We now finally have evidence linking Obama to the Spygate scandal:
“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:
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.
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.
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.
“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 theNew York Times. There is the accustomed Steele-dossier scare bullet points. We see again Comey-memo-like disputes over classification status with capital lettersUNCLASSIFIEDstamped as headers and footers andTOP 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.
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:
“Well, I’m the one that talksabout these wars that are 19years, and people are justthere, and don’t kid yourself,you do have a military-industrial complex.They do like war.You know, in Syria, with the caliphate, so Iwipe out 100 percent of thecaliphate. … I said I want to bring ourtroops back home. The placewent crazy.You have people here inWashington, they never want toleave,” Trump said.
“I said, you know what I’ll do, I’ll leave a couplehundred soldiers behind, butif it was up to them, they‘d bring thousands of soldiers in.Someday people will explainit, but you do have a group,and they call it themilitary-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.
“Obama made the remark at a campaign fundraiser while criticizing the budget passed by House Republicans. Obama said the Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget would, among other things, cut funding for research.
“I believe in investing in basic research and science because I understand that all these extraordinary companies that are these enormous wealth-generators — many of them would have never been there; Google, Facebook would not exist, had it not been for investments that we made as a country in basic science and research,” Obama said. “I understand that makes us all better off.”
Barack Obama himself admitted that the government helped Google and Facebook get off the ground. The government was present at the beginning when both companies were created.
Let’s play a game of “What’s More Likely?” Is it more likely that the government funded and assisted the origins of Facebook and Google purely out of the goodness of the its heart? Or is it more likely that the government helped start Facebook and Google because they’d be able to assist the government in achieving its goals in areas like mass-surveillance, “counterterrorism” (itself largely a guise for mass-surveillance) and military intelligence?
“But that’s just a nutty conspiracy theory!”
Really? Almost everyone knows (or at least should know) the US Government’s Military/Intelligence community created the internet via its ARPANET project dating back to the late 1960s. Al Gore in 1999 claimed to have “taken the initiative in creating the Internet” during his time in Congress. Though his remark is often lampooned, it still speaks to the widely-acknowledged truth that the Internet was created by the government. Al Gore is mocked because he tried to take personal credit for inventing the internet, not because he said the government created the internet.
Starting from there, why would it be so hard to believe that any of the major companies that dominate the internet today are also of government origin?
For some reason it’s a stretch to believe the government invented Facebook and Google, but it’s not a stretch at all to believe the government invented the internet itself–which it did.
What’s more likely: that the government invented the internet and then just stopped, totally backed off and said, “Okay, American people: This is all for you. We’re done here. Go wild!” Or that the government invented the internet and then continued using it and expanding it and developing an array of internet-based programs that would help the government–specifically its Military/Intelligence divisions–achieve its goals?
“But if Facebook and Google are government fronts, that means they’re lying to us!”
Yes, because of course the Uniparty Oligarchy would never lie to you.
“But I saw the Facebook movie! It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg!”
Right, because Hollywood would never lie to you either.
“THE PENTAGON CANCELED its so-called LifeLog project, an ambitious effort to build a database tracking a person’s entire existence.”
“Run by DARPA, the Defense Department’s research arm, LifeLog aimed to gather in a single place just about everything an individual says, sees or does: the phone calls made, the TV shows watched, the magazines read, the plane tickets bought, the e-mail sent and received. Out of this seemingly endless ocean of information, computer scientists would plot distinctive routes in the data, mapping relationships, memories, events and experiences.”
Facebook is not quite as intrusive into your personal life as LifeLog aspired to be. But it’s pretty close; Facebook checks many of the boxes the Pentagon hoped LifeLog would. Read Cosmo Magazine? Like their page! Watch Game of Thrones? Like its Facebook page! Why would the government need a record of all the plane tickets you’ve bought when people can’t wait to post pictures of every place they visit? If you’re from Florida and you post a picture of yourself in Times Square, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that you bought a plane ticket to New York.
“LifeLog’s backers said the all-encompassing diary could have turned into a near-perfect digital memory, giving its users computerized assistants with an almost flawless recall of what they had done in the past. But civil libertarians immediately pounced on the project when it debuted last spring , arguing that LifeLog could become the ultimate tool for profiling potential enemies of the state.”
As if that wasn’t the point all along.
“Researchers close to the project say they’re not sure why it was dropped late last month. Darpa hasn’t provided an explanation for LifeLog’s quiet cancellation. “A change in priorities” is the only rationale agency spokeswoman Jan Walker gave to Wired News.”
Abrupt cancellation in late January 2004 due to “a change in priorities”? How about a change in the name: guess what also happened on February 4, 2004, the same day Wired published its article about the Pentagon killing the LifeLog project?
“Private-sector research in this area is proceeding. At Microsoft, for example, minicomputer pioneer Gordon Bell’s program,MyLifeBits, continues to develop ways to sort and store memories.
David Karger, Shrobe’s colleague at MIT, thinks such efforts will still go on at Darpa, too. “I am sure that such research will continue to be funded under some other title,” wrote Karger in an e-mail. “I can’t imagine DARPA ‘dropping out’ of such a key research area.”
Karger was right. LifeLog wasn’t canceled. It simply became Facebook.
It’s obvious why the government would rather keep its involvement in Facebook quiet: when you’re asking people to voluntarily share almost every detail of their personal lives, they’re much more likely to do so if it’s with a cool start-up tech company than an explicitly government-run program like LifeLog.
Facebook has convinced people to share where they live, their political and religious views, a list of their friends and acquaintances, hundreds and thousands of personal photos, and provide updates of not only everything they’re doing but everything they’re thinking. Facebook’s algorithms are so advanced that it can find people you know in real life but aren’t friends with on Facebook, and even automatically detect your face in photographs you haven’t been tagged in.
And you’re telling me the government wants nothing to do with Facebook?
In a few short years, not only hundreds of millions of Americans but billions of people around the world willingly handed over more personal information to Facebook than any government intelligence agency could ever dream of obtaining over the course of decades and decades of good old fashioned spying.
Facebook is the intelligence community’s dream program. With the invention of Facebook, all the sudden old-fashioned spying no longer really became all that necessary to obtain information on people. You can just go on their Facebook page and find almost anything you want to know.
And the best part for the government is, people are doing it willingly because all their friends are doing it.
So all together, between Facebook’s social media empire of its namesake site, Instagram and the messaging service WhatsApp, this company has more data on more people than all the spy agencies in the world put together.
Do you really believe a 20-year-old computer nerd built the most expansive intelligence database in history and the government had nothing to do with it?
Let’s put it this way: if the government isn’t currently using Facebook to easily and effortlessly conduct mass surveillance on us, then we have the most bumbling, oblivious, idiotic and incompetent government ever.
“But what if Zuckerberg simply told the government to fuck off when it tried to commandeer Facebook? Facebook is a private company!”
First of all, the government would not come asking Facebook to kindly hand over everything after Facebook was already built up into one of the world’s largest corporations. The government would have gotten to Facebook years ago. If the government was not already in Facebook at the beginning, someone from the Pentagon or CIA would have taken notice very early in Facebook’s lifespan–say 2005, 2006, 2007. They would have strong-armed Facebook right at the beginning after recognizing its staggering potential.
Again, that’s if they weren’t in on Facebook from the very beginning.
The point is, it’s nearly impossible to believe the government simply stood by for the past 15 years and allowed Facebook to amass all the power it has.
But another problem is the assumption that Zuckerberg, and private companies in general, even have the ability to tell the government to fuck off. Do you really think the Pentagon is going to be told to fuck off by a college computer nerd?
The government can do whatever the hell it wants. If you have something the government wants, or needs, it can take it from you. The principle of “eminent domain” does not only apply to private landowners having their land seized by the government to build a freeway overpass on. It applies to virtually anything including private businesses.
Most people know the Fifth Amendment from the “right to remain silent” and not self-incriminate, but most people don’t know the Fifth Amendment also permits the government to seize private property at will. Here’s the full text of the Fifth Amendment with the relevant parts highlighted:
“No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without just compensation….[E]xcept in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger…in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary….”
The relevant part for our purposes here: “No person shall be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without just compensation.”
The Constitution itself allows the government to oblige individuals to relinquish their private property so long as the government pays “just compensation.” And don’t construe this “just compensation” clause to mean “the government has to make you a fair offer for your private property.” Not at all. What it means is, when the government comes to take your property, they have to say, “We’re taking your property, here’s some money for your troubles.” You don’t have the option to say no. It’s not an offer.
I bet most people don’t even know this is in the Constitution.
And with the greatly expanded government powers since 9/11 to act in the name of “national security,” even if the government didn’t already have eminent domain power, do you really think the government couldn’t simply seize control of Facebook in the interest of national security? And this would have been done over a decade ago.
Okay, so you still don’t believe the government is behind Facebook. You consider it believable that the government allowed a 20-year-old nerd to build the most expansive surveillance database in history. You believe the government stood idly by for 15 years while Facebook grew from one user to 2.8 billion. You believe our government is so bumbling and dimwitted that it neverrecognized and co-opted the incredible power of Facebook all this time.
But do you believe other countries’ governments are all equally as bumbling, incompetent and behind-the-times?
Because if our government had never gotten to Facebook, then Russian intelligence would have. And early, too. If not Russia, then the Chinese government. Or perhaps the British would have stepped in and saved our monumentally stupid government from itself before it allowed the greatest surveillance tool in history to fall into the hands of the Russians or the Chinese. They would all have recognized the incredible potential of Facebook in the highly unlikely event our government didn’t.
But apparently it’s believable that none of the most powerful governments on the planet recognized Facebook’s power early on and took control of it because, I guess, “the government doesn’t understand computers.” Yes, only Mark Zuckerberg understands computers. He’s smarter and more forward-thinking than the full might of the Pentagon and the CIA put together. And the Russian FSB. And M15. And Chinese intelligence. They’re all just a bunch of dumb government bureaucrats who “don’t understand computers” and Silicon Valley is to this day lightyears ahead of all of them.
Utter nonsense. Our government created the internet itself. If you think the government is too doddering and old-fashioned to have recognized the potential for Facebook early on, you’re high. For crying out loud, as we just went over above, the Pentagon had the idea for Facebook in early 2003. Even if you stubbornly believe it’s merely a massive coincidence that Facebook came about right around the time the Pentagon was developing its LifeLog project, there is still indisputable evidence that the government had the idea for Facebook well over 15 years ago.
So that would mean that the government had the idea for Facebook, was beaten to the punch by Mark Zuckerberg, a 20-year-old college computer nerd, and then never lifted a finger while Zuckerberg turned Facebook into the greatest surveillance tool in history over the course of 15+ years, even though it had the power to seize Facebook at any point along the way.
When you get around to thinking about Facebook and its relationship with the government, it’s actually far more difficult to believe the government doesn’t control it than that it does.
In light of everything discussed here, when you ask the question, “Does the government own Facebook?” it’s almost impossible to conceive a situation where it doesn’t.
The only way someone could still, after all that, believe Facebook is a private company and not a cut-out of the federal government, is if they are desperate not to believe it. Perhaps some people are not yet ready to reckon with the fact that this country is a lot less free than they’ve been led to believe their entire lives.
That’s understandable. It’s a tough pill to swallow. Especially if you’ve been a daily user of Facebook over the past 10+ years.
As we’ve seen above, it defies nearly all logic and common sense to believe the federal government is not deeply involved in Facebook.
But where’s the actual evidence? Sure, the theory makes a ton of sense, but where’s the actual connection? If the Zuckerberg Story is a myth, then what’s the real story?
That story begins with a venture capital firm called In-Q-Tel. Like most venture capital firms in America, In-Q-Tel invests in promising tech startups, finding them in their early stages and providing them with crucial funding so that they can realize their full potential.
But unlike all the other venture capital firms in America, In-Q-Tel is unique in that it is owned by the CIA. From the Wikipedia page:
“In-Q-Tel (IQT), formerly Peleus and known as In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.The name, “In-Q-Tel” is an intentional reference to Q, the fictional inventor who supplies technology to James Bond. In-Q-Tel’s mission is to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve United States national security interests.”
Even though this is all public information, most Americans are probably unaware that the CIA has its own venture capital firm designed to invest early in the latest tech companies and products that can potentially be of use to the Intelligence Community.
Former CIA Director George Tenet stated of In-Q-Tel:
“CIA identifies pressing problems, and In-Q-Tel provides the technology to address them.”
In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, well before Facebook was founded. Assuming the folks in charge of In-Q-Tel weren’t completely incompetent, they would have almost certainly identified Facebook very early on and put the CIA’s money behind it. After all, In-Q-Tel was founded to do just that.
So did In-Q-Tel invest in Facebook early on? Well, there’s no direct evidence that they did, but from what we do know, it seems likely:
“As far back as 2005, The Washington Post reported that virtually any U.S. entrepreneur, inventor or research scientist working on ways to analyze data had probably received a phone call from In-Q-Tel or at least been Googled by its staff of technology watchers.
One company that happened to be very hungry for startup capital in 2005 was Facebook. Facebook was launched in February 2004 from the Harvard dorm room of Mark Zuckerberg and friends.
The company received its first capital injection of $500,000 from Peter Thiel that summer. The next two capital injections were $12.7 million from Thiel and Accel Partners in May 2005 and then $27.5 million from an Accel-led round of financing that included Thiel, Accel and Greylock Partners in April 2006.
Just for fun, I searched for each of those investors and In-Q-Tel at the same time.
Here is what I found:
Peter Thiel — Took In-Q-Tel funding for his startup firm Palantir somewhere around 2004.
Accel Partners — In 2004, Accel partner James Breyer sat on the board of directors of military defense contractor BBN with In-Q-Tel’s CEO Gilman Louie.
Greylock Partners — Howard Cox, the head of Greylock, served directly on In-Q-Tel’s board of directors.
Now, I’m not saying that the CIA or In-Q-Tel had any direct involvement with Facebook.”
“All I’m saying is that it appears to me that the key early investors in Facebook had direct relationships with In-Q-Tel or In-Q-Tel’s top management at the same time that Facebook was raising capital…
I’m also saying that at this very same time, In-Q-Tel was a company that was very, very interested in gathering the kind of data that Facebook would have to offer. I have not seen any evidence that In-Q-Tel made an investment in Facebook, but if I had In-Q-Tel’s connections at the time Facebook was searching for capital, I probably would have made a phone call to one young Mark Zuckerberg.”
The Facebook-In-Q-Tel connection centers around that guy James Breyer. Breyer, according to his Wikipedia page, is a venture capitalist worth over $2.4 billion largely due to his early investments in Facebook.
“Accel Partners was Facebook’s biggest shareholder after Mark Zuckerberg, owning an 11% stake at the time of the company’s 2012 IPO. In 2005, Breyer led Accel Partners’ $12.7 million deposit at a $98 million valuation in the then ten-employee startup Facebook. Breyer also led the 2004 management buyout of BBN Technologies from Verizon.”
Breyer was the second-largest shareholder in Facebook behind Mark Zuckerberg when the company went public in 2012. Breyer got in at the very beginning for Facebook, and during that time in 2004, Breyer was also involved in the buyout of BBN Technologies, where a man named Gilman Louie sat on the board of directors. Gilman Louie is best known for serving as the first CEO of In-Q-Tel. So at the same time Breyer was investing millions in Facebook, he sat on the board of directors of BBN Technologies with the CEO of In-Q-Tel, making it highly likely Breyer’s investments in Facebook were made partially on behalf of In-Q-Tel.
And yet, when you look through the list of In-Q-Tel’s investments–available on its Wikipedia page–the name Facebook does not appear. Why is In-Q-Tel listed as an early investor in dozens of different companies, but not Facebook?
Well, it’s pretty obvious why the CIA would want to keep its involvement in Facebook secret and without a clear paper trail. The whole idea of Facebook is to get people to willingly share their personal information, and that goal would be hampered pretty significantly if there were a clear, public connection between Facebook and the CIA.
In other words, the CIA–I mean In-Q-Tel–is happy to inform you of its investment in tech companies you’ve never heard of like MemSQL, Destineer, Forterra and Lingotek. But it certainly wouldn’t behoove the CIA to publicize its involvement in Facebook. That kind of defeats the whole purpose of Facebook, doesn’t it?
It seems highly likely that the CIA was involved in Facebook early on through investors like James Breyer, Howard Cox and Peter Thiel, all of whom were connected to In-Q-Tel. These guys all got stupidly rich off of Facebook, but most likely they were investing on behalf of In-Q-Tel in order to muddle the CIA’s connection to the social network. The CIA doesn’t care who gets rich off its investments in Facebook; the CIA was after the technology and access to Facebook those investors enabled.
My guess is that the Pentagon was working on LifeLog since at least early 2003 and essentially merged the project with a little tech startup called Facebook after Zuckerberg was discovered by In-Q-Tel. I would assume Facebook has been sharing everything with the government since 2004. I sincerely doubt Facebook would have become what it is today without the government’s early involvement.
Zuckerberg, for his part, has kept quiet about the government’s involvement because he got insanely rich from Facebook, and because spilling the beans would put his company and his billions in jeopardy. He has everything to lose from revealing the truth.
So what about Google?
Fortunately for us, Google’s involvement with the CIA is much clearer than Facebook’s. We don’t have to speculate all that much.
In 2015, Nafeez Ahmed, a British investigative journalist who formerly wrote for the Guardian and VICE, published a long piece entitled “How the CIA Made Google.” It’s a fascinating story that you should read in full, but here are the relevant excerpts detailing the CIA’s oversight of the work of a Stanford computer science student named Sergey Brin, the man who would go on to found Google with Larry Page:
“In 1994 two young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google’s search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency program of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.
But that’s just one side of the story.
Throughout the development of the search engine, Sergey Brin reported regularly and directly to two people who were not Stanford faculty at all: Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham and Dr. Rick Steinheiser. Both were representatives of a sensitive US intelligence community research program on information security and data-mining.”
Google, like Facebook, is yet another Tech Fairytale of a couple of nerds who seemingly created world-changing technology and founded multi-billion dollar megacorporations essentially by accident:
“Thuraisingham is currently the Louis A. Beecherl distinguished professor and executive director of the Cyber Security Research Institute at the University of Texas, Dallas, and a sought-after expert on data-mining, data management and information security issues. But in the 1990s, she worked for the MITRE Corp., a leading US defense contractor, where she managed the Massive Digital Data Systems [MDDS] initiative, a project sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence, to foster innovative research in information technology.
“We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,” Prof. Thuraisingham told me. “One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community’s MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.”
The government was in on Google from the very beginning:
“In an extraordinary document hosted by the website of the University of Texas, Thuraisingham recounts that from 1993 to 1999, “the Intelligence Community [IC] started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation.” The program funded 15 research efforts at various universities, including Stanford. Its goal was developing “data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data,” including for “query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration.”
In other words, exactly what Google became.
“In her University of Texas article, she attaches the copy of an abstract of the US intelligence community’s MDDS program that had been presented to the “Annual Intelligence Community Symposium” in 1995. The abstract reveals that the primary sponsors of the MDDS programme were three agencies: the NSA, the CIA’s Office of Research & Development, and the intelligence community’s Community Management Staff (CMS) which operates under the Director of Central Intelligence. Administrators of the program, which provided funding of around 3–4 million dollars per year for 3–4 years, were identified as Hal Curran (NSA), Robert Kluttz (CMS), Dr. Claudia Pierce (NSA), Dr. Rick Steinheiser (standing for the CIA’s Office of Research and Devepment), and Dr. Thuraisingham herself.
Thuraisingham goes on in her article to reiterate that this joint CIA-NSA program partly funded Sergey Brin to develop the core of Google, through a grant to Stanford managed by Brin’s supervisor Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman:
“In fact, the Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre’s chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.”
Brin and Page officially incorporated Google as a company in September 1998, the very month they last reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser.”
I’m sure the government was so proud of Sergey Brin and his work, which it funded, and expected nothing at all in return from him. I’m sure the Intelligence Community’s involvement with Google stopped in 1998.
That’s what Thuraisingham essentially tried to claim when Ahmed’s article was first published in 2015:
“There are also several inaccuracies in Dr. Ahmed’s article (dated January 22, 2015). For example, the MDDS program was not a ‘sensitive’ program as stated by Dr. Ahmed; it was an Unclassified program that funded universities in the US. Furthermore, Sergey Brin never reported to me or to Dr. Rick Steinheiser; he only gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s. Also, MDDS never funded Google; it funded Stanford University.”
“Here, there is no substantive factual difference in Thuraisingham’s accounts, other than to assert that her statement associating Sergey Brin with the development of ‘query flocks’ is mistaken. Notably, this acknowledgement is derived not from her own knowledge, but from this very article quoting a comment from a Google spokesperson.
However, the bizarre attempt to disassociate Google from the MDDS program misses the mark. Firstly, the MDDS never funded Google, because during the development of the core components of the Google search engine, there was no company incorporated with that name. The grant was instead provided to Stanford University through Prof. Ullman, through whom some MDDS funding was used to support Brin who was co-developing Google at the time.”
Thuraisingham cleverly tries to claim the MDDS program never funded Google knowing full well that’s not what Ahmed is saying: he’s saying MDDS funded Brin’s research which later became Google.
“Secondly, Thuraisingham then adds that Brin never “reported” to her or the CIA’s Steinheiser, but admits he “gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s.” It is unclear, though, what the distinction is here between reporting, and delivering a detailed presentation—either way, Thuraisingham confirms that she and the CIA had taken a keen interest in Brin’s development of Google.”
Thirdly, Thuraisingham describes the MDDS program as “unclassified,” but this does not contradict its “sensitive” nature. As someone who has worked for decades as an intelligence contractor and advisor, Thuraisingham is surely aware that there are many ways of categorizing intelligence, including ‘sensitive but unclassified.’ A number of former US intelligence officials I spoke to said that the almost total lack of public information on the CIA and NSA’s MDDS initiative suggests that although the program was not classified, it is likely instead that its contents were considered sensitive, which would explain efforts to minimize transparency about the program and the way it fed back into developing tools for the US intelligence community.
Fourthly, and finally, it is important to point out that the MDDS abstract which Thuraisingham includes in her University of Texas document states clearly not only that the Director of Central Intelligence’s CMS, CIA and NSA were the overseers of the MDDS initiative, but that the intended customers of the project were “DoD, IC, and other government organizations”: the Pentagon, the US intelligence community, and other relevant US government agencies.
In other words, the provision of MDDS funding to Brin through Ullman, under the oversight of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser, was fundamentally because they recognized the potential utility of Brin’s work developing Google to the Pentagon, intelligence community, and the federal government at large.”
Again, I highly recommend reading Ahmed’s entire piece. It’s long but I’ve included the most relevant parts for our purposes here. In a later section he details how the Pentagon had been funding Stanford’s computer science department dating back to the 1970s in search of programs that could be of great use to the military and the IC. My impression is that the Pentagon also seeded some other successful software projects that went on to become major corporations during that period–such as SUN Microsystems and Granite, which was eventually absorbed by Cisco Systems–but it only truly hit the jackpot in the late 1990s with Google.
The main point here is that not only was the CIA, represented by Rick Steinheiser, funding Brin’s project which would eventually become Google, Brin was directly reporting to Steinheiser and giving him periodic updates on the search project all the way up until the moment Google was incorporated in September 1998.
Now, tell me what’s more likely to have happened after Brin founded Google in 1998: Steinheiser and Thuraisingham proudly watched their little baby bird, Brin, spread his wings and fly away from the Pentagon-funded nest to found his world-changing company, never to speak again. Or that the CIA and other Pentagon departments remained as heavily intertwined with Google after its official founding as they had been during the research and development stage?
It defies belief to claim the CIA and the Pentagon were simply funding Sergey’s School Science Project and were just so gosh darn proud of him when he turned it into Google. They watched from afar like proud parents as Google went on to make hundreds of billions of dollars and dominate the internet. That’s basically what Thuraisingham is saying. “We were just fascinated by Sergey’s School Project! That’s all!”
The fundamental difference, in my understanding of things, between the government’s involvement in Google and its involvement in Facebook is that Google was originally intended to primarily help the Pentagon efficiently manage, process and and navigate its massive computer and data networks. The fact that Google had immense potential for civilian and commercial use was, if not incidental, then at least secondary: at first, the military/IC just wanted a way to easily and efficiently navigate its enormous database of information in the earliest years of the computer/internet era.
But Facebook, on the other hand, was a fundamentally post-9/11 idea: Facebook, from its very beginning as LifeLog, was designed with spying and mass surveillance in mind. It was only after 9/11 that the federal government became obsessed with data collection and monitoring people. The Pentagon had to figure out how to use the internet to nail the next big terrorist cell before it committed another 9/11. And so that’s how the “database for people” idea was born.
Of course, this isn’t to say that surveillance and monitoring never crossed anybody at the Pentagon or CIA’s mind when they were working with/on Google during the pre-9/11 era. This QZ article explains how as early as 1995, the CIA was interested in finding a way to organize the “World Wide Web” in such a way that terrorists and bad actors could be easily identified and tracked based on what they were doing online:
“The research arms of the CIA and NSA hoped that the best computer-science minds in academia could identify what they called “birds of a feather:” Just as geese fly together in large V shapes, or flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in harmony, they predicted that like-minded groups of humans would move together online. The intelligence community named their first unclassified briefing for scientists the “birds of a feather” briefing, and the “Birds of a Feather Session on the Intelligence Community Initiative in Massive Digital Data Systems” took place at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose in the spring of 1995.
Their research aim was to track digital fingerprints inside the rapidly expanding global information network, which was then known as the World Wide Web. Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could “birds of a feather” be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?
By working with emerging commercial-data companies, their intent was to track like-minded groups of people across the internet and identify them from the digital fingerprints they left behind, much like forensic scientists use fingerprint smudges to identify criminals. Just as “birds of a feather flock together,” they predicted that potential terrorists would communicate with each other in this new global, connected world—and they could find them by identifying patterns in this massive amount of new information. Once these groups were identified, they could then follow their digital trails everywhere.”
So Google was ordained with some degree of surveillance/counterterrorism potential in mind, even in the pre-9/11 era. And this is what makes it all the more likely that the government maintained a close relationship–perhaps even control–with Google after its founding in 1998. But while Google had potential for surveillance, my point is that Facebook is different in that its sole purpose from the start was surveillance. Google was designed to be a way to turn a vast digital ocean of information into an easily navigable and organized database, while Facebook was designed from the start to be a massive database of people.
Which only makes it more likely that Facebook has been run by the CIA from the start. It just makes sense: it built off of the central idea of Google–which is to turn the internet into a massive, easily navigable database–and simply applied it to people.
I’ll admit that it wasn’t until quite recently that I began seriously entertaining the idea that Facebook and Google were not only functioning as arms of the political elite, but were literally founded and directly operated by the political elite.
It was obvious they were on the same side as the Establishment, and working toward the same ends, but I never considered the possibility that they were straight-up Chinese-style State-Owned Enterprises.
I’ll outline my evolution on this line of thinking:
First I thought Big Corporations had become more powerful than the government.
Then I slowly realized, mainly after reading this book, that there are no accidents in politics. That means the Big Corporations, including those in Silicon Valley, only got as big and powerful as they are because the government wanted them to–or, if you prefer, did not stop them from getting so powerful. The government is not a bystander. Barack Obama did the most to promote this idea of the Bystander President and Government that doesn’t have much control over anything at all. Obama was always claiming he heard of his administration’s scandals “in the news,” and shared your anger for his administration’s mishandling of this and that. The common theme was that even though he was President, he was still a bystander who didn’t have much control over anything. This is the opposite of the truth, but it’s exactly what the government wants you to believe.
From bailouts to tax breaks to direct funding by the Pentagon and CIA, the government has its fingerprints on all the big corporations. You only get to be a Big Corporation if you’re either A. willingly doing what the government wants you to do, or B. you were simply created by the federal government itself. Sometimes it’s both A & B.
Why does the government have Big Corporations doing its bidding? Simple: because while the government is constrained in many areas by the Constitution, the private sector is not. The government may not be able to kill free speech, but Facebook and Google certainly can. Plus, regular Americans are largely oblivious to the fact that they’re being tyrannized by the Big Corporations. It’s not as obvious as when the government does it. If Congress passed a law dictating what people can and cannot say on social media, there would immediately be a public outcry over free speech. The law would be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment. This is why they’ve outsourced their assault on free speech to Silicon Valley cut-outs. Regular Americans are far less likely to be skeptical of Big Business™ than they are the government.
It’s funny how our minds work:
“Give up all my personal information to the government? HELL NO!”
“Give up all my personal information to Facebook? Sign me up!”
Americans are largely under the impression that they’re free. No matter what they learn about their government–whether it be about the WMDs in Iraq, the fabricating of evidence of chemical weapon attacks in Syria as an excuse to go to war, the NSA’s widespread spying and surveillance program, or the Deep State-produced Russiagate Hoax that facilitated the Obama administration’s unprecedented weaponization of the intelligence community to spy on the Trump Presidential campaign–Americans still believe they’re free from tyranny.
This is because Facebook is called “Facebook” rather than the Federal Database of Personal Information on All Americans.
This is because Google is called a “Google” rather than “Tell The Government Every Thought That Has Ever Crossed Your Mind Dot Com.”
Way back in 2011, The Onion realized that Facebook was clearly a government project designed to conduct mass surveillance on Americans. The Onion is a parody site, but this hilarious clip hits the nail square on the head:
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:
"Thanks to the special counsel's thorough investigation, we know the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign, or the knowing assistance of any other American."
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.
Prominent Democrats lined up to hammer Attorney General Bill Barr for testifying Wednesday that federal authorities had spied on the Trump campaign in 2016, with one top House Democrat charging that Barr is not acting “in the best interest of the DOJ or the country.”
LOL, wrong. He is absolutely acting in the best interests of the DOJ and America. He’s not, however, acting in the best interests of the Global Crime Syndicate aka the Uniparty aka the Democrats and their Republican lapdogs.
And that’s why House Dems are panicking.
“Despite mounting evidence that the FBI pursued an array of efforts to gather intelligence from within the Trump campaign — and the fact that the FBI successfully pursued warrantsto surveil a former Trump aide in 2016 — House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Fox News that Barr’s loyalties were compromised.”
Being loyal to America is, in a Democrat’s eyes, having compromised loyalties.
“He is acting as an employee of the president,” Hoyer said. “I believe the Attorney General believes he needs to protect the president of the United States.”
Added House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in an interview with the Associated Press: “I don’t trust Barr, I trust Mueller.” And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., accused Barr on Twitter of “peddling conspiracy theories.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., added in a statement that Barr “should not casually suggest that those under his purview engaged in ‘spying’ on a political campaign.”
This is particularly rich coming from Schiff, who has spent the past two years casually suggesting–with zero evidence–that the President of the United States colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
It took two years for Trump’s name to be cleared of Russian Collusion, but Democrats want the Obama Administration cleared in two hours.
Sorry, that’s not how this works.
The way the game is played now in the wake of the Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory is that we make earth-shattering accusations against our enemies and then demand two years of invasive, all-encompassing investigations of them before they can be cleared.
I think we need a multi-year investigation of Barr’s claim.
Check back with us in 2021, Chuck Schumer. Ya miserable fuck.
Eric Holder, Obama’s former Attorney General who once called America a “nation of cowards,” crept out of the woodwork as well:
Now they want evidence, evidence, evidence. How adorable.
And notice they can’t get their stories straight: some are saying there was no spying at all, others, like Holder, are saying the spying was justified.
Which is it, Democrats? It can’t be both.
Finally, here’s James Clapper, who basically masterminded the whole operation:
If you followed me on the old Medium site, you know that I’ve been insisting this for about two years:
NEW: AG Barr tells Congress "I think spying did occur, yes. I think spying did occur" on the Trump campaign. He adds "The question was whether it was adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting it wasn't predicated. I need to explore that" pic.twitter.com/oh1ATTpM4a
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:
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:
There is no omnipotent Deep State pulling the strings behind the scenes. Wherever would you get that ridiculous idea?
“Meetings were held at the Department of Justice on whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office with the 25th Amendment after the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe writes in a new book.
“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” CBS News’ Scott Pelley said Thursday in a preview of his forthcoming interview with McCabe.
Pelley noted that these meetings were part of an extraordinary 8-day period after Comey’s firing in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also suggested to senior FBI officials that he should wear a secret recording device in his meetings with Trump.
The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of the president of the United States if a majority of his Senate-confirmed cabinet believe he is no longer capable of discharging his duties while in office. Rosenstein reportedly speculated that he could convince at least two cabinet officials to sign on to a plan to oust Trump from office.”
Oh, and that story that broke a while back about Rod Rosenstein supposedly offering to wear a wire and then go talk to Trump? Which Rosenstein played off as a joke?
This is like something out of a movie. We now have the Deputy FBI Director (who became Acting FBI Director upon Comey’s firing) on record in his own book saying the Department of (In)justice held a meeting in which they not only discussed but actively planned to remove a sitting President.
Keep in mind that Andrew McCabe is not saying this to clear his conscience or to confess. Quite the opposite: he’s bragging.
Make no mistake about it: McCabe’s admissions here will be received among #Resistance and Uniparty Establishment circles as heroic. McCabe will be painted as a martyr who valiantly tried, but ultimately failed, to Save The Nation From Trump.
Despite McCabe’s noble efforts, Fuhrer Trump ultimately clung to power.
That’s how the #Resistance and Uniparty Establishment views this admission.
They don’t fear a rogue, unelected Deep State attempting to overthrow the duly elected President because they are all part of the rogue, unelected Deep State.
We’ve known it all along, but the Senate Intelligence Committee has just wrapped up its two-year investigation into potential Trump-Russia Collusion and the official verdict is that there is no “direct” evidence of collusion.
“WASHINGTON — After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.
But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.”
Of course NPC News is trying to hedge and make it look like Trump Still Colluded even though the preceding paragraph contradicts that narrative.
This whole “Russians attacked Hillary on social media” is total bullshit and NPC News knows it. The CEO of Google himself testified before Congress just last year and said Russia spent a grand total of $4,700 on Google ads in 2016. Facebook saw Russia spend more, $46,000, but it still only amounted to 0.05% of the the total $81 million spent by the Clinton and Trump campaigns on Facebook ads in 2016.
Additionally, we have not been presented with any evidence that the Russians are behind Wikileaks. We’re only told to trust the intelligence community’s assertion.
“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with CBS News last week.
Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end.
What about that qualifier, “no direct evidence”? Why don’t they just say, “no evidence”?Does this mean there’s indirect evidence?
Of course not, because it would be the story if there was any.
The only reason the media is saying “no direct evidence” is to leave the possibility open that Trump is still guilty, but was just too conniving and hid it too well.
In other words, “He’s still guilty, we just couldn’t prove it.”
Even if there’s no evidence of any collusion, the media still will not report it. They just will not allow the words, “No evidence of Russian collusion” to appear on any of their cable broadcasts or websites. It’s just too painful for them, and, more importantly, they cannot allow the brainwashed masses to see those words.
But Sen. Richard Burr lays it out:
“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to,” Burr said.
On Tuesday, Burr doubled down, telling NBC News, “There is no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Ahhh. That’s better than “No direct evidence.” Wonder why the line “no factual evidence” is not the NPC News headline?
Please, Democrats: go ahead and seize on non-factual evidence of collusion.
Lord knows they haven’t had any problems doing so the past two years.
Here’s Mark Warner, the Democrat:
Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va., ranking member of the committee, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday that he disagrees with the way Burr characterized the evidence about collusion, but he declined to offer his own assessment.
“I’m not going to get into any conclusions I have,” he said, before adding that “there’s never been a campaign in American history … that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did.“
Uh, I can think of one: the Clinton campaign!
“Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr’s characterizations, but said they lacked context.
“We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, ‘Hey Vlad, we’re going to collude,'” one Democratic aide said.”
Except, you’ve been telling us the past two years that this was exactly the case, and that Trump was so obviously guilty it would be no trouble at all to convict him.
Now they’re moving the goalposts big-time, hoping you don’t notice.
“Donald Trump Jr. made clear in his messages that he was willing to accept help from the Russians,” one Democratic Senate investigator said. “Trump publicly urged the Russians to find Clinton’s missing emails.”
And the Clintons actually went to Russians for information on Trump. Don Jr. got nothing. And if you believe Trump making an offhand joke about Russia finding Hillary’s missing emails while on-stage at a nationally-televised rally constitutes collusion, you are undoubtedly a Police State Dem.
This whole thing is a joke. There never was any collusion, and we’ve known it all along.
The Democrats invented the myth of collusion during the 2016 election so they could justify spying on Trump, and then ramped up the collusion fairytale after the election so they would have a reason to take Trump down.
Democrats have known it was fake for longer than we have, given that they’re the ones who invented the narrative.
If you were wondering what the media reaction would be like if and when Trump was officially cleared of wrongdoing, this is what it looks like: barely any media attention. And where the media does pay attention to the “No Collusion” story, it does so in an effort to qualify and cast doubt upon its conclusion.
No fanfare, no eating of crow by the Democrats and their media propagandists who have been assuring us for two years that the “walls are closing in” on Trump.
If you were expecting wall-to-wall coverage of President Trump’s exoneration, I’m sorry but you must not know the Democratic Propaganda Media very well: if a story cannot benefit the Democrats, it rarely even becomes a story at all.
Republicans cannot get a positive media cycle at all, ever–unless they do something the Uniparty wants, like cave on the border, or cave and invade some foreign country.
The whole “COLLUSION” hysteria ends with a whimper, not a bang. Democrats are hoping most people forget about the whole thing.
Democrats are now going to pretend they didn’t spend the past two years telling us with 100% certainty that Trump was completely beholden to Russia and is guilty of treason of the highest order.
They’re going to pretend like they didn’t stake literally everything on the COLLUSION!1! hysteria being true.
They’re going to pretend it didn’t dominate cable news on a nightly basis for the better part of two years.
They’re just going to ignore it and pretend it never happened.
In this regard, the Uniparty Propaganda Media is truly Orwellian in its ability to pull off a complete reversal of this magnitude. It’s an “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia”-level turnaround to be screaming about COLLUSION for two years straight and then, all of the sudden, never mentioning it again.
You know the media is straight-up propaganda when you can witness the same political talking head going on and on about COLLUSION and Our Democracy™ for two years and then suddenly acting as if he had never even heard of the word “collusion.”