deep state

The Scandal Reaches Barack Obama

We now finally have evidence linking Obama to the Spygate scandal:

Screen Shot 2020-06-24 at 7.22.24 PM.png

“Shocking”? I don’t know, Senator. I’ve been expecting this for years.

Anyone who has been following this thing closely since the beginning has known that Obama knew the whole time what was going on. But now we have some proof, in the form of Peter Strzok’s hand-written memos about the Flynn ambush.

Not only that, but we have Biden being involved, too. Add another scandal to the list along with Ukraine.

Here is a photo of the hand-written Strzok note. It’s kind of tough to make out:

Screen Shot 2020-06-25 at 12.15.00 AM

The third line down says “VP: ‘Logan Act'” as in it was Biden who suggested using the Logan Act as a pretense to go after Flynn.

“P” has got to mean President, as in President Obama.

“D” means FBI Director James Comey. According to Strzok’s notes, Comey said “Flynn –> Kislyak [Russian Ambassador] calls but appear legit.”

I wish I could transcribe more of it but his handwriting is hard to read.

Obama is also quoted as saying, “Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it.” With, of course, “it” meaning the Flynn “investigation.”

Is this the bombshell we’ve been waiting for? No, I don’t think so. There’s still more that should and hopefully will come out.

I want ’em all in cuffs. Obama, Biden, Hillary, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, Strzok, Samantha Power, Sally Yates. All of ’em.

LBJ Killed JFK: The 56th Anniversary of the Coup of ’63

56 years ago today, also on a Friday, at around 12:30pm CST, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas. While most Americans consider the Kennedy Assassination a tragic day in American history, that would only be true if the Official Narrative™ of the “lone nut” assassin were true.

But the reality is it’s more than a tragedy: given that Kennedy was assassinated not by a “lone nut” but by a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by the most powerful men in the country, November 22, 1963 was the day The Deep State took power and the American Republic ended in all but name.

Most Americans reject the Official Narrative™ regarding the Kennedy Assassination, which states that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut named Lee Harvey Oswald. The Official Narrative™ claims that Americans don’t want to believe the beloved 35th President was killed for no reason at all, and so they cling to wild “conspiracy theories”–such as the “grassy knoll,” the mob, the Cubans, or the Soviets–in a vain effort to bestow some form of meaning on Kennedy’s untimely death.

But while most Americans reject the idea that Oswald was a lone nut who acted alone and that Kennedy’s death was not part of any grand conspiracy, most Americans are also quite cloudy on the truth behind what happened on Friday November 22, 1963 in Dallas. In other words, while Americans know Oswald didn’t act alone, they are not certain who was really behind Kennedy’s assassination. Americans’ feelings toward the Kennedy assassination can be best characterized as a vague distrust of the Official Story.

I’ve spent the past few weeks doing some research on the matter and I believe I now have a general understanding of what really happened: the main culprit behind the Kennedy assassination was then-Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, as well as other high-ranking government officials who wanted JFK gone.

I am certainly not claiming to be the first person to advance this theory, especially given that I have come to believe it through the work of others who have looked into the matter. But my aim here is to provide some clarity on the Kennedy Assassination for those who only know that they reject the Official Narrative™ but don’t have a coherent alternative explanation, as well as to place the JFK assassination into proper context in American history.

Obviously, Johnson stood to gain the most from the assassination: the moment Kennedy was pronounced dead, LBJ was sworn in as the 36th U.S. President. Johnson’s motive was as clear as day, and it’s a wonder more people don’t view him as the prime suspect.

In any murder mystery, the best strategy is to look for the person with the strongest motive to carry out the murder, and LBJ undoubtedly had the strongest motive to get Kennedy out of the way. Not only did he personally dislike the Kennedys, he had everything to gain from getting them out of the way.

Because JFK was his superior, LBJ largely tolerated President Kennedy, and vice versa. Kennedy didn’t much care for Johnson, either.

But LBJ didn’t hold anything back when it came to the President’s younger brother Bobby, also the U.S. Attorney General.

LBJ biographer Robert Caro characterized Johnson’s feelings towards Bobby Kennedy as “hatred,”:

“You don’t want to use words like this as a historian, but hatred is the right word to describe Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson,” Caro said. “They hated each other from the first time they met. Someone said the first time they met, it was like two strange dogs walking into a room and there was a low growl and the hair rises on their neck. It never stops. … (Robert Kennedy) can humiliate Johnson and he humiliates him at every opportunity and then with the crack of a gunshot, the world is reversed and Johnson has the power over Bobby Kennedy.”

Awfully convenient for Lyndon Johnson, no? It really is interesting just how well things worked out for LBJ following JFK’s assassination.

In 2011, the Daily Mail reported that in the wake of her husband’s murder, Jackie Kennedy privately expressed her belief that LBJ was behind the assassination:

“Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.

The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.

She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald – long claimed to have been a lone assassin – merely part of a much larger conspiracy.”

After all, the assassination did take place in Johnson’s home state of Texas. If ever there were a place where LBJ could execute a cover-up from the ground-up, where he had the most pull and clout and connections, it was in Texas. It just makes sense.

In 2007, Rolling Stone ran a lengthy piece in which it was claimed that the late notorious former CIA operative E. Howard Hunt–a man who was part of both the JFK assassination and the Watergate burglary–admitted on his deathbed to his son that LBJ was the mastermind of the JFK assassination:

“[I]n Miami, with [E. Howard Hunt’s son] Saint by his bed, and disease eating away at him, and him thinking he’s six months away from death, E. Howard finally put pen to paper and started writing. Saint had been working toward this moment for a long while, and now it was going to happen. He got his father an A&W diet root beer, then sat down in the old man’s wheelchair and waited.

E. Howard scribbled the initials “LBJ,” standing for Kennedy’s ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under “LBJ,” connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that’s never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer’s name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer’s name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales’ name, with a line, the framed words “French Gunman Grassy Knoll.”

So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that’s the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.

“By the time he handed me the paper, I was in a state of shock,” Saint says. “His whole life, to me and everybody else, he’d always professed to not know anything about any of it. But I knew this had to be the truth. If my dad was going to make anything up, he would have made something up about the Mafia, or Castro, or Khrushchev. He didn’t like Johnson. But you don’t falsely implicate your own country, for Christ’s sake. My father is old-school, a dyed-in-the-wool patriot, and that’s the last thing he would do.”

Then there’s also the story about what LBJ allegedly said to his mistress, Madelein Duncan Brown, the night before the assassination took place. Watch from the 2:36 mark:

She claims Johnson, in a rage, said to her, on the night of November 21, “After tomorrow, those sons of bitches will never embarrass me again!”

Given that Johnson was the obvious and immediate beneficiary of Kennedy’s death, and that the assassination took place in Johnson’s home state of Texas, it appears to me likely that Johnson was behind it.

LBJ had the motive, but he needed to have backing. There’s no way coup could’ve been pulled off if only LBJ wanted to get rid of Kennedy. There had to be others with the same motive. And there were.

Certainly J. Edgar Hoover, the notorious head of the FBI and arguably the most powerful man in America for nearly four decades prior, was a part of the conspiracy. Bolstering the case that Hoover was part of the plot is this:

“In 1964, just days before Hoover testified in the earliest stages of the Warren Commission hearings, President Lyndon B. Johnson waived the then-mandatory U.S. Government Service Retirement Age of 70, allowing Hoover to remain the FBI Director “for an indefinite period of time.”

In 2017, the Trump Administration authorized the release of previously classified documents pertaining to the Kennedy Assassination. One of those documents was this  particular memo from J. Edgar Hoover:

“Referring to Nicholas Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general at the time, Hoover dictated: “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”

It’s not clear from the memo whether Hoover thought there might have been a conspiracy but didn’t want it to be known or whether he sincerely believed Oswald acted alone and hoped to head off public fear and confusion.”

If Oswald truly was the “lone assassin,” then why would Hoover be so concerned with convincing the public he was?

As far as a motive for Hoover, it is said that Hoover and the Kennedys never liked each other. In 1987, there was even a TV miniseries called “Hoover vs. the Kennedys,” which detailed the deep rift between the two sides. Apparently Hoover had tried to blackmail Kennedy over his affairs and feared Kennedy would fire him.

But the primary agency behind the assassination was undoubtedly the CIA. Notorious for orchestrating foreign coups and assassinations, the Kennedy assassination was the CIA’s first ever domestic coup and assassination. What, you think the CIA wouldn’t do that here if it felt its institutional interests were threatened by the President?

The thing to know about government agencies is that they inevitably become more and more self-interested over time. The “national interests” take a back-seat to the interests of the agency, and by the 1960s, the CIA, which was founded in the late 1940s as a re-organization and rebranding of the WWII intelligence agency the OSS, had become very powerful and unaccountable. The CIA had come to believe it, rather than the democratically-elected President and Congress, knew best how to manage America’s foreign affairs.

When Eisenhower, in his farewell address in January 1961, warned of the growing power of the “Military industrial complex,” that included the CIA. The Military Industrial Complex wanted to ramp-up the war in Vietnam, but in October, 1963–a month before he was assassinated–JFK signed National Security Action Memorandum 263, which authorized the withdrawal of 1,000 of the 16,000 total U.S.military personnel in Vietnam by the end of December, and said that the goals of our Vietnam military operation would be achieved by 1965.

Upon taking power, LBJ pretended to agree with the assessment of NSAM 263, but by August of 1964, the entirely fabricated Gulf of Tonkin Incident would provide Johnson an excuse to massively escalate the Vietnam War–just as the Military Industrial Complex wanted all along. The CIA, of course–the beating heart of the Military Industrial Complex–was heavily involved in American operations in Vietnam dating all the way back to 1955.

In the 1950s under Allen Dulles (the longest-serving CIA Director in U.S. history), the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossaddegh, deposed democratically-elected Guatemalan Prime Minister Jacobo Arbenz, carried out the MKUltra mind control project (which the media would have you believe was both a failure and a conspiracy theory), and in 1961 bungled its attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro (Bay of Pigs).

President Kennedy was so furious over the Bay of Pigs debacle that he was reported by the New York Times to have said he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Instead he fired Allen Dulles, but left the CIA itself largely intact. This was likely the move that turned the CIA–and of course the hugely powerful Dulles–against him and ultimately sealed his fate. One week after Kennedy was assassinated, newly sworn-in President LBJ appointed Allen Dulles as one of the seven commissioners on the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy’s death–or, more likely, cover it up.

There were undoubtedly more people than just LBJ, Hoover and Dulles involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But they were the biggest names behind the coup.

What about the alleged shooter himself, Lee Harvey Oswald? He never confessed to the shooting, and on the night of the assassination, he declared his innocence and said “I’m just a patsy!

It’s one thing for Oswald to claim he’s innocent and that they’ve got the wrong guy, but it’s another entirely thing for him to say “I’m just a patsy!”

That would indicate he knew more about conspiracy to the kill the President, and was more than just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oswald proclaiming to be a patsy is a tacit admission that there was a wider conspiracy behind the killing. He knew he was set up to be the fall guy.

Oswald was correct that he was “just a patsy.” He knew there was a larger network that had set him up to take the fall. And that’s precisely why he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby not even 48 hours after Kennedy was pronounced dead. A loose-end tied-up.

Somehow Jack Ruby (real name Jacob Rubenstein) was able to kill Oswald while Oswald was in police custody. Ruby was able to make it into the basement of the police station where Oswald was in the process of being transferred to an armored car, get in with a group of reporters, and then get a clean shot at Oswald at point-blank range.

According to Ruby’s Wikipedia page (meaning information about him that the Uniparty is okay with the public knowing), Ruby was a career criminal and lowlife:

“There was evidence indicating Jack Ruby had been involved in the underworld activities of illegal gambling, narcotics, and prostitution.

A 1956 FBI report stated that their informant, Eileen Curry, reported that in January of that year, she moved to Dallas with her boyfriend, James Breen, after jumping bond on narcotics charges. Breen told her that he had made connections with a large narcotics setup operating between Texas, Mexico, and the East, and that “in some fashion, James got the okay to operate through Jack Ruby of Dallas.”

Former Dallas County Sheriff Steve Guthrie told the FBI that he believed Ruby “operated some prostitution activities and other vices in his club” since living in Dallas.

Dallas disc jockey Kenneth Dowe testified that Ruby was known around the station for “procuring women for different people who came to town.”

Is it a stretch to say that some law enforcement agency like J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI made Ruby kill Oswald? They certainly had a lot on Ruby and probably threatened to put him away for a long time if he didn’t comply with them.

Ruby was then sentenced to death by a jury in Dallas, but the decision was appealed and Ruby was granted a new trial. Before this trial could be completed, however, Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism in 1967.

Let’s get back to Oswald. As for the actual shooting itself, here are the details:

  • JFK’s limo was traveling at about 11mph.
  • Oswald was allegedly situated in the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and was 81 meters (265ft) away from Kennedy when he fired the killing shot.
  • Oswald allegedly fired the three shots from a bolt-action rifle in a span of six seconds, maintaining his aim on a moving target while using the bolt-action rifle.
  • Of the three shots Oswald allegedly fired, the first was said to have missed, the second hit Kennedy in the upper back, and the final shot hit the President in the side of the head.

Seems like an awfully tough shot. And it’s odd that the first shot was said to have missed given that you’d expect the first shot to be the most accurate, not the least. Think about it.

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura tried to replicate the shot with the same rifle at the same distance and was unable to get three shots off in less than about nine seconds. And his target was stationary, unlike Oswald’s:

Now it’s certainly possible that Oswald was a phenomenal shot and pulled off the assassination himself. But an investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that there was “a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President” and that the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed.” That’s the official conclusion of a U.S. Congressional Committee.

The Committee claims the fourth shot missed, but if you watch the Zapruder film of the assassination, the killing headshot appears to have hit Kennedy from the front given the way his head snaps back and left:

This is why the “grassy knoll” theory is so popular.

However, even if the fourth shot missed, as the Committee claimed, the fact that a U.S. Congressional Committee went on-record and claimed there were two shooters decimates the credibility of the Official Story™. For goodness sake it is all based on the claim that Oswald was a “lone nut” who acted alone.

The purpose of this post is to get into the conspiracy to kill JFK rather than debate how the assassination truly unfolded on that fateful Friday, so I won’t spend much more time discussing the shooting itself, but if you’re interested in this subject I’d recommend checking out this video of Joe Rogan debating the “Single bullet theory”:

The thing is, it doesn’t ultimately matter whether Oswald was the lone shooter or whether there were other shooters. The heart of the matter here is whether or not Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy. Oswald may well have fired the killing shot all by himself, but the real question is whether or not you believe he acted entirely alone and was simply a lone nut.

For most Americans, the answer to that question is no. It does not seem plausible that a President could be killed for no reason at all. But that’s what Official Washington and its television propaganda department would have you believe.

Trust your instincts. Do not allow “experts” and “authority figures” to overrule your common sense and gut instincts. Do not be distracted or confused by their long and complex explanations. They try to muddy the waters by using big words and using terminology you don’t understand, but don’t lose sight of the only things that matter here: the who, how and why.

Who killed JFK? How did they pull it off? Why did they do it?

It doesn’t take an 880-page Warren Report to answer these simple questions, but they would have you believe it does.

The gatekeepers go into lengthy and absurd explanations on how a single bullet ricocheted all throughout JFK’s body and then managed to hit Texas Governor John Connally, where it also ricocheted around and then exited, whereas common sense would tell you simply: there were multiple gunmen.

This country would be so much better off if people simply trusted their common sense and didn’t listen to the spin doctors and lying “authorities.”

Most crimes are rather simple, but the gatekeepers’ job is to complicate simple matters in order to obfuscate the truth. If a President is murdered and a number of powerful people had good reasons to try to get rid of him, it’s a good bet that they were behind the murder. That’s it.

To understand why something happened, it’s important to look at the aftermath: who got what they wanted because of the event? For example, gun controllers get what they want after mass shootings: gun control. The government got what it wanted after 9/11: endless wars in the Middle East and vastly expanded surveillance powers.

It’s easy to understand these major events when you look at them this way.

It is glaringly obvious that LBJ was behind the Kennedy Assassination given that it took place in his home state and he was the single greatest beneficiary from it. Yet the Deep State and its minions in the media did an excellent job muddying the waters, casting doubt into Americans’ minds and causing us to override our common sense and instincts.

***

So how should we view the Kennedy Assassination in the context of American history? Well, if you believe that LBJ was behind it, then it cannot be viewed as anything other than a full-scale coup d’etat, which is why Mark Gorton refers to it as the “Coup of ’63“. I recommend reading Gorton’s essay, because it does a good job putting it all into context.

But again: the takeaway is that the JFK assassination should not be viewed as merely a tragedy but also a full-scale coup.

Though killed for different reasons, JFK was killed in essentially the same manner as was Julius Caesar: betrayed in a plot by other high-ranking government officials. At least the Roman Senate had the decency to own the fact that they collectively murdered the Caesar. The Cabal behind the JFK plot blamed it all on a patsy and their propagandists in the media still maintain that “lone gunman” Official Narrative™️ 56 years later.

So what is the relevance of the Coup of ’63 to today’s America?

It’s no secret that the Deep State is currently in the middle of yet another attempt to oust President Donald Trump, but so far they’ve kept their attempts to remove him strictly in impeachment, rather than assassination, territory.

(Although a story the other day suggests that someone may have tried to poison Trump.)

So this can mean a few things:

  1. Either Trump has not yet posed a serious threat to them to make them desperate enough to try to kill him.
  2. Our Deep State in 2019 has gone soft compared to the outright animals who were running the show in the 1960s.
  3. They feel like killing Trump would make him a martyr and make his political movement more powerful than ever, whereas they feel impeachment is a far better way to discredit him.

Remember, the same people that pulled off the JFK assassination also pulled off the Watergate Coup in ’74, so they’ve got experience with both ways to carry out a coup. Given the way Americans view Kennedy today (near-universal admiration and reverence) vs. the way people view Nixon today (widespread disapproval, consensus that he’s the most corrupt and nefarious President in history), it should be obvious that the impeachment route is the better way for the Deep State to carry out a coup d’etat.

(And yes, I am aware that Nixon wasn’t impeached. But he only resigned because his impeachment and conviction were inevitable and he knew it.)

So I don’t expect the Deep State to try to assassinate Trump. At least not yet–they’re not desperate enough for this yet.

But understanding the Coup of ’63 makes it much easier to understand what’s going on today with Trump. There exists a shadow government in Washington that calls the shots, and when the President is not under their control, they will go to extraordinary lengths to get rid of him.

Whatever you want to call them: the Cabal, the Deep State, the Uniparty, the oligarchs, the men behind the curtain, the puppeteers–they all refer to the same people.

November 22, 1963 was the day they officially seized power, and they still have it today.

Of course, the original conspirators are long dead, but they passed the baton on to succeeding generations of the Deep State.

New York Times: Yes, the Deep State is “Alive and Well” and is Trying to “Bring Down Trump”

From outlandish rightwing conspiracy theory to confirmed by the New York Times:

But they obviously try to put a spin on it by saying it’s just Honest Public SERVANTS who are trying to save us from Trump.

They’re doing this for your own good, you ungrateful peasants! (Even though the header picture they chose for the article clearly has a dark and shadowy vibe to it.)

The most annoying part of this–besides them attempting to gang-rape 250 years of American democracy–is them trying to act like they’re the Good Guys the whole time.

I’m sorry but you cannot have it both ways. You can’t be executing an obvious anti-democratic coup to destroy a duly-elected President while also being the good guys.

Just own it, you slimy bastards. Own the fact that you are the bad guy, the tyrants, the sinister cabal.

Now, people might nitpick here and say that this is the opinion section of the New York Times, but come on: we all know the opinion section is just where they put the material they can’t publish in the “news” section because it’s too obviously partisan.

The Opinion section has the blessing of the Editors one way or another. We all know how this works.

The New York Times has confirmed the existence of the Deep State as well as the fact that it is actively trying to undo the result of the 2016 election–and, presumably, rig the result of the 2020 election.

Ukraine Story Shows Deep State Still Desperately Trying to Take Down Trump

You didn’t think they’d just give up after their Russian Collusion story went down in flames, did you?

Of course not. Anti-Trump (or more accurately, Anti-You) bureaucrats in the federal government, particularly the intelligence community, are still persisting in their efforts to overturn the result of the 2016 election nearly three years after the fact.

The latest attempt, which I discussed last week, has to do with Trump and a phone conversation he had with the President of Ukraine in late July.

Well, the real, actual scandal has to do with Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine, but the Democrats are focused on Trump’s attempts to investigate and expose Joe Biden’s corrupt dealings in Ukraine, and so that, rather than Biden’s blatant corruption, is what everyone’s talking about.

In other words, the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for making efforts to expose a crime and then elect the guy who committed the crime itself.

Yeah, I know.

As ridiculous and obviously made-up as this whole “story” may seem to you and I, the media’s obsessive coverage of it has helped it blow up to the point where a lot of “normies” out there are buzzing about “impeachment.” In my experiences over the past week or so, people whom I’ve never heard talk about politics prior to this were talking about “impeachment.” They have absolutely no idea why Trump is supposedly about to be run out of office, but they’re aware of the impeachment talk.

But while the conversation is mostly centered on Democrats’ calls for impeachment, it’s important to detail just how this fiasco came together, because it wasn’t an accident.

The media coverage, and Democrat Politicians’ public grandstanding, are only the end results of a deeper and very deliberate process that begins with the intelligence community, which remains vital in tee’ing up Democrat politicians’ calls for impeachment in the Trump Era. Just as with the intelligence community’s dirty tricks in concocting the Russiagate story.

Here’s the general outline: Intelligence community operatives feed phony stories about Trump to the media, the media amplifies the phony stories and dishonestly frames them to reflect as negatively as possible on Trump, and then the Democratic politicians take it from there.

The Ukraine story, for example, originated from a “whistleblower” in the CIA. A John Brennan acolyte, no doubt.

The incomparable Victor Davis Hanson summarizes the “whistleblower’s” account:

“In the complaint are all the now-familiar tell-tale signs of pseudo-exactness, in the form of Mueller-report-like footnotes and page references to liberal media outlets such as Bloomberg, ABC, and the New York Times. There is the accustomed Steele-dossier scare bullet points. We see again Comey-memo-like disputes over classification status with capital letters UNCLASSIFIED stamped as headers and footers and TOP SECRET lined out.

Scary references abound to the supposed laws that the legal-eagle whistleblower believes were violated. In sum, there is all the usual evidence of an administrative-state bureaucrat, likely to be some third-tier Brennan or Clapper-like intelligence operative, who is canvassing disgruntled White House staffers, writing a report that imitates intelligence-department formats, combing the Internet, in “dream-team” and “all-star” footnote fashion, for scare quotes and anti-Trump stories, and then likely having it dressed up in legalese by an activist lawyer. Take all that away, and one is left with “I heard.”

Personally, I have no interest in dissecting and analyzing the “complaint” form because to do so would only lend it legitimacy and solidify the perception that it ought to be taken seriously. If you want to read more about the nitty gritty details of the complaint, by all means check out other honest and MAGA-aligned sites as I’m sure there’s no shortage of high-quality point-by-point analyses and rebuttals. But in my view it’s completely unnecessary to do so with a story that should be dismissed out of hand and not taken seriously at all.

Because what, exactly, are we talking about here? What’s the crux of the issue?

It’s that Trump wants to investigate Biden’s corruption in the Ukraine, and Democrats are desperate to prevent that from happening. Biden’s crackhead son was somehow making $50k a month from a Ukrainian oil company, and when a government prosecutor there tried to investigate the obvious corruption going on, Vice President Biden himself personally intervened and threatened to withhold $1 billion of aid money to Ukraine until the prosecutor going after his son’s company was fired–which he was.

Do not be distracted by these ridiculous claims about Trump’s “abuse of power.” Investigating real, actual crimes is not an abuse of power, even if the crimes were committed by Democrats.

Beyond that, though, the origin of this “whistleblower report” is all the information you need to know not to believe a single word of it.

After all, this story comes from the CIA, an organization which specializes in overthrowing governments, spreading disinformation and conducting horrible human experiments like MK-Ultra. What, you think they wouldn’t do that stuff to us? Of course they would. John Brennan has made it perfectly clear that the CIA despises not only Donald Trump but the people who made Trump president. You think the CIA has any loyalty at all to the American people? Not a chance.

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: the entire intelligence community–not just the leadership but also the “rank and file” we’re constantly told is comprised of patriotic Americans who are sadly given a bad name by their corrupt superiors–is out of control. The IC–thousands of government bureaucrats whose names we’ve largely never heard and whom we never voted into power–decided nearly three years ago that America made the wrong choice in the 2016 election, and so they have been working tirelessly since then to overturn it.

When Chuck Schumer famously warned Trump in late 2016 that the IC has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you,” this Ukraine whistleblower story is exactly what he was talking about. As was the whole Russian Collusion Hoax we were caught up in for two-and-a-half years.

And so this is why in my view the simple fact that this “whistleblower” is from the CIA is more than enough reason to believe this whole story is fraudulent and malicious. Just scroll through former CIA Director John Brennan’s insane Twitter ravings and you’ll see why the CIA is never again to be trusted. That madman has wrecked the credibility of the whole department for a generation minimum. Comey has done the same for the FBI.

This “whistleblower” is the new Peter Strzok, or Christopher Steele, or Andrew McCabe–take your pick. The Ukraine “whistleblower” is the latest in a long line of formerly anonymous IC officials who are trying to overthrow the duly-elected President. When the identity of this “whistleblower” is finally revealed, his name will go down along with all the rest as another Deep State co-conspirator.

But here’s the best part of it all, the smoking gun which confims all this to be a giant scam: just last month, the intelligence community changed the rules regarding whistleblowers, removing the requirement that they have first-hand witnessing of wrongdoing. Sean Davis of The Federalist just reported this on Friday, and its significance can’t be overstated:

“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

And then, lo and behold, a whistleblower without first-hand evidence, brings this completely fake Ukraine story to light.

Why suddenly change the rules so that anyone in government who so much as heads a rumor can be a “whistleblower” now, if not to make it easier to fabricate stories like this?

This anonymous CIA operative now considered a “whistleblower” wouldn’t have been able to qualify for that title a few months ago.

Seems awfully convenient. But of course the media will try to keep this quiet. The whistleblower’s credibility isn’t supposed to be the story, damnit!

As I wrote last week about the Ukraine story, this isn’t only the latest in a long line of desperate, impulsive attempts to Get The Orange Man–there’s more to it than that. A major part of it is ass-covering for Joe Biden: the political establishment must not allow Trump to investigate Biden’s crimes in Ukraine.

Trump’s Presidency Has Revealed the Dark Truth About the US Government

Two and a half years into his presidency, US President Donald Trump has revealed that the President is not truly in control of the federal government.

In theory, the Constitution vests the executive power in the President. He is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, the highest-ranking federal government official. What the President says goes: the executive branch carries out the will of the President, as well as Congress when Congress passes laws.

This is how government is supposed to work: the People’s Elected Representatives, i.e. the President and Congress, give the orders, and the unelected executive branch staff and officials carry out those orders. The executive branch doesn’t get to make policy; it only exists to carry out the orders of democratically-elected officials like the President. In theory they exist only to turn the President’s vision into reality. In theory.

But that’s not how it actually works in America these days.

In reality, there’s the President, and then there’s the Government. The two are not necessarily one and the same, and the latter does not really have to answer to the former if it chooses not to.

Watch this clip of President Trump openly discussing the existence of a military industrial complex which pushes for endless wars in the Middle East. It’s quite an extraordinary thing for the US President to go on-record and say:

Transcript:

Well, I’m the one that talks about these wars that are 19 years, and people are just there, and don’t kid yourself, you do have a military-industrial complex. They do like war. You know, in Syria, with the caliphate, so I wipe out 100 percent of the caliphate. … I said I want to bring our troops back home. The place went crazy. You have people here in Washington, they never want to leave,” Trump said.

I said, you know what I’ll do, I’ll leave a couple hundred soldiers behind, but if it was up to them, they‘d bring thousands of soldiers in. Someday people will explain it, but you do have a group, and they call it the military-industrial complex. They never want to leave. They always want to fight,” he continued.

Wait, I thought the President was in control? I thought if he wanted the troops out of Syria, the troops leave Syria. Right? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? Guess that’s only in theory. In practice, I guess there are other people who have a say in the matter—even though they weren’t elected by the American people.

This is what people mean by “the deep state” or the Permanent State or the Bureaucratic State. The Deep State is the name that has stuck, but they all basically mean the same thing. That is the true government; the unelected, unaccountable officials–whose names most Americans have never heard–pursuing their own agendas at literally all costs, and above all others, including that of the democratically elected President.

Another case in point of the President not really being in control of the government: Trump ordered John Brennan’s security clearance be revoked almost a year ago, but it hasn’t been.

“Once again, more evidence has emerged proving not only that the “deep state” is real, it has become an existential threat to the president of the United States and the security of the country he was elected to lead.

The New York Times published a report noting that Attorney General William Barr would be ‘professionalizing’ the effort against the intelligence community (the deep state’s core element) after POTUS Donald Trump “somewhat clumsily last year to revoke the security clearance of the former C.I.A. director who played a role in opening the Russia investigation.”

That would be former CIA Director John Brennan, one of the most vociferous anti-Trump voices on the planet clearly the guy who facilitated “Spygate” on behalf of a criminal president, Barack Obama.

Further, the Times noted, POTUS “then wanted to release classified documents to prove he was the target of a ‘witch hunt.’ Both attempts petered out, hampered by aides who slow-rolled the president and by Justice Department officials who fought Mr. Trump, warning he was jeopardizing national security. “The White House never followed through with the complex bureaucratic work it would have taken to strip the clearance, according to a person familiar with the process.”

The White House “never followed through,” huh? That’s the New York Times’ way of saying the Deep State overruled the President’s orders. Jon Dougherty remarks:

“Complex bureaucratic work?” Is the Times kidding? How about a) the president ordered it; so b) staffers carry out whatever work is necessary to fulfill the president’s order. Like other administrations.

The real story, then, is that a sitting, duly elected president’s orders have been purposefully ignored as though staffers within the intelligence community bureaucracy have the authority and the right to do so.”

John Brennan still has a security clearance against the President’s wishes. Why? Because the Deep State wishes it so.

Sen. Rand Paul said just as much:

“From the tone and tenor of the Times report, you get the impression that Brennan’s clearance was never revoked, and that elements within the deep state deliberately refused to follow the president’s order to do so.

That’s exactly what happened, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who says he witnessed the order first hand. “What do you think about this recent New York Times story that Brennan still has his security clearance?” CNN host Brianna Keilar asked Paul Wednesday evening during an appearance on the little-watched network.

“People talk about the Deep State, now the Deep State’s actually protecting their own and not listening to the President’s orders,” Paul said. “I was sitting in the White House when President Trump said ‘I want his security clearance taken’ and I saw the order given. I saw the Chief of Staff was there, not the current Chief of Staff, the previous Chief of Staff.”

There’s the President, and then there’s the Government, and more and more these days it seems as if they are two separate entities.

We’re now learning that just because you install an outsider–a person at odds with the Uniparty agenda–in the White House, does not mean you can actually change the government’s policies. Just because we changed the President doesn’t mean we have changed the Government. Over the decades, the power of the unelected deep state has grown exponentially, and now it is collectively more powerful than the President.

The corruption runs very, very deep in Washington. The Uniparty’s power is entrenched more deeply than any of us could’ve imagined just a few short years ago. This is not to say Trump hasn’t made any difference, but it is to say that Trump winning the 2016 election was merely the beginning of what will be a very long, difficult battle against a sprawling, ossified beast.

What Trump has revealed since becoming president is that the President isn’t really in charge. It’s not a pleasant truth; it should bring no one any pleasure that this has been confirmed, but at least we know it for sure now.

Robert Mueller Revealed His True, Deep State Colors Today

It’s the zombie story that refuses to die: Trump must be impeached over. . . something!

Now it’s about OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE! (On an investigation that never should’ve happened and was in fact opened illegitimately and probably as part of a treasonous criminal conspiracy against Trump.)

That’s where we’ve been for the past several months. And that’s what brings us to today, with Special Counsel Robert Mueller issuing a prepared speech about his investigation in front of TV cameras.

Mueller’s remarks amounted to him revealing his true colors as a Uniparty Deep State overlord and passing the impeachment baton to Congressional Democrats.

The CBS News article on Mueller begins:

“Special counsel Robert Mueller, in his first public statement about his Russia probe, did not exonerate President Trump, instead explaining why his office never considered indicting him for obstruction of justice.

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so,” he told reporters at the Justice Department Wednesday.”

You might be wondering: “Wait, what about Russian Collusion? Wasn’t that the whole point of the Mueller investigation? Why would they lead with ‘obstruction of justice’?”

Keep up, sillyhead: When Mueller first released his report back in March, it firmly slammed the door on any hopes of nailing Trump for colluding with Russia. Not a single person was charged with anything remotely relating to a conspiracy with Russia. All hopes of uncovering a conspiracy between Trump and Putin were stomped out. And so at that point, our “media,” in its desperation to cling to anything that might keep the dream of impeachment alive, immediately and seamlessly pivoted to “Obstruction of Justice” and pretended all the hysteria and hyperbole over the past two years was never about Russian Collusion at all.

Because “Obstruction of Justice” (again, on an investigation that never should have been opened in the first place, and which itself was almost certainly orchestrated as part of a grand criminal conspiracy against Trump) was the one thing Mueller kinda, sorta left the door open on.

So Democrats in Congress and the Media immediately picked up the “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!!” thread and have been running with it for the past several months, even though Mueller himself never brought any charges for obstruction against Trump when he had the opportunity to do so.

Anyway, the CBS article continues:

“Mueller also indicated he would decline to testify before Congress, as many Democrats had hoped.

“Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself,” Mueller said. “The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.”

So on one hand Mueller flatly says his office’s report contains everything he has to say on the matter, and that having him testify before Congress would be pointless because he’s already said everything he had to say in his report.

Yet on the other hand, he felt the need to make this public statement today in which apparently his main goal was to stoke the rabid left’s impeachment fervor and keep the dream alive, even though in Mueller’s report–which, again, he claimed said all there was to say on the matter–he declined to prosecute Trump on anything at all.

So Mueller is telling us that his report was the be-all, end-all–but also that it kinda wasn’t. Y’know: *wink wink, nudge nudge.*

If you didn’t get the hint by now, Mueller then went on and made it completely obvious what his reason was for making a public statement today:

“The Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president meant that “charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said, adding that the Constitution requires a “process other than the criminal justice system” to address wrongdoing by a president.”

Translation: “We didn’t charge Trump with a crime because Justice Department policy prohibited us from doing so, not because there were no crimes to charge Trump with.”

Democrats heard that loud and clear.

Hmm, what could Mueller possibly have meant when he said “a process other than the criminal justice system”?

IMPEACHMENT!

But then the cowardly Mueller tried to make it seem as if his main goal–in hinting that Congressional Democrats should impeach Trump–was being fair to Trump:

“It would be unfair to potentially accuse someone of a crime” knowing the issue could not be resolved in the courts, Mueller said.

Yes, Bob: I’m sure the only reason you didn’t charge Trump was because you were just trying to be fair to him. Even though you all but accused him of a crime and recommended Democrats begin impeachment proceedings today.

Sean Davis of the Federalist dissects Mueller’s public statement:

“Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.

“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.”

Gotta love Bob Mueller flipping the entire foundation of American justice on its head.

No court in the history of this country has ever declared someone “innocent.”

What do they say at the end of every court case?

Either “Guilty,” or “Not guilty.”

Never in the history of the United States has the word “Innocent” been used at the end of a court case.

That’s not how it works. Courts don’t find people “Guilty” or “Innocent.” You are either found guilty of the crimes you were accused of, or you are found not guilty.

It is not the goal of a legal proceeding to find someone “Innocent.” The only question that must be answered is, “Is the accused guilty or not?”

Is there enough evidence to convict the defendant of the crimes he is accused of? If so, he is guilty, if not, he is not guilty.

But never has a court declared someone “innocent.” And yet somehow, Robert Mueller, a man who clearly knows better, just stated otherwise on national television in a case that pertains to the President of the United States.

Mueller knew exactly what he was doing. Instead of saying, “The President is not guilty,” he said “We could not prove the President’s innocence,” knowing full well that it has never been the job of any legal investigation in the history of this country to prove someone’s innocence.

John Cardillo brings up an excellent comparison to Ken Starr, the Special Counsel who investigated Bill Clinton in the 1990s:

For anyone out there still unsure of what kind of guy Robert Mueller is, look no further than his statement today. He’s a Uniparty tyrant through-and-through. His goal is the same as Hillary’s, Obama’s, Comey’s, Clapper’s, Brennan’s and the Media’s: overturn the result of the 2016 Presidential election.

 

No, I am Not Celebrating Trump’s Official Exoneration Day

This morning Attorney General William Barr held a press conference discussing the findings of the Mueller Report: no collusion, no obstruction (how one can “obstruct justice” when the charges are completely fabricated is still beyond me–unless, of course, that was the point all along). The Mueller Report will be released today with redactions. I give approximately zero f*cks about what the Mueller Report says because there was never any need for the Mueller Investigation in the first place.

If you want to read about Barr’s press conference, I’m sure you can find great takes all over the place. I’ll include this excerpt of Barr’s statement and that’s it:

Personally, I couldn’t care less about what was said today because it revealed nothing we haven’t already known for over two years: there was no collusion, there was no obstruction of justice.

I almost didn’t write about this. I’m so tired of all this Russia nonsense. At first I just wanted to be done with this whole saga.

But then I realized: the perpetrators of this great act of treason would like nothing more than for us to simply be done with it. They are hoping and wishing for us to have our little “No Collusion!” celebration today and then move on.

Because then, they’ll be let off the hook. They won’t have to answer for their crimes against this country.

Trump may have gotten his justice today in having his name cleared, but the evil people who concocted this whole scheme have not been brought to justice.

They’re all still running free. They’re fixtures on cable news, they’re writing books, traveling the world, giving paid speeches–they’ve escaped justice.

So no, I’m not “basking in the glory” today.

I’m not enjoying watching CNN have a network-wide meltdown.

This is not a happy day. A plot to overthrow a president has been thwarted–yes, that is a good thing, but we should still be furious that it even happened in this country.

The Uniparty elite have turned us into a third world banana republic.

So their latest plot was foiled–they’re just going to try again sooner or later.

You know what would make me happy? If CNN, on account of being forever discredited due to its conduct the past two years, was taken off the air and disbanded, with its executives tried for treason.

I’ll celebrate when the Deep State overlords like Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Obama and all the rest are tried for treason.

Don’t you see the bigger picture here?

There is no accountability for the perpetrators of this great scam. As long as those evil individuals are still free, they will never stop trying to subvert the will of the American people and turn this country into an anti-democratic one-party state.

They spent two years assuring us Trump would be dragged from the White House in handcuffs and thrown in prison. They assured us the President was a Russian asset. They did everything they could to make us believe it, including lying and breaking the law.

And now we’re going to just move on like nothing happened?

There should be hell to pay for every last person that contributed to the Russian Collusion hoax. None of us should be celebrating anything until that happens.

The fabrication and dissemination of the Russian Collusion Hoax is a scandal an order of magnitude greater than Watergate.

Watergate brought down a whole Presidential administration. People went to jail.

We have nothing to celebrate until the evil men and women behind this scandal are brought to justice. A scandal bigger than Watergate requires punishments bigger than those handed out after Watergate.

Tucker on Obama’s Spying

As usual, Tucker nails it:

“There’s no disputing Barr’s first point: Spying on a presidential campaign is a big deal, especially when it was authorized by a rival administration. Imagine if, a year from now, the Trump administration allowed the FBI to surveil officials in the Kamala Harris for president campaign. Imagine if, when caught, Trump pointed to opposition research generated by the RNC as justification for that surveillance. How would the media react to that? Like it was a major, jaw-dropping scandal. And this show would heartily agree. We wouldn’t defend it. Law enforcement should never be used as a partisan political tool, no matter who it benefits.

But the media doesn’t feel that way about Obama’s spying. They refuse to admit it was even spying. Professional dumb person, Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post, attacked the attorney general for daring to bring up the topic at all. She called Barr ‘Trump’s toad.’ CNN, meanwhile, assured it’s viewers that there is ‘little evidence’ that spying occurred. But that’s a lie. There is plenty of evidence. We’ve had it for months. In 2016 and 2017, the FBI wiretapped Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman. Former Trump aide Carter Page was spied on extensively, even though it was obvious from day one that he wasn’t a Russian spy. Last year, we learned that the FBI used an informant to feed them information from inside the Trump campaign. This is all spying. There’s no other word for it.”

Bigger than Watergate.

Bigger than Watergate.

Bigger than Watergate.

Attorney General William Barr Finally Confirms It: Obama Admin. Spied on Trump Campaign

If you followed me on the old Medium site, you know that I’ve been insisting this for about two years:

Spygate is officially confirmed. This is a major turning point in the fight against the Deep State. This is the moment the tables began turning.

You can tell by the look on Democrat Senator Jane Shaheen’s face that AG Barr’s statement is a big deal. She knows the jig is up.

Of course, in order to prevent Senate Democrats’ heads from exploding on the spot, Barr issued the caveat that “we need to see” whether Obama’s spying on Trump was “adequately predicated,” but we already know the answer to that question: no, it was not. The spying was based on the discredited and false Steele Dossier, which the guilty parties knew was bogus the whole time.

The Steele Dossier was merely their fig leaf of legitimacy to validate their maliciously-driven desire to spy on the Trump campaign. They needed some seemingly legitimate reason to initiate the spying, so they paid Fusion GPS to slap together some bogus document that seemingly justified the spying they already wanted to do.

In other words, the desire to spy on Trump came first, the Steele Dossier came second. The latter was slapped together to provide a veneer of legitimacy for the former.

Dan Bongino has a nice summary of why, contrary to Uniparty media lying, it was indeed the Steele Dossier that served as the pretext for the spying.

The “mainstream media” will either ignore or downplay this major moment, but don’t let that fool you into thinking this is unimportant.

If anything, that should underscore just how important Barr’s admission is.

CNN is already on the job:

Screen Shot 2019-04-10 at 12.31.16 PM.png

Evidence?

Evidence?

Now they want evidence?

These vile propagandists push an evidence-free Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory for two straight years and now they have the audacity to demand evidence?

Literally fuck yourselves with the largest vaguely phallic object within arm’s reach.

The Obama Administration, in collaboration with the Hillary campaign, used the false Steele Dossier as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign.

You want “election meddling”? Here it is.

This is a scandal many times worse than Watergate, about which even the most ardent Nixon haters will admit, “It wasn’t the crime, it was the cover-up.”

Well, Spygate is about the crime.

It’s about the cover-up, too, and in that department the main guilty party is the “mainstream media”. Take Washington Bezos Post’s Aaron Blake, for instance:

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1116014899598118912

But it’s mostly about the crime. And this crime goes all the way to the top.

Let the games begin.

Trump Exonerated, but Mueller Report Will Not Change a Thing

Readers of this site, but mainly the old site on Medium before it got deleted, will know that I have rejected this Trump Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory since it began in late 2016.

I have constantly pushed back on everything: every leak, “bombshell,” and confident media declaration that the “Walls are closing in” every step of the way.

I haven’t written about the Russia probe much as of late because it has already been clear for months that there was no collusion or conspiracy with Russia. The whole thing had become boring, tedious. It stopped being fun to debunk the latest “bombshell” report on Trump and Russia because it became abundantly clear there never was any collusion.

But at long last, the day has come where Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his investigation: there was no collusion.

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 7.19.54 PM.png

The reason I have pushed back since the start is because the premise of the whole thing was on-its-face absurd: it required believing Russia can actually alter the outcome of a US presidential election in the first place.

Collusion Conspiracy Theorists could never convincingly explain how Russia altered the outcome of the election. But they were willing to believe the implausible scenario that Russia Made Hillary Lose because in 2016 they had come to believe that her victory in the election was a given, and that there was no way she could possibly lose.

When Trump shocked everyone and won, Uniparty Establishment figures and Democratic voters did not have a reckoning with reality or ask themselves why they didn’t see it coming, and what prevented them from doing so. They didn’t say, “Hey, maybe we’ve been living in a bubble. Maybe we need to expose ourselves to other ideas and news sources so our worlds aren’t shattered like this again.”

No, instead what they did was concoct an outlandish excuse for why their supposedly unstoppable candidate lost to the candidate who supposedly had no chance: “Trump only won because he colluded with Russia!”

The Russia Collusion Conspiracy served two important needs for despondent leftists in the wake of Trump’s victory: it delegitimized the result of the election, and provided a way to hopefully overturn the result of that illegitimate election.

They didn’t believe in the Conspiracy because it was compelling, they believed it because they needed it to be true. Their goal since the election was to get Trump impeached as soon as possible, and the Mueller probe was the most promising means to that end.

In this regard, it was never really about Russian Collusion at all: that was merely a means to an end. It has always been about impeachment, and they will cling for dear life to whatever story they feel can lead them there: Russia Collusion, obstruction, Stormy Daniels, 25th Amendment, whatever. It’s always been about finding a means to an end.

The second reason to have been skeptical of Trump Russia Collusion from the start was the sheer ridiculousness of idea that Trump would actually reach out to Russia and basically sell his soul in exchange for the Presidency.

How could people come to believe that a prominent American businessman and celebrity, who has never before had his allegiance to America questioned, and who was never said to be in bed with the Russians, suddenly became a Russian Pawn in 2016? Where was all the Trump Russia talk before 2016? Trump had been famous for decades prior to running for president and there was never any talk that he was actually a traitor for the Russians.

It was always ludicrous to believe Russia had acquired an American Presidential candidate. It requires a ridiculous belief that the Kremlin is so powerful and omnipotent that it could actually steal the American presidency.

But people didn’t step back and think about how absurd the whole thing was. They didn’t ask themselves if it was more likely that Russia manipulated 63+ million Americans into voting for a Kremlin Pawn, or that the people who voted for Trump did so because he actually, I don’t know, genuinely appealed to them.

The third reason the Russian Collusion Conspiracy was always unbelievable is that as time passed and Republicans in Congress (namely Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows) and in the media (namely Mollie Hemingway, Lee Smith, Andy McCarthy, Michael Doran and Victor Davis Hanson, among many others) began pushing back on the narrative, they found compelling evidence that the whole thing was actually a set-up by the deep state and the media.

In other words, the real conspiracy has been revealed: the Clinton campaign, the Obama intelligence community, and the “mainstream media” worked together to attempt to frame Trump for Russian collusion. The fabrication emerged from them, not from any suspicious activity on Trump’s part. This is a critical distinction because it demonstrates the malicious nature of the whole thing: those peddling the Russian Collusion theory did not simply get it wrong, they knowingly leveled false accusations against this President for the sole purpose of taking him down.

Fourth, Trump Russia Truthers also could never explain how, if it was Wikileaks’ email dumps about Clinton that made her lose, why the public should not have been allowed to learn those **true facts** about Hillary Clinton.

First, during the campaign, they insisted that there was nothing important revealed about Hillary in the Wikileaks emails. Then, when Hillary lost, they claimed it was the Wikileaks emails that made her lose. Obviously both cannot be true, but let’s take them at their word on the last one because it is their official position now.

How is it that revealing true facts about Hillary Clinton constitutes “manipulating” an election, while hiding those very same true facts about Hillary Clinton was not in any way manipulating an election?

This was all lost in the hysteria over Wikileaks: why, exactly, was it bad that the public got to learn more about Hillary? Why should those emails have been kept secret? Only because they reflected badly on her, and many others in the media, in a negative light? I thought transparency was a good thing.

If the emails were full of false information, Clinton Partisans should have said so. But they didn’t. They only claim that the Wikileaks emails hurt Hillary and should have never been released, leading us to the inevitable conclusion that they would have preferred we remain in the dark about Hillary Clinton.

Even if you accept the premise that Wikileaks is a Kremlin “cut out” or whatever the media/Deep State started calling it, and even if you accept the premise that Wikileaks’ actions were the means by which Russia boosted and supported Donald Trump’s campaign, then how exactly does Wikileaks exposing true facts about Hillary Clinton constitute manipulating or rigging an election?

It would seem to me that the concealment of True Facts constitutes rigging an election more than the release of them.

And this is a position taken by all of the hardcore Russia Conspiracy Theorists in the media as well, just not when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Consider that they’ve been saying Trump’s hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and other models he slept with constitutes “manipulating an election” because he prevented the public from knowing the truth about him.

So for those with the capacity for free and independent thought, as well as a distrust of the “media,” it was quite clear all along that the Trump-Russia Collusion conspiracy theory was a load of nonsense.

And this leads to the next major point about the Mueller conclusion: it will not change much.

On our side, it’s not as if Trump supporters can possibly think any lower of the media.

Best case scenario it might cause prominent Republican journalists and pundits, who for some reason still give the “mainstream media” the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of good faith and credibility, to slowly realize the truth.

But on the whole, this will not turn many people against the “media.” If you don’t realize by now that the “mainstream media” is pure Uniparty Propaganda, you never will.

Democrats will not stop believing Trump colluded with Russia. And even the few who do give up the Collusion angle will still not give up the impeachment mission: they will quickly move on to the next pretend scandal.

I can’t tell you how many “IT’S MUELLER TIME” memes I’ve seen in response to Trump’s tweets, or in response to pro-Trump statements on social media: liberals thought it was a given that Mueller would bring down Trump. It was only a matter of time. They were so certain of it and will not just accept that they were massively wrong.

Just look at how out-of-control the Mueller worship was:

D2XBkOLWoAE6yv3.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.02.08 PM.png

coming-soon-fb-fbi-to-a-prison-near-you-every-27587507.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.02.34 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.03.37 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.02.53 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.04.29 PM.png

And here’s my personal favorite:

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.04.59 PM.png

You can buy “It’s Mueller Time” pint glasses, shirts, mugs, signs, buttons and more:

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.06.11 PM.png

I hope it’s starting to sink in just how brainwashed these people are.

I mean, my goodness:

Here we have Bill Maher admitting he’s been brainwashed by the media, and that whatever cable news says, he believes.

This is the leftist mindset in a nutshell: they will not–cannot–accept reality.

This will not cause any additional people to lose faith in the media, including the people for whom this Mueller probe was their reason to get out of bed in the morning. Again, this is because it was never truly about Russian Collusion, but rather impeachment. The impeachment dream is still there even if the Russian Collusion dream is dead.

This will not cause any Democrats to reflect and reckon with reality. They will not think to themselves, “Boy, maybe I’ve misinformed and lied to. Maybe I should start listening to the people who have been calling this Russia business a hoax for the past two years.”

They won’t do that because it was never about letting the facts guide them. They didn’t believe in the Russia Collusion Conspiracy because it seemed to be true, but rather because they needed it to be true. It was based on emotion.

Worst of all, the media will not be held accountable for this, or anything else, ever. The media was doing exactly what it was designed for: relentlessly pumping out Democratic Party propaganda.

If you think there will be consequences for the media after this, you are wrong. They will move on from this like it never happened. Like they didn’t spend the past two-plus years screaming about Russian Collusion and the Walls Closing In and predicting Trump and his family would be carried out of the White House in handcuffs.

The “media” will move right on to the next bogus impeachment pipe dream as if this whole Russia business never happened.

Look at this spin:

A “cover-up”!

Really? I thought Mueller was the most honorable man in America:

Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.05.41 PM.png

Now he’s part of the cover-up?

We don’t have a media. At least, the so-called “mainstream media” is not a media in any real sense: it is 100% a Uniparty propaganda factory.

To understand how bad things have gotten, recall that the New York Times and Washington Post won Pulitzer Prizes for their coverage of a made-up scandal. The Pulitzer Prize is, like the Academy Awards, now worthless and indicative of nothing but producing Uniparty propaganda.

If we actually had a media, this would ruin the careers of loads of prominent television personalities (they don’t deserve to be called journalists) and politicians, namely:

  1. CNN–the entire network.
  2. The Washington Post
  3. The New York Times
  4. Rachel Maddow
  5. Joe Scarborough & Mika Brzezinski
  6. Rep. Adam Schiff
  7. Rep. Jerry Nadler
  8. Rep. Maxine Waters
  9. Rep. Ted Lieu
  10. Benjamin Wittes

But we don’t have a media. We have a Uniparty Propaganda Department. And so none of those people or outlets will be punished or held accountable, because they were simply doing their jobs.