and establishing a joint operations center
through which both sides can coordinate.”
On Saturday, Syrian General Mohammad Issa said
“(s)ending US missiles to al-Tanf is (part of a) US (plan)
to create a small ISIL state along the Syrian, Iraqi and
Jordanian borders to separate Syria from Iraq and Iran, and
turn it into a marginalized country which doesn’t play any
role in the region.”
A similar scheme is planned for northern Syria to separate
it from Damascus control - part of a diabolical US plot to
destroy the country’s sovereignty.
.
 Newt Gingrich Suggests Special Counsel Robert Mueller Is
Stacking His Legal Team With Left-Leaning Lawyers In A
Bid To Take Down Donald Trump
 The Ex-Speaker Hinted At The Allegation During An Interview On ABC's This Week
 'You Tell Me Why The First Four Names That Came Up... Gave To Democrats,' He Said
 He Continued With The Attack: 'Explain To Me Why I Should Relax As A Republican'
 Some Of Mueller's Hires Have Included People Who Backed To Hillary And Obama
By Liam Quinn For Dailymail.com
Published: 11:34 EDT, 18 June 2017 | Updated: 17:36 EDT, 18 June 2017

Newt Gingrich has appeared to support Donald Trump's
'Witch Hunt' claims by accusing Special Counsel Robert
Mueller of stacking his legal team with left-leaning
lawyers.
The former speaker attacked Mueller, as well as the Justice
Department, during an interview on ABC's This Week.
'You tell me why the first four names that
came up, I don't know about the next nine,
but the four names are all people who gave
to Democrats.
with Gingrich admitting the constant stream of social
media posts does not help.
'Trump has a compulsion to counterattack,
he is very pugnacious,' 74-year-old said.
'I don't think it serves him well, I don't think
that tweet helped him, but it's who he has
been his whole life.'
After the former speaker's interview, Democrat Adam
Schiff suggested Trump and his team are seemingly
determined to take Mueller down.

He continued:
'They want to lay the foundation to discredit
whatever Bob Mueller comes up with,'
'Two of them are people with a record of Schiff said.
hiding evidence from the defense, and one
of them is a person who defended the 'They're essentially engaging in a scorched
Clinton Foundation. earth litigation strategy that is beginning
with trying to discredit the prosecutor. And
that's all that's happening here.'

Gingrich's suggestion Mueller's team is becoming a

partisan attack on the president has been pushed by the
president on Twitter, as well as conservative media outlets
this week.

Newt Gingrich (pictured) has appeared to support Donald Trump's

'Witch Hunt' claims by accusing Special Counsel Robert Mueller of
stacking his legal team with left-leaning lawyers
'Now, in this environment with a Justice
Department where 97 per cent of the
donations last year went to Hillary, explain
to me why I should relax as a Republican.

The interview then changed topic to Trump's recent tweets, Gingrich and Donald Trump are pictured together on stage during a
including one in which he said 'I am being investigated', rally in Ohio in July 2016

466

'You tell me why the first four names that came up, I don't know
about the next nine, but the four names are all people who gave to
Democrats,' Mueller said on ABC's This Week
The former speaker first pushed out the line during a Good
Morning America appearance on Tuesday, when he again
highlighted the fact some of Mueller's hires had donated to
Democratic political candidates, including Trump's rival
Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama.
For example, Michael Dreeban, a criminal law expert
who's working part-time for Mueller, donated $1,000 to
Friends of Hillary, which was supporting Clinton when she
ran for public office in New York.
Another big-name hire, Andrew Weissmann, who led the
Enron Task Force, donated six times to the political action
committees supporting Obama during the 2008 election,
for a total of $4,700, according to the Hill.
In total, four of Mueller's top hires had contributed to
Democrats, which Laura Ingraham's publication Lifezette
also pointed out.
Donald Trump has called the investigation a 'Witch Hunt' -
something Gingrich's comments appear to support.
467
Newt Gingrich speaks at the National Press Club on June 16, 2017 in
Washington DC
Trump ally Ingraham's involvement suggests this may be a
broader strategy coming from the White House to taint
Mueller's Russia probe.
'One of them worked for the Clinton
Foundation,' Gingrich also pointed out to
Stephanopoulos.
He was referring to Jeannie Rhee, a former Department of
Justice attorney who represented the Clinton Foundation in
2015.
Rhee and her partner on the case Jamie Gorelick got a
federal judge to block Bill and Hillary Clinton from
testifying in a deposition in a lawsuit brought to the court
by a conservative activist.
Then-FBI Director Robert Mueller testifies before a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing in Dirksen Building on oversight of the FBI
Gorelick is now an attorney for Jared Kushner and Ivanka
Trump.
'He did not hire a Republican in the first
wave,' Gingrich complained of Mueller.
Stephanopoulos, a veteran of the Clinton White House,
pointed out that Kenneth Starr, the special counsel who
investigated that White House, had called Mueller's crew a
'fantastic team' comprised of 'complete professionals.'
 'Well, then Ken Starr and I live in two Gingrich has repeatedly defended Trump and attacked
different universes then,' Gingrich replied. 'I those critical of the president.
am very dubious about the team Mueller is
putting together.'
.

468
 Senate GOP Shifts Focus To Lynch
By Jordain Carney
06/18/17 06:00 AM EDT
Senate Republicans are clamoring to hear from Loretta
Lynch after former FBI Director James Comey raised
concerns about her involvement in the Hillary Clinton
email investigation.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are seizing
on Comey’s testimony earlier this month that he was
concerned over the former attorney general telling the FBI
to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter," which
resembled the Clinton campaign line.
The move could allow Republicans to attempt to pivot
away from the investigation into Russia's election
meddling — which top GOP lawmakers have signaled
belongs to the Intelligence Committee — and focus on
Lynch, who has long been a target of Republicans.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican
who is a member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary
committees, said it “would be very helpful” for Lynch to
testify before the Judiciary panel, which oversees the
Justice Department.
“Frankly, a lot of what Hillary Clinton was
exposed to by Director Comey’s
misconduct and the way he handled that
was apparently in response to his lack of
confidence in the attorney general, and I
think there is a lot we could learn from
that,” Cornyn said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also wants
to hear from Lynch and is pushing for the
Judiciary Committee to “get more involved.”
“The accusations now that ... the current
and former attorney general were political
— that has nothing to do with Russia as
much as it has to do with how the
469
Department of Justice is being run,” he
said. “I want to find out all about that.”
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the
Judiciary Committee chairman, stressed that no decisions
have been made and staffers needed to first “gather
evidence."
But the spokesman said it was “likely” after Comey’s
remarks before the intelligence panel that Lynch’s
testimony before the Judiciary Committee “will become
necessary at some point.”
President Trump has seized on the Obama administration
official as the federal investigation into possible ties
between his campaign and Russia heats up.
“A.G. Lynch made law enforcement
decisions for political purposes...gave
Hillary Clinton a free pass and
protection. Totally illegal!” Trump
tweeted this week.
Other Trump allies, including the Republican National
Committee, have also questioned Lynch's behavior.
"Why is no one investigating Attorney
General Lynch's Department of Justice for
obstruction of justice in the Clinton email
investigation. .. .There is compelling
evidence to back up the claim that AG
Lynch engaged in obstruction of justice,”
read one RNC talking point leaked to a
Washington Post reporter this week.
The talking points were in response to a Post report that
after Comey's firing last month, special counsel Robert
Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice.
A spokesman for Sen. Ted Cruz said the Texas Republican
would “absolutely” support Lynch testifying.
“Well, I kind of would like to get the whole
thing behind us, but she should be
interrogated [by a committee] because
there’s some real questions about whether
her actions were proper,” Sen. Orrin Hatch
(R-Utah) said when asked if Lynch should
 testify as part of a larger obstruction of
justice probe.
Comey apparently raised concerns about Lynch before he
was fired. He told the Judiciary Committee in early May
that he had been worried the Justice Department couldn’t
“credibly” decline to prosecute Clinton without "grievous
damage to the American people's confidence in the justice
system.”
He also privately told Intelligence Committee members
that he confronted Lynch on whether she had agreed to
shut down the FBI's investigation. Comey worried her
controversial meeting with former President Bill Clinton
had created a conflict of interest, according to Circa, a
website tracked closely by conservative media.
Though GOP lawmakers have long been wary of Lynch,
placing her back in the spotlight could backfire if it also
keeps the public's focus on Comey amid continued fallout
over the FBI chief's firing in early May.
Grassley has signaled that potential obstruction of justice
during the Obama administration should be included in the
committee’s work. The GOP chairman has argued that
such a move is relevant because the Trump White House
initially pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton email
investigation to justify his firing.
“The Committee is examining the removal
of Director Comey and allegations of
improper influence on the FBI’s handling of
the Russia and Clinton email
investigations. In his recent appearances
before both the Senate Judiciary and
Intelligence Committees, Mr. Comey raised
issues about whether these investigations
were subjected to inappropriate political
influence,” said Taylor Foy, a spokesman
for the Iowa Republican.
GOP senators appeared surprised by Grassley’s decision to
expand his committee’s investigation, which would also
include looking at potential political interference by
Trump’s Justice Department into FBI investigations.
The move comes after some Republican members of the
committee were already skeptical of Grassley’s threat to
subpoena Comey to testify before the Judiciary Committee
after the former FBI director met with the intelligence
panel.
470
The two Senate panels are conducting separate
investigations into Russia’s election meddling, which
includes Comey’s firing. But Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.),
the Intelligence Committee chairman, said his panel would
steer clear of investigating obstruction of justice, telling
CNN that it has “never been part of our” probe.
Any push to pivot to Lynch and the Clinton email
investigation would also likely spark pushback from
Democrats, who are increasingly frustrated by the lack of
progress on the committee’s push to get answers on
Russia’s election interference and Comey’s firing.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the Judiciary Committee's
top Democrat, signaled that the panel should look into
whether Lynch tried to downplay the FBI’s investigation
into Clinton’s email setup.
“I think we need to know more about that.
And there's only way to know about it, and
that's to have the Judiciary Committee take
a look at that,” she told CBS in a recent
interview.
But she’s also called for bringing in a swath of top Trump
administration’s officials, including Attorney General Jeff
Sessions. Other top Democratic lawmakers have held off
endorsing digging into Lynch.
Asked about Feinstein's comments to CBS, Senate
Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sidestepped
saying he wanted to hear from the former Obama official.
“Well, before I say anything further on this,
I want to hear what Loretta Lynch’s side of
the story is. I haven’t heard that yet,” he
told reporters.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) added he wanted to talk to
Feinstein but warned against rehashing Clinton scandals
when “we have a front-and-center investigation that relates
to the national security of the United States.”
“Going back in the previous administration,
I guess all of us have some questions
about it, but we have a current investigation
that is front and center in the American
people’s attention span, and that’s what we
ought to focus on,” he said.
 Crazy Fake Indian Attacks Trump:
“You Ain’t Seen Nasty Yet” (VIDEO)
Jim Hoft
Jun 18th, 2017 8:55 Am

Unhinged fake Indian Elizabeth Warren warned

President Trump that he has not seen nasty yet….

We would disagree.

Socialist favorite Warren made the threat during her recent

book promotion.

Via FOX and Friends:

And Rep. Steve Scalise would also disagree – but he’s

shot.

471
 The NYT Contempt For Truth-Telling
By Stephen Lendman
6-18-2017
The Times is a lying machine, a
disgrace to legitimate journalism -
operating as a press agent for wealth,
power and privilege.
Truth-telling on vital issues is banned from its pages -
especially on war and peace, Russia, and Trump.
Its articles, commentaries and editorials on these and other
vital issues read like deep state press releases.
On June 17, its editors headlined Mr. Trump’s Dangerous
Indifference to Russia,” saying:
“A rival foreign power launched an
aggressive cyberattack on the United
States, interfering with the 2016
presidential election and leaving every
indication that it’s coming back for more -
but President Trump doesn’t seem to care.”
Fact:
No foreign power, not Russia or any other
country, “interfer(red) with the 2016 (US)
presidential election.” Not a shred of
evidence suggests it because none exists.
Fact:
Claims otherwise are Big Lies to denigrate
and weaken Trump, along with bashing
Russia for its sovereign independence and
opposition to US imperial lawlessness.
Fact:
Trump was right, earlier calling claims of
Russian US election hacking “ridiculous.”
No hacking occurred. No foreign
government tried to influence or manipulate
last year’s presidential election.
The Times, other media scoundrels and Democrats calling
Russian interference in America’s election
“unprecedented” is part of a diabolical plot to oust Trump
from office.
The scheme involves congressional and special counsel
Robert Mueller investigations into alleged ties between
Trump, his team and Moscow.
472
Mueller is looking into the spurious
allegation of possible Trump
obstruction of justice - despite no
evidence suggesting it.
The Times:
“(T)he commander in chief appears
unconcerned (about a Russian) threat to
our national security.”
Fact:
No Russian threat exists - none now or
earlier throughout the Russian Federation’s
existence.
The Times:
“Under direct orders from President
Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to
Russian military intelligence broke into the
email accounts of senior officials at the
Democratic National Committee and of
Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John
Podesta.”
“They passed tens of thousands of emails
to the website WikiLeaks, which posted
them throughout the last months of the
campaign in an attempt to damage the
Clinton campaign.”
Fact:
These and numerous other spurious
claims provide clear evidence of how
low the self-styled newspaper of record
has sunk - mocking legitimate
journalism.
The Times:
“Even more disturbing, hackers sought
access to voter databases in at least 39
states, and in some cases tried to alter or
delete voter data. They also appear to have
tried to take over the computers of more
than 100 local election officials in the days
before the Nov. 8 vote.”
Fact:
 No Russian hacking into voter databases
occurred in any of the 50 US states. Claims
otherwise are Big Lies - spread by media
scoundrels like The Times.
The Times:
“The Russians have engaged in behavior
like this in other countries, and they’re
getting better at it…They have
disseminated fake news stories and other
disinformation to interfere with elections in
other countries, as they did here.”
Fact:
Utter rubbish and The Times knows it.
What it won’t explain is longstanding US
meddling in foreign elections worldwide -
along with all its other high crimes.
.
473
The Times:
“Even if the investigations find no evidence
that Mr. Trump’s campaign colluded with
the Russians, the president’s refusal to
accept the truth about this attack on our
democracy denies reality and leaves the
country vulnerable to more damaging
attacks.”
“The true obsession is Mr. Trump’s, with
his own brand, and it’s distracting him from
his most important duty - to protect the
nation.”
Democracy in America is pure fantasy. None whatever
exists, nor threats to US national security from any nation
- not Russia or any others.
 Deep State Operatives
Attempt A Coup D’état Of Donald Trump
Mac Slavo
June 18th, 2017
Presidential historian and author Doug Wead claims that
the deep state, which has successfully overthrown the
governments of foreign countries, is going to continue to
actively seek a coup d’etat of the duly elected president of
the United States.
If there was ever a time in history to be concerned about
another rise in communism, now is that time. Wead says
that the deep state is determined to overthrow Donald
Trump. The presidential historian refused to mince words,
saying:
We have very skilled, talented professionals. They’ve
overthrown governments in Vietnam and the Philippines,
in Iraq and Iran, in Egypt, in the Ukraine. Duly elected
democratic governments. They created what they called
“popular uprisings.”
Of course, we should expect nothing less from shadow
governments. The very same people who work in the State
Department, some of them in intelligence, and some of
them in the media, have successfully caused uprisings in
several other countries. They’ve worked together to
overthrow foreign governments, and Wead believes Trump
is a thorn in their side preventing a global takeover.
The deep state has become somewhat of a mainstream
topic of discussion since Trump’s election. Before, it was
more of a “conspiracy theory.” But the goals of the deep
state are simple: the complete enslavement of mankind by
political elites.
.
474
They [republicans in congress] see
themselves as “partners” with the Left
in the same game: to establish an elitist
politico-oligarchic ruling class, broken
down into divisions throughout the
globe for ethno-cultural manipulation,
yet with the same end-state.
That goal is the enslavement and complete control of all of
mankind with the elitists ensconced as the ruling moneyed
class. They see themselves as the educated, sensible
minority with tender sensibilities and true humanistic
views…who must…must…take a stand in the globalist
crusade against the barbaric Neanderthals of the proletariat
and populist serfs. –SHTFPlan
The average IQ of an American has dropped 14 points
over the past century and with the media actively peddling
propaganda, there’s no need for anyone to desire their own
mental and physical freedom. In fact, we now hear the
weakest members of society clamor for communism, as if
they wouldn’t be the first the state “extinguishes” in the
event that they succeed. Communism preys on those who
are producers and has little interest in those who actually
desire it.
It has been apparent to those not blinded by partisan
politics that something is going on in the government right
now, yet most simply call it a “witch hunt,” simply for
lack of wanting to admit the deep state exists. It certainly
looks like a battle between democracy and the deep state.
And we aren’t sure we’d put money on democracy at this
point in history.
 The Big Collusion
Narrative Keeps Melting Down
By David French
June 13, 2017 7:37 PM
After two days and almost six hours of high-stakes public
testimony,
I’m struck by the total lack of any
compelling claims supporting the “big”
collusion narrative, that Russia
conspired with Trump or Trump officials
to “hack” election.
While we certainly aren’t privy to all the relevant
information or all the relevant testimony,
nothing that James Comey said last
week or that Jeff Sessions said this
week (much less any of the questions
directed his way) contained so much as
a meaningful hint that the Committee
was on the verge of uncovering the
political scandal of the century.
Rather, the focus keeps shifting to
much narrower questions regarding
Trump’s decision to fire James Comey
- questions that are important but far less historically
consequential than any claim that a president or his
attorney general are traitors to their country.
Here’s where we stand:
1. Not only is there no evidence that Trump personally
colluded with Russians or ordered anyone to collude
with Russians, there’s now evidence that he hasn’t
been under personal investigation by the FBI.
.
475
2. There is absolutely zero available evidence that Jeff
Sessions colluded with the Russians.
3. Similarly, there is so far no evidence that even Trump’s
more unsavory aides – men like Paul Manafort and
Michael Flynn — colluded to influence the election
4. To the extent that there is evidence of wrongdoing
connected with a foreign power, it deals not with the
election itself but rather with Flynn’s alleged failures to
disclose foreign payments and contacts.
Millions of American believe the worst
about their current president,
claims every bit as toxic in their own way as “truther”
smears against George Bush or “birther” smears against
Barack Obama.
The Trump collusion narrative has gotten a
far wider and more respectable hearing
than either of the two conspiracy
theories that plagued the Bush and
Obama administrations.
Truth is truth, and it’s important for
responsible people to not just
understand and respond to actual
evidence - no matter where it leads - but
also acknowledge its absence. And so far
the absence of evidence points to
Trump’s innocence of some of the worst
allegations ever leveled against an
American president or his senior team.
 ‘Stop Chasing Russian Ghosts’:
Nunes Insists No Collusion Between Trump And Russians
Published Time: 18 Jun, 2017 21:09 Edited Time: 19 Jun, 2017 07:19
© Aaron Bernstein / Reuters
House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes has
urged Washington to stop pursuing false accusations of US
President Donald Trump’s ties with Russia and concentrate
on solving more pressing issues for the country.
Nunes participated in the Congressional investigation into
alleged Russian meddling into the US presidential election,
but was forced withdraw from the inquiry, following
accusations of mishandling classified data.
After looking into possible connections between Trump
and Moscow,
“I said, ‘OK, I don’t think there’s any
collusion here,”
Nunes, a California senator, said in a speech at the Orange
County Republican Party’s annual Flag Day Salute dinner
on Saturday.
“And what happened to me? All the
major papers in the country did a total
character assassination on me. Why?
Because I was telling the truth, that
there was never any collusion between
Donald Trump and the Russians,”
Nunes said, as cited by Politico.
“I have to ask myself, Was this really an
investigation in search of a crime? And I
will tell you, if that’s what it ends up
being, there will be a huge, huge
division in this country,” he added.
The senator blamed the Russian investigation for
distracting the US authorities from pressing political
issues.
476
Among other things, the House Intelligence Committee
chair urged his fellow Republicans to more actively
promote their health care overhaul, stressing that before
doing so
“we have to stop chasing Russian
ghosts around the closet and actually
get to real work.”
The guests at the dinner applauded Nunes when he was
speaking about the false nature of claims of Trump’s ties
with Moscow.
The House Intelligence Committee chair also said that the
US mainstream media should take part of the blame for the
shooting at the congressional baseball practice in
Alexandria, Virginia last week.
The attack “didn’t surprise” him, Nunes
said, because “every night there’s a news
story that runs that… has something in
common. It’s anti-Trump, anti-Republican,
and promotes this nonsense that you’re
seeing with protesters everywhere. And
they continue to promote it, which
continues to promote violence.”
During the week, there was confusion over Donald
Trump’s tweet, in which the president wrote that he was
“being investigated for firing the FBI
Director by the man who told me to fire the
FBI Director.”
Many took the message as a confirmation that Trump is
under over firing James Comey, who headed the FBI
inquiry into president’s alleged ties with Moscow.
However, Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, explained on
Saturday that his client wasn’t under investigation and that
the tweet referred to another matter.
Nunes came under fire and withdrew from the Russian
investigation in April after he disclosed data to the public
without briefing the Democrats on the intelligence
committee.
The move fueled speculation that he was acting on the Office of Congressional Ethics.
instructions of the president and led to an investigation by
.

477
 Democrats Duped By Corporate Media
Into Believing Russia Hacked U.S. Voting Machines
By: Robert Jonathan
Date: June 19, 2017

The left’s concerns over election integrity in the

presidential contest seems rather selective if not
hypocritical given that virtually every liberal Democrat
bitterly opposes any attempts to reform the country’s
primitive voting and voter registration procedures to
prevent electoral fraud.

While most people are fed up with the overplayed alleged

Russian hacking of the 2016 election, anti-Trump
Democrats (as opposed to the many Democrats who voted
for President Trump) still cling to that narrative. A
YouGov poll of 1,500 American adults suggested that 59
percent of Democrats believe that Russian operatives
messed with the actual voting machines to change votes.
Only 14 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of
independents agree with the Democrats.

The recent news that the feds busted a government

contractor for allegedly leaking an NSA report that
Russian military intelligence tried to hack one U.S. voting
software vendor and phish election officials will no doubt
add fuel to the fire.
However, according to The Intercept which obtained the
leaked report,
“A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to
be identified cautioned against drawing too
big a conclusion from the
document because a single analysis is not
necessarily definitive.”
Other media sources have also hinted that such an
allegation may not hold much merit. The Media Research
Service recalled that
“The FBI and the NSA have both stated
there is no evidence of Russian hackers
changing the vote in swing states to give
the election to Trump.”
478
Through an executive order, President Trump appointed a
bipartisan commission to get to the bottom of voter fraud,
to which the Obama administration turned a blind eye,
including illegal voting by non-citizens.
In the mind of liberals, requiring a photo ID to vote, for
example, is the equivalent of waterboarding. Similarly,
federal courts filled with Obama appointees that have
blocked state-enacted voter ID laws have elevated
ideology over democracy. (RELATED: Read more about
ballot box shenanigans at VoteFraud.news.)
As a digression, why would the Kremlin prefer Donald
Trump in the Oval Office as opposed to a weak,
compromised Hillary Clinton who previously gave away
20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russians?
That aside, Trump derangement syndrome could
explain why liberals buy into the Russian hacking
conspiracy theory so readily.
According to Medium writer Caitlin Johnstone, corporate
media propaganda that improperly headlined the terms
election and hacking together is a significant factor.
These corporate media outlets fell all over
themselves last week in a mad scramble to
make sure that everyone in America felt
dirty and ashamed if they took any interest
in the Seth Rich case, but they have
expended exactly zero energy correcting
an outrageous, xenophobia-inducing fact-
free conspiracy theory that they themselves
helped promulgate…This proves beyond a
doubt that the false belief that Russia
literally hacked America’s voting system
has been intentionally inflicted upon the
public by the mass media propaganda
machine…
Establishment politicians have been using
their mass media-aided platforms to
advance this false narrative as well…
.
479
It’s still unclear as to who hacked into the emails of the
Democratic National Committee and Democrat
operatives and turned the damaging information over to
WikiLeaks for publishing on the web.
While blaming the Russians for the hack seems to come
naturally to Democrats and their media enablers,
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has denied any
intervention by Moscow. Perhaps the Dems are more
focused on the hack itself in order to distract everyone
from the substance of the emails, which showed how
insiders tried to rig the outcome for Hillary Clinton, as
Natural News founder Mike Adams previously explained.
For the Democrat-media complex, vote fraud doesn’t exist,
except when Russia is somehow involved. And leaks are
unacceptable, except when the Deep State is leaking
material to undermine the Trump administration.
 Trump Attorney Sekulow, Fox News’ Wallace, Get Testy
Over Questions About Obstruction Investigation
By Usafeaturesmedia
Posted On June 19, 2017
Sadly, it’s not going to get any better for Trump, and that’s
the real tragedy
(National Sentinel) Presidential lawyer Jay Sekulow
and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace had a bit of a
testy exchange over whether or not President Donald J.
Trump is under investigation for obstruction of justice.
Trump tweeted his disgust last week after the Washington
Post ran a story claiming special counsel Robert Mueller
had expanded his Russia probe to include potential
obstruction by Trump involving his dealings with fired
FBI Director James Comey.
But Sekulow disputed that, drawing pointed questions
from Wallace, as reported by Zero Hedge:
When Wallace asked whether or not Trump
was under investigation, Sekulow
responded that the President had not been
notified of any, and that his tweet was in
response to a Washington Post
article based on five anonymous sources
who allegedly leaked to the paper.
Sekulow: Nothing’s changed since James
Comey said the President was not a target
or a subject of investigation.
480
Wallace: Well, but, you don’t know that he
isn’t under investigation now, do you.
Sekulow: No one’s notified us that he is,
so I can’t read people’s minds, but I can tell
you this – we have not been notified that
there is an investigation of the President of
the United States.
Afterward, Wallace pressed Sekulow over an earlier
presidential tweet noting he relied, in part, on a memo
from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire
Comey, then later said he was planning on doing so
anyway.
Sekulow: There is a constitutional issue
when you have this scenario. The
President made a determination based on
consulted advice he decided ultimately he’s
the commander in chief – he gets to make
that decision that James Comey had to go.
Then it really started to get interesting. Sekulow prefaced
his response with “Here’s the constitutional
threshold question,” which Wallace interpreted as an
admission of an investigation:
Here’s the constitutional threshold question
Chris – the President takes action based
on numerous events, including
recommendations from his Attorney
General and the deputy Attorney General’s
office. He takes the action that they
recommended, and now he’s being
investigated by the Department of
Justice… So he’s being investigated for
taking the action that the AG and deputy
AG recommended him to take, by the
agency who recommended the termination.
So that’s the constitutional threshold
question here.
Wallace then pounced:
Wallace: You just said that he’s being
investigated.
 Sekulow: No, Chris… Let me be crystal
clear so you completely understand. We
have not received nor are we aware of any
investigation of the President of the United
States. Period.
Wallace: Sir you just said two times that
he’s being investigated!
Sekulow: No… I just gave you the legal
theory, Chris, of how the constitution
works. If in fact it was correct that the
President was being investigated, he
would be investigated for taking action that
an agency told him to take. So that is
protected under the constitution as his
article 1 power. That’s all I said, so I
appreciate you trying to re-phrase it.
Wallace: Jay, the tape will speak for
itself. You said that he is being
investigated. And its’ not just being
investigated for firing Comey, there’s also
the question of what he said to Comey
when Comey was still the FBI Director.
Sekulow: Chris, let me be clear. You asked
me a question about what the President’s
tweet was… that’s what you asked me.
And I responded to what that legal
.
481
theory would be. So I do not appreciate
you putting words in my mouth when
I’ve been crystal clear that the President is
not and has not been under investigation. I
don’t think I could be any clearer than that.
It appeared as though Sekulow was attempting to explain
that Trump was responding to the Post story in his tweet
regarding an alleged investigation – not that he knew he
was actually being investigated.
But do you see how screwed up all of this has become?
Trump is, by no close margin, the most maligned
president five months into his first term than any president
before him; it’s so convoluted that even his attorneys are
having trouble explaining things to a vulture-like media,
which has been complicit (including Fox News) in
perpetuating all of the bogus narratives.
Sadly, it’s not going to get any better for Trump, and that’s
the real tragedy: As he tries to deliver on his campaign
promises, he’s going to be continually under siege by a
hostile opposition within the Democratic Party, the
“mainstream” media and, sadly, establishment Republicans
in Congress.
 CNN’s “Trump-Hater”
Poll Doesn’t Go Quite As Planned
Dawn Luger
June 19, 2017

CNN did make sure that they noted that the results of this
“survey” weren’t scientific. Unlike phone polling? Which
also only tallies opinions. Can we all just take a moment
and realize who is laughing at whom here?

In a cringe-worthy but laughable moment which shows

CNN’s bias and solidifies their status as “fake news,” the
outlet tried to conduct a “Trump-hater” poll. But it didn’t
quite go as the leftist propaganda outlet planned. CNN
hasn’t tried to hide their mission of kicking Trump out of
office, and they’ve done what they can to discredit him.
They’ve used sensational headlines and hidden important
information in the bottom of articles hoping no one reads
their nonsense for that long.
But in an epic and humorous turn of events, the leftist
outlet couldn’t even get their viewers to express their
distaste for Donald Trump. The poll states, “Should Trump
be investigated for obstruction of justice?” The simple
question is posed with an unflattering image of the
president. As of Monday morning, 2,711,228 votes had
been cast. The verdict? 70.2% said “no,” just 29.8% said
“yes.” Oh, snap! How do you botch a poll this epically?
Well, be CNN, and push propaganda and fake news.
Sometimes mainstream media is so glaringly obvious in
their bias and attempts to brainwash by pushing
propaganda. There’s no question anymore as to
whether CNN is a legitimate news source or not. They
have sealed their own fate as “fake news.”
What could be easier than getting someone to admit they
hate President Donald Trump? Not much, yet CNN
managed to botch their own “Trump-hater” poll, which
ended up showing support for the president by a landslide.
Had Hillary been elected, we’d be reading articles by CNN
with so much sugarcoating and added saccharine that most
of the country would be diabetic by now.

.
A screenshot taken by The Daily Sheeple of CNN’s live poll.

482
 11 Months Later, STILL No Proof
Of Trump-Russia Collusion;
Dem Lawmaker Confirms
By Usafeaturesmedia
Posted On June 19, 2017
It’s time for Democrats to put up or shut up about all of
this ‘Russia’ BS
(National Sentinel) Phony allegations: Remember when
Democrats used to complain about how much money
Congress was “wasting” on “bogus” investigations into
nefarious behavior by President Obama and his inner
circle?
Not anymore, now that congressional investigations are
focused on President Donald J. Trump and his inner circle
– even if after nearly a year there has been no evidence
found by anyone that there’s been a crime committed.
In an interview with ABC News on Sunday, Rep. Adam
Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, admitted that there’s no
proof Trump “colluded” with Russia, but nevertheless, the
investigation must go on.
As reported by The Daily Caller:
The 11-month-old investigation into
whether President Trump or members of
his campaign colluded with Russians has
still not turned up any evidence that’s
strong enough to put before a jury.
That’s according to California Rep. Adam
Schiff, the ranking member on the House
Intelligence Committee, which is
.
483
overseeing one of the parallel
investigations into whether members of the
Trump campaign coordinated with the
Kremlin to influence the outcome of the
election.
“I’m not prepared to say that there’s proof
you could take to a jury,” Schiff told ABC
News’ Martha Raddatz on Sunday when
asked if he’s seen proof of collusion.
As a leader of the House committee, Schiff
has been able to review classified
information held by various agencies of the
intelligence community. He has also sat in
on briefings with FBI officials to review
information in the case.
Oh, but forget about actually ending the investigation; after
all, the Democrats have to have something to run on in
2018, since their political ideology is bankrupt and they’ve
got no ideas on how to improve the country.
“I can say that there’s enough that we
ought to be investigation,” Schiff said
Sunday.
“Indeed, it would be negligent for us not to
investigate. If a foreign government…has
something that they can hang over the
head of our president or our administration
that can influence U.S. policy, it is very
much in our national security interest to
know it.”
Whatever, Mr. Schiff. It’s time for Democrats to put up or
shut up about all of this ‘Russia’ BS. Ditto for the
#neverTrump RINOs who should have never launched
these bogus investigations in the first place.
 Why Trump Doesn’t Need Fox News Anymore
Donald Trump Has Effectively Replaced Fox News As
The Center Of Information For Republicans.
Jared Yates Sexton
06.19.17 3:00 AM ET
Photo Illustation by The Daily Beast
“Lookit that!” the man at the bar said,
thrusting his phone under the nose of his
buddy nursing a Coors Light. “Is this a
joke?”
I was sitting in my favorite hole-in-the-wall in my
hometown and minding my business. The past few days
I’d been on the road interviewing people for an article and
was already exhausted, but not too exhausted to sit in front
of the TV that morning as former FBI Director James
Comey testified before Congress that he’d felt like the
president had effectively tried to obstruct justice. It was the
kind of inside-baseball event that usually only the most
ardent C-SPAN viewers would’ve been concerned with,
but to my surprise, it was all the people in the bar wanted
to talk about.
“He’s a leaker!” the guy said, doing his best
Donald Trump impression.
The president’s son Donald Trump Jr. had live-tweeted
Comey’s testimony that morning and had latched on to his
admission that he’d leaked his notes from a meeting with
Trump to his friend, a Columbia professor, who’d then
passed them on to the press.
484
What happened next was even more baffling. The buddy
with the Coors Light laughed and then quoted, almost
verbatim, another tweet from Junior that’d been sent
during the testimony.
“I mean, a guy like Trump tells you to do
something,” he said, paraphrasing Junior’s
message, “you’re gonna know what he
means.”
This interaction, with a handful of others over the course
of my trip, only confirmed what I’ve been seeing more of
during my reporting. In the past, when interacting with
conservatives or overhearing their conversations, I’d
always heard Fox News talking points, the same ones that
former head Roger Ailes famously used to send out every
morning in an effort to determine the country’s narrative.
But in the past year something had changed: Conservatives
were receiving their cues directly from Trump and his
family, or else from alternative media companies like
Infowars and Breitbart.
In my forthcoming book about the 2016 presidential
election, The People Are Going to Rise Like the Waters
Upon Your Shore, I chronicle how Donald Trump
effectively replaced Fox News as the center of information
for Republicans, starting with his brief but disturbing feud
with former Fox News host Megyn Kelly after the first
Republican primary debate. This allowed Trump to cast
Fox News in the same “crooked media” pool as its
competitors, a move that eventually inoculated him from
his myriad of scandals as his supporters no longer trusted
anyone who reported negative stories about their
candidate.
This schism in the body politic of the Republican Party has
been apparent since the July 2015 incident in which Trump
called into question former standard-bearer John McCain’s
heroism and said, of the former Vietnam prisoner of war,
“I like people who weren’t captured.”
Despite conventional knowledge that said Trump wouldn’t
survive the gaffe, his poll numbers soared as traditional
pundits and experts scratched their collective heads. What
had been seen as a fatal mistake, instead, turned out to be
the first blow against mainstream Republican authority.
The phenomenon, which we’re still seeing evolve, was
particularly important in the wake of the release of the
Access Hollywood tape, which showed Trump bragging
about sexually assaulting women and opened the floodgate
for victims to accuse him of past improprieties. Like many,
I’d expected the accusations to hamstring Trump’s bid, but
found a sobering sight a week later when I reported from a
rally in Charlotte, North Carolina.
As I reported then, the campaign, with its tireless critiques
of journalists and news outlets, had created a cult-like
atmosphere in which the leader, in this case Trump
himself, was the sole possessor of truth, a circumstance
that simultaneously isolated his followers and deepened
their dependency. Not only did the supporters at that rally
criticize and slander Trump’s accusers, they again
paraphrased Trump’s own denials and questioned, like
their candidate, whether the accusers were even attractive
enough to warrant his attention.
In the wake of Comey’s testimony, this behavior
continued, but what I have noticed is a distinct lessening of
Fox News’ influence on the discourse. The people I talk to
no longer cite the shows and talking heads that used to
define the conversation. It used to be that Bill O’Reilly
(who was let go in April after his own sexual improprieties
caught up to him) and Sean Hannity would define the
arguments of their viewers, but now that social media has
usurped television as the most powerful delivery method
of news, that influence is waning.
The Era of Trump has not been kind to Fox News as
opposition network MSNBC has gained momentum and
dedicated viewers. In the past it was that Fox played to the
worst instincts of Republicans with a toxic cocktail of
xenophobia, misogyny, and racism, but Trump has upped
the stakes. For years Fox served up the headlines with an
unhealthy dose of race-baiting and paranoia, but there was
still a veneer of civility, no matter how thin, the network
tried to hide behind. Trump’s operated without any cover
and has given his supporters a mainline, thus rendering the
network obsolete.
It’s because of this, and their new cultural and religious-
like allegiance to Trump, that his supporters show no signs
485
of leaving him. As it is in a cult, the leader defines their
reality and any step outside of those parameters is damning
to both the worldview and the possessor. So, with every
new tweet, Trump and his satellite of characters are giving
the devoted direct information and instructions on how to
combat the cognitive dissonance of damaging events like
Comey’s testimony. Each tweet and each statement, no
matter how ludicrous and transparent, only further protects
the reality that Trump has built for his supporters, and, as
is the case with any cult, the cumulative effect of the
continuous buildup of cognitive dissonance is that the spell
is that much harder to break.
The question now isn’t whether there’s a line that even
Trump’s supporters won’t follow him past, but the
growing concern that if Trump’s scandals were to lead to
impeachment and removal from office they might view
him as a martyr. It’s that type of devotion, surely, that
could guarantee Trump’s base might very well pass their
blind devoutness onto their children the way religion is
handed down as a birthright.
I talked to one such man who’d taken his daughter to a
Trump rally in Charleston, West Virginia, as we watched
washed-out footage of Comey’s testimony on a weathered
big-screen television across the darkened bar. With a
disgusted shake of his head, the man muttered,
“This is what they do.”
I asked him who “they” were and what it
was “they” were doing.
“The globalists,” he said, borrowing a
derogatory phrase that’d made its rounds
on the Alex Jones radio show and could be
used to refer to anyone Trump’s supporters
perceived as standing in the way of his
agenda, including his daughter Ivanka and
his son-in-law, Jared, whom my stool
neighbor had called “Globalist Jared”
before denying reports of clandestine
meetings with Russia as “phony,” one of
the president’s favorite phrases. “They’re
trying to take down a great man. That’s
what they do. The president said it himself.
They’re cowardly.”
He reached into his jeans and produced a smartphone, but
before he could put in his security code I knew just what I
was about to see.
 “Here,” the man said, sliding the phone the cover of a Bible while fighting for the
across the bar and then pointing at the soul of a sinner. “Take a look for yourself.”
screen the way an evangelical might tap
.

486
 Prediction: Special Counsel Mueller
Will Investigate Team Trump Until SOME “Crime” Is
Either Found Or Manufactured
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 20, 2017
If you ever needed clearer evidence that the political
“swamp” President Donald J. Trump pledged to drain on
the campaign trail last year is digging in for a fight-to-the-
finish battle with him, you need to look no further than the
appointment of Robert Mueller as special “independent”
counsel.
In Mueller, a former FBI director himself and best buddies
forever with recently-fired FBI Director James Comey, the
swamp believes it has the man it needs to finally bring an
end to the so-called ‘nightmare’ of the Trump presidency.
If his tenure is anything at all like those of past special
counsels, he won’t quit until someone is found guilty of
something, even if it is a minor ‘process crime’ that had
nothing at all to do with his original mandate: Whether or
not Team Trump colluded with Russia, cooperated with
Russia, or otherwise had nefarious dealings with Russia
before, during and after the campaign. (RELATED: Deep
State Just Leaked Proof That Special Counsel Mueller
Was Appointed To Bring Down Trump)
Already Mueller has expanded his investigation beyond its
original purpose and scope: It now includes a probe into
whether Trump “obstructed justice” when he allegedly
asked Comey if he would drop the FBI’s investigation into
Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security advisor
(which Trump has denied, by the way).
The language of that alleged request, even if it were made,
sounds nothing at all like an attempt to obstruct justice:
487
I hope you can see your way clear to letting
this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good
guy. I hope you can let this go.
Any sane analysis of those words — “hope you can see
your way clear,” with emphasis on the word “hope” —
would have to concede that the president was clearly
deferring to the FBI director, clearly leaving the decision
in his hands, and not ordering him to drop an investigation
(which, by the way, as head of the Executive Branch —
which the FBI serves — Trump had every right to do).
Be that as it may, Mueller has nevertheless begun to focus
on this alleged exchange as though it were at least
potentially criminal, which tells you all you need to know
about his underlying intentions.
There’s more evidence he intends to get convictions.
Mueller is hiring an army of lawyers that include Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama sycophants and donors. As The
National Sentinel reported,
“a number of new hires made by … Mueller
are all lawyers who have either worked for
Democrats and their organizations, or have
donated to their political campaigns,
including former President Barack Obama
and 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary
Clinton.”
Even Trump-hating CNN has been forced to acknowledge
that fact.
Weekly Standard co-founder Fred Barnes, an experienced
politico and Washington hand, also noted that the Mueller
probe is Trump’s ‘sharks in the water’ moment, given the
history of special counsels and their underlying desire to
not waste the taxpayer’s dime — despite the fact that their
mission is to find guilt or innocence based on available
evidence, not produce results at any cost:
The problem is that special counsels tend
to expand their investigations beyond any
underlying crime (if there is one) and keep
 going until they find someone to indict. This
is what Patrick Fitzgerald did during the
second Bush administration, finally settling
for a flimsy charge of perjury against
Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick
Cheney’s chief of staff. Fitzgerald declined
to prosecute anyone for the supposed
crime he was investigating, the outing of a
CIA agent.
Barnes noted that in addition to widening his probe to
include potential obstruction of justice, “leaks” to the
.
488
media this week also noted that he’s examining whether or
not Team Trump associates had any illegal financial
dealings with ‘The Russians’ — a further expansion
beyond the original mandate laid out by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein when he appointed Mueller.
“In politics, there’s a saying that no
politician can survive a frisk. The Mueller
probe hasn’t gotten to that point. But it
appears to be headed in that direction,”
Barnes noted sardonically.
 Whining CNN Delivers ‘Speech’
On Trump’s ‘Bad’ Treatment of Press
By Scott Whitlock
June 20, 2017 5:25 PM EDT
The journalists on CNN prove daily that they are members
of the opposition party when it comes to the President.
Inside Politics host John King on Tuesday delivered a
whining “speech” about Donald Trump’s “bad” treatment
of journalists. Specifically complaining about press access,
King huffed,
“There's a bigger issue about White House
transparency and secrecy.”
King spent time demanding televised press briefings,
chiding, “I'm a TV person, so we want the camera in the
room.” Getting worked up, the journalist snapped,
“But it is bad. It is bad when an
administration starts to retreat from a
public disclosure and public
discourse.”
Admitting that he’d gone from standard mid-day reporting
to advocacy, King concluded, “That’s my speech.”
On Monday, Jim Acosta went on a rant about the Trump
White House, lecturing, “I don't know what world we're
living in right now, Brooke, where we're standing at the
White House, and they bring us into the briefing room here
at the White House and they won't answer these questions
on camera, or let us record the audio. I don't know why
everybody is going along with this.”
A partial transcript is below:
.
489
Inside Politics
6/20/17
12:52
JOHN KING: It was just five months ago, Sean Spicer
entered America’s living room with the first briefing room
appearance we’re not likely to forget.
[Clip of Sean Spicer’s January 21 press briefing]
KING: Now, since that fiery briefing room, call it a screed,
call it a lecture, call it what you will, that was January 21,
the President has mostly been, we are told, mad at his press
secretary, complaining to other aides and to Spicer himself
about his performance, his inability to respond quickly
enough to leaks, the President believes and the President
thinks to stop those leaks. That’s why Spicer’s departure
from the briefing room has long been at the center of
what’s become a cottage industry of reporting here on an
impending, perhaps, White House staff shakeup. Now,
Spicer again rumored to be on his way out of the briefing
room, which means that Saturday Night Live might need a
new shtick.
[Montage of Melissa McCarthy
KING: That’s funny. Melissa McCarthy does a great Sean
Spicer. But, again, this is one of those stories where you
can focus on the theater and the drama and the constant
leaks about the shakeup within the White House. Whether
you like Sean Spicer or not, whether you support Sean
Spicer or not, this is his job and he’s constantly been
talking about losing your job, which is a hard thing to do.
Number two, there’s a bigger issue about White House
transparency and secrecy, In this interim period where
Sean Spicer’s job has been somehow under review or
consideration, they’ve started to do more off-camera
briefings, which is — I’m a TV person, so we want the
camera in the room. I’ve covered the White House. They
don’t always have to have a camera in the room. But it is
bad. It is bad when an administration starts to retreat from
a public disclosure and public discourse. That’s my
speech.
 FOIA Request On Susan Rice's Unmaskings Rejected
Because "Records Were Moved To Obama Library"
By Tyler Durden
Jun 20, 2017 9:50 AM
Back in April, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for
documents related to the unmasking of
“the identities of any U.S. citizens
associated with the Trump presidential
campaign or transition team” by
Obama's National Security Advisor
Susan Rice.
Unfortunately, and quite conveniently for members of the
Obama administration, Judicial Watch has been informed
by the National Security Council that
records related to their request can not
be shared because they " have been
transferred to the Barack Obama
Presidential Library" and will "remain
closed to the public for five years."
Here is the full letter received from the National Secruity
Council:
"Documents from the Obama
administration have been transferred to
the Barack Obama Presidential Library.
You may send your request to the Obama
Library. However, you should be aware
that under the Presidential Records Act,
Presidential records remain closed to
the public for five years after an
administration has left office."
Here was Judicial Watch's full request:
1.) Any and all requests for information, analyses,
summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar
records submitted to any Intelligence Community
member agency or any official, employee, or
representative thereof by former National Security
Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to
the following:
 Any actual or suspected effort by the
Russian government or any individual
acting on behalf of the Russian
490
government to influence or otherwise
interfere with the 2016 presidential
election.
 The alleged hacking of computer systems
utilized by the Democratic National
Committee and/or the Clinton presidential
campaign.
 Any actual or suspected communication
between any member of the Trump
presidential campaign or transition team
and any official or employee of the Russian
government or any individual acting on
behalf of the Russian government.
 The identities of U.S. citizens associated
with the Trump presidential campaign or
transition team who were identified
pursuant to intelligence collection
activities.
2.) Any and all records or responses received by former
National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any
member, employee, staff member, or representative of
the National Security Council in response to any
request described in part 1 of this request.
3.) Any and all records of communication between any
official, employee, or representative of the Department
of any Intelligence Community member agency and
former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or
any member, employee, staff member, or
representative of the National Security Council
regarding, concerning, or related to any request
described in Part 1 of this request.
Luckily, even if the media and Democrats are unsuccessful
at getting Trump impeached in the near future, 5 years is
still enough time to make sure that his reputation is
sufficiently tarnished that he gets booted from office in
2020. Even better, as The Hill points out today, Joe Biden
appears to be getting groomed to take yet another shot at
the White House in 2020 which means we may never
actually get a shot at understanding exactly what happened
in the months leading up to the 2016 election.
491
BOMBSHELL: New Independent Report Suggests Murder
Of Seth Rich Not Random Or A Robbery,
Possible ‘Hired Killer’
By Greg P.
Posted At 12:05 Pm On June 20, 2017

Breaking news out of Washington, D.C. where The

Profiling Project — an “all-volunteer group of current and
former George Washington University forensic
psychology graduate students and instructors” has just
released a report on the murder of Seth Rich. Here’s the
executive summary with the bombshell suggestion that a According to this report, the Rich family was briefed on
“hired killer” was possibly behind the crime: these finding before they were made public:

Whoa. Full document here.

Live news conference here:

492
 Urgent Call To Prayer: Thousands
Of Witches Casting Spells Against Trump
Jessilyn Justice
5:00PM EDT 6/20/2017
Thousands of witches will gather at midnight tonight to
cast spells on President Donald Trump as part of a summer
solstice ritual. (Public Domain)
Thousands of witches gathered at midnight Wednesday to
cast spells on President Donald Trump as part of a summer
solstice ritual.
"My thought from the beginning was that Trump's
presidency was surreal and abnormal; therefore,
there was a need to counter him and resist his
administration beyond the normal channels like
public protests, petitions, emails and calls to
representatives," Michel M. Hughes, one of the
originators of the spell, tells Vox.
He and a community developed the spell that's now been
cast across the internet as part of the #MagicResistance.
"One very powerful element of the spell is its
ability to allow participants to take back their
power from the out-of-control administration,"
Hughes says.
With the help of the internet, witches, neopagans and other
occult-based religions gathered together to practice their
magic.
Medium's Matthew Gault, also a witchcraft
practitioner, describes the resistance like this:
Readers may mock magick's ability to play a part in
politics, but this was the first election cycle — to the best of
our knowledge — where the political right employed an
493
army of chaos magickians to turn the tide in favor of
Trump. To some in the alt-right, Pepe the cartoon frog isn't
just a meme — but an avatar of Egyptian chaos god Kek.
This isn't a joke. Followers such as Richard Spencer
absolutely believe they helped swing the election from
Trump through elaborate ritual magick spread across viral
memes on the internet. For practitioners, all those Pepe
memes weren't just crass humor but elaborate sigils aimed
at launching The Donald into the highest office in the land.
According to Vox:
[Gault] pointed out the prevalence of various
quasi-occult images and memes among the alt-
right: the performance of Kek worship, for
example (in which popular alt-right symbol Pepe
the Frog is venerated by some in that
community, albeit with no small degree of irony,
as a chaos god), or professions of belief in meme
magic, the notion that internet memes (such as
the "Sick Hillary" meme prevalent during the
2016 election cycle) might affect real life. (When
Clinton really did get ill at a 9/11 memorial,
internet denizens joked that "meme magic" was
behind it all.) There too, Gault noted, a kind of
grounds-up, anarchic approach to ritual and
religious imagery served a political aim:
countering what he called the "top-down
neoliberalism" that many on the political right
objected to.
Dave Kubal, president of Intercessors for America (IFA),
previously issued an urgent call to prayer when the
resistance launched in February.
Kubal explained about a worldwide call for witches—and
those willing to attempt witchcraft for the first time—to
cast a spell harming Donald Trump.
According to IFA, the ritual is to be done at the stroke
of midnight on waning crescent moon ritual days until
Trump leaves office. The summer solstice is considered
especially important.
"Whether or not this call for spells pans out and
people act on it, we feel compelled, as the body
 of Christ and intercessors, to come against this Alabama, she went to Lee University and the Washington
evil with immediate and powerful prayer," the IFA Journalism Center. She's passionate sharing God's
reports. goodness through storytelling. Tell her what you think of
this story on Twitter @jessilynjustice.
Jessilyn Justice is the director of online news for
Charisma. Born and raised in a pastor's family in
.

494
 New Study Explains Why President Trump
Probably WON The Popular Vote
MAC SLAVO
6/21/17
When President Trump won the election last year, he did
so without the benefit of the popular vote. He was quick to
point out that had it not been for the millions of illegal
aliens who probably voted, he would have handily won the
popular vote as well. Meanwhile, the liberal media laughed
at his “fake news” claims, because supposedly, there was
no evidence that millions of noncitizens had voted in the
election. They cited studies which suggested that not only
were his claims overblown, but the number of illegal aliens
that voted was practically nonexistent.
However, it turns out that those studies ignored some very
vital details. According to a research group that has been
poring over old election data, millions of noncitizens have
voted in previous elections, which suggests that the same
thing happened in the 2016 election.
Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked
at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that
every two years questions a sample size of tens of
thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are
noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.
Just Facts’ conclusions confront both sides in the illegal
voting debate: those who say it happens a lot and those
who say the problem nonexistent.
In one camp, there are groundbreaking studies by
professors at Old Dominion University in Virginia who
attempted to compile scientifically derived illegal voting
numbers using the Harvard data, called the Cooperative
Congressional Election Study.
On the other side are the professors who conducted the
study and contended that “zero” noncitizens of about 18
million adults in the U.S. voted. The liberal mainstream
media adopted this position and proclaimed the Old
Dominion work was “debunked.”
There’s only one problem with the Harvard study that was
often cited by the media. It ignores factors which, when
considered, paint a totally different picture of previous
elections that placed Barack Obama in the White House.
“The details are technical, but the figure I calculated is
based on a more conservative margin of sampling error
and a methodology that I consider to be more accurate,”
Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times.
495
He believes the Harvard/YouGov researchers based their
“zero” claim on two flawed assumptions. First, they
assumed that people who said they voted and identified a
candidate did not vote unless their names showed up in a
database.
“This is illogical, because such databases are unlikely to
verify voters who use fraudulent identities, and millions of
noncitizens use them,” Mr. Agresti said.
He cites government audits that show large numbers of
noncitizens use false IDs and Social Security numbers in
order to function in the U.S., which could include voting.
Second, Harvard assumed that respondent citizens
sometimes misidentified themselves as noncitizens but
also concluded that noncitizens never misidentified
themselves as citizens, Mr. Agresti said.
“This is irrational, because illegal immigrants often claim
they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in
the U.S. illegally,” he said.
So what are the results when you consider factors like
that? Agresti believes that between 594,000 and 5.7
million noncitizens voted in the 2008 election. In 2012,
between 1.2 million and 3.6 million noncitizens voted.
Since people who aren’t citizens (especially if they are
illegal aliens) have far more support for Democrats than
Republicans, it’s obvious that the noncitizen vote tipped
the scales for Barack Obama, and won the popular vote for
Hillary Clinton (on paper of course).
I’d imagine that the numbers for the 2016 election are even
higher than what we’ve seen in previous elections. After
all, Trump was running on a campaign that promised to
build a wall on the southern border, and roll back
immigration in a big way. That would have motivated
millions of illegal immigrants to break the law and vote.
When you consider that, it becomes really hard to believe
that Trump lost the popular vote.
And this is one of the biggest reasons why the Democrats
and the Left are more alarmed by Trump than any previous
Republican president. If he makes good on his promise to
deport more illegal immigrants, and prevent millions more
from reaching our nation, it’ll be a long time before they
win any major elections.
 “Referendum” On Donald Trump
Ends In Humiliating Defeat For Leftists
Dems Go Into Meltdown Mode As Handel Defeats Ossoff
Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.Com
June 21, 2017

An election that the New York Times

said “was largely seen as a referendum
on the first months of Donald J. Trump’s
presidency,” ended in humiliating defeat
for leftists as Republican Karen Handel
beat Jon Ossoff despite being outspent
by a margin of 7 to 1.

One has to praise the NY Times for at least being honest in

admitting the Georgia Congressional race was a
referendum on Trump. As soon as it became clear Ossoff
was going to lose, other leftists went into denial mode.
You can bet if the Democrat had won, they’d be
celebrating it as a damning repudiation of Trumpism.

Ossoff spent a staggering $22 million on the campaign

compared to Handel dropping just $3 million – a replay of
how Trump defeated Hillary despite being vastly
outgunned financially.

A crowd burst into a Trump chant as Handel thanked the

President and VP Mike Pence.

Polls that showed Ossoff 5 points ahead just last week
were again proven wrong, with the final outcome
representing a 10 point polling error swing in favor of
Handel.
Instead of analyzing why they lost, leftists reacted with the
usual deluge of temper tantrums, with actor Willie Garson
calling Handel an “unqualified cracker,” a racial slur he
subsequently deleted but refused to apologize for.
.
496
“Of course, it’s only a matter of time until
someone at CNN and/or MSNBC alleges
that Russia stole the election or
thunderstorms suppressed the minority
vote…you know, because it simply can’t be
that American’s just aren’t buying into their
failed, Big Government policies anymore,”
remarked Zero Hedge.
 Sean Hannity Likens Trump-Russia
Investigation To ‘Birther And Truther Conspiracies’
A Stab At Truthers Or A Stab A Dems?
By Shepard Ambellas
June 21, 2017
(INTELLIHUB) — Sean Hannity flipped the script on
proponents of the everlasting fake Russian narrative during
a Tuesday night segment of his Fox News show, by
likening the investigation to ‘birther’ or ‘truther’
conspiracy theories.
497
While Hannity’s comments may be offensive to actual
birthers and truthers alike, he may have taken the stab
knowing that it would hurt Democrats the most by calling
them what they despise the most.
“[…] they won’t stop pushing this phony
Russia-Trump collusion narrative, despite
no evidence, as a matter of fact, evidence
now to the contrary,” Hannity said. “This
has now become like Russia-Trump
conspiracy, birther conspiracies, you
know, sort of truthers.”
For the record, the so-called ‘birthers’ were right. It’s been
proven that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery,
for a fact.
 Fake News Alert: Trump Lawyer Sekulow Says NO,
Prez Is NOT Under Investigation For Obstruction
By: JD Heyes
Date: June 21, 2017
Last week President Donald J. Trump tweeted out his
disgust over a Washington Post report claiming that
“independent” counsel Robert Muller had expanded his
probe into potential Russian interference and Team Trump
collusion in the November election to include an
“obstruction of justice” inquiry.
The Post, citing several unnamed, anonymous sources
again, claimed that Mueller’s expanded inquiry stems from
Trump’s alleged ‘pressuring’ of fired FBI Director James
Comey to drop an investigation into the president’s first
national security advisor, Michael Flynn — an allegation
which, by the way, Trump denies:
The special counsel overseeing the
investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016
election is interviewing senior intelligence
officials as part of a widening probe that
now includes an examination of whether
President Trump attempted to obstruct
justice, officials said.
Only, it’s not true, according to one of the president’s
lawyers, Jay Sekulow, who tried to make that point during
a contentious back-and-forth with Fox News Sunday host
Chris Wallace.
“Nothing’s changed since James Comey
said the President was not a target or a
subject of investigation,” Sekulow said.
498
“Well, but, you don’t know that he isn’t
under investigation now, do you,” Wallace
replied.
“No one’s notified us that he is, so I can’t
read people’s minds, but I can tell you this
– we have not been notified that there is an
investigation of the President of the United
States,” he answered.
Sekulow has further clarified that what the president was
responding to was The Post’s report. But in a subsequent
appearance on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning, he
added that there was no need for Mueller to be
investigating an obstruction claim, based on what has been
leaked to The Post, The New York Times and other
“mainstream” media outlets, because the president was
acting under his constitutional authority.
He said that Trump’s firing of Comey was not only well
within his Article 1 authority, but also was in response to a
recommendation from the No. 2 official at the Justice
Department, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,
who wrote a memo expressing a lack of confidence in
Comey continuing to serve as FBI director. And by the
way, though Democrats have attempted to portray
Comey’s firing as an attempt by Trump to get the FBI’s
‘Russia investigation’ shut down, it continues to this day.
“In that letter, there is a recommendation
for the removal of James Comey, [Trump]
had been thinking about that as well,”
Sekulow said. “He then takes action. …And
now, according to the Washington Post
theory, he’s under investigation for taking
the action the Department of Justice told
him to take.
 “When … you lay the case out like that …
there’s nothing to investigate,” Sekulow
added.
(RELATED: 11 months later, STILL no proof of
Trump-Russia collusion; Dem lawmaker confirms)
But what if the “investigation” isn’t any more than what
Trump has said it is, a political “witch hunt?” Then it
becomes problematic, as Harvard constitutional law
professor Alan Dershowitz, certainly no conservative, has
now said.
Also appearing on Monday’s “Fox & Friends” program,
Dershowitz said that the ‘Russia’ probe into Team Trump
has become “too political.”
.
499
He added that Mueller was opening himself and his team
up to legitimate criticism that the probe could turn political
because he has hired attorneys who have donated and
worked for Democrats.
“In a partisan atmosphere like this, you
have to be so careful not to give the other
side the ability to claim prejudice. And I
think they have given the other side the
ability to claim prejudice,” he said.
“This is becoming very political, when you
have the Justice Department itself being on
both sides, prosecuting the president —
possibly — and also serving as defense
witnesses for the president,” he continued.
“This is just becoming too political on both
sides.”
 Russia-Gate Flops As Democrats’ Golden Ticket
By Robert Parry
June 21, 2017
Exclusive: The national Democrats saw Russia-
gate and the drive to impeach President Trump
as their golden ticket back to power, but so far
the ticket seems to be made of fool’s gold, writes
Robert Parry.
The national Democratic Party and many liberals have bet
heavily on the Russia-gate investigation as a way to oust
President Trump from office and to catapult Democrats to
victories this year and in 2018, but the gamble appears not
to be paying off.
A sign at the Women’s March on Washington points out that the
demonstration attracted a larger crowd than Donald Trump’s
inauguration. Jan. 21, 2017. (Photo: Chelsea Gilmour)
The Democrats’ disappointing loss in a special election to
fill a congressional seat in an affluent Atlanta suburb is
just the latest indication that the strategy of demonizing
Trump and blaming Russia for Hillary Clinton’s 2016
defeat may not be the golden ticket that some Democrats
had hoped.
Though it’s still early to draw conclusive lessons from
Karen Handel’s victory over Jon Ossoff – despite his
raising $25 million – one lesson may be that a Middle
America backlash is forming against the over-the-top
quality of the Trump-accusations and the Russia-bashing,
with Republicans rallying against the image of Official
Washington’s “deep state” collaborating with Democrats
and the mainstream news media to reverse a presidential
election.
500
Indeed, the Democrats may be digging a deeper hole for
themselves in terms of reaching out to white working-class
voters who abandoned the party in Pennsylvania, Michigan
and Wisconsin to put Trump over the top in the Electoral
College even though Clinton’s landslide win in California
gave her almost three million more votes nationwide.
Clinton’s popular-vote plurality and the #Resistance,
which manifested itself in massive protests against
Trump’s presidency, gave hope to the Democrats that they
didn’t need to undertake a serious self-examination into
why the party is in decline across the nation’s heartland.
Instead, they decided to stoke the hysteria over alleged
Russian “meddling” in the election as the short-cut to bring
down Trump and his populist movement.
A Party of Snobs?
From conversations that I’ve had with some Trump voters
in recent weeks, I was struck by how they viewed the
Democratic Party as snobbish, elitist and looking down its
nose at “average Americans.” And in conversations with
some Clinton voters, I found confirmation for that view in
the open disdain that the Clinton backers expressed toward
the stupidity of anyone who voted for Trump. In other
words, the Trump voters were not wrong to feel “dissed.”
Hillary Clinton at the Code 2017 conference on May 31, 2017.
It seems the Republicans – and Trump in particular – have
done a better job in presenting themselves to these Middle
Americans as respecting their opinions and representing
their fears, even though the policies being pushed by
Trump and the GOP still favor the rich and will do little
good – and significant harm – to the middle and working
classes.
By contrast, many of Hillary Clinton’s domestic proposals
might well have benefited average Americans but she
alienated many of them by telling a group of her
supporters that half of Trump’s backers belonged in a
“basket of deplorables.” Although she later reduced the
percentage, she had committed a cardinal political sin: she
had put the liberal disdain for millions of Americans into
words – and easily remembered words at that.
By insisting that Hillary Clinton be the Democratic
nominee – after leftist populist Bernie Sanders was pushed
aside – the party also ignored the fact that many
Americans, including many Democrats, viewed Clinton as
the perfectly imperfect candidate for an anti-Establishment
year with many Americans still fuming over the Wall
Street bailouts and amid the growing sense that the system
was rigged for the well-connected and against the average
guy or gal.
In the face of those sentiments, the Democrats nominated a
candidate who personified how a relatively small number
of lucky Americans can play the system and make tons of
money while the masses have seen their dreams crushed
and their bank accounts drained. And Clinton apparently
still hasn’t learned that lesson.
Citing Women’s Rights
Last month, when asked why she accepted hundreds of
thousands of dollars for speaking to Goldman Sachs,
Clinton rationalized her greed as a women’s rights issue,
saying:
“you know, men got paid for the speeches they
made. I got paid for the speeches I made.”
The Wall Street bull statue by Arturo Di Modica
Her excuse captured much of what has gone wrong with
the Democratic Party as it moved from its working-class
roots and New Deal traditions to becoming a party that
501
places “identity politics” ahead of a duty to fight for the
common men and women of America.
Demonstrating her political cluelessness, Clinton used the
serious issue of women not getting fair treatment in the
workplace to justify taking her turn at the Wall Street
money trough, gobbling up in one half-hour speech what it
would take many American families a decade to earn.
While it’s a bit unfair to personalize the Democratic
Party’s problems, Hillary and Bill Clinton have come to
represent how the party is viewed by many Americans.
Instead of the FDR Democrats, we have the Davos
Democrats, the Wall Street Democrats, the Hollywood
Democrats, the Silicon Valley Democrats, and now
increasingly the Military-Industrial Complex Democrats.
To many Americans struggling to make ends meet, the
national Democrats seem committed to the interests of the
worldwide elites: global trade, financialization of the
economy, robotization of the workplace, and endless war
against endless enemies.
Now, the national Democrats are clambering onto the
bandwagon for a costly and dangerous New Cold War with
nuclear-armed Russia. Indeed, it is hard to distinguish their
foreign policy from that of neoconservatives, although
these Democrats view themselves as liberal
interventionists citing humanitarian impulses to justify the
endless slaughter.
Earlier this year, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found
only 28 percent of Americans saying that the Democrats
were “in touch with the concerns of most people” – an
astounding result given the Democrats’ long tradition as
the party of the American working class and the party’s
post-Vietnam War reputation as favoring butter over guns.
Yet rather than rethink the recent policies, the Democrats
prefer to fantasize about impeaching President Trump and
continuing a blame-game about who – other than Hillary
Clinton, her campaign and the Democratic National
Committee – is responsible for Trump’s election. Of
course, it’s the Russians, Russians, Russians!
A Problem’s Deep Roots
Without doubt, some of the party’s problems have deep
roots that correspond to the shrinking of the labor
movement since the 1970s and the growing reliance on
big-money donors to finance expensive television-ad-
driven campaigns. Over the years, the Democrats also got
pounded for being “weak” on national security.
Further, faced with Republican “weaponization” of attack
ads in the 1980s, many old-time Democrats lost out to the
Reagan Revolution, clearing the way for a new breed of
Democrats who realized that they could compete for a slice
of the big money by cultivating the emerging coastal elites:
Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and even elements
of the National Security State.
President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter
Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day,
Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)
By the 1990s, President Bill Clinton and the Democratic
Leadership Council defined this New Democrat,
politicians who reflected the interests of well-heeled
coastal elites, especially on free trade; streamlined
financial regulations; commitment to technology; and an
activist foreign policy built around spreading “liberal
values” across the globe.
Mixed in was a commitment to the rights of various
identity groups, a worthy goal although this tolerance
paradoxically contributed to a new form of prejudice
among some liberals who came to view many white
working-class people as fat, stupid and bigoted, society’s
“losers.”
So, while President Clinton hobnobbed with the modern
economy’s “winners” – with sleepovers in the Lincoln
bedroom and parties in the Hamptons – much of Middle
America felt neglected if not disdained. The “losers” were
left to rot in “flyover America” with towns and cities that
had lost their manufacturing base and, with it, their vitality
and even their purpose for existing.
Republican Fraud
It wasn’t as if the Republicans were offering anything
better. True, they were more comfortable talking to these
“forgotten Americans” – advocating “gun rights” and
“traditional values” and playing on white resentments over
racial integration and civil rights – but, in office, the
Republicans aggressively favored the interests of the rich,
cutting their taxes and slashing regulations even more than
the Democrats.
The Republicans paid lip service to the struggling blue-
collar workers but control of GOP policies was left in the
hands of corporations and their lobbyists.
502
Though the election of Barack Obama, the first African-
American president, raised hopes that the nation might
finally bind its deep racial wounds, it turned out to have a
nearly opposite effect. Tea Party Republicans rallied many
white working-class Americans to resist Obama and the
hip urban future that he represented. They found an
unlikely champion in real-estate mogul and reality TV star
Donald Trump, who sensed how to tap into their fears and
anger with his demagogic appeals and false populism.
The run-down PIX Theatre sign reads “Vote Trump” on Main Street
in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. July 15, 2016. (Photo by Tony Webster
Flickr)
Meanwhile, the national Democrats were falling in love
with data predicting that demographics would magically
turn Republican red states blue. So the party blithely
ignored the warning signs of a cataclysmic break with the
Democrats’ old-time base.
Despite all the data on opioid addiction and declining life
expectancy among the white working class, Hillary
Clinton was politically tone-deaf to the rumbles of
discontent echoing across the Rust Belt. She assumed the
traditionally Democratic white working-class precincts
would stick with her and she tried to appeal to the
“security moms” in typically Republican suburbs by
touting her neoconservative foreign policy thinking. And
she ran a relentlessly negative campaign against Trump
while offering voters few positive reasons to vote for her.
Ignoring Reality
When her stunning loss became clear on Election Night –
as the crude and unqualified Trump pocketed the electoral
votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin – the
Democrats refused to recognize what the elections results
were telling them, that they had lost touch with a still
important voting bloc, working-class whites.
Rather than face these facts, the national Democrats – led
by President Obama and his intelligence chiefs – decided
on a different approach, to seek to reverse the election by
blaming the result on the Russians. Obama, his intelligence
chiefs and a collaborative mainstream media insisted
without presenting any real evidence that the Russians had
hacked into Democratic emails and released them to the
devastating advantage of Trump, as if the minor
controversies from leaked emails of the Democratic
National Committee and Clinton’s campaign chairman
John Podesta explained Trump’s surprising victory.
The crowd at President Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017.
(Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)
As part of this strategy, any Trump link to Russia – no
matter how inconsequential, whether from his businesses
or through his advisers – became the focus of Woodward-
and-Bernstein/Watergate-style investigations. The obvious
goal was to impeach Trump and ride the wave of Trump-
hating enthusiasm to a Democratic political revival.
In other words, there was no reason to look in the mirror
and rethink how the Democratic Party might begin
rebuilding its relationships with the white working-class,
just hold hearings featuring Obama’s intelligence
chieftains and leak damaging Russia-gate stuff to the
media.
But the result of this strategy has been to deepen the
Democratic Party’s reliance on the elites, particularly the
self-reverential mavens of the mainstream media and the
denizens of the so-called “deep state.” From my
conversations with Trump voters, they “get” what’s going
on, how the powers-that-be are trying to negate the 63
million Americans who voted for Trump by reversing a
presidential election carried out under the U.S.
constitutional process.
A Letter from ‘Deplorable’ Land
Some Trump supporters are even making this point
publicly. Earlier this month, a “proud deplorable” named
Kenton Woodhead from Brunswick, Ohio, wrote to The
New York Times informing the “newspaper of record” that
he and other “deplorables” were onto the scheme.
.
503
New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)
“I wanted to provide you with an unsophisticated
synopsis of The New York Times and the
media’s quest for the implosion of Donald
Trump’s presidency from out here in the real
world, in ‘deplorable’ country. … Every time you
and your brethren at other news organizations
dream up a new scheme to get Mr. Trump, we
out here in deplorable land increase our support
for him. …
“Regardless of what you dream up every day, we
refuse to be sucked into your narrative. And even
more humorously, there isn’t anything you can do
about it! And I love it that you are having the
exact opposite effect on those of us you are
trying to persuade to think otherwise.
“I mean it is seriously an enjoyable part of my
day knowing you are failing. And badly! I haven’t
had this much fun watching the media stumble,
bumble and fumble in years. I wonder what will
happen on the day you wake up and realize how
disconnected you’ve become.”
So, despite Trump’s narcissism and incompetence – and
despite how his policies will surely hurt many of his
working-class supporters – the national Democrats are
further driving a wedge between themselves and this
crucial voting bloc. By whipping up a New Cold War with
Russia and hurling McCarthistic slurs at people who won’t
join in the Russia-bashing, the Democratic Party’s tactics
also are alienating many peace voters who view both the
Republicans and Democrats as warmongers of almost
equal measures of guilt.
While it’s certainly not my job to give advice to the
Democrats – or any other political group – I can’t help but
thinking that this Russia-gate “scandal” is not only lacking
in logic and evidence, but it doesn’t even make any long-
term political sense.
 The Real Purpose Behind
The Russian/Trump Conspiracy Propaganda
Brandon Smith
June 22, 2017
Just after the US presidential election in 2016 I published
an article titled ‘Order Out Of Chaos: Defeat Of The Left
Comes With A Cost’, covering a rather difficult subject
matter, namely the concept of “4th Generation Warfare”
and how it is used by establishment elitists to defeat
popular resistance to their agenda of centralization and
globalization. 4th Gen tactics are confusing to many
because most people think in terms of single movements
and direct correlations; they think that a punch thrown is a
punch intended to strike, rather than intended as a feint or
misdirection.
I’ll put it another way – some people play chess and they
only see the attack in front of them. Others play chess and
they see the attack three moves ahead. 4th gen warfare is a
“three steps ahead” style of fighting that focuses on a very
specific goal: Tricking the enemy into destroying himself,
or enslaving himself, so that you don’t have to take any
risks by moving against him directly. That is to say, 4 th gen
warfare is first and foremost about psychology. That which
you see with your eyes is usually not what is actually
happening.
For example, when predicting the election win of Donald
Trump and the passage of Brexit, I based my conclusions
on a 4th gen strategy. According to the behavior and
rhetoric of globalists and their organizations at the time, it
seemed to me that they were allowing sovereignty and
conservative movements to gain a foothold in the political
arena. They were letting us THINK that we were winning.
This accomplishes a few things – it takes conservatives off
their guard and convinces them to think in terms of
defending government rather than overthrowing
504
government. The corruption has not changed, but now we
have a vested interest in keeping the system going and
attempting to change it “from the inside.” I hope it is clear
to the majority of liberty activists today that this is a naive
notion.
Conservatives are also now willing to argue in favor of the
election system, because many of them think that because
Donald Trump “won” the system must be at least partially
legitimate. News Flash: Our election system has been
fraudulent for decades. The only candidates that ever make
it past the DNC and the RNC filters are the candidates the
elites WANT the public to choose from.
The American public is also now viciously divided over
Trump’s ascendance to the White House. The political left
has been driven to the point of utter insanity, not that they
weren’t already stark raving mad to begin with.
Conservatives are next to be targeted with psychological
manipulation, as the leftist zealotry pushes us towards the
other end of the spectrum and a potentially dangerous
mindset of rationalizing a totalitarian response. Where
extreme social divisions exist, civil unrest and war are not
far behind.
Finally, the existing economic and social framework of the
US in particular has a finite lifespan. Economic instability
is rampant as I noted and evidenced in last week’s article,
and this has been a process ongoing since the initial 2008
credit and derivatives crisis. The old structure of America
is being deliberately torn down to make way for a new
structure; a single global edifice in which we are not a
nation but a feudal vassal with no ideas of sovereign self
determination. That said, the old world cannot be torn
down outright. The globalists do not plan to take any
blame for the crisis that would inevitably follow. Enter
Trump, the perfect scapegoat for the next stage of fiscal
collapse, and perhaps a pied piper convincing enough to
lure numerous conservative groups into taking the blame
as well.
Trump, a seeming enemy of the globalist agenda, takes
office, then surrounds himself with the same bankers and
globalists he admonished during his campaign. He
continues his anti-globalist rhetoric, but his actions tend to
help them. Conservatives, desperate for a hero on a white
horse to ride in and stop the rushing tide of cultural
Marxism, were given one…just not in the manner they
were hoping for.
In the meantime, the establishment has sought to keep
social tensions high. How? The political left has been
played like a marionette since the election with a narrative
of “Russian conspiracy.” You see, hatred is
psychologically exhausting. Mobs tend to dissipate and
become impotent over time. It is hard to sustain the hatred
of a large mass of people without consistent propaganda.
Thus, it is important to give people a reason to hate; a
reason that fuels perpetual reinforcement. For leftists, the
desire to hate Trump runs deep. They think he represents
everything that stands in opposition to their ideology, and
zealots cannot tolerate the existence of opposing ideals.
But there has to be more. The left has to be convinced that
Trump is a thief, a thief so heinous that he stole an election
with the help of a foreign power.
Now, not only is Trump the anti-christ to leftists, he is also
a false president – a pretender to the throne. This narrative
is more than enough to keep the left frothing at the mouth
for months if not years.
As many analysts have pointed out, there is absolutely no
evidence whatsoever that Trump “stole” the election, let
alone colluded with the Russian government to steal the
election. Former FBI director James Comey’s recent
testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
produced nothing; no memos, no paper trail, zip, zilch. The
very existence of the “Comey memos” is likely a farce.
But here is where I break with many in the liberty
movement – some analysts assume that Trump is being
“targeted” and that the goal is to remove him from the
White House. This makes little sense to me. If the elites
wanted to stop Trump they would have done it during the
RNC selection process just as they did to Ron Paul, and
just as the DNC did to Bernie Sanders.
Clearly, Trump is more valuable to them sitting in the Oval
Office, as I outlined above. The Russian circus is going
nowhere because it was never meant to go anywhere. It is
distraction and drama, a soap opera for the ignorant
masses. Trump will not be removed from office. If he does
end up impeached, the impeachment will fail. As I have
said since before the election, the establishment needs
Trump as president.
So, if I am correct and the Russian conspiracy narrative is
not intended to take Trump down, what is it intended for?
As stated earlier, this is 4th gen warfare, and the intended
target for propaganda is not always the obvious target.
As noted, leftists are the initial target. They will continue
to believe that Trump is a Russian collaborator because
they want to believe it, regardless of how absurd the whole
505
idea is. They will ignore the fact that there is no evidence
to support the accusation. They will embrace the
propaganda wholeheartedly and develop more violent
methods to express their outrage.
The secondary target of the Russian conspiracy
manipulation is conservative groups.
Here is the reality of our predicament; the US system is
going to move into the next phase of collapse under
Trump’s watch. Period. The math is undeniable. Every
economic indicator except stocks is in severe decline, the
Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to deliberately
ignite greater instability and time is running out. I believe
that this phase will begin before the end of 2017. When the
next downturn arrives on the doorstep and in the
pocketbooks of the average American, the leftists and most
of the world will blame Trump as an “incompetent
buffoon” or a “vitriolic fascist”.
Just as the elites need to make Trump and conservatives
the best possible scapegoat for the left; they also need a
perfect scapegoat for the political right. The narrative will
be turned against the leftists and conservatives will
exclaim that Trump was not able to reverse economic
damages “created by the Obama administration” because
leftists used the fake Russian conspiracy as a means to
undermine him at every opportunity. Leftists will be
labeled economic and political saboteurs, and this
accusation will work to a point, because it is partly true.
Finally, as America’s decline accelerates, Eastern nations
will without a doubt decouple completely from the US
dollar as the world reserve currency and begin using the
IMF Special Drawing Rights basket structure as a
replacement. Russia will most likely lead this charge along
with China. Americans will blame Russia in part for the
demise of the dollar’s buying power around the world.
And, the rest of the world will blame the U.S. for the
dollar’s demise due to U.S. “imperialism” and overt
sanctions against Russia. They will say we had it coming.
Perhaps you have noticed a particular pattern here? Every
piece of the narrative I have outlined has already been
initiated, if perhaps only in early-to-mid stages of
development. This is an open dialogue common in the
mainstream. And in every case, the offered culprit behind
the downfall of America is always someone other than the
banking elites. Anyone other than the banking elites.
Leftists and socialists around the globe will blame Trump
and conservative principles. Conservatives will blame the
left and their obstructions of Trump. The West will blame
the East. Globalists will blame “populists” and nationalists,
and nationalists will be scrambling to protect their ground
by any means necessary, including unconstitutional
measures, which will only help the globalists in the long
run.
A core catalyst for this geopolitical blame game is the
Trump presidency and the use of the Russian conspiracy to
ensure that the left remains crazy, inspiring the right
towards extreme measures. Again, this is not about
removing Trump, it is about manipulating the left; it is
about using the Left’s cultural Marxism to trigger an iron-
fisted reaction from the political right.
In my recent article ‘Operation Temperer – U.K. Will
Likely Institute Martial Law Measures Within A Year’, I
warned readers that the UK government has already set in
motion martial law measures in response to a growing
number of Islamic terrorist attacks. In the US, I think the
same march towards totalitarianism will occur, but for
reasons beyond foreign terrorism. Economic uncertainty
coupled with a volatile left hellbent on supplanting the
506
presidency by any means necessary may very well be
exploited by Trump and the elites surrounding him to
establish martial law measures in the US. And, I have little
doubt that a portion of conservatives will cheer this action.
If this takes place and conservatives come out in majority
support, then the globalist use of 4th Gen warfare will have
succeeded. They will have won. For if conservatives
abandon the Constitution, then no one will be left to
defend the principles and heritage it represents. We will
have destroyed ourselves, and the elites will have barely
lifted a finger to make this happen. The game can be
changed entirely, but only if we are smart enough to
recognize the narrative for what it is, and only if we turn
our sights on the globalists instead of hyperfocusing on the
scapegoats they offer us.
 Trump Done Trolling The Media: No Comey ‘Tapes’
Hasn’t It Been Fun To Watch Trump Drive Official Washington Crazy,
While He Plays Them Like A Fiddle?
Posted On June 22, 2017

“With all of the recently reported electronic

surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and
illegal leaking of information, I have no idea
whether there are ‘tapes’ or recordings of
my conversations with James Comey, but I
did not make, and do not have, any such
recordings.”

(National Sentinel) Executive Branch: President Donald

J. Trump has trolled the “mainstream” media (and
Democrats) for more than a month now, teasing the idea
that there may be recordings of his conversations with
now-fired FBI Director James Comey. Turns out…there
aren’t, as the president admitted today in a series of tweets.

The president tweeted on May 12 after firing Comey that

the former FBI director “better hope that there are no
‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the
press!” Trump explained today that he merely made the
claim in an effort to get Comey to testify honestly to the
Senate Intelligence Committee, when it occurred.

However, Trump obviously trolled Comey as well, as The

Daily Caller notes:

Comey said that this tweet inspired him to

leak details about his conversations with
Trump to the press. The House Intelligence But honestly, hasn’t it been fun to watch Trump drive
Committee also sent a letter to White official Washington crazy, while he plays them like a
House Counsel Don McGahn on June 9 fiddle?
asking whether the tapes exist and, if they
do, to turn them over before June 23.
And we’re only five months into his first term.
Trump tweeted Thursday:
.

507
508