The bottom line 3 is this: If Operation Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t a plot to
restore Barack Obama to the Presidency, why wasn’t the op shutdown after the election was over? It wasn’t. Instead it ramped up with the appointment of a special prosecutor whose only raison d’etre is to cover up the original crimes during the primary season and in the run up to the election.
“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
What no one will say, but I will, is that the
ObamaGate/MuellerGate/SpyGate scandal is an
ongoing plot to restore Barack Obama to the
Presidency. Before heads explode let me explain.
"That
phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced
divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of
fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His
administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new
scandal." RICK HAYES
They
Destroyed Our Country
“They knew
Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a
train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury
of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an
egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic
(perhaps irreparable.)”
These people
were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The Democrats made a decision
from the outset—beginning with the election campaign of the favored candidate
of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they would not oppose Trump on
his anti-working-class social policy or his authoritarian hostility to democratic
rights and promotion of anti-immigrant racism, but on issues of imperialist
foreign policy.
“Obama’s new home in Washington has
been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition.
Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll”
and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former
high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a
variety of groups organizing direct action against
Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features
lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure
was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
THE (REALITY) OF THE DEMOCRAT
PARTY:
Anti-Semitic, open borders for
cheaper labor and funded by criminal banksters… and these pols are making vast
fortunes sucking the blood of America!
We must not let them cheat their
way to power over the rest of us. Their ongoing vote fraud must be
stopped and the Democrats need to take a look at themselves and at what they
have become. It's not a pretty picture. What they have become
threatens to destroy the greatest nation on the planet and they are doing it on
purpose. They have nothing but contempt for the US as founded and
for those of us who love this country. PATRICIA McCARTHY – AMERICAN THINKER
“Then
we suffered the rattling election of Barack Obama, whose active membership in a
white-, Jewish-, and America-hating church was well known to the
electorate. His close personal relationship with the likes of
his adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan was no secret. Obama
was open about his goals. He told us he was out to
"fundamentally transform America" and the world.” ALAN BERGSTEIN
Obama
‘Very Confident’ He Would’ve Won Third Term
1:34
The bottom line 3 is this: If Operation Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t a plot to
restore Barack Obama to the Presidency, why wasn’t the op shutdown after the election was over? It wasn’t. Instead it ramped up with the appointment of a special prosecutor whose only raison d’etre is to cover up the original crimes during the primary season and in the run up to the election.
“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
What no one will say, but I will, is that the
ObamaGate/MuellerGate/SpyGate scandal is an
ongoing plot to restore Barack Obama to the
Presidency. Before heads explode let me explain.
"That
phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced
divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of
fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His
administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new
scandal." RICK HAYES
They
Destroyed Our Country
“They knew
Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a
train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury
of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an
egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic
(perhaps irreparable.)”
These people
were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The Democrats made a decision
from the outset—beginning with the election campaign of the favored candidate
of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they would not oppose Trump on
his anti-working-class social policy or his authoritarian hostility to democratic
rights and promotion of anti-immigrant racism, but on issues of imperialist
foreign policy.
“Obama’s new home in Washington has
been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition.
Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll”
and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former
high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a
variety of groups organizing direct action against
Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features
lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure
was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
THE (REALITY) OF THE DEMOCRAT
PARTY:
Anti-Semitic, open borders for
cheaper labor and funded by criminal banksters… and these pols are making vast
fortunes sucking the blood of America!
We must not let them cheat their
way to power over the rest of us. Their ongoing vote fraud must be
stopped and the Democrats need to take a look at themselves and at what they
have become. It's not a pretty picture. What they have become
threatens to destroy the greatest nation on the planet and they are doing it on
purpose. They have nothing but contempt for the US as founded and
for those of us who love this country. PATRICIA McCARTHY – AMERICAN THINKER
“Then
we suffered the rattling election of Barack Obama, whose active membership in a
white-, Jewish-, and America-hating church was well known to the
electorate. His close personal relationship with the likes of
his adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan was no secret. Obama
was open about his goals. He told us he was out to
"fundamentally transform America" and the world.” ALAN BERGSTEIN
Obama
‘Very Confident’ He Would’ve Won Third Term
1:34
Former President Barack Obama said on Tuesday
that he was “very confident” he would have won a third term had the
Constitution and his wife allowed him to run again.
Speaking to his former top adviser
David Axelrod at a live recording of the “The Axe Files” podcast at the
University of Chicago, Obama said he believes voters felt
that he had “taken the job seriously, worked hard, been true to my oath,
observed and hopefully strengthened the norms and the rules and the values of
our democracy.”
“I feel very confident that I was in
a position—had it not been for both the Constitution and Michelle—to continue
in office,” Obama said.
Axelrod had earlier said that some
people would like Obama to serve in perpetuity and joked about some of Obama’s
supporters even wanting him to run for vice president.
The former president, though, added
that he is “not sure it is a healthy thing” to serve more than two terms,
pointing out that in countries without term limits, “even very good people…
lose their edge and get stale and comfortable in the position.”
Obama said it is “useful to have a
democracy have to continually evolve.”
Had Obama been allowed to run for a
third term, he would have faced off against Donald Trump in 2016. But when
Axelrod asked whether Obama believed he could defeat President Trump in 2020
in a hypothetical one-on-one matchup, Obama did not take the bait.
“I will not answer that direct
question for obvious reasons,” Obama said.
Impeachment is Built on a Trap That Obama Created for Romney
Speaking to his former top adviser
David Axelrod at a live recording of the “The Axe Files” podcast at the
University of Chicago, Obama said he believes voters felt
that he had “taken the job seriously, worked hard, been true to my oath,
observed and hopefully strengthened the norms and the rules and the values of
our democracy.”
“I feel very confident that I was in
a position—had it not been for both the Constitution and Michelle—to continue
in office,” Obama said.
Axelrod had earlier said that some
people would like Obama to serve in perpetuity and joked about some of Obama’s
supporters even wanting him to run for vice president.
The former president, though, added
that he is “not sure it is a healthy thing” to serve more than two terms,
pointing out that in countries without term limits, “even very good people…
lose their edge and get stale and comfortable in the position.”
Obama said it is “useful to have a
democracy have to continually evolve.”
Had Obama been allowed to run for a
third term, he would have faced off against Donald Trump in 2016. But when
Axelrod asked whether Obama believed he could defeat President Trump in 2020
in a hypothetical one-on-one matchup, Obama did not take the bait.
“I will not answer that direct
question for obvious reasons,” Obama said.
Impeachment is Built on a Trap That Obama Created for Romney
A weapon against a Romney administration gets used against Trump.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
The Whistleblower Protection Act was put into place for the stated purpose of fighting waste and mismanagement in the civil service. It’s a controversial piece of legislation, but its purpose is clear.
As a Senate report on the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act put it, “What is needed is a means to protect the Pentagon employee who discloses billions of dollars in cost overruns, the GSA employee who discloses widespread fraud, and the nuclear engineer who questions the safety of certain nuclear plants. These conscientious civil servants deserve statutory protection rather than bureaucratic harassment and intimidation.” This does not cover a partisan effort to undermine the President of the United States.
It does not mean a government employee taking issue with a president’s foreign policy.
A whistleblower exposes structural waste, mismanagement and abuse within the civil service, among government contractors and in varied ways within the private sector. This is meant to protect employees who blow the whistle on misbehavior, not to serve as cover for assorted political agendas.
In the Trump era, whistleblowing and partisan leaks to the media have been conflated by the media. Partisan government workers, some openly aligning with the “resistance” and participating in partisan groups within government agencies, have sought to undermine administration policies through leaks. These leaks were in turn meant to generate congressional investigations of cabinet officials.
The impeachment effort against President Trump takes that ongoing tactic to the ultimate extreme.
The politicization of the civil service is a deeply troubling phenomenon. Efforts by members of the civil service to undermine elected officials is a threat to our entire system of representative government.
This problem goes beyond the ‘Deep State’ and has shown up in a wide variety of government agencies. But its appearance in national security agencies is deeply troubling because these agencies have the infrastructure to act as a police state. The existence of national security agencies in a free country is contingent on their subservience to elected officials. Anything else isn’t whistleblowing, it’s a coup.
Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive 19 opened the door by expanding whistleblowing protection to members of the “intelligence community” and other personnel handling classified information.
A few years earlier, Bradley Manning had ushered in a new era of espionage by enemy state actors using front groups to solicit spies as whistleblowers. While the court threw the book at Manning, Obama commuted his sentence. PPD19 was supposed to avoid another Manning case, which it utterly failed to do when Edward Snowden repeated Manning’s treason on a larger scale before escaping to Russia.
But PPD19 was never really meant to help the likes of Manning and Snowden. Instead it was part of a larger pattern of politicizing national security organizations that led directly to the current crisis.
While the Russians were soliciting whistleblowers from inside the national security sphere to act as spies, which was exactly what they had been doing throughout the Cold War, Obama’s people were building partisan networks within the national security infrastructure to act as their political agents.
Both the Russians and the Democrats understood that whistleblowers were a strategic vulnerability. Whistleblowers were seen as sympathetic underdogs who were trying to do the right thing. That was the perfect camouflage for an enemy agent or the agent of a police state. Astroturfing, the practice of manufacturing grass roots efforts and building causes around individual protesters, like Greta Thunberg or David Hogg, had moved into the national security infrastructure before going off like a bomb.
PPD19 was issued on October 10, 2012.
The presidential debates were underway and the election was up in the air. In the weeks before PPD19, Mitt Romney had begun to lead in a number of polls. It is striking that PPD19 came out during the exact same period that Romney was leading in as many polls as he ever would in that election.
On October 9, the day before PPD19, even a DailyKos/SEIU poll showed Romney in the lead. After Obama’s disastrous debate performance, his people had to be worried about the possibility of defeat.
The real purpose of PPD19 was to aid Obama loyalists is undermining a Romney administration.
The Obama administration would not have been too worried about Romney reversing its social policies. But Romney had run sharply against Obama on national security. And Obama’s cronies knew that there would be significant foreign policy differences there. PPD19 may have been their answer.
Romney lost. PPD19 remained obscure.
By the time Trump won, the weaponization of the national security infrastructure in national politics was complete with national security organs spying on Trump associates, investigating his campaign, entrapping his associates, leaking his phone calls, and now setting the stage for impeachment.
The Russia conspiracy theory was not a counterintelligence investigation. And Ukraine impeachment isn’t whistleblowing. Investigating the domestic political opposition is only a counterintelligence investigation in China, Russia or Cuba. Launching such an effort is the hallmark of a police state.
And whistleblowers don’t have partisan political agendas aimed at elected officials.
Until now, the two worst cases of activists and spies pretending to be whistleblowers were Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. The Ukraine case has some similarities to the Pentagon Papers case, but there isn’t even the pretense that this fake whistleblowing is about anything other than going directly for the President of the United States, not indirectly through his policies, but directly aimed at him.
Whistleblowers aren’t supposed to have any agenda except the law and organizational standards.
And whistleblowing protections are absolutely not meant to serve as cover for partisan fights or assaults on elected officials. Whistleblowing protections are meant to protect government employees in the civil service from retaliation by their supervisors in the civil service when they report waste or abuse.
They are not meant to allow an anonymous government employee to assist in a partisan campaign to remove the President of the United States as part of a ploy orchestrated by the opposition party.
That is a breathtaking abuse that will damage whistleblower protections indefinitely.
Whistleblower protections have traditionally been a bipartisan project. But courts have repeatedly limited the scope of how and what a whistleblower can disclose. It appears that they were wise to do so.
The eavesdropping and entrapment of Trump allies in the last election was the ultimate nightmarish abuse of national security. The same folks who brought you that violation have now contrived to produce the worst possible abuse of whistleblower protections. The abuse of the NSA has dealt a fatal blow to Republican support for national security measures used to fight enemy nations and terrorists. The abuse of whistleblowing will lead to an identical loss of support for whistleblower protections.
The Obama administration and its allies have tried to turn government agencies into bear traps, seeking to retain control of policymaking through a network of lefty loyalists in agencies and activist judges in the courts, and, beyond that, to force out Trump appointees and to even force out President Trump.
At the heart of this crisis is the conflict between representative government and the infrastructure of government, between the will of the voters and the will of D.C., between the taxpayers and officials, that is the breaking point of any free country. Some countries lose their freedom through violent revolutions. Others ossify into an oligarchy of government officials and elites who call all the shots.
This is not about the Ukraine. Just as it wasn’t about Russia. It’s about whether our governments are elected or selected.
Elected government requires that government officials be neutral and non-partisan. When partisan factions use the machinery of government to wage war on their opponents, that’s a coup.
A day after President Trump survived one coup, the deep state debuted a second coup.
Obama is not stupid. He knows this. It's his road map.
“The Democrats would be clamoring for a suspension of the 22nd
Amendment and calling for Barack Obama, to "restore calm and order",
to step back into his role for the "good of the country". They will
still call for Obama if the Democrats manage to Impeach and convict Trump.”
“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros
really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
“The bottom line 2 is
this: Barack Obama is a Communist. This was all an Obama operation. Why is
anyone surprised that a communist (Obama) tried to subvert an election. That is
what Communists do. It is Barack Obama and his people like Brennan and Clapper
behaving to type. That's what Maduro does in Venezuela. That's what the Castro
brothers did. That's what every communist and socialist nation does. THEY FIX ELECTIONS!”
Right back to the White House. That was the plan all along
What no one will say, but I will, is that the
ObamaGate/MuellerGate/SpyGate scandal is an ongoing plot to restore Barack
Obama to the Presidency. Before heads explode let me explain.
To believe any part of my theory you have to get to certain
assumptions.
1) Obama never intended to leave office. Indeed he has a house a few blocks from the White House.
2) Hillary and Obama despise each other and, had Hillary been elected, he would have undermined her as he is trying to undermine Trump.
3) To make way for the Obama restoration
The Constitution would have been shredded
for the good of the country, and it would have
been seen to have been done legally.
As Mark Levin says, we are in the middle of a slow motion soft
coup Joseph diGenova, former federal
prosecutor and Trump loyalist, says the truth is starting
to seep out about the Obama Administration’s “brazen
plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton” and “frame an
incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy,”
according to an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller
prosecutor and Trump loyalist, says the truth is starting
to seep out about the Obama Administration’s “brazen
plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton” and “frame an
incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy,”
according to an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller
Dan Bongino, on Tucker Carlson's show, has called the operation
a sting.
EARLY STAGES of the COUP
Mar 26, 2012 - SEOUL President Barack Obama was caught on camera
on assuring outgoing Russian President and Putin Poodle Dmitry Medvedev that he
will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like
missile
Dan Bongino, on Tucker Carlson's show, has called the operation
a sting.
EARLY STAGES of the COUP
Mar 26, 2012 - SEOUL
President Barack Obama was caught on camera on assuring outgoing Russian President
and Putin Poodle Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility"
to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S.
presidential election. I just happen to have it on film:
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Sept 11, 2012 -- Benghazi: In the run up to Obama’s re-election
Obama was running around claiming he had decimated Al Qaeda. One can only
imagine the panic in the WH when the Al Qaeda attack occurred on our annex. So
Hillary and Obama concocted the Muslim film cover up, jailed the filmmaker, and
sent Susan Rice out to lie on all of the Sunday chat shows that the attack was
all about the film.
Oct 22, 2012 -- During one of the Romney/Obama debates one of
the moderators asked Romney who our greatest threat was. He said the Russians,
Obama smugly “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back
because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”.
The annexation of Crimea by Putin’s Russia Federation occurred
in March 2014. On 17 July 2014 Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17), a
scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that, was shot down
while flying over eastern Ukraine, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew on
board.
The DNC SERVER HACK
The first indications of the Russian Hacking occurred in late
2015 and early 2016. Considering Wikileaks published the hack in July 2016
confirms the hack occurred at least 6 months before, long before Trump's
campaign was really up and running.
Afterwards the DNC didn't let the FBI anywhere near the server.
They let Crowdstrike go through it. And curiously, Obama and Comey's FBI seemed
just fine being shut out of the loop and they couldn’t have anything about the
hack leaking out. And when you are formulating a plan to get Hillary “elected”
via exoneration, as Comey and Strzok were doing, you don’t want the pot
stirred.
I wonder what Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz and Donna Brazile were
trying to hide. Probably their own incompetence and the fact that Hillary and
the DNC was playing Bernie Sanders by rigging the primaries.
And the Awan brothers, two Pakistanis that had been hired by Schultz, had access to everybody in Congress's emails because they were the IT guys...which means they also had access to the DNC server.
Then Obama began the
essence of the coup. He said that our elections couldn't be hacked and that
Trump should quit whining
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Then Obama got serious and really got tough. He told Putin to
"Cut it out!"
The Russian hack damage was done on Obama's watch. Susan Rice
(of the 5 Sunday Show Benghazi lies) ordered Michael Daniel, chief of cyber
security investigating the hack, to stand down per Obama, according to a new
book by Michael Isikoff and David Korn, “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of
Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.”
THE PRE- ELECTION and POST
ELECTION COUP
So here’s what we know from the Nunes memo (https://www.scribd.com/docu...and the Grassly memo (http://www.powerlineblog.co....
So here’s what we know from the Nunes memo (https://www.scribd.com/docu...and the Grassly memo (http://www.powerlineblog.co....
Hillary kept a secret
server overflowing with national security info which, more than likely, was
hacked. June 28, 2016, on a Phoenix tarmac, Bill Clinton met with Attorney
General Loretta Lynch to seal a deal insuring Hillary would not be prosecuted. On July 5, 2016 James
Comey exonerated Hillary when he said he would not prosecute, after Barack
Obama said there is no evidence that Hillary did anything wrong. Lynch also
instructed Comey to call the Hillary scandal a “matter”.
Disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and Comey made sure the earlier draft language describing Hillary's actions as "grossly negligent" was changed to "extremely careless." That small change in wording has significant legal implications. "Gross negligence" in handling classified information carries criminal penalties.
The Hillary campaign also paid Fusion GPS to gather dirt on
Trump which became the dossier, compiled by Brit agent Christopher Steele,
relying on Russian sources. Steele and Fusion GPS gave the Dossier to the FBI
and DOJ with the help of FBI employee Bruce Ohr's wife Nellie, who worked at
Fusion GPS.
We also now that, per Strzok's recent testimony on July 12,
2018, that fourth highest ranking Justice Department official Bruce Ohr gave
parts of the Russia dossier to the FBI and DOJ.
FBI guys James Comey and Andrew McCabe didn't bother to tell the
FISA Judges under what circumstances the dossier was obtained and that it was
unverified. In other words they lied to the FISA judge at least three times to
get the warrants renewed, because the people who worked for them didn't want to
see Trump elected.
Thus, the Department of Justice used the unverified dossier to
obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, an
alleged “foreign policy adviser” to Donald Trump and the last frayed thread of
the Russian collusion story. The FISA court was not told who had paid Steele to
create the “salacious and unverified” dossier — in the words of the showboating
former FBI Director James Comey — much less about Steele’s personal hatred of
Trump. And McCabe has testified that the Dossier was the basis of getting
the FISA warrants. Two days later McCabe was fired.
And this now leads back to the Oval office. Texts between Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page reveal Obama wanted to be briefed on EVERYTHING happening
in the "Russia" investigation – after he 'guaranteed' he wouldn't get
involved. Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama
'wants to know everything we're doing'.
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and
there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation. This was
after he ordered Rice to tell Michael Daniel chief of cyber security to stand
down on the DNC server.
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more than 50,000
texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair. Page was an FBI
lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the
more recent Trump-Russia investigation. Strzok, though expected to be
nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a ******g idiot' and texted Page about a
cryptic 'insurance policy' against a Trump presidency.
In the spring of 2017, after James Comey was fired, deputy
attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein was planning on wearing a wire to secretly
record Trump to gather damaging information in an effort to have him removed by
recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment. Rosenstein,
ironically, played a key role in the president’s dismissal of Mr. Comey by
writing a memo critical of his handling of the Hillary Clinton email
investigation. It sounds like Rosenstein was trying to set up Trump from the
day he was hired by the President. Rosenstein made the remarks in meetings with
Department of Justice and FBI officials shortly after the May 9, 2017 firing of
James Comey as FBI director.
And now, as Russia Collusion falls apart, Herr Reichsmarshall
Mueller and his Kapo Rod Rosenstien engaged in a Gestapo like raid of Trump's
lawyer to secure Trump's private papers.
THE HELSINKI SETUP
Folks, the coup attempt is ongoing.
Prior to Trump's Euro trip a dozen Russian GRU military
intelligence officers were indicted by the Mueller investigation on charges
they hacked Democrats’ computers, stole their data and published those files to
disrupt the 2016 election. Promptly following Asst AG Rosenstein announced no
votes were changed and no Americans were involved. You could hear the air go
out of Democrat balloons especially when Rosenstein announced that Mueller was
sending this case to the counterintelligence investigative department in the
DOJ. No trial, no evidence, No nothing.
Rosenstein:
"There’s no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen
committed a crime. There’s no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote
count or affected any election result." https://www.vox.com/2018/7/...
Obama and Brennan were weaponizing the CIA for years. Basically
Trump called Brennan and his corrupt agency out. No wonder Brennan is pissed.
A lot of Obama's people are still at CIA, FBI, NSA, DOJ. Of
course Trump doesn't believe any of the intel he gets from these still
compromised agencies
The presser was a setup and Trump didn't take the bait. If Trump
had acknowledged Russian meddling the press would have turned into Trump
collusion and that would have been the narrative instead of all the over the
top faux outrage..
THE OBAMA RESTORATION
We are in the middle of what Mark Levin calls a soft coup,
involving Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Rhodes, Rice, Lynch, Power, McCabe,
Mueller and rogue FBI/DOJ officials. The “resistance” to duly elected
president Donald Trump, writes Michael Walsh, “was an intelligence operation
from the start, engineered by Barack Obama, the FBI/DOJ nexus, James Clapper,
John Brennan, Loretta Lynch, leading Democrats, rogue Republicans, and using a
deeply partisan and thus compromised media as its vengeful Greek chorus.”
"Operation
Crossfire Hurricane" was that small cabal of five rogue senior FBI and DOJ
officials, and Obama officials who started this coup 100 days before the
election was even decided. They set about to exonerate Hillary, illegally, and
frame Donald Trump and the people in his campaign should he have won. The FBI
went so far as to plant a mole inside the campaign to start asking questions on
foreign policy, to later entrap Trump people. https://legalinsurrection.c.... Former Director of
National Intelligence and serial lier James Clapper told CNN's Don Lemon that
the president's claim that the Obama administration spied on his campaign is
"hyperbole" but if it is true, it is a "good thing."
In the now
released FBI IG report there is
detailed several texts by Strozk and Page saying the following:
Lisa Page text to Peter Strzok: “(Trump’s) not ever going to
become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Was this Strozk's
cryptic insurance policy? What could that be?
Strozk's and Page's 'insurance policy' might well have been one
of two things. If the faux legal mechanisms (the Mueller investigation and impeachment)
failed the 'insurance policy' may just be an on-call hit squad to take Trump
out. Pence would have been denied his right to take office as he would have
been falsely implicated as well.
Hillary was always
small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do
you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in
the event that Hillary became disabled?
The Democrats would be clamoring for a suspension of the 22nd
Amendment and calling for Barack Obama, to "restore calm and order",
to step back into his role for the "good of the country". They will
still call for Obama if the Democrats manage to Impeach and convict Trump
And then the door would slam shut. The FBI would basically
become the State Police, so to speak, the DOJ a collection of corrupt
prosecutors and the intelligence community the new KGB
Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really
running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.
In his heart Obama is a small time, garden variety leftist
Communist. During his eight years Obama just ran out of time and he was just
too incompetent. Fortunately, he was also constrained (barely) by the
Constitution. He didn't have the guts to follow through. But he has the
totalitarian impulse. After all, he went
around saying he didn't have
Constitutional authority to legalize the
illegals, and then he tried anyway. The
courts stopped him.
totalitarian impulse. After all, he went
around saying he didn't have
Constitutional authority to legalize the
illegals, and then he tried anyway. The
courts stopped him.
The bottom line 1 is this: The Mueller investigation is simply a
coverup for the three original crimes of this coup 1) the original illegal
exoneration of Hillary by Comey to insure she won. 2) the penetration of the
Trump campaign by an FBI mole during the late summer and early fall 3) the
ongoing penetration by that mole of the Trump transition after the election and
finally 4) the Special Council effort to destroy the Trump presidency in it's
infancy.
The bottom line 2 is
this: Barack Obama is a Communist. This was all an Obama operation. Why is
anyone surprised that a communist (Obama) tried to subvert an election. That is
what Communists do. It is Barack Obama and his people like Brennan and Clapper
behaving to type. That's what Maduro does in Venezuela. That's what the Castro
brothers did. That's what every communist and socialist nation does. THEY FIX ELECTIONS!!
The bottom line 3 is
this: If Operation Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t a plot
to
restore Barack Obama to the
Presidency, why wasn’t the op shutdown after the election was over? It
wasn’t. Instead it ramped up with the appointment of a special prosecutor whose only
raison d’etre is to cover up the original crimes during the primary season and
in the run up to the election.
At this point the game
is up. Even Clintonista Mark Penn writing at the Hill knows it's over. http://thehill.com/opinion/...
Everything about this
coup is rapidly coming to light, except for my theory of the Barack Obama
restoration end game. We shall see. One thing is for certain, had Hillary been
elected nothing about this coup would have come to light.
(Illustration by The Epoch Times)
Spygate: The Inside
Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump
March 28, 2019 Updated: March 29, 2019
Share
Efforts by high-ranking officials in the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice
(DOJ), and State Department to portray President Donald Trump as having
colluded with Russia were the culmination of years of bias and politicization
under the Obama administration.
The weaponization of the intelligence community and other government
agencies created an environment that allowed for obstruction in the
investigation into Hillary Clinton and the relentless pursuit of a manufactured
collusion narrative against Trump.
A willing and complicit media spread unsubstantiated leaks as facts in
an effort to promote the Russia-collusion narrative.
The Spygate scandal also raises a bigger question: Was the 2016 election
a one-time aberration, or was it symptomatic of decades of institutional
political corruption?
This article builds on dozens of congressional testimonies, court
documents, and other research to provide an inside look at the actions of Obama
administration officials in the scandal that’s become known as Spygate.
To understand this abuse of power, it helps to go back to July 2011,
when DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed.
From the very start, Horowitz found his
duties throttled by Attorney General Eric Holder, who placed limitations on the
inspector general’s right to have unobstructed access to information. Holder used this tactic to delay Horowitz’s investigation of the failed sting operation known
as Operation Fast and Furious.
“We got access to information up to 2010 in
all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. … It was
simply a decision by the General Counsel’s Office in 2010 that they viewed,
now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren’t going to give us that
information,” Horowitz told members
of Congress in February 2015.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other
inspectors general had sent a letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015, with a 58-page memorandum,
titled “Memorandum for Sally Quillian Yates Deputy
Attorney General,” written by Karl R.
Thompson, the principal deputy assistant attorney general of the Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC).
The July 20, 2015, opinion was widely criticized. But it accomplished what it was intended to do. The opinion limited IG
Horowitz’s oversight from extending to any information collected under Title
III—including intercepted communications and national security letters.
(Notably, The New York Times disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of
the Trump 2016 presidential campaign.)
In response, on Aug. 3, 2015, IG Horowitz
sent a blistering letter to Congress. The letter was signed not only by Horowitz but by all
other acting inspectors general as well:
“The OLC opinion’s restrictive reading of the IG Act represents a
potentially serious challenge to the authority of every Inspector General and
our collective ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a
timely manner. Our concern is that, as a result of the OLC opinion, agencies
other than DOJ may likewise withhold crucial records from their Inspectors
General, adversely impacting their work.
Horowitz continued to push Congress for
oversight access and encouraged passage of the Inspector General Empowerment Act. Horowitz would ultimately win his battle, but only as President Barack
Obama was leaving office. On Dec. 16, 2016, Obama finally signed the Inspector General Empowerment Act into law.
It is against this backdrop of minimal oversight that Spygate took
place.
Ironically, the Clinton email server investigation, known as the
“Mid-Year Exam,” originated from a disclosure contained in a June 29, 2015,
memo sent by the inspectors general for both the State Department and the
Intelligence Community to Patrick F. Kennedy, then-undersecretary of state for
management.
The IGs’ memo included an assessment that Clinton’s email account
contained hundreds of classified emails, despite Clinton’s claims that there
was no classified information present on her server.
On July 6, 2015, the IG for the
Intelligence Community made a referral to the FBI, which resulted in the official opening of an
investigation into the Clinton email server by FBI officials Randall Coleman
and Charles Kable on July 10, 2015.
A Hand-Picked Team
At this time, Peter Strzok was an assistant
special agent in charge at the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The assistant
director in charge at the Washington Field Office during this period was Andrew
McCabe, a position he assumed on Sept. 14, 2014.
On July 30, 2015, within weeks of the FBI’s
opening of the Clinton investigation, McCabe was suddenly promoted to the No. 3 position in the FBI. With his new title of associate
deputy director, McCabe was transferred to FBI headquarters from the Washington
Field Office, and his direct involvement in the Clinton investigation began.
Strzok would follow shortly. Less than a month after McCabe was
transferred, FBI headquarters reached out to the Washington Field Office,
saying it needed greater staffing and resources “based on what they were
looking at, based on some of the investigative steps that were under
consideration,” Strzok told congressional investigators in a closed-door
hearing on June 27, 2018.
Strzok was one of the agents selected, and in late August 2015, he was
assigned to the Mid-Year Exam team and transferred to FBI headquarters. Strzok,
in his comments to lawmakers, acknowledged that the newly formed investigative
team was largely made up of hand-picked personnel from the Washington Field
Office and FBI headquarters.
Starting in October 2015 and continuing into early 2016, FBI Director
James Comey made a series of high-profile reassignments that resulted in the
complete turnover of the upper-echelon of the FBI team working on the Clinton
email investigation:
·
Oct.
12, 2015: Louis Bladel was moved to the New
York Field Office.
·
Dec.
1, 2015: Randall Coleman, assistant director
of Counterintelligence, was named as executive assistant director of the
Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch, and was replaced by Bill
Priestap.
·
Dec.
9, 2015: Charles “Sandy” Kable was moved to
the Washington Field Office.
·
Feb.
1, 2016: Mark Giuliano retired as FBI deputy
director and was replaced by Andrew McCabe.
·
Feb.
11, 2016: John Giacalone retired as executive
assistant director and was replaced by Michael Steinbach.
·
March
2, 2016: Gerald Roberts, Jr. was moved to the
Washington Field Office.
Comey is the only known senior FBI leadership official who remained
involved throughout the entire Clinton email investigation. McCabe had the
second-longest tenure.
On Jan. 29, 2016, Comey appointed McCabe as FBI deputy director, replacing the retiring Giuliano,
and McCabe assumed the No. 2 position in the FBI, after having held the No. 3
position for just six months.
It was at this point that FBI lawyer Lisa Page was assigned to McCabe as
his special counsel. This was not the first time that Page worked directly for
McCabe. James Baker, the FBI’s former general counsel, told congressional
investigators that Page had worked for McCabe at various times during McCabe’s
career, going back as far as 2013.
By early 2016, the three participants in the infamous “insurance policy”
meeting—McCabe, Strzok, and Page—were now in place at the FBI.
In January 2016, Bill Priestap was named as head of the FBI’s
Counterintelligence Division, replacing Coleman and inheriting the Clinton
email investigation in the process.
According to Priestap, Coleman had “set up a reporting mechanism that
leaders of that team would report directly to him, not through the customary
other chain of command” in the Clinton email investigation. Priestap, who said
he didn’t know why Coleman had “set it up,” kept the chain of command in place
when he assumed Coleman’s position in January 2016.
This new structure resulted in some unusual reporting lines that went
outside normal chains of command. Strzok, who would not normally fall under
Priestap’s oversight, was now reporting directly to him.
As Priestap described it, the team involved in the Clinton investigation
comprised three different but intertwined elements: the primary team, the
filter team, and the senior leadership team.
The primary team was small, consisting only of Strzok, FBI analyst
Jonathan Moffa, and, to varying degrees, filter team leader Rick Mains and FBI
lawyer Sally Moyer. Mains reported to Strzok and Moffa, who in turn, along with
Moyer, provided briefings to Priestap.
Below Strzok and Moffa was the day-to-day investigative “filter” team of
approximately 15 FBI agents and analysts that was overseen by Mains, a
supervisory special agent.
The senior leadership team was more fluid, consisting of higher-level
FBI officials who provided briefings and updates to Comey and/or McCabe. In
addition to Priestap, Strzok, and Moffa, frequent attendees included Moyer,
Page, Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson, chief of staff Jim Rybicki, and
General Counsel James Baker.
While the elements of the day-to-day investigative team differed for the
Clinton email investigation and the Trump–Russia investigation, the primary
team remained the same throughout both cases—as did the lines of communication
between the FBI and the DOJ. According to testimony by Page, John Carlin, who
ran the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD), was receiving briefings on both
investigations directly from McCabe.
Priestap Left in the Dark
Priestap, who testified that he was unaware of the frequency of meetings
between McCabe, Strzok, and Lisa Page, seems to have been kept in the dark
regarding many of the actions taken by Strzok, who appeared to be exercising
significant investigative control. Priestap was asked about this by
congressional investigators during a June 5, 2018, testimony:
Rep. Meadows: “It sounds like Peter Strzok was
kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?”
Mr. Priestap: “Peter and Jon, yeah.”
Additionally, Page often circumvented the established chain of command,
not only with McCabe, for whom she reportedly served as a conduit for Strzok,
but also with Baker. Additionally, there were concerns that Page bypassed both
the executive assistant director for the National Security Branch—first
Giacalone, then Steinbach—and Priestap, the head of counterintelligence.
Anderson, the No. 2 lawyer, admitted in her testimony to congressional
investigators that she had been aware of these concerns, saying, “Neither
of them personally complained to me, but I was aware of their concerns.”
A report published by IG Horowitz in June
2018, which reviewed the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton email case,
included the notable statement that several witnesses had informed the IG that
Page “circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok communicated
important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without
Priestap’s or Steinbach’s knowledge.” Steinbach, who was the executive
assistant director and Priestap’s direct supervisor, left the FBI in early
2017.
According to Anderson, McCabe was aware of the ongoing concerns
regarding Page’s circumventions, but it appears that nothing was done to
address them:
Mr. Baker: “Do you know if Mr. McCabe was
aware that some of his agent executives were concerned that they were being
bypassed on information on what, by all accounts, was a sensitive, critical
investigation?”
Ms. Anderson: “My understanding was that he
was aware.”
DOJ Prevents ‘Gross Negligence’ Charges
By the spring of 2016, the Clinton email investigation was already
winding down. This was due in large part to the fact that the DOJ, under
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, had decided to set an unusually high threshold
for the prosecution of Clinton, effectively ensuring from the outset that she
would not be charged.
In order for Clinton to be prosecuted, the DOJ required the FBI to
establish evidence of intent—even though the gross negligence statute
explicitly does not require this.
This meant that the FBI would have needed to find a smoking gun, such as
an email or an admission made during FBI questioning, revealing that Clinton or
her aides knowingly set up the private email server to send classified
information.
According to Page, the DOJ played a far larger role in the Clinton
investigation than previously had been known:
“Everybody talks about this as if this was the FBI investigation, and
the truth of the matter is there was not a single step, other than the July 5th
statement, there was not a single investigative step that we did not do in
consultation with or at the direction of the Justice Department,” Page told
congressional investigators on July 13, 2018.
Comey also had hinted at the influence
exerted by the DOJ over the Clinton investigation, at a July 5, 2016,press conference, in which he recommended that Clinton not be charged, stating that “there are obvious
considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding
intent.”
Notably, Comey had been convinced to remove the term “gross negligence”
to describe Clinton’s actions from his prepared statement by, among others,
Page, Strzok, Anderson, and Moffa.
CIA Director Instigates Trump Investigation
As the Clinton investigation wound down,
interest from the intelligence community in the Trump campaign was ramping up.
Sometime in 2015, it appears former CIA Director John Brennan established
himself as the point man to push for an investigation into the Trump campaign.
Using a combination of unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts,
colleagues, and associates—primarily from the UK, but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia—Brennan then
fed this information to the FBI. Brennan stated this fact repeatedly during a
May 23, 2017, congressional testimony:
“I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including
anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared
with the [FBI].”
“I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between
Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about
whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in
a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI
investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred.”
In late 2015, Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
was involved in collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and
transmitting it to the United States. The GCHQ is the UK equivalent of the U.S.
National Security Agency (NSA).
While GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign
foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted, after
a series of highly coincidental meetings.
Most of these meetings with Papadopoulos—whose own background and
reasons for joining the Trump campaign remain suspicious—occurred in the first
half of 2016.
Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer,
FBI informant Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK’s Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos—some repeatedly
so.
Mifsud, who introduced Papadopoulos to a series of Russian contacts,
appears to have more connections with Western intelligence than with Russian
intelligence.
Downer, then Australia’s high commissioner
to the UK, met with Papadopoulos in May 2016, in a meeting established through a chain of two intermediaries.
Information allegedly relayed by Papadopoulos during the Downer
meeting—that the Russians had damaging information on Clinton—appears nearly
identical to claims later contained in the first memo from former MI6 spy and
dossier author Christopher Steele that the FBI obtained in early July 2016.
Downer’s conversation with Papadopoulos was reportedly disclosed to the
FBI on July 22, 2016, through Australian government channels, although it may
have come directly from Downer himself.
Details from the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos were then
used by the FBI to open its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.
In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, the
head of the UK’s GCHQ, traveled to Washington to meet withBrennan regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and
Moscow. Around the same time, Brennan formedan inter-agency task force
comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI,
Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry into Trump and possible Russia
connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the
NSA handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
During this time, Brennan appeared to have
employed the use of reverse targeting, which refers to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent
of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
Mr. Brennan: “We call it incidental
collection in terms of CIA’s foreign intelligence collection authorities. Any
time we would incidentally collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand
that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority to do it. We would
not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of leads. We would give
it to the FBI. So, we were picking things up that was of great relevance
to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they were there—so they could piece
it together with whatever they were collecting domestically here.”
As this foreign intelligence—unofficial in nature and outside of any
traditional channels—was gathered, Brennan began a process of feeding his
gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence
from the CIA director pushed the FBI toward the establishment of a formal
counterintelligence investigation.
The last major segment of Brennan’s efforts
involved a series of three reports. The first, titled the “Joint Statement from the Department Of
Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on
Election Security,” was released on Oct. 7,
2016. The second report,“GRIZZLY STEPPE —Russian Malicious Cyber
Activity,” was released on Dec. 29, 2016. The third
report, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S.
Elections”—also known as the intelligence community
assessment (ICA)—was released on Jan. 6, 2017.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion
narrative following the election of President Donald Trump. Notably, Adm. Mike
Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning it
only a moderate confidence level.
Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier
Meanwhile, another less official effort began. Information paid for by
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign targeting
Trump made its way to the highest levels of the FBI and the State Department,
with a sophisticated strategy relying on the personal connections of hired
operatives.
At the center of the multi-pronged strategy to disseminate the
information were Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and former British spy
Steele.
In early March 2016, Fusion GPS approached
Perkins Coie—the law firm used by the Clinton campaign and the DNC—expressing
interest in an “engagement,” according to an Oct. 24, 2017, response letter by Perkins Coie. The firm hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to
“perform a variety of research services during the 2016 election cycle.”
Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, was retained by Fusion GPS
during the period between June and November 2016. During this time, Steele
produced 16 memos, with the last memo dated Oct. 20, 2016. There is one final
memo that Steele wrote on Dec. 13 at the request of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Steele provided Fusion GPS with something that Simpson’s firm was
lacking: access to individuals within the FBI and the State Department. These
contacts could be traced back to at least 2010, when Steele had provided
assistance in the FBI’s investigation into FIFA over concerns that Russia might
have been engaging in bribery to host the 2018 World Cup.
Sometime in the latter half of 2014, Steele
began to informally provide reports he had prepared for a private client to the State Department. One
of the recipients of the reports was Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary
of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
After Steele’s company was hired by Fusion
GPS in June 2016, he began to reach out to the FBI through Michael Gaeta, an
FBI agent and assistant legal attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Rome who Steele had worked with on the FIFA
case. Gaeta also headed up the FBI’s Eurasian Organized Crime unit, which
specializes in investigating criminal groups from Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.
Gaeta was later identified as Steele’s FBI handler, in a July 16, 2018,
congressional testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees by
Page.
On July 5, 2016, Gaeta traveled to London and met with Steele at the
offices of Steele’s firm, Orbis. At some point in early July, Steele passed his
initial report to Nuland and the State Department. Nuland later said these
documents were passed on at some point to both the FBI and then-Secretary of
State John Kerry.
Exactly what happened with the reports that Gaeta brought back from
London, and precisely who he gave them to within the FBI, remains unknown,
although some media reports have indicated they might have been sent to the
FBI’s New York Field Office. During the period following Steele’s initial
contact with the FBI, there appears to have been no further FBI interaction or
contact with Steele.
Former CIA Contractor Worked for Fusion GPS
Notably, eight months before Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele,
Simpson had hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of then-Associate Deputy Attorney
General Bruce Ohr, to work for his firm as a researcher in October 2015. It was
at this time that Fusion GPS was retained by the Washington Free Beacon to
engage in research on the Trump campaign.
Prior to joining Fusion GPS, Nellie had worked as an independent
contractor for an internal open-source division of the CIA, Open Source Works,
from 2008 to at least June 2010; it appears likely she remained in that role
into 2014.
Nellie told congressional investigators, in her Oct. 19, 2018,
closed-door testimony, that part of her work for Fusion GPS was to research the
Trump 2016 presidential campaign, including campaign associate Carter Page,
early campaign supporter Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and campaign manager Paul
Manafort, as well as Trump’s family members, including some of his children.
Additionally, email communications between her and Bruce Ohr show that
she routinely sent her husband at the DOJ articles on Russia—most carrying a
similar negative slant. The emails continued through the duration of Nellie’s
employment with Fusion GPS and usually contained a brief, often one-line
comment from Nellie.
In her testimony, Nellie described her work as online open-source
efforts that utilized “Russian sources, media, social media, government, you
know, business registers, legal databases, all kinds of things.” Ohr said that
she would “write occasional reports based on the open-source research that I
described about Donald Trump’s relationships with various people in Russia.”
The work Nellie conducted for Fusion GPS matches the same skill set used
when she worked for Open Source Works, which is a division within the CIA that
uses open-source information to produce intelligence products.
When asked how she came to be hired by Fusion GPS and who had approached
her, Nellie responded, “Nobody approached me,” telling investigators that it
was she who had initiated contact and approached Fusion GPS after reading an
article on Simpson.
Nellie would continue to work for Fusion GPS until September 2016. By
this time, Simpson and Steele already had started working on pushing the Steele
dossier into the FBI.
Following the end of her employment with Fusion GPS, Nellie provided
Bruce with a memory stick that contained all of the research she had compiled
during her time at the firm. Bruce then gave the memory stick to the FBI,
through his handler, Joe Pientka.
Bruce Ohr Becomes a Conduit
Nearly a month after Gaeta brought back the reports that Steele provided
in London, Simpson and Steele decided to pursue a new channel into the FBI
through Bruce Ohr. Bruce had known Steele since at least 2007, when they met
during an “official meeting” while Steele was still employed by the British
government as an MI6 agent. Steele had already been in contact with Bruce via
email in early 2016. Notably, most of these prior communications appeared to
discuss Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and his ongoing efforts to obtain a
U.S. visa.
On July 29, 2016, Steele wrote to Bruce, saying that he would “be in DC at short notice on
business,” and asked to meet with both Bruce and his wife. On July 30, 2016,
the Ohrs met Steele for breakfast at the Mayflower Hotel. Also present at the
breakfast meeting was a fourth individual, described by Bruce as “an associate
of Mr. Steele’s, another gentleman, younger fellow. I didn’t catch his
name.” Nellie testified that Steele’s associate had a British accent.
The timing of the July 30 breakfast meeting is of particular note, as
the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, “Crossfire Hurricane,” was
formally opened the following day, on July 31, 2016, by FBI agent Peter Strzok.
According to a transcript of Bruce’s
testimony before Congress, Steele relayed information from his dossier at this meeting and claimed that “a former head
of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, had stated to someone …
that they had Donald Trump over a barrel.”
Steele also referenced Deripaska’s business dealings with Trump campaign
chairman Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter Page’s meetings in
Moscow.
Lastly, Bruce noted that Steele told him he had been in contact with the
FBI but now had additional reports. “Chris Steele had provided some reports to
the FBI, I think two, but that Glenn Simpson had more,” he said.
Immediately following the Ohrs’ breakfast meeting with Steele, Bruce Ohr
reached out to FBI Deputy Director McCabe and the two met in McCabe’s
office—sometime between July 30 and the first days of August. Also present at
this meeting was FBI lawyer Page, who had previously worked for Bruce Ohr at
the DOJ, where he was her direct supervisor for five to six years.
Bruce Ohr would later testify that during the July/August meeting, he
told McCabe that his wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion, noting, “I wanted the FBI
to be aware of any possible bias.” FBI General Counsel Baker, who reviewed a
portion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to spy
on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page—which relied in part on the information
from Steele—told congressional investigators that he was never told of Ohr’s
concerns regarding possible bias and conflicts of interest.
On Aug. 15, 2016, a week or two following Bruce Ohr’s meeting with
McCabe, Strzok would send the now-infamous “insurance policy” text referencing
McCabe to Lisa Page:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s
office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take
that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before
you’re 40.”
On Aug. 22, Bruce Ohr had a meeting with Simpson. Ohr would later
discuss that meeting during his testimony:
“I don’t know exactly what Chris Steele was thinking, of course, but I
knew that Chris Steele was working for Glenn Simpson, and that Glenn might have
additional information that Chris either didn’t have or was not authorized to
prevent [present], give me, or whatever.”
It was at this meeting that Simpson first mentioned Belarusan-American
businessman Sergei Millian and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
Brennan’s
Briefings to the Gang of Eight
During this same period in late August
2016, Brennan began briefing members of the Gang of Eight on the FBI’s
counterintelligence investigation, through a series of meetings in August and
September 2016. Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately,
calling into question whether each of the members received the same
information. Efforts by Democrats to block the
release of transcripts from each meeting are ongoing. Comey, however, did not
notify Congress of the FBI investigation until early March 2017, and it’s
entirely possible he was unaware of Brennan’s private briefings during the
summer of 2016.
During her testimony, FBI lawyer Lisa Page was questioned by Rep. Mark
Meadows (R-N.C.) in relation to an Aug. 25, 2016, text message that read, “What
are you doing after the CH brief?” CH almost certainly referred
to Crossfire Hurricane.
Lisa Page then was asked about an event that took place on the same day
as the “CH brief”—a briefing provided by Brennan to then-Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid:
“You give a brief on August the 25th. Director Brennan is giving a
brief. It’s not a Gang of Eight brief. It is a one-on-one, from what we can
tell, a one-on-one briefing with Harry Reid at that point.”
According to Meadows, Brennan briefed Reid on the Steele dossier:
“We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier
was mentioned to Harry Reid and then obviously we’re going to have to have
conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware [of
the dossier]?”
Lisa Page appeared genuinely surprised that Brennan would have been
aware of the dossier’s existence at this early point, telling Meadows: “The FBI
got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that
information, I am neither aware of that nor did the CIA provide it to us if
they did.”
She elaborated further: “As of August of 2016, I don’t know who
Christopher Steele is. I don’t know that he’s an FBI source. I don’t know what
he does. I have never heard of him in all of my life.”
This claim by Page seems incongruous when viewed against Bruce Ohr’s
testimony that he met with Page and McCabe in the first days of August
following his July 30, 2016, breakfast with Steele:
“My initial meeting was with Mr. McCabe and with Lisa Page.
“I was telling them about what I was hearing from Chris Steele.”
Meanwhile, Brennan’s briefing prompted Reid to write not one but two
letters to Comey. Both demanded that Comey commence an investigation, with the
details to be made public.
Reid’s first letter, which touched on Carter Page, was sent on Aug. 27, 2016. Reid’s second letter, far angrier and declaring Comey to be in possession of material
information, was sent on Oct. 30, 2016.
There had been reports that Comey had been considering closing the FBI investigation of
Trump, something Brennan strongly opposed. Now, with Reid’s letters sent, that
avenue was effectively closed. The termination of the FBI’s Trump–Russia
investigation would be all but impossible in the face of Reid’s public demands.
Perhaps it was in response to Reid’s Aug.
27 letter that the FBI suddenly reached out to Steele in September 2016, asking
him for all the information in his possession. The team working on Crossfire
Hurricane received documents and a briefing from Steele in mid-September, reportedly at a meeting in Rome, where Gaeta also was present.
During Lisa Page’s testimony, she appeared
to corroborate this account, noting that the team received the “reports that
are known as the dossier from an FBI agent who is Christopher Steele’s handler
in September of 2016.” She would later clarify the timing, noting “we
received the reporting from Steele in mid-September.” A text sent
to her by FBI agent Peter Strzok on Oct. 12, 2016, may provide us with the
actual date:
“We got the reporting on Sept 19. Looks like [redacted] got it early
August.”
Steele had produced eight reports from June 20, 2016, through the end of
August 2016 (there also is one undated report included in the dossier). No
further reports were generated by Steele until Sept. 14, when he suddenly wrote
three separate memos in one day. One of the memos referenced a Russian bank named
Alfa Bank, misspelled as “Alpha” in his memo. Steele’s sudden burst of
productivity was likely done in preparation for his Oct. 19 meeting in Rome
with the FBI.
The impact of Brennan’s potential knowledge
of the dossier in August 2016 should not be underestimated. As Brennan testified to
Congress, his briefing to the Gang of Eight was done in consultation with the
Obama administration:
“Through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept Congress apprised
of these issues as we identified them. Again, in consultation with the White
House, I personally briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian
attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership.
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active
counter-intelligence case, involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in
our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were
shared only with those members of Congress.”
The Carter Page FISA Warrant
As the dossier was making its way into the FBI, the agency began its
preparations to obtain a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page,
who was surveilled under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
According to Baker’s testimony, it appears that the FBI began to set its
sights on Carter Page in the summer of 2016. When asked how he had first gained
knowledge of the FBI’s intention to pursue a FISA warrant on Carter Page, Baker
testified that it came through his familiarity with the FBI’s investigation:
Mr. Baker: “I learned of — so I was aware
when the FBI first started to focus on Carter Page, I was aware of that because
it was part of the broader investigation that we were conducting. So I was
aware that we were investigating him. And then at some point in time –”
Rep. Meadows: “But that was many years ago. That was in 2014. Or are you
talking about 2016?”
Mr. Baker: “I am talking about 2016 in the
summer.”
Rep. Meadows: “Okay.”
Mr. Baker: “Yeah. And so I was aware of the
investigation, and then at some point in time, as part of the regular briefings
on the case, the briefers mentioned that they were going to pursue a FISA.”
It appears the FBI, and possibly the CIA, began to focus on Carter Page
earlier than Baker was aware. Carter Page had been invited some months prior to
a July 2016 symposium held at Cambridge regarding the upcoming election. The
speaker list was notable:
·
Madeleine
Albright (former U.S. secretary of state)
·
Vin
Weber (Republican Party strategist and
former congressman)
·
Peter
Ammon (German ambassador to the UK)
·
Sir
Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6 and Steele’s
former boss)
·
Bridget
Kendall (BBC diplomatic correspondent and the
next master of Peterhouse College)
·
Sir
Malcolm Rifkind (former defense and foreign
secretary)
Carter Page attended the event just four days after his July 2016 Moscow
trip, and it was during this time in the UK that he first encountered Stefan
Halper. Page’s Moscow trip would later figure prominently in the Steele
dossier.
Halper, who has been outed as an FBI informant, stayed in contact with
Carter Page for the next 14 months, severing ties exactly as the final FISA
warrant on Page expired.
Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel for the FBI and
head of the bureau’s National Security and Cyber Law Branch, approved the
application for a warrant to spy on Carter Page before it went to FBI Director
James Comey.
According to Anderson, pre-approvals for the Carter Page FISA warrant
were provided by both McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, before
the FISA application was ever presented to Anderson for review.
“[M]y boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this
application. And, in fact, the Deputy Attorney General, who had the authority
to sign the application, to be the substantive approver on the FISA application
itself, had approved the application. And that typically would not have been
the case before I did that,” said Anderson.
The unusual preliminary reviews and approvals from both McCabe and Yates
appear to have had a substantial impact on the normal review process, leading
other individuals like Anderson to believe that the warrant application was
more vetted than it really was.
Anderson also testified that she had not read the Carter Page FISA
application prior to signing off on it and passing it along to Comey for the
final FBI signature. According to FBI lawyer Sally Moyer, the underlying Woods
file (a document that provides facts supporting the allegations made in a FISA
application) was only read by the originating agent and the supervisory special
agent in the field. Moyer also noted that the Woods file relating to the Page
FISA had not been reviewed or audited by anyone.
The Carter Page FISA application was largely reliant on the Steele
dossier, which was unverified at the time of its submission to the FISA court
and remains unverified by the FBI to this day. Circular reporting, provided by
Steele himself, was used as corroboration of the dossier. Additionally, Trump
campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, whose conversation with Australian
diplomat Alexander Downer was used to open the FBI’s July 31, 2016,
counterintelligence investigation, is referenced in the FISA, yet there “is no
evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos,”
according to a House Intelligence Committee memo.
Moyer testified that without the Steele dossier, the Carter Page
application would have had a “50/50” chance of achieving the probable cause
standard before the FISA court. Notably, the Steele dossier is generally
considered to have been largely discredited.
A Perkins Coie Partner and Alfa Bank Allegations
On Sept. 19, shortly after Steele completed his latest three memos, FBI
General Counsel James Baker met with Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann, the
lawyer the DNC turned to on April 28, 2016, after discovering the alleged
hacking of their servers.
Sussman, who sought out the meeting, presented Baker with documents that
Baker described as “a stack of material I don’t know maybe a quarter inch half
inch thick something like that clipped together, and then I believe there was
some type of electronic media, as well, a disk or something.”
The information that Sussmann gave to Baker was related to what Baker
described as “a surreptitious channel of communications” between the Trump
Organization and “a Russian organization associated with the Russian
Government.”
Baker was describing alleged communications between Alfa Bank and a
server in the Trump Tower. The allegations, which were investigated by the FBI
and proven to be false, were widely covered in the media.
Just four days earlier, on Sept. 14, Steele mentioned Alfa Bank
(misspelled as Alpha bank) in one of his memos.
According to Baker’s testimony, there appears to have been at least
three meetings with Sussmann—the first in person and at least two subsequent
meetings by phone. In either the second or third conversation, Baker came to
understand The New York Times was also in possession of Sussmann’s information.
As would become clear later, other members of the media also had this same
information.
As Baker was meeting with Sussmann, Steele was back in Washington for a
series of meetings that included his DOJ contact, Bruce Ohr.
On Sept. 23, 2016, Bruce Ohr again met with Steele for breakfast,
telling lawmakers during testimony, “Steele was in Washington, D.C., again, and
he reached out to me, and, again, we met for breakfast, and he provided some
additional information.” Ohr said this meeting concerned similar topics that
were discussed at the July 30, 2016, meeting but did not provide further
details.
Bruce Ohr would also meet either that same month or in early October
with FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and DOJ career officials
from the criminal division, Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, and Andrew Weissman
(Ohr testified that he was unsure whether Weismann was at this or a later
meeting). Both Weissman and Ahmad would later become part of the team assembled
by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Steele’s Meetings With the Media
On the same day that Bruce Ohr met with
Christopher Steele for breakfast, on Sept. 23, 2016, Yahoo News reporter
Michael Isikoff published an article about Trump campaign foreign policy
adviser Carter Page. The article, headlined “U.S. Intel Officials Probe Ties Between Trump
Adviser and Kremlin,” was based on an
interview with Steele. Isikoff’s article would later be used by the FBI in the
FISA spy warrant application on Carter Page as corroborating information.
Following the publication of the Isikoff
article, the Hillary for America campaign released a statement on the same day that touted Isikoff’s “bombshell report,” with the full article
attached.
A second lengthy article was published on
Sept. 23, by Politico: “Who Is Carter Page? The Mystery of Trump’s Man
in Moscow,” by Julia Ioffe. This article was
particularly interesting as it appeared to highlight media efforts by Fusion
GPS:
“As I started looking into Page, I began getting calls from two separate
‘corporate investigators’ digging into what they claim are all kinds of shady
connections Page has to all kinds of shady Russians. One is working on behalf
of various unnamed Democratic donors; the other won’t say who turned him on to
Page’s scent. Both claimed to me that the FBI was investigating Page for
allegedly meeting with Igor Sechin and Sergei Ivanov, who was until recently
Putin’s chief of staff—both of whom are on the sanctions list—when Page was in
Moscow in July for that speech.”
Ioffe noted that “seemingly everyone I talked to had also talked to the
Washington Post, and then there were these corporate investigators who drew a
dark and complex web of Page’s connections.”
Her article also mentioned rumors regarding Alfa Bank:
“In the interest of due diligence, I also tried to run down the rumors
being handed me by the corporate investigators: that Russia’s Alfa Bank paid
for the trip as a favor to the Kremlin; that Page met with Sechin and Ivanov in
Moscow; that he is now being investigated by the FBI for those meetings because
Sechin and Ivanov were both sanctioned for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
It was probably during this same trip to
Washington that Steele met withJonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for
international law enforcement and former special envoy for Libya, whom Steele
had known since at least 2010.
Winer had received a separate dossier, very similar to Steele’s, from longtime Clinton confidant Sidney
Blumenthal. This “second dossier” had been compiled by another longtime Clinton
operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele
dossier. Winer gave Steele a copy of the “second dossier.” Steele then shared this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it as a
means to corroborate Steele’s own dossier.
Steele also met with U.S. media during his
visit to Washington, doing so “at Fusion’s instruction.” According to UK Court documents, Steele testified that he “briefed” The New York Times, The Washington
Post, Yahoo News, The New Yorker, and CNN at the end of September 2016. Steele
would engage in a second round of media contact in mid-October 2016, meeting
again with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Yahoo News. Steele testified
that all these meetings were “conducted verbally in person.”
Alfa Bank Media Leaks
As Steele’s media meetings were going on, FBI General Counsel James
Baker learned that Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann was also speaking with
reporters from The New York Times regarding the Alfa Bank information that
Sussmann had provided to the FBI. After some internal discussion, the FBI
approached both Sussmann and The New York Times, asking that any story be held
until the FBI had time to complete an investigation into the documents provided
by Sussmann. It appears that an agreement was reached, and the FBI began to
look into the claims regarding Alfa Bank and the server at Trump Tower.
But Sussman wasn’t the only one that Baker, currently the subject of an
ongoing criminal leak investigation, was speaking with. According to
congressional investigators, beginning sometime in September 2016—before the
presidential election—Baker began having conversations with his old friend and
journalist, David Corn of Mother Jones.
According to Baker, these conversations were in relation to ongoing FBI
matters:
Rep. Jordan: “Did you talk to Mr. Corn prior
to the election about anything, anything related to FBI matters? Not — so we’re
not going to ask about the Steele dossier. Anything about FBI business, FBI
matters?”
Mr. Baker: “Yes.”
Rep. Jordan: “Yes. And do you know —
can you give me some dates or the number of times that you talked to Mr. Corn
about FBI matters leading up to the 2016 Presidential election?”
Mr. Baker: “I don’t remember, Congressman.”
By Oct. 31, 2016, the FBI had apparently wrapped up their investigation
into the Alfa Bank allegations, finding no evidence of anything untoward in the
process. It was on this day that three separate articles on Alfa Bank would be
published.
The first, “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No
Clear Link to Russia” by The New York Times,
appeared to be an updated version of the article they had intended to publish
before the FBI asked them to delay their reporting. It stated the following:
“In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials
also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between
Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention
on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel
between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia’s
biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin.”
The reference to “classified sessions in August and September” is likely
in relation to the series of Gang of Eight briefings that former CIA Director
John Brennan engaged in at that time—including his briefing to then-Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid. The article continued:
“F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd
stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs
obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more
than 2,700 ‘look-up’ messages—a first step for one system’s computers to talk
to another—to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I.
ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a
marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.”
The second article, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With
Russia?” by Slate Magazine, was solely focused
on the allegations regarding a server in the Trump Tower that had allegedly
been communicating with a server at Alfa Bank in Russia.
Immediately following the publication of
the Slate article, Clinton posted a tweet that included a statement from Jake Sullivan, a senior policy
adviser:
“Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking
the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”
Sullivan’s statement referenced the Slate article and included the
following:
“This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.
Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump
Organization to a Russian-based bank.
“This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s
ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization felt it had something
to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was
discovered by journalists.”
The Alfa Bank story took off—despite the same-day story from The New
York Times that specifically noted the FBI had investigated that matter and
found nothing untoward.
The final article published on Oct. 31, “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information
Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump” by Mother Jones reporter—and Baker’s friend —David Corn, also
mentioned Alfa Bank:
“In recent weeks, reporters in Washington
have pursued anonymous online reports that a
computer server related to the Trump Organization engaged in a high level of
activity with servers connected to Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in
Russia. On Monday, a Slate investigation detailed the pattern of unusual server activity but concluded, ‘We
don’t yet know what this [Trump] server was for, but it deserves further
explanation.’ In an email to Mother Jones, Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign
spokeswoman, maintains, ‘The Trump Organization is not sending or receiving any
communications from this email server. The Trump Organization has no
communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.’”
More notably, Corn’s article also provided the first public reporting on
the existence of the Steele dossier:
“A former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who
specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent
months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with
Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to
co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.”
As it turns out, Corn had detailed, first-hand knowledge of the dossier.
According to testimony from Baker, Corn had been provided with parts of the
dossier by Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson. Baker knew of this fact, because
within a week of publishing his article, Corn passed these dossier parts on to
Baker personally:
Rep. Jordan: “Prior to the election Mr. Corn
had a copy of the dossier and was talking to you about giving that to you so
the FBI would have it. Is that all right? I mean all accurate.”
Mr. Baker: “My recollection is that he had
part of the dossier, that we had other parts already, and that we got still
other parts from other people, and that — and nevertheless some of the parts
that David Corn gave us were parts that we did not have from another source?”
Steele had written four memos after the FBI team received his
information in mid-September. All of the memos were written in October—on the
12th, 18th, 19th, and the 20th. It is possible that these were the memos
passed along to Baker by Corn.
Baker testified that he received elements of the dossier from Corn that
were not in the FBI’s possession at the time. He said that he immediately
turned this information over to leadership within the FBI, noting, “I think it
was Bill Priestap,” the head of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.
The use of personal relationships as a mechanism to transmit outside
information to the FBI was actually noted by Baker, who said of Corn: “Even
though he was my friend, I was also an FBI official. He knew that. And so he
wanted to somehow get that into the hands of the FBI.”
Bruce Ohr’s FBI Handler
Christopher Steele was terminated as a source by the FBI on Nov. 1,
2016, for communicating with the media. Despite this, DOJ official Bruce Ohr
and Steele communicated regularly for another full year, until November 2017.
On Nov. 21, 2016, Ohr had a meeting with
FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and was introduced to FBI
agent Joe Pientka, who became Ohr’s FBI handler. Pientka was also present with
Strzok during the Jan. 24, 2017, interview of Trump’s national security adviser, Lt.
Gen. Michael Flynn.
The next day, Nov. 22, 2016, Ohr met alone with Pientka. Ohr would
continue to relay his communications with Steele to the FBI through Pientka,
who then recorded them in FD-302 forms. What Ohr didn’t know was that Pientka
was transmitting all the information directly to Strzok.
Ohr, in his testimony, detailed his interactions with Steele and Glenn
Simpson, as well as his communications with officials at the FBI and DOJ.
Notably, Ohr repeatedly stated that he never vetted any of the information
provided by either Steele or Simpson. He simply turned it over or relayed it to
the FBI—usually to Pientka—but Ohr also testified that “at least on two
occasions I was handed onto a new agent.”
Sometime in late 2016, his wife, Nellie Ohr, provided him with a memory
stick containing all of her research that she had compiled while employed at
Fusion GPS. Bruce Ohr testified he gave the memory stick to Pientka. Nellie Ohr
had left Fusion in September 2016. Through Pientka, Strzok now had all of
Nellie Ohr’s Fusion research in his possession.
On Dec. 10, 2016, Bruce Ohr met with Simpson, who gave him a memory
stick that Ohr believed contained a copy of the Steele dossier. Ohr also passed
this second memory stick along to Pientka.
On Jan. 20, 2017, Ohr had one final communication with Simpson, a phone
call that took place on the same day as Trump’s inauguration. Ohr testified
that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson was concerned that one of Steele’s
sources was about to be exposed through the pending publication of an article:
Mr. Ohr: “He says something along the
lines of, I — there’s going to be some reporting in the next few days that’s
going to — could expose the source, and the source could be in personal
danger.”
Rep. Meadows: “And why was he concerned about
that source being exposed?”
Mr. Ohr: “I think he was aware of some
kind of article that was likely to come out in the next, you know, few days or
something.”
Apparently, Simpson’s information was at least
partly accurate. On Jan. 24, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sergei Millian, a Belarusan-American businessman and
onetime Russian government translator, was both “Source D” and “Source E” in
the dossier. It remains unknown exactly how Simpson knew in advance that
Millian would be outed as a source.
But there are some questions as to the accuracy of the Journal’s
reporting. The dossier appears to conflict with the newspaper’s article in at
least one aspect. According to the dossier, Source E was used as confirmation
for Source D—meaning they can’t be the same person.
McCain, the Dossier, and a UK Connection
Simpson and Steele were carefully thorough in their dissemination
efforts. The dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different
sources.
One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the
former British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood
may have previously worked on behalf of Steele’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence; he was
referenced in a UK court filing as an associate of Orbis. Wood was also referred to as an adviser
to Orbis in a deposition by an associate of late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.),
David Kramer.
Kramer knew Wood previously from their mutual expertise on Russia.
Kramer said in his deposition, which was part of a defamation lawsuit against
BuzzFeed News, that Wood told him that “he was aware of information that he
thought I should be aware of and that Senator McCain might be interested in.”
McCain, Wood, and Kramer would meet later that afternoon, on Nov. 19,
2016, in a private meeting room at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova
Scotia, Canada.
Wood told both Kramer and McCain that “he was aware of this information
that had been gathered that raised the possibility of collusion and
compromising material on the president-elect. And he explained that he knew the
person who gathered the information and felt that the person was of the utmost
credibility,” Kramer said.
Kramer ascribed the word “collusion” three times to Wood in his
deposition. He also said that Wood mentioned the possible existence of a
video “of a sexual nature” that might have “shown the president-elect in a
compromising situation.” According to Kramer, Wood said that “if it existed,
that it was from a hotel in Moscow when president-elect, before he was
president-elect, had been in Moscow.”
No such video was ever uncovered or given to Kramer.
Kramer testified that following the description of the video, “the
senator turned to me and asked if I would go to London to meet with what turned
out to be Mr. Steele.”
Kramer traveled to London to meet with Steele on Nov. 28, 2016. Kramer
reviewed all the memos during his meeting with Steele but wasn’t provided with
a physical copy of the dossier.
When Kramer returned to Washington, he was provided with a copy of the
dossier—which, at that point, consisted of 16 memos—during a meeting with
Simpson on Nov. 29, 2016. Kramer also testified that there was another
individual, “a male,” present at the meeting.
Interestingly, Kramer testified that Simpson gave him two copies of the
dossier, noting that Simpson told him that “one had more things blacked out
than the other.” Kramer said, “It wasn’t entirely clear to me why there were
two versions of this, so but I took both versions.”
Kramer noted that Simpson, who was aware the dossier was being given to
McCain, said the dossier “was a very sensitive document and needed to be
handled very carefully.”
Despite that warning, Kramer showed the dossier to a number of
journalists and had discussions with at least 14 members of the media, along
with some individuals in the U.S. government.
Kramer testified that he gave a physical copy of the dossier to
reporters Peter Stone and Greg Gordon of McClatchy; to Fred Hiatt, the editor
of the Washington Post editorial page; Alan Cullison of The Wall Street
Journal; Bob Little at NPR; Carl Bernstein at CNN; and Ken Bensinger at
BuzzFeed. It’s possible that Kramer gave copies to other reporters as well.
Kramer said that Simpson and Steele were aware of most of these
contacts, but that Kramer hadn’t told either of them that he gave the dossier
to NPR. He also noted that Steele had been in contact with Bernstein at CNN and
that the CNN and BuzzFeed meetings occurred at Steele’s request. Steele told
Kramer that he and Bensinger “had been in touch during the FIFA investigation;
they got to know each other that way.”
According to Kramer, he didn’t believe that Fusion GPS and Simpson were
aware of these two meetings with CNN and BuzzFeed.
Kramer testified that he, McCain, and McCain’s chief of staff,
Christopher Brose, met to review the dossier on Nov. 30, 2016. Kramer suggested
that McCain “provide a copy of [the dossier] to the director of the FBI and the
director of the CIA.” McCain later passed a copy of the dossier to James Comey
on Dec. 9, 2016. It isn’t known whether McCain also provided a copy to then-CIA
Director John Brennan. Notably, Brennan did attach a two-page summary of the
dossier to the intelligence community assessment that he delivered to outgoing
President Barack Obama on Jan. 5, 2017.
Kramer said that he wasn’t aware of the content of McCain’s Dec. 9
discussion with Comey, noting that he “did not get any readout from the senator
on the meeting, but just that it had happened.”
Kramer did, however, provide updates to both Steele and Simpson
regarding the status of McCain’s meeting with Comey, in subsequent discussions
with Simpson and Steele:
“It was mostly just to inform him about whether or not the senator had
transfer — transmitted the document to the FBI. Both he and Mr. Steele were — I
kept them apprised of whether the senator was — where the senator was in terms
of his contact with the FBI.”
The implications of this statement are significant. Kramer, a private
citizen, was providing updates to a former British spy as to what a sitting
senator, and chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, was saying to
the director of the FBI.
Other members of the media also had advance knowledge of McCain’s
intention to meet with Comey. Kramer testified that both Mother Jones reporter
David Corn and Guardian reporter Julian Borger came to meet with him. According
to Kramer, “They were mostly interested in Senator McCain and his, whether he
had given it to Director Comey or not.”
Several days after McCain, Brose, and Kramer met to discuss the dossier,
Kramer said that McCain instructed him to meet with Victoria Nuland, the
assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, and Celeste
Wallander, the senior director for Russia and Central Asia on the National
Security Council.
The purpose of the meeting was to verify whether the dossier “was being
taken seriously.” Both Nuland and Wallander were previously aware of the
dossier’s existence, and both officials previously knew Steele, whom “they
believed to be credible.” Kramer said he didn’t physically share the dossier
with them at this point, but met again with Wallander “around New Years” and
“gave her a copy of the document”
Steele produced a final memo dated Dec. 13,
2016. According to UK court documents, Kramer, on behalf of McCain, had asked Steele to provide any further
intelligence that he had gathered relating to “alleged Russian interference in
the US presidential election.” Notably, it appears it was this request from
McCain that led Steele to produce his Dec. 13 memo.
Although Kramer didn’t provide a date, he said he received the final
Steele memo sometime after “Senator McCain had provided the copy to Director
Comey.” We know that Kramer received the final memo prior to Dec. 29—when
Kramer met with BuzzFeed’s Bensinger.
Kramer testified that Bensinger “said he wanted to read them, he asked
me if he could take photos of them on his—I assume it was an iPhone. I asked
him not to. He said he was a slow reader, he wanted to read it. And so I said,
you know, I got a phone call to make, and I had to go to the bathroom…” Kramer
said that he “left him to read it for 20, 30 minutes.”
Kramer also testified that besides the reporters, he gave a final copy
of the dossier to two other people in early January 2017: Rep. Adam Kinzinger
(R-Il.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan’s chief of staff, Jonathan Burks.
James Clapper Leaks Details of Obama–Trump Briefings
The ICA on alleged Russian
hacking was released internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, outgoing
president Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the
assessment—and the attached summation of the dossier—with national security
adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates. Rice would later send herself an email documenting
the meeting.
The following day, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele
dossier to the classified briefing they gave Obama. Comey then met with
President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place
just hours after Comey, Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the
ICA and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the
“salacious” details contained within the dossier. He laterexplained on CNN
in an April 2018 interview that he had done so at the request of Clapper and
Brennan, “because that was the part that the leaders of the intelligence
community agreed he needed to be told about.”
Shortly after Comey’s meeting with Trump,
both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to
CNN. The significance of the meeting was material, as Comey noted in a Jan. 7 memo:
“Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was
important that we not give them the excuse to write that the FBI has the
material.”
The media had widely dismissed the dossier
as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning
that Comey briefed Trump on it that CNN reported on the dossier. The House Intelligence Committee report on Russian
election interference confirmed that Clapper personally leaked confirmation of
the dossier, along with Comey’s meeting with Trump, to CNN:
“The Committee’s investigation revealed that President-elect Trump was
indeed briefed on the contents of the Steele dossier and when questioned by the
Committee, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted that
he confirmed the existence of the dossier to the media.”
Additionally, the House intelligence report shows Clapper appears to
have been the direct source for CNN’s Jake Tapper and his Jan. 10 story that
disclosed the existence of the dossier:
“When initially asked about leaks related to the ICA in July 2017,
former DNI Clapper flatly denied ‘discuss[ing] the dossier [compiled by Steele]
or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with
journalists.’ Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with
CNN journalist Jake Tapper,’ and admitted that he might have spoken with other
journalists about the same topic.
“Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017,
around the time IC leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump,
on ‘the Christopher Steele information,’ a two-page summary of which was
‘enclosed in’ the highly-classified version of the ICA.”
On Jan. 10, 2017, CNN published the article “Intel Chiefs Presented Trump With
Claims of Russian Efforts to Compromise Him” by Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper, and Carl Bernstein. (The
article would later be updated and have a Jan. 12, 2017, date.)
The allegations within the dossier were made public, and with reporting
of the briefings by intelligence community leaders, instant credibility was
given to the dossier’s assertions.
Immediately following the CNN story, BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier, and the Trump–Russia conspiracy was pushed
into the mainstream.
David Kramer was asked about his reaction when CNN broke the story on
the dossier. According to his deposition, Kramer stated, “I believe my words
were ‘Holy [expletive].’”
Kramer, who was actually meeting with The Guardian’s Julian Borger when
CNN reported on the dossier, said that he quickly spoke with Steele, who “was
shocked.”
On the following day, Jan. 11, 2017, Clapper issued a statement condemning
the leaks—without revealing the fact that he was the source of the leak.
On Nov. 17, 2016, Clapper submitted his resignation as director of
national intelligence; his resignation became effective on Jan. 20, 2017. Later
that year, CNN hired Clapper as its national security analyst.
The Effort to Remove General Flynn
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then-national
security adviser to President Donald Trump, was interviewed on Jan. 24, 2017, by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka about
two December 2016 conversations that Flynn had had with Russian Ambassador
Sergei Kislyak.
Details of the phone conversation had leaked to the media. Flynn
ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI regarding his
conversations with Kislyak. It remains unknown to this day who leaked Flynn’s
classified call—a far more serious felony violation.
The Washington Post reported in January
2017 that the FBI had found no evidence of wrongdoing in Flynn’s actual call with the Russian ambassador. The call, and
the matters discussed in it, broke no laws.
Flynn has been portrayed in the media as being suspiciously close to
Russia; a dinner in Moscow that occurred in late 2015 is frequently cited as
evidence of this.
On Dec. 10, 2015, Flynn attended an event in Moscow to celebrate the
10th anniversary of Russian television network RT. Flynn, who was seated next
to Russian President Vladimir Putin for the culminating dinner, was also
interviewed on national security matters by an RT correspondent. Flynn’s
speaker’s bureau, Leading Authorities Inc., was paid $45,000 for the event and
Flynn received $33,000 of the total amount.
Seated at the same table with Flynn was
Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in the 2016 election. By all accounts,
including Stein’s, Flynn and Putin didn’t engage in any real conversation. At the time,
Flynn’s trip didn’t garner significant attention. But it would later be used by
the media and the Clinton campaign to push the Russia-collusion narrative.
Notably, as stated by lawyer Robert Kelner, Flynn disclosed his Moscow trip to the
Defense Intelligence Agency before he traveled there and provided a full
briefing upon his return:
“As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense
Intelligence Agency, a component agency of the DoD, extensively regarding the
RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any
questions that were posed by the DIA concerning the trip during those
briefings.”
Flynn’s trip to Russia was first brought to
broader attention on July 18, 2016, during a live interview at the Republican National Convention with Yahoo News reporter
Michael Isikoff.
The Isikoff interview took place on July 18, 2016. Unknown at the time,
the matter had also captured the attention of Christopher Steele, who had begun
publishing his dossier memos on June 20, 2016.
“Kremlin engaging with several high profile US players, including STEIN,
PAGE and (former DIA Director Michael Flynn) and funding their recent visits to
Moscow.”
In addition to the obvious questions raised by the timing of Flynn’s
name appearing in Steele’s Aug. 10 memo, is the manner in which Flynn is
denoted. All other names are capitalized, in the manner of intelligence briefings.
Flynn’s name isn’t capitalized and, in one case, appears within parentheses.
Steele met with Yahoo News’ Isikoff in
September 2016 and gave him information from the dossier. The resulting Sept.
23, 2016, article from Isikoff was then cited by the FBI as validating Steele’s
claims and was featured in the original FISA application, and its
three subsequent renewals, for a
warrant to spy on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
Steele wasn’t the only person Isikoff was
working with. On April 26, 2016, Isikoff published a story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort’s business dealings with
Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a Democratic
National Committee (DNC) email leaked by Wikileaks that
Isikoff had been working with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American operative
who was doing consulting work for the DNC. Chalupa met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose
alleged ties between Trump, Manafort, and Russia.
The obvious question remains: How did the information on Flynn make its
way into the dossier at the time it did, and who provided the information to
Steele?
Flynn’s 2015 dinner in Moscow was initially
used to implicate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. It was then used as a means to cast doubts on Flynn’s ability as Trump’s national
security adviser. Following Flynn’s resignation, it was then used as a means to
pursue the ongoing collusion narrative that gained full strength in the early
days of the Trump administration.
A Jan. 10, 2017, article in The New York
Times, “Trump’s National Security Pick Sees Ally in
Fight Against Islamists: Russia,” highlighted
the efforts:
“In an extraordinary report released last
week, the agencies bluntly accusedthe Russian government of having worked to undermine American democracy
and promote the candidacy of Mr. Trump. The report is likely to renew questions
about Mr. Flynn’s avowed eagerness to work with Russia, and his dismissal of
concerns about President Vladimir V. Putin.”
Flynn would resign from his position as national security adviser in
February 2017. The sequence of events leading to his resignation were both
coordinated and orchestrated, with acting Attorney General Sally Yates playing
a leading role.
On Jan. 12, 2017, Flynn’s Dec. 29, 2016,
call with Kislyak was leaked to The Washington Post. The article portrayed Flynn as undermining
Obama’s Russia sanctions that had been imposed on the same day as Flynn’s call
with the Russian ambassador.
On Jan. 15, five days before Trump’s
inauguration, Vice President Mike Pence appeared on “Face the Nation” to defend Flynn’s calls.
A few days later, on Jan. 19, Obama
officials—Yates, Clapper, Brennan and Comey—met to discuss Flynn’s situation.
The concern they reportedlydiscussed was that Flynn might have misled Trump administration
officials regarding the nature of his call with Kislyak.
Yates, Clapper, and Brennan supported informing the Trump administration
of their concerns. Comey took a dissenting view. On Jan 23, Yates again
pressured Comey, telling the FBI director that she believed Flynn could be
vulnerable to blackmail. At this point, according to media reports, Comey
relented, despite the FBI finding nothing unlawful in the content of Flynn’s
calls.
Strzok and Pientka, at the instruction of McCabe, interviewed Flynn the
following day. According to court documents, McCabe and other FBI officials
“decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an
FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed.” It was during this
interview that Flynn reportedly lied to the FBI.
The DOJ was provided with a detailed briefing of the Flynn interview on
the following day. On Jan. 26, Yates contacted White House counsel Don McGahn,
who agreed to meet to discuss the matter. Yates arrived at McGahn’s office,
bringing Mary McCord, John Carlin’s acting replacement as head of the DOJ’s
National Security Division.
Yates later testified before
Congress that the meeting surrounded Flynn’s phone calls and his FBI interview.
She also testified that Flynn’s call and subsequent interview “was a topic of a
whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”
McGahn reportedly asked Yates, “Why does it matter to the DOJ if one White
House official lies to another official?”
McGahn called Yates the following day and asked her to return for a
second meeting. Yates returned to the White House without McCord. McGahn asked
to examine the FBI’s evidence on Flynn. Yates said she would respond by the
following Monday.
Yates failed to provide McGahn with the FBI’s evidence on Flynn. From
that point, the pressure on Flynn and the Trump administration escalated—with
help from media reporting.
Flynn resigned on Feb. 13, after it was reported that he had misled
Pence about phone conversations he’d had with Kislyak.
The following day, The New York Times reported that “phone records and intercepted calls show that members of
Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had
repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before
the election, according to four current and former American officials.”
With Flynn gone and the Russian narrative
firmly established, the conspirators then turned their attention to Trump’s
newly confirmed attorney general, Jeff Sessions. On March 1, 2017, The
Washington Postreported that Sessions had twice had contact with the Russian ambassador,
Kislyak. The following day, March 2, Sessions recused himself from the Russia
investigation.
On the same day that Sessions recused
himself, Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense,
detailed efforts at hampering the newly installed Trump administration, during
a March 2, 2017, interview with MSNBC, in which she
described how the Obama administration gathered and disseminated intelligence
on the Trump team:
“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on
the Hill … ‘Get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you
can before President Obama leaves the administration.’
“The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the
Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, [they] would try to compromise those
sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that
intelligence. … That’s why you have the leaking.”
Note that Farkas said “how we knew,” not just “what we knew.”
Obama Officials Used Unmasking to Target the Trump Campaign
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, the chair of
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Devin Nunes
(R-Calif.), met a classified source who showed him “dozens” of intelligence
reports. Contained within these reports was evidence of surveillance on the
Trump campaign. Nunes held a press conference on March 22 highlighting what he had found:
“I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence
community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in
the Trump transition. Details about persons associated with the incoming
administration, details with little apparent foreign intelligence value were
widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”
In a series of rapid-fire questions and answers, Nunes attempted to
elaborate on what he had been shown:
“From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We
don’t know exactly how that was picked up but we’re trying to get to the bottom
of it…I think the NSA’s going to comply. I am concerned – we don’t know whether
or not the FBI is going to comply. I have placed a call, I’m waiting to talk to
Director Comey, hopefully later today.
“I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the President-elect
and his team were at least monitored and disseminated out in intelligence, in
what appears to be raw—well I shouldn’t say raw—but intelligence reporting
channels.
“It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was
essentially a lot of information on the President-elect and his transition team
and what they were doing.”
The documents Nunes had been shown highlighted the unmasking activities
of the FBI, the Obama administration, and CIA Director Brennan in relation to
the Trump campaign. Although March 2017 would prove chaotic, the Trump
administration had survived the first crucial months, and would now begin to
slowly assert its administrative authority.
Comey Testifies No Obstruction by Trump Administration
On May 3, 2017, James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under oath, Comey stated
that his agency—and the FBI’s investigation—had not been pressured by the Trump
administration:
Sen. Hirono: “So if the attorney general or
senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation,
can they halt that FBI investigation?”
Mr. Comey: “In theory, yes.”
Sen. Hirono: “Has it happened?”
Mr. Comey: “Not in my experience. Because
it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without
an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we
don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But
I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a
political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my
experience.”
Less than a week later, on May 9, Trump fired Comey based on a May 8
recommendation by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Rosenstein would later tell members
of Congress: “In one of my first meetings with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions last
winter, we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI. Among the concerns
that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the
established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and
eliminate leaks.”
Regarding the recommendation, Rosenstein said: “I wrote it. I believe
it. I stand by it.”
McCabe’s FBI Reaches Out Again to Steele
Within days of Trump’s firing of Comey, the FBI, now under the
leadership of acting-FBI Director Andrew McCabe, suddenly decided to
reestablish direct contact with Christopher Steele through DOJ official Bruce
Ohr.
The re-engagement attempt came six months after Steele had been formally
terminated by the FBI on Nov. 1, 2016.
The FBI’s re-engagement of Ohr was highlighted during a congressional
review of some text messages between Ohr and Steele:
Mr. Ohr: “The FBI had asked me a few
days before, when
I reported to them my latest conversation with Chris Steele, they had had would
he—next time you talk with him, could you ask him if he would be willing to
meet again.”
Rep. Jordan: “So this is the re-engagement?”
Mr. Ohr: “Yes.”
The texts being referenced were sent on May 15, 2017, and refer to a
request that Ohr received from the FBI to ask Steele to re-engage with the FBI
in the days after Comey had been fired on May 9.
This was the only time the FBI used Ohr to reach out to Steele.
The Battle Between McCabe and Rosenstein
Two days after Comey was fired, on May 11,
2017, McCabe testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. While the hearing’s
original intent had been to focus on national security threats, Trump’s firing
of Comey completely altered the topic of the hearing.
McCabe, who agreed that he would notify the committee “of any effort to interfere
with the FBI’s ongoing investigation into links between Russia and the Trump
campaign,” told members of Congress that there had been “no effort to impede
our investigation to date.” In other words, McCabe testified that he was
unaware of any evidence of obstruction from Trump or his administration. Notably,
Comey’s May 3 testimony may have left McCabe with little choice other than to
confirm there had been no obstruction.
McCabe, however, failed to inform the committee that he was actively
considering opening an obstruction-of-justice probe of Trump—a path he would
initiate in a meeting with Rosenstein just five days later.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein
allegedly suggested to McCabe that he could secretly record Trump. It was at this meeting that McCabe was “pushing for the Justice Department to open an
investigation into the president,” according to witness accounts reported by
The Washington Post.
In addition to McCabe, Rosenstein, and
McCabe’s special counsel, Lisa Page, there were one or two others present,
including Rosenstein’s chief of staff, James Crowley, and possibly Scott Schools, the senior-most career
attorney at the DOJ and a top aide to Rosenstein.
An unnamed participant at the meeting, in
comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation between McCabe and Rosenstein in an entirely
different light, noting that Rosenstein had responded with angry sarcasm to
McCabe, saying, “What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?”
This was just five days after McCabe had publicly testified that there
was no obstruction on the part of the Trump administration.
Sometime later that same day, both Rosenstein and Trump met with former
FBI Director Robert Mueller in the Oval Office. The meeting was reported as
being for the FBI director position, but the idea that Mueller would be
considered for the FBI director role seems highly unlikely.
Mueller had previously served as the FBI
director from 2001 to 2013—two years beyond the normal 10-year tenure for an
FBI director. In 2011, Obama requested that Mueller stay on as FBI director for
an additional two years, which required special congressional approval.
Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the following day, on
May 17, 2017, and in doing so, Rosenstein removed control of the Trump–Russia
investigation from McCabe and put it in the hands of Mueller.
This was confirmed in a recent statement by a DOJ spokesperson, who
said, “The deputy attorney general in fact appointed special counsel Robert
Mueller, and directed that Mr. McCabe be removed from any participation in that
investigation.”
Following the appointment of Mueller as special counsel, it also appears
the FBI’s efforts to re-engage with Steele abruptly ended.
‘There’s No Big There There’
We know the FBI hadn’t found any evidence of collusion in the May 2017
timeframe. While McCabe was attempting to open an obstruction investigation,
Peter Strzok—who played a key role in the counterintelligence investigation of
the Trump campaign—texted Lisa Page about lacking evidence of collusion:
“You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely,
I’d be there, no question. I hesitate, in part, because of my gut sense and
concern there’s no big there there.”
Page, who was asked about this text during her July 2018 testimony,
said, “So I think this represents that even as far as May of 2017, we still
couldn’t answer the question.”
James Baker, who was questioned about the Strzok text, was then asked if
he’d seen any evidence to the contrary. He stumbled a bit in his reply:
Rep. Meadows: “Do you have any evidence to the
contrary that you observed personally in your official capacity?”
Mr. Baker: “So the difficulty I’m having
with your question is, what does ‘collusion’ mean, and what does ‘prove’ mean?
And so I don’t know how to respond to that.”
FBI Leadership Speculates on New Trump–Russia Collusion Narrative
In his testimony, Baker disclosed the actual substance of discussions
taking place at the upper echelons of the FBI immediately following Comey’s
firing—that Vladimir Putin had ordered Trump to fire Comey:
Mr. Baker: “We discussed, so to the best of
my recollection, with the same people I described earlier: Mr. McCabe, possibly
Mr. Gattis [Carl Ghattas, executive assistant director of the National Security
Branch], Mr. Priestap, possibly Lisa Page, possibly Pete Strzok. I don’t
remember that specifically.”
Rep. Ratcliffe: “So there was—there was a
discussion between those folks, possibly all of the folks that you’ve
identified, about whether or not President Trump had been ordered to fire Jim
Comey by the Russian Government?”
Mr. Baker: “I wouldn’t say ordered. I guess
I would say the words I sort of used earlier, acting at the behest of and
somehow following directions, somehow executing their will, whether—and so
literally an order or not, I don’t know. But—”
Rep. Ratcliffe: “And so—”
Mr. Baker: “As a—it was discussed as a
theoretical possibility.”
Rep. Ratcliffe: “When was it discussed?”
Mr. Baker: “After the firing, like in the aftermath of the firing.”
The FBI, with no actual evidence of collusion after 10 months of
investigating, began discussing a complete hypothetical at the highest levels
of leadership as a means to possibly open an obstruction-of-justice
investigation of the president of the United States.
During his testimony, Baker told lawmakers: “I had a jaundiced eye about
everything, yes. I had skepticism about all this stuff. I was concerned about
all of this. This whole situation was horrible, and it was novel and we were
trying to figure out what to do, and it was highly unusual.”
McCabe was later fired for lying to the DOJ inspector general and is
currently the subject of a criminal grand jury investigation.
The Fixer
Despite the ongoing assault from the intelligence community and
holdovers from the Obama administration, Trump was not entirely without allies.
Dana Boente, one of the nation’s highest-profile federal prosecutors,
served in a series of critical shifting roles within the Trump administration.
Boente, who remained the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
until early 2018, concurrently became the acting attorney general following the
firing of Sally Yates. Boente, who was specifically appointed by Trump, was not
directly in the line of succession that had been previously laid out under an
unusual executive order from the Obama administration.
Upon the confirmation of Sessions as
attorney general, Boente next served as acting deputy attorney general until
the confirmation of Rod Rosenstein as deputy attorney general on April 25,
2017. Boente then became the acting head of the DOJ’s National Security Division on April
28, 2017, following the sudden resignation of Mary McCord.
Boente was appointed as FBI general counsel on Jan. 23, 2018, replacing
Baker, who was demoted and reassigned. Baker is currently the subject of a
criminal leak investigation. Boente remains in his position as FBI general
counsel.
On March 31, 2017, the Trump administration asked for the resignations
all 46 holdover U.S. attorneys from the Obama administration. Trump refused to
accept the resignations of just three of them—Boente, Rosenstein, and John
Huber.
As Sessions noted in a March 29, 2018, letter to congressional chairmen Chuck Grassley, Bob Goodlatte, and Trey
Gowdy, Huber was assigned by Sessions to lead a prosecution team and is currently
working with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz:
“I already have directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain
issues previously raised by the Committee. … Specifically, I asked United
States Attorney John W. Huber to lead this effort.”
John Carlin’s Race With Admiral Rogers
The Carter Page FISA application has been the subject of significant
media attention, but there’s another element to the story that, although
largely ignored, is equally important. It involved what amounted to a
surreptitious race between then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers and DOJ National
Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin.
Following a March 9, 2016, discovery that
outside contractors for the FBI had been accessing raw FISA data since at least
2015, Rogers directed the NSA’s Office of Compliance to conduct a “fundamental
baseline review of compliance associated with 702” at some point in early April
2016 (Senate testimony & pages 83–84 of court ruling).
On April 18, 2016, Rogers moved aggressively in response to the
disclosures. He abruptly shut down all FBI outside-contractor access. At this
point, both the FBI and the DOJ’s NSD became aware of Rogers’s compliance
review. They may have known earlier, but they were certainly aware after
outside-contractor access was halted.
The DOJ’s NSD maintains oversight of the intelligence agencies’ use of
Section 702 authority. The NSD and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI) jointly conduct reviews of the intelligence agencies’
Section 702 activities every 60 days. The NSD—with notice to the ODNI—is
required to report any incidents of agency noncompliance or misconduct to the
FISA court.
Instead of issuing individual court orders,
the attorney general and the director of national intelligence (DNI) are
required by Section 702 to provide the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) with
annual certifications that specify categories of foreign intelligence
information the government is authorized to acquire, pursuant to Section 702.
The attorney general and the DNI also must
certify that Intelligence Community agencies will follow targeting procedures
and minimization procedures that are approved by the FISC as part of the certification.
Carlin filed the government’s
proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of the
compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was part of the review. Carlin failed to
disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016, report by the NSA inspector general and associated FISA abuse to the FISA court in his 2016
certification. Carlin also failed to disclose Rogers’s ongoing Section
702-compliance review.
On Sept. 27, 2016, the day after he filed
the annual certifications, Carlin announced his resignation, which would become effective on Oct. 15, 2016.
On Oct. 4, 2016, a standard follow-up court
hearing was held (Page 19), with Carlin present. Again, he made no disclosure of FISA abuse or
other related issues. This lack of disclosure would be noted by the court later
in the April 2017 ruling:
“The government’s failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the
October 4, 2016 hearing [was ascribed] to an institutional ‘lack of candor.’”
On Oct. 15, 2016, Carlin formally left the NSD.
On Oct. 20, 2016, Rogers was briefed by the
NSA compliance officer on findings from the 702 NSA compliance audit. The audit
had uncovered a large number of issues, including numerous “about query”
violations (Senate testimony).
Rogers shut down all “about query” activity on Oct. 21, 2016. “About
queries” are particularly worrisome, since they occur when the target is
neither the sender nor the recipient of the collected communication; rather,
the target’s “query,” such as an email address, is being passed between two
other communicants.
On the same day, the DOJ and FBI sought and received a Title I FISA
warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. At this point, the FISA court
still was unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA court of his
findings:
“On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of
significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving
queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The
full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously
disclosed to the Court.”
Rogers appeared formally before the FISA court on Oct. 26, 2016, and
presented the written findings of his audit:
“Two days later, on the day the Court otherwise would have had to
complete its review of the certifications and procedures, the government made a
written submission regarding those compliance problems … and the Court held a
hearing to address them.
“The government reported that the NSA IG and OCO were conducting other
reviews covering different time periods, with preliminary results suggesting
that the problem was widespread during all periods under review.”
The FISA court was unaware of the FISA “query” violations until they
were presented to the court by then-NSA Director Rogers.
Carlin didn’t disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section
702 certifications, apparently in order to avoid raising suspicions at the FISA
court ahead of receiving the Carter Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers’s investigation
in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
FISA Abuse & the FISC
Rogers presented his findings directly to the FISA court’s presiding
judge, Rosemary Collyer. Collyer and Rogers would work together for the next
six months, addressing the issues that Rogers had uncovered.
It was Collyer who wrote the April 26, 2017, FISA court ruling on the entire episode. It also was Collyer who signed the original
FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016, before being apprised of the many
issues by Rogers.
The litany of abuses described in the April 26, 2017, ruling was
shocking and detailed the use of private contractors by the FBI in relation to
Section 702 data. Collyer referred to it as “a very serious Fourth Amendment
issue.” The FBI was specifically singled out by the court numerous times in the
ruling:
“The improper access previously afforded the contractors has been
discontinued. The Court is nonetheless concerned about the FBI’s apparent
disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported.”
Rogers informed Collyer of the ongoing FISA abuses by the FBI and NSD
just three days after she personally signed the Carter Page FISA warrant.
Virtually every FBI and NSD official with material involvement in the
original Carter Page FISA application would later be removed—either through
firing or resignation.
"That
phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack
Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced
divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of
fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His
administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new
scandal." RICK HAYES
October 3, 2019
The Political Civil War is
real
The
American Political Civil War, which began in November 2016, has so far
witnessed leftist Democrats initiating a series of unsuccessful offensive
maneuvers against the president and his allies. The unrelenting
Russian collusion bombardment did not produce the shock and awe promised by
leftist operatives such as Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy
Pelosi. And so a new front was opened up against the president,
having the appearance of impeachment proceedings that dealt with a routine phone
call from President Trump to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Sometimes
aggression must be met head on, with resolve to stop it in its
tracks. History reviles Neville Chamberlain not because he was
unsuccessful in halting German expansion, but because he couldn't identify or
didn't want to acknowledge the clear evidence of imminent war.
Chamberlain's
self-deception and fear helped pave the way in allowing an aggressor to gather
strength and strike when he had amassed enough power. In the same
way, it was the self-deception and cowardice of Republican members of Congress
that allowed the Democrat impeachment machine to gain control of the House
during the midterm elections.
But
the leftist Democratic Party has taken a different approach toward total
political and social conquest. Unlike the German war machine that
promised peace but delivered war, leftist Democrats do not promise any
compromises. Instead, they are openly mobilizing for political war
and are prepared to deliver on that threat, no matter the cost to the country.
And
to be clear, it will continue to be an all-out, extremely aggressive assault on
the president and any American who wants nothing more than to live in peace and
raise a family. To pretend that what is happening today is merely
dirty politics as usual would be the equivalent of British citizens identifying
descending V-1 rockets in the battle of Britain as no more than pesky
mosquitoes.
It
is, thus far, a bloodless, political civil war to change America
forever. And it has already seen a coup attempt against the
president by the Left that desires a winner-take-all conclusion. And
because Leftist Democrats never conceived that anyone other than a person they
selected would become president, the rules, laws, and language must change and
contort to fit their agenda so they can finally seize power. Once in
power, the rules and laws dictated by the Left will become unrecognizable, and
there will be no bridge to cross to get back to the Constitution.
Politically
speaking, these leftist radicals have proven that they will attack all those
who want to remain living in a Republic. As in every past revolution
into socialism, the socialist victors demand complete obedience from the
conquered.
In
their own words, leftist Democrats confirm that they are counting on a
misinformed public in order to gain power. Take, as an example, the
statement made by Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, where he brags
to a group of people how in order to pass Obamacare he relied on "the stupidity
of the American voter." Although Gruber doesn't explain how the
American voter becomes so "stupid," the evidence is clear that the
corrupt, indoctrinating media play a crucial role. They dole out
misinformation and deceit, as does the leftist education system.
There
are no more pretenses, as the corrupt major media have all but announced their
alliance with the far left's aggressive goals. An article in the
October 2018 edition of Investor's
Business Daily points out this blatant one-sided absurdity that passes for
today's media:
To say that the big networks haven't exactly had
a love affair with Donald Trump, as they did with President Obama, is an
understatement. A new survey shows that not only is coverage of Trump
overwhelmingly negative, but the President's biggest accomplishment — the
roaring economy — gets almost no attention.
The
article goes on to say Trump receives 92% negative coverage and that the Media
Research Center watched network TV for four months and found that the coverage
surrounding Trump's economic boom was only 0.7% of the entire coverage.
It
cannot be overstated that for America to "change," there had to be a
push to revoke some or all of the Bill of Rights. That phase of the
takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama. Throughout
his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at
the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the
"Black Lives Matter" lie. His administration was rampant
with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal. Only
because outsider citizen Trump became President Trump do we now know that there
was no chance that justice would have ever been served for the victims of the
scandals of Benghazi, the IRS, and Fast and Furious while Obama was in
office. Just like the leftist Democrats of today, Obama was
protected by America's version of Pravda.
The
ongoing coup attempt against President Trump and his administration will
continue. The American people will get deluged with fake news and
lies from hostile media sources. There still exists a sliver of hope
in the name of William Barr. But even Barr holding a winning hand is
not enough to turn the tide against the waves of corruption slamming into
America. It will also take the selfless efforts of the average
American who demands liberty. It will take the courage and grit of
ordinary men and women to secure a victory — not just for the president, but
for America's bright future and the joy of living in ultimate freedom.
OBAMA'S PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA
TO BUILD HIS DICTATORSHIP REQUIRED
THAT HE AND HOLDER DESTROY OUR
BORDERS AND VOTING ONLY BY
CITIZENS.
Mecha's (M.E.Ch.A.) own slogan reads, "For the race
everything. For those outside the race, nothing."
LA
RAZA: The Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “THE RACE” and the Reconquista and
surrender of America to NARCOMEX
VIVA
LA RAZA SUPREMACY?
The comparison to the Nazi
Party is well deserved. La Raza openly supports pushing all but Latino
Americans out of a portion of the United States (ethnic cleansing), they call
for 'Reconquista' or the re-conquest of the American Southwest by Mexico (the
re-occupation of the Sudetanland), and the establishment of 'Atzlan' which is
the utopian all-Latino version of the American Southwestern states (Adolf
Hitler planned to called his utopia Germania).
"Despite the fact that the majority
of documented hispanics oppose illegal immigration, as do the majority of
Americans, Aztlan and La Raza race hate groups have become the
self-appointed voice for a separatist movement that threatens a violent
overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic
cleansing. This is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously
oppose it is scorned as racism."
Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are
practicing "La Reconquista" in California."
"We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, Arizona,
New Mexico and Texas into the country of
Mexico."
"Remember 187 -- the Proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services
to non-citizens --- was the last gasp of white America in California." --- Art Torres,
Chairman of the California Democratic Party… NOW THE PARTY for LA RAZA
SUPREMACY… do a search for Barack Obama and LA RAZA.
"The American Southwest
seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a
single shot." --- Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that
reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican
government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
“Make no mistake about it: the Latino community holds this election in your
hands. Some of the closest contests this November will be in states like Florida,
Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico -- states with large Latino populations.” PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA
“I know how powerful this community is. Just think how powerful you could
be on November 4th if you translate your numbers into votes.” PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA
Pollak:
Barack Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division
Left-wing pundits have accused President
Donald Trump of using his tweets last weekend to launch a divisive re-election
campaign.
David Axelrod, former adviser to
President Barack Obama, tweeted: “With his
deliberate, racist outburst, @realDonaldTrump wants to raise the profile of his
targets, drive Dems to defend them and make them emblematic of the entire
party. It’s a cold, hard strategy.”
That is debatable — but if so,
Axelrod should know; Obama did it first.
By 2011, Obama knew that re-election
would be difficult. The Tea Party had just led the Republicans to a historic
victory in the 2010 midterm elections, winning the House and nearly taking the
Senate. The economy was only growing sluggishly, and Obama’s stimulus had
failed to keep unemployment below eight percent, as projected. Moreover, the
passage of Obamacare had provoked a backlash against Obama’s state-centered
model of American society.
Facing a similar situation in the
mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton had “triangulated,” moving back toward the
middle, frustrating the GOP by taking up their issues, such as welfare reform.
But Obama rejected that approach.
Having watched his icon, Chicago mayor Harold Washington, settle for an
incremental approach when faced with opposition in the 1980s, only to die of a
sudden heart attack before fulfilling his potential, Obama chose the path of
hard-left policy — and divide-and-rule politics.
The first hint of his strategy
emerged during the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of August 2011. As
Bob Woodward recounted in his book
about the crisis, The Price
of Politics, then-Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) had
wanted to reach a “grand bargain” with the president on long-term spending
cuts. But Obama blew up that agreement by demanding $400 billion in new taxes,
to his aides’ surprise. Obama wanted an opponent, not a deal. (Last week,
Boehner told Breitbart News
Tonight that Obama’s decision was his worst disappointment in
35 years of politics.)
In the fall of 2011, a new left-wing
movement, Occupy Wall Street, was launched. A mix of communists, anarchists,
and digital pranksters, the Occupy movement cast American society as a
struggle between the “99 percent” and the “one percent.”
Obama and then-House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
embraced the movement — and failed to distance themselves from it even as
it collapsed into
violence, sexual assault, and confrontations with police.
Instead, Obama picked up on Occupy’s
themes and used them to shape his campaign.
In December 2011, Obama gave a speech at
Osawatomie, Kansas — a place steeped in radical
symbolism — at which he doubled down on his left-wing policies. He focused on
the issue of economic inequality, and attacked the idea that the free market
could lift the middle class to prosperity. “This isn’t about class warfare.
This is about the nation’s welfare,” he insisted.
Then, in the spring of 2012, Obama
made a controversial play on race. When a black teen, Trayvon Martin, was
killed in Florida during a scuffle with neighborhood watch volunteer George
Zimmerman, Al Sharprton — who was serving as an informal adviser to Obama at
the time — made the local crime story
into a national racial controversy. Obama, following Sharpton’s lead, weighed
in: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said at the time.
Poll numbers suggest that race
relations, which had been improving, dropped precipitously after that. But to
Obama, it was worth it: the campaign needed to find a way to motivate minority
voters. (Vice President Joe Biden did his part, telling black voters
that GOP nominee Mitt Romney was “gonna put y’all in chains.”)
Trump is pushing a non-racial,
nationalist message. But if he actually wanted to divide America for political
gain, he could learn from the master.
Joel B.
Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social
Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a
winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author
of How Trump Won: The Inside
Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter
at @joelpollak.
Heading for civil war
Donald Trump’s opponents are completely
unhinged. The hate and slander directed towards the president and his supporters
is off the charts. The vitriol comes not just from the Democrat party, the
media, and the world of entertainment, but also from a sizable proportion
of the federal bureaucracy and many seemingly ordinary people.
The media coordinates this campaign and
amplifies the hate at every opportunity. Media twist every event, be it
big or small, into a criticism of the president. The goal is always to present
Trump in not just an unfavorable light but to make him appear too loathsome for
polite society. And Trump is not the sole target of this demonization. It is
directed at his supporters, too.
Where will all this lead? No less
than Angelo M. Codevilla fears it could ultimately result in a bloody civil
war. And if it comes to that, there's no doubt where he places the blame.
The story of the contemporary American
Left's sponsorship of hate and violence began around 1964, when the Democrats
chose to abandon the Southern constituencies that had been its mainstay since
the time of Jefferson and Jackson. In less than a decade, the party found
itself increasingly dependent on gaining super-majorities among
blacks, upscale liberals, and constituencies of resentment in general
-- and hence on stoking their hate.
For the past half century, America's
political history has been driven by the Democrats' effort to fire up
these constituencies by denigrating the rest of America.
Codevilla notes that prominent Democrats
like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have led millions of their
followers "to think and act as if conservatives were simply a lower level
of humanity, and should have their faces rubbed in their own inferiority."
It’s not surprising that many ordinary
followers have concluded that harassing conservatives in restaurants, airports,
and public functions is "not just permissible but praiseworthy,
and if thousands of persons who exercise power over cities, towns, and schools
have not concluded that facilitating such harassment and harm is their duty."
This is the toxic environment that the
Democrats, in conjunction with the media, have created. Has Pandora's box been
opened? Are we beyond the point of no return? Are leftists and their liberal
soulmates too obtuse not to expect that hate and violence will someday be
answered in kind? These questions are up in the air. Right now, one thing is
clear. As Yeats wrote: "The best lack all conviction while the worse
are full of passionate intensity."
Codevilla's worry about a civil war
dovetails with The Fourth Turning,: What the Cycles of History Tell
Us About American's Next Rendezvous with Destiny (1997) by William Strauss
and Neil Howe. To my reading, these authors predict a Fourth Turning Crisis
period around the years 2020-2022. Then, many things that Americans have always
taken for granted will unravel.
Just to touch on a few of the changes that
Strauss and Howe see: today's soft criminal justice system will become swift
and rough. Vagrants will be rounded up and the mentally ill recommitted.
Criminal appeals shortened and executions hastened. Pension funds will go
bust and Social Security checks become iffy. The full spectrum of society
will be under distress. All the problems will be combined into one -- the
survival of society.
Aren't the seeds already planted for a
crisis? Trust in Washington and in government institutions is at an all-time
low. Political violence is tacitly condoned and often openly encouraged by
Democratic officeholders. The political establishment encourages massive Illegal
immigration. The
mainstream media is highly partisan and corrupt beyond reform. The American
flag, the country's history, and even its nationhood are openly
despised in universities. American public schools are a disgrace despite
the money poured into them. The country is burdened by a $22 trillion
national debt to which many trillions more of unfunded government liabilities
must be added. Students owe a trillion dollars in school loans that can never
be repaid.
Someday there has to be a reckoning for
all this dysfunction. Irrespective of the election results in 2020, the time
frame of 2020-2022 sounds about the right for things to come to a head. It
would be prudent to be ready.
University
of California President Janet Napolitano Resigns
18 Sep 2019152
2:48
University of California (UC) President Janet
Napolitano announced her resignation on Wednesday. During her rocky tenure over
the UC system, Napolitano championed sanctuary campuses and was accused of
interfering in a state investigation into the system’s budget.
Napolitano made her announcement at
the UC regents meeting at UCLA, according to a report by Los Angeles Times, which added that the university president’s management of
the UC system has sparked criticism.
While a president of UC, Napolitano
championed sanctuary for illegal aliens, and defended “safe space”
and “trigger warning” culture on college campuses, among other issues.
Prior to her role as UC president, Napolitano served as Arizona
governor from 2003 to 2009, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
secretary under President Barack Obama, from 2009 to 2013.
During her time as
DHS secretary, Napolitano played a key role in providing
sanctuary to illegal aliens by helping the Obama Administration bypass congress to grant de
facto amnesty to young illegal aliens by enacting key parts of DACA with a
memo — calling for law enforcement officials to ignore immigration law —
without any Congressional vote.
As UC president, Napolitano
spearheaded a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration’s actions regarding
the DACA program, which in turn, resulted in more than 500,000 DACA recipients
renewing their authorizations to remain in the United States, notes to Los Angeles Times.
In 2017, a state audit revealed that Napolitano’s
office hid $175 million, even as it raised tuition for students in the UC
system.
“The audit found that Napolitano’s office ‘used misleading
budgeting practices, provided its employees with generous salaries and atypical
benefits, and failed to satisfactorily justify its spending on systemwide
initiatives,'” noted Breitbart News reporter Chriss Street.
Moreover, the auditor testified that Napolitano
and her office had attempted to interfere with — and to smear publicly —
the investigation, in an effort to prevent revelations of the hidden money.
“Napolitano approved a plan
instructing UC campuses to submit responses to confidential questionnaires for
review by each college’s chancellor and her aides before returning them to the
state auditor,” noted Los
Angeles Times. “Those steps and others ‘constituted interference,’
the investigation said.”
More sneaky-pete from
Obama: Huge trove of DHS speeches erased from White House record just before
Trump took office
If
there's one thing that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans, it's got to be
their habit of illegally erasing records of their times in office. It
wasn't just Sandy Bergler getting off scot-free after stealing archives to
destroy, stuffing
them down his pants. It wasn't just the bleachbit and
hammers to destroy email records from an illegal unsecured private server from
President Obama's Secretary of State.
The Obama administration deleted hundreds
of speeches and statements on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
website just hours before President Donald Trump officially entered office,
according to research released Tuesday.
A collection of 190 transcripts of
speeches on ICE’s website was deleted on Jan. 18 and late in the evening on
Jan. 19, 2017, according to
research conducted
by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for
government transparency. Statements made by high-ranking ICE officials
regarding controversial immigration topics such as sanctuary cities, E-Verify,
treatment of detainees, and other issues were included in the reported
deletions.
That
stands in striking contrast to the carefully preserved Twitter accounts of
White House officials such as Samantha Power and Ben Rhodes.
Or look at this
well preserved archive of flattering Obama pictures from
his days in the White House. They know how to be meticulous about saving
records when they want to be. And rest assured if there was anything that
needed to be gone to avoid embarrassment, well, let's just say they have
connections at Twitter.
This
document destruction of archived public statements, done just a day or before
Trump entered office in 2017, raises the question about just what the
Obama White House wanted to hide from both Trump and the American public.
I
don't have access to these public statements any more than anyone else does,
but I do recall writing editorials about some of them. I recall that many did
pay lip service to the growing border crisis. Many did cite the crisis as a
crisis. Many did condemn the damage to rule of law that illegal immigration
could do. Some may have criticized sanctuary cities.
It
would take a long time to reconstruct the archive, based on the news trail, but
it might be the only way. Because what it undoubtedly shows is that the Obama
administration knew there was a crisis and took similar steps, perhaps even harsher
steps (remember: They were the ones who caged children, not President Trump) to
attempt to stop the great migration wave. Leftist open-borders advocates often
yelled that he was "the deporter in chief," a title Obama did not
like, but which certainly meant there was some kind of law enforcement effort
going on.
And
with Obama a soft socialist more than a little obssessed with winning the
Latino vote, it's obvious his presidential deeds didn't quite match his
political claims. There was a crisis, law enforcement tried to stop some of it,
and some officials tried to give warning. That was so important for Obama to
hide from the public some of his minions actually erased records. No history
for you.
It's
illegal. It's unfair to the public. It's clearly a bid to give another kick to
the Trump adminstration, enabling Democrats to paint any effort from Trump to
enforce U.S. immigration law as the work of a heartless scoundrel, something
Obama would never dream of being, as the narrative goes.
It
ought to be prosecuted. If the public is ever to retain any right to know, a
failed presidency trying to cover up its record is a good place to start. Let
Trump's lawmen create some new records in the wake of this destruction of old
ones.
Katie Pavlich's Latest Books, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's
Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up are available on Amazon
FOR EIGHT YEARS BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER SABOTAGED HOMELAND
SECURITY TO EASE MORE MEXICANS OVER OUR BORDERS AND INTO OUR JOBS AND VOTING
BOOTHS.
OBAMA NEEDED THESE ILLEGALS TO FINISH OFF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, WHAT WAS
LEFT OF THEM AFTER OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS' PLUNDER.
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered
documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with
the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the
American dole.” Washington Times
OBAMA NEEDED THESE ILLEGALS TO FINISH OFF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, WHAT WAS LEFT OF THEM AFTER OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS' PLUNDER.
OPERATION OBOMB:
DESTABILIZE
AMERICA TO LAY GROUNDS FOR A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/seth-barron-obama-and-building-of.html
*
“Obama’s new home in Washington has
been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition.
Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll”
and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former
high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups
organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,”
for example, features lectures by former campaign executive
Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
BARACK OBAMA: Was he
America’s first Communist president in the closet?
Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest,
most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors,
and his head of the CIA. These facts are not in dispute. Most are
openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control.
Our press chooses not to report them.
Professor Paul Kengor has extensively
researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David
Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly
Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put
Obama into power.
WAS THE RUSSIAN HOAX
ONLY OBAMA’S ATTEMPT TO PUT ASIDE TRUMP FOR AN OBAMA THIRD TERM FOR LIFE???
They
Destroyed Our Country
“They knew
Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a
train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury
of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an
egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic
(perhaps irreparable.)”
These people
were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The Democrats made a decision
from the outset—beginning with the election campaign of the favored candidate
of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they would not oppose Trump on
his anti-working-class social policy or his authoritarian hostility to democratic
rights and promotion of anti-immigrant racism, but on issues of imperialist
foreign policy.
“Obama’s new home in Washington has
been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition.
Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll”
and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former
high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a
variety of groups organizing direct action against
Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features
lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
Former
President Barack Obama (L) listens to Eliseo Medina and other people taking
part in the Fast for Families on the National Mall in Washington on Nov. 29,
2013. Obama offered support for those fasting for immigration reform. (NICHOLAS
KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)
Eliseo Medina: Revolution Through Illegal Immigration
https://www.theepochtimes.com/eliseo-medina-revolution-through-illegal-immigration_2748588.html?ref=brief_Archives&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=6432f3abd5-
“Before
immigration debates took place in Washington, I spoke with Eliseo Medina
and SEIU members,” said
then-Sen. Barack Obama, addressing the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) at a stop for his 2008 presidential campaign.
Eliseo
Medina, Obama’s informal immigration adviser, has dedicated his life to obtaining
citizenship and voting rights for America’s illegal aliens—now at an estimated
22 million—with the expressed goal of transforming the United States into a
one-party state.
As
a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supporter and former honorary chair of the
largest Marxist organization in the United States, the Democratic Socialists of
America (DSA), Medina is undeniably the leader of today’s amnesty movement.
At
the far-left “America’s Future Now!” conference in Washington on June 2, 2009,
Medina, then SEIU’s international executive vice president, addressed attendees on the vital importance
of “comprehensive immigration reform”—a code phrase for amnesty.
Medina failed to mention the plight of illegal aliens, focusing
instead on how—if given amnesty—they would eventually vote for Democrats.
Speaking of Latino voting patterns in the 2008 election, Medina
said:
“When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted
overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every
three voters that showed up.
“So,
I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community:
“Number
one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community
needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will solidify and expand
the progressive coalition for the future.
“Number
two: [If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path
to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have—even the same
ratio—two out of three?
“If
we have 8 million new voters … we will create a governing coalition for the
long term, not just for an election cycle.”
Medina’s
“governing coalition” refers to Democrats having control of the federal
government for the foreseeable future, “not just for an election cycle.”
Who Is Eliseo Medina?
Medina‘s road to power began in 1965 when, as a
19-year-old grape-picker, he participated in the United Farm Workers’ strike in
Delano, California. Over the next 13 years, Medina worked alongside labor leader
and beloved socialist Cesar Chavez, eventually surpassing his mentor as a
skilled union organizer and political strategist. Medina met his future wife
Liza Hirsch during this period.
Medina
had met Chicago DSA comrades in the 1970s when he was in the Windy City
organizing a grape boycott for Chavez. From 2004 until 2016, Medina served as
an honorary chairman for the organization.
Like
many DSA members, Medina also worked closely with the CPUSA.
Medina
gave the keynote speech at the CPUSA publication’s People’s Weekly World (PWW)
banquet in Berkeley, California, on Nov. 18, 2001.
The PWW quoted Medina praising the
communist publication: “’Wherever workers are in struggle,’ Medina said, ‘they
find the PWW regularly reporting issues and viewpoints that are seldom covered
by the regular media. For us, the PWW has been and always will be the people’s
voice.’”
In
2007, Medina personally endorsed the People’s World (by then renamed from
People’s Weekly World).
Medina’s Wife and Flexible
Socialist Ethics
Medina’s
wife, Liza, is the daughter of Fred Hirsch, a self-described “communist
plumber” and his even-more-radical wife, Virginia, known as Ginny. In the early
1960s, Ginny Hirsch left her husband and
young children in San Jose while she drove to Guatemala with nearly a ton of
smuggled ammunition destined for leftist rebels.
From
the age of 12, Liza Hirsch was partially raised by Cesar Chavez and, at his
personal request, committed herself at an early age to earning a law degree so
she could serve as an attorney for the movement.
Though
a sometimes-socialist himself, Chavez had no time for illegal aliens (who he
dubbed “wet-backs”) fearing they would “scab” against his strikes and take jobs
from his members. Chavez even launched an “Illegals Campaign”—an organized
program to identify illegal alien workers in the fields and turn them in to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS).
Hirsch
was put in charge of this program. In 1974, just before she went to law school,
she “distributed forms printed in triplicate to all union offices and directed
staff members to document the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and
report them to the INS,” according to the book “The Crusades of Cesar
Chavez” by Miriam Pawel.
Hirsch
would later marry New York DSA member Paul Du Brul. After his untimely death, she
married Medina, also a card-carrying DSA member by then.
Socialist
ethics can be very flexible.
Changing the Democrat Position
to Pro-Amnesty
Medina joined the SEIU in 1986, where he helped
revive a local union in San Diego, building its membership from 1,700 to more
than 10,000 in five years. Medina became international executive vice president
of the 2.2 million-member SEIU in 1996.
The
SEIU has a huge number of illegal alien workers in its ranks. Medina used that
leverage to promote amnesty in the union movement, as well as in the organized
left and in the Democratic Party.
In
the mid-1990s, most unions were still hostile to illegal alien workers who
worked at a much lower rate, taking jobs away from union members. But in 1994,
several far-left union leaders led by DSA member John Sweeney took over the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), setting the stage for a major policy change for the unions—and
ultimately for the Democrats.
Claiming
U.S. immigration policy was “broken and [needed] to be fixed,” the AFL-CIO on
Feb. 16, 2000, called for a new amnesty for
millions of undocumented workers and the repeal of the 1986 legislation that
criminalized hiring them.
According
to the DSA website in 2004, Medina was
“widely credited with playing a key role in the AFL-CIO’s decision to adopt a
new policy on immigration a few years ago.”
From
his union position, Medina reached across the labor movement into the social
movements and the Catholic Church to create the widest possible pro-amnesty
coalition.
“Working
to ensure the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform does not
slip away, Medina led the effort to unite the unions of the Change to Win
federation and AFL-CIO around a comprehensive framework for reform. Serving as
a leading voice in Washington, frequently testifying before Congress, Medina
has also helped to build a strong, diverse coalition of community and national
partners that have intensified the call for reform and cultivated necessary
political capital to hold elected leaders accountable.
“Medina
has also helped strengthen ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the labor
movement to work on common concerns such as immigrant worker rights and access
to health care.”
In
August 2008, the Obama campaign announced the formation of its National Latino
Advisory Council. The new body consisted of several Democratic
Congress members, a Catholic bishop, a former ambassador, two former cabinet
members, and Medina.
After
the election, Medina became Obama’s informal adviser on issues concerning
immigration and amnesty. The fact that a DSA member and CPUSA supporter was
advising the U.S. president on issues of vital national security importance
appeared to concern no one.
Eventually,
Medina and his movement were able to get an amnesty bill passed through the
U.S. Senate. If they could only pass a bill through the House, the United
States would be set on an irreversible path to socialism.
Fortunately,
Tea Party-aligned Republican Congress members refused to sell out their nation.
They held the line against intense pressure, and no amnesty bill was passed through
the House in Obama’s eight years in the White House.
‘Fast for Families’
In
November 2013, Medina, along with Cristian Avila of amnesty advocacy group Mi
Familia Vota and Dae Jung Yoon of the National Korean American Service and
Education Consortium (a hard-left group that supports communist North Korea),
started a 22-day “fast for families” in front of Capitol Hill “to demand
Congress approve comprehensive immigration reform,” according to People’s World.
The
staged protest gained worldwide media attention. Several Democratic members of
Congress dropped by to offer support, along
with then-President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe
Biden.
Still,
House Republicans did not budge.
On
May 17, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign announced that long-time DSA activist Dolores
Huerta and Medina would join the team as senior advisers in
California.
“Huerta
and Medina will build on the campaign’s robust outreach to the Latino community
in California and work with the campaign’s senior team to organize and engage
Californians in conversations about Hillary Clinton’s plans to break down
barriers and help move the country forward.
“’We
are thrilled to be joined by two incredibly accomplished and admired leaders in
the Latino, immigrant and labor communities, Dolores Huerta and Eliseo Medina,’
said Buffy Wicks, State Director for Hillary for California. ‘Their advocacy
and leadership … will go a long way in continuing the important work of
reaching every California voter in advance of the June 7 primary.’”
full and equal citizenship” to legalize and grant
voting rights to every illegal alien in the country
“within 100 days of taking office” if she were to
be elected president.
Had
President Donald Trump not won his shocking victory on Nov. 6, 2016,
Medina’s dream of a permanent, unbeatable progressive “governing coalition”
would today be a reality, making it virtually impossible to elect another
Republican president.
Trevor
Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more
than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements
and their covert influence on mainstream politics.
Views
expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure
was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
full and equal citizenship” to legalize and grant
voting rights to every illegal alien in the country
“within 100 days of taking office” if she were to
be elected president.
Senate Hearing:
Obama’s DACA and Flores Orders Spiked Illegal Migration
Sen. Ron Johnson
NEIL
MUNRO
23 May 201918
4:54
The illegal migration of “family units” and
“unaccompanied alien children” spiked after former President Barack Obama
signed off on the “DACA” amnesty and the Flores court order, according to a graphic used by the chairman of the
Senate Homeland Defense Committee.
Committee chairman Rep. Ron
Johnson, R-Wisc., touted the jarring graphic by printing it on paper cups used
by the committee members. The graphic contradicts claims by Democrats that the
huge wave of Central American economic migrants are really refugees from a
humanitarian disaster caused by crime and crop failures in Central
America.
Officials expect almost
one million Central American migrants in the 12 months prior to October 2019.
The migrant wave includes hundreds of thousands of people in “family units.”
These units consist of adults who bring youths and children to help
trigger the border catch-and-release loophole.
The primary
catch-and-release loophole is the Flores court order,
because it requires border agencies to release migrants within 20 days if they
bring children. Once released, the migrant adults take jobs in American
workplaces and their children are sent to the schools used by the children of
blue-collar Americans.
The Flores decision
“has been the essential driver, frankly, for the increase in family units,” said
Kevin McAleenan, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in
a May 23 committee hearing. He continued:
That certainty, that
knowledge, that they will be allowed to stay in the US. indefinitely, pending a
court [asylum] proceeding that could be years away … is a huge draw. Smugglers
have capitalized on that. They’re advertising that fact. We hear that routinely
from our interviews with families.
The 2015 extension of
the 1993 Flores judgment was accepted by the Obama administration,
even though it requires border agencies to release migrants within 20 days if
they bring children. Obama’s legal team could have fought the decision by
filing appeals with higher courts, but it instead signed an agreement to
implement the decision.
Under policies set by
judges, the 2015 agreement by Obama, ACLU activists, and the judge binds
President Donald Trump, even though he did not approve it, and even though the
Supreme Court did approve the extension.
Obama’s 2012 DACA
amnesty offered a sanctuary from deportation, plus work permits and Social
Security Numbers, to roughly 800,000 migrants who had been smuggled over the
border by their parents. The giveaway is legally shaky, but it prompted many other illegal
migrants to get their children delivered from Central America by smugglers
to U.S. border agencies, which then passed the children to the parents.
This
government-enabled smuggling operation helped bring tens of thousands of
carefuly smuggled Unaccompanied Minor Children (UACs) into the United States.
Very few migrants have been sent home, according to federal data.
Democratic legislators
have refused to reform the border rules, ensuring that 100,000 migrants —
including 40,000 children — walked over the border in April 2019, into the
nation’s job sites and schools.
However, Trump’s
deputies are preparing a regulation that would allow them to detain migrants
with children for more than 20 days.
But Obama holdovers in
the agencies have slowed the regulation. The Flores requirement
that state officials set up a health and safety inspection process for family
detention centers has also delayed the regulatory fix.
Democrats say the
migration is a humanitarian crisis but deny their role in creating the
disaster, which is now emptying parts of Guatemala.
The US govt's appetite for more cheap labor
is distorting Central America's economy by encouraging & subsidizing
migration instead of boosting local investment & job-growth via
trade. http://bit.ly/2VHmkPG
Central American
Towns Empty as Migrants Rush to U.S. Border Loopholes
Trump’s deputies are
also developing other programs to stop the flow, such as the “Remain in Mexico”
program, which prevents migrants from getting jobs while they wait for court
hearings. If denied jobs, the migrants would not be able to pay the travel
costs owed to the Mexican cartels and will not make the trip.
Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' program is
helping ensure that pregnant migrants cannot cheat the legal asylum process by
birthing a child in the U.S. Pro-migration groups are aghast. http://bit.ly/2X3qNhr
Los Angeles Times:
Border Agencies Return Pregnant Migrants to Mexico
This year’s inflow of
one million illegal migrants from Central American is only a small slice of the
immigration economy.
Each year, roughly four
million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high
school or university.
But the federal
government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants and refreshes a
resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar visa workers —
including roughly one million H-1B workers — and approximately 500,000
blue-collar visa workers.
The government also
prints out more than one million work permits for foreigners, tolerates about
eight million illegal workers, and does not punish companies for employing the
hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants who sneak across the border or
overstay their legal visas each year.
This policy of inflating
the labor supply boosts economic growth for investors because it ensures that employers do not have to
compete for American workers by offering higher wages and better working
conditions.
This policy of flooding the market with cheap foreign
white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor shifts also enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors even as it
also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and hurts children’s
schools and college educations. It also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines
millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are
now struggling with fentanyl addictions. The
labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the heartland
to the coastal cities, explodes rents and housing costs, shrivels real estate values in the Midwest and rewards
investors for creating low tech, labor-intensive workplaces.
Nancy Pelosi is promising to raise wages
via gov't socialism, but Trump's "Hire American" immigration/labor-supply
policy is nudging wages up by 3-4 percent a year. Yes, politicians competing
over rival wage-raising policies would be a great thing. http://bit.ly/2Vgymzk
Wage Raises:
Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi Tout Rival Plans
EconomyImmigrationPoliticsBarack Obamacatch and releaseDACAFlores court orderH-1BimmigrantimmigrationMigrantmigrationRemain in MexicoUACs
DACA
Amnesty Would Render Border Wall Useless, Cost Americans $26B
Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty- mages
5:36
A deal in which
President Trump accepts an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens enrolled and
eligible for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
program in exchange for minor border wall funding would be counterproductive to
the “America First” goals of the administration, depressing U.S. wages in the
process ahead of the 2020 election.
As Breitbart News
has extensively chronicled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended the DACA
program last year, although it’s official termination has been held up in
court by left-wing judges.
Since then, a coalition
of establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to ram an amnesty for up
to 3.5 million DACA-enrolled and eligible illegal aliens through Congress, an
initiative supported by the donor class.
CLOSE | X
Such a plan, most
recently, has been touted in an effort to negotiate a deal in which Trump
receives anywhere between $1.6 tand $5 billion for his proposed
U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for approving a DACA amnesty for millions.
The amnesty would render
the border wall useless, as it would not only trigger increased illegal
immigration at the border — which is already set to hit the highest annual level in a decade next year — but increased legal immigration to
the country.
Last year, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen admittedthat even discussion of a DACA amnesty increased illegal immigration at the southern border, as
migrants surge to the U.S. in hopes of making it into the country to later cash
in on the amnesty.
Kansas Secretary of
State Kris Kobach previously predicted that a DACA amnesty would trigger an immediate flood of a
million illegal aliens arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2014, when
Obama enacted DACA by Executive Order, the temporary amnesty caused a surge at
the southern border, as noted by
the Migration Policy Institute.
In terms of legal
immigration, a DACA amnesty would implement a never-ending flow of foreign relatives to the DACA
illegal aliens who can be readily sponsored for green cards through the process
known as “chain migration.”
According
to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, the
average number of family members brought to the U.S. by newly naturalized
Mexican immigrants stands at roughly six. Therefore, should all 1.5
million amnestied illegal aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that
would constitute a total chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals
entering the U.S.
If the number of
amnestied illegal aliens who gain a pathway to citizenship under an immigration
deal were to rise to the full 3.3 million who would be eligible for DREAM Act
amnesty, and if each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain
migration flow could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals
coming to the U.S.
At this rate of chain
migration solely from a DACA amnesty, the number of legal immigrants arriving
to the U.S. with family relations to the amnestied population would
potentially outpace the population of New York City, New York — where more than 8.5
million residents live.
Should the goal of
Trump’s proposed border wall be to reduce illegal immigration and eventually
incentivize lawmakers to reduce legal immigration levels — where the U.S.
imports 1.5 million immigrants every year — to raise the wages of America’s
working and middle class, a DACA amnesty would have the opposite impact,
increasing illegal and legal immigration levels.
The president has also
touted the wall as a benefit to American citizens in terms of cost. A border
wall is projected to cost about $25 million, a tiny figure compared to
the $116 billion that illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers every year.
A DACA amnesty, coupled
with a border wall, would have steep costs for American citizens — wiping out
the cost-benefit to taxpayers of the wall.
For example, a DACA
amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and that does not include the money
taxpayers would have to fork up to subsidize the legal immigrant relatives of
DACA illegal aliens. And because amnesties for illegal aliens tend to be larger
than initially predicted, the total cost would likely be even higher for
taxpayers.
Additionally,
about one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on
food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid, the CBO has estimated.
The number of DACA
illegal aliens who will go on Medicaid following an amnesty is likely to be
much larger than what the CBO reports.
Previous research by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that
the average immigrant household in the U.S. takes 44 percent more Medicaid
money than the average American household. The research also noted that 56
percent of households led by illegal aliens have at least one person on
Medicaid.
Another study, reported
by Breitbart News, indicates that the CBO estimate of DACA illegal aliens who
would end up on Medicaid after an amnesty is the lowest total possible of
illegal aliens who would go on the welfare program.
Meanwhile, a DACA
amnesty would drag increasing U.S. wages down for the country’s working and
middle class, delivering benefits to the business lobby while squashing the
intended goals of the Trump administration ahead of the 2020 presidential
election. The plan
is also likely to hit the black American community the hardest, as they are forced to compete for blue collar jobs against
a growing illegal and legal immigrant population from Central America.
On Tuesday, Trump said
he would be willing to shut down the federal government in order to secure
funding for his proposed border wall. Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer
(D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have previously indicated that they would
be willing to swap an amnesty in exchange for funding border “security
measures.”
Trump ‘immigration reform’
ignores real problem
President Donald Trump participates in a
roundtable on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico
Station in Calexico, Calif., Friday April 5, 2019. Trump headed to the border
with Mexico to make a renewed push for border security as a central campaign
issue for his 2020 re-election. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Trump ‘immigration reform’ ignores real problem
President
Donald Trump participates in a roundtable on immigration and border security at
the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station in Calexico, Calif., Friday April 5,
2019. Trump headed to the border with Mexico to make a renewed push for border
security as a central campaign issue for his 2020 re-election. (AP
Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
By HOWIE CARR |
howard.carr@medianewsgroup.com | Boston Herald
OK, so President Trump’s “immigration
reform plan” is nothing more than a campaign document, a talking point, to
impress the likes of the Wall Street Journal (which gave him a big wet kiss of
an editorial Saturday) and the Chambers of Commerce.
But as everyone knows, the problem isn’t
so much who we are keeping out of the country – educated, English-speaking
people with a work ethic – as opposed to the shiftless, lawless hordes we are
allowing to swarm across the southern border in untold numbers.
The problem is most of these undocumented Democrats are
future recipients of at least one welfare handout, and even worse, they include
a sizable contingent of future MS-13 gangbangers, drive-by shooters, identity
thieves and fentanyl dealers.
On Thursday, at the White House, the
president halfheartedly raised the specter of these marvelously educated
foreign college grads being forced to return home. But c’mon, how many MIT and
CalTech grads really get the heave-ho?
When he announced for president in 2015,
Trump famously said, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their
best.”
Now it’s worse, much worse, because it’s not only Mexico
flushing its criminal underclass into the U.S., it’s Honduras, El Salvador,
Guatemala and every other country where they’ve been running TV ads telling
their unwed mothers, winos and freelance criminals that all they need to do is
tell the gringos that they’re seeking “asylum,” and then it’s off to the welfare
free-stuff office.
As the old song goes, “Everything free
in America.”
The
U.S. Sentencing Commission recently released its 2018 report on federal
sentencing statistics: 42.7 percent of offenders were illegal aliens.
Sixty-three percent of all non-citizens charged with drug trafficking last year
were living in the country illegally.
Look what happened at the Quincy
District Court Friday. ICE was staking it out, looking to grab a Dominican
heroin/cocaine dealer with a phony Puerto Rican identity. He didn’t show.
On Thursday, in Texas, a “Dallas man,” as the Associated
Press described him, was charged with the murders of 11 elderly American women
between the ages of 76 and 94, as he stole their jewelry and other valuables.
In the third paragraph, the AP copped to the truth – the serial killer was “a
Kenyan citizen who was living in the U.S. illegally.”
Here’s another recent headline: “ICE
arrests Salvadoran murder suspect, gang associate in South Dakota.”
Question: Since when is South Dakota a border state?
Answer: Since Barack Obama was president, maybe even before then.
As George W. Bush used to say, they’re only doing the jobs
Americans won’t do. Jobs that apparently include fentanyl and meth dealing, not
to mention dismemberment of their underworld rivals and too many instances of
domestic abuse and drunken driving to even recount? In case you missed it, ICE
has picked up 141 illegal immigrant drunken drivers in recent weeks, just in
New England.
Here’s a recent headline from the
Worcester Telegram: “Three men arrested in Millbury in alleged scheme to
defraud banks.”
“Three men” – that’s the dead-giveaway
phrase. The only remaining question is, in what paragraph will the paper
mention the perps’ immigration status?
In this story, the answer was, the 17th:
“The detective said the three suspects each had passports from Ghana. She said
she was unsure of their citizenship status.”
I’m not unsure at all. Are you?
Next, a few recent press releases from
the feds in New England. First, from the eastern district of Massachusetts:
“Dominican National Pleads Guilty to
Identity Theft/Defendant stole identity of US Army Specialist … Dominican
National Sentenced for Social Security Fraud … Dominican National Pleads Guilty
to Social Security Fraud and Identity Theft … Brazilian National Sentenced for
ATM Skimming.”
Here are a few from Connecticut:
“Third Nigerian National Admits Role in
Business E-Mail Compromise Scheme Targeting CFO’s and Controllers … Mexican
National Convicted of Illegal Reentry for a Third Time … Citizen of Peru
Charged with Illegally Reentering US.”
That Peruvian illegal immigrant was a
drug dealer and warrant defaulter.
Let’s not slight Rhode Island: “15 Individuals Convicted,
Sentenced in Heroin and Cocaine Trafficking Conspiracy.”
Unfortunately, the R.I. U.S. Attorney’s
Office buried the lede about the drug outfit headed by one Juan Valdez: “Eleven
of the ‘Operation Triple Play’ defendants, many of whom had been living in the
United States with stolen identities, including the three brothers who led the
drug trafficking organizations, have or will face deportation proceedings …
Juan Valdez was previously deported from the United States on four occasions.”
Look, I understand,
every resort, restaurant and hotel owner in New England needs H2B visa workers
to get through the resort season. That’s a problem, granted. But the bigger
disaster is this: Illegal immigrant criminals are destroying the United States,
and one of the nation’s major political parties think it’s in its interest to
continue the “fundamental transformation” of America … into a Third World
hellhole.
Obama Funds the Mexican Fascist Party of
LA RAZA “The Race”
FIFTEEN THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT LA
RAZA “THE RACE”
by Michelle Malkin
Only in America could critics of a group
called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of
left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors
have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."
Both Barack Obama and John
McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of
the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish
for, yes, "The Race." Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying
homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The
presidential candidates and the media have legitimized "The Race" as
a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant
bigots. The unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist
outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our
sovereignty.
Here are 15 things you should know about
"The Race":
15. "The Race" supports driver's
licenses for illegal aliens.
14."The Race" demands in-state
tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to
law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.
13. "The Race" vehemently
opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state and
federal authorities.
12. "The Race" opposes a secure
fence on the southern border.
11. "The Race" joined the
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to
prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national
crime database -- and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.
10. "The Race" opposed the state
of Oklahoma's tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare
to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions and strengthened
local-federal cooperation and information sharing.
9. "The Race" joined other
open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227,
California's bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.
8. "The Race" bitterly protested
common-sense voter ID provisions as an "absolute disgrace."
7. "The Race" has consistently
opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.
6. Former "Race" president Raul
Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: "U.S.
English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was
referring to U.S. English, the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group
dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United
States. "The Race" also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and
advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while
avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."
5. "The Race" gives mainstream
cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento
Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA).
The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as
"a radical racist group … one of the most anti-American groups in the
country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its
push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."
4. "The Race" is currently
leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration enforcement leaders and
has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement
proponents off the airwaves -- in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine
policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current
"Race" president Janet Murguia believes "hate speech"
should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of
First Amendment rights."
3. "The Race" sponsors militant
ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at
least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan
Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia
Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del
Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: "We don't want to drink
from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs
and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water
fountain … ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal,
capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."
2. "The Race" has perfected the
art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home
loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal
"mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar
earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.
1. "The Race" thrives on ethnic
supremacy -- and the elite sheeple's unwillingness to call it what it is. As
historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: "[The] organization's very
nomenclature 'The National Council of La Raza' is hate speech to the core.
Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests)
reflects the meaning of 'race' in Spanish, not 'the people' -- and that's
precisely why we don't hear of something like 'The National Council of the
People,' which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal
chauvinism."
The fringe is the center. The center is
the fringe. Viva La Raza.
"This is country belongs to
Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that
the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican
kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American
Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of
2009!
IMMIGRATION
AS ECONOMIC WAR ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS.
Yes, it is
by invitation of the Democrat and Republican parties on behalf of their rich
paymasters!
However, the dominant force in American
politics for the last two decades has been economic warfare against American
citizens.
This economic warfare has two primary
components; the use of government to economically favor one group over another;
and the collusion of immigrant groups to economically inhibit Americans
who oppose replacement migration.
JOSHUA FOXWORTH – AMERICAN THINKER
"This is country belongs to
Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that
the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican
kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by
American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in
March of 2009!
The “mother
of all caravans” is forming in Central
America, and our border-enforcement system is at
“the breaking point” — all because
Democrats in Congress rejects any effort to plug the legal
loopholes that drive the accelerating flood at
the border. In effect, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are doing just what Cesar
Chavez complained about 40 years ago: placating employers by allowing the
unhindered importation of cheap labor to undermine the efforts of American
workers to negotiate higher wages. MARK KRIKORIAN
JAMES WALSH
THE OBAMA-BIDEN HISPANICAZATION of
AMERICA… first ease millions of illegals over our borders and into our voting
booths!
How the Democrat party surrendered
America to Mexico:
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch
discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close
coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence
and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
"This is country belongs to
Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that
the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican
kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by
American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in
March of 2009!
The “zero tolerance” program was
dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the
transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made
140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so
much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to
a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and
John McCain.
“The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger
than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000
younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA”
amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group,
the Migration Policy Institute.”
Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)
WIKILEAKS EXPOSES THE OBAMA CONSPIRACY
TO FLOOD AMERICAN WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch
discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close
coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence
and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
"This is country belongs to
Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that
the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican
kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by
American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in
March of 2009!
Previous generations of immigrants did not
believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former
education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book,
republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA,
students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are
ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise.
The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and
all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag
*
GLOBALIST BARACK OBAMA AND NANCY PELOSI’S
CONSPIRACY TO SABOTAGE HOMELAND SECURITY AND KEEP AMERICA FLOODED WITH DEM
VOTING ILLEGALS
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and
Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the
eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY
“One of
the most disgusting things to come out of the Obama administration was
"Operation Fast and Furious," where members of the Department of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed illegal gun sales to go
through – commonly referred to as "gun walking" – in order to track
buyers and sellers they believed were connected to the Mexican drug cartels.
Nearly 2,000 firearms were sold and were eventually found throughout the United
States and Mexico. Two of them were used to k ill Border Patrol Agent Brian
Terry.” BETH BAUMANN
DURING OBAMA'S 8 YEAR BANKSTER REGIME,
HE OPERATED LA RAZA (NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOSus FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
UNDER LA RAZA V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ. HE FUNDED THE MEX FASCIST PARTY WITH
U.S. TAX DOLLARS.
BOTH OF OBAMA’S SECRETARY of (ILLEGAL)
LABOR WERE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST. THESE WERE HILDA SOLIS AND TOM PEREZ.
The “zero tolerance” program was
dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the
transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made
140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much
that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014
letter by
two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.
Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor,
University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida political
party screams at rallies: "We have an aging white America. They are d
ying. They are s hitting in their pants with fear! I love it! We have
got to eliminate the g ringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to
the worst, we have got to k ill him!"
Previous generations of immigrants did not
believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former
education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book,
republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students
of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and
inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The
superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all
Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag
The Democrat Party’s Legacy of the
'Hispanicazation' of America
By: James Walsh
Casting a shadow on economic recovery
efforts in the United States is the cost of illegal immigration that consumes
U.S. taxpayer dollars for education, healthcare, social welfare benefits, and
criminal justice. Illegal aliens (or more politically correct, “undocumented
immigrants”) with ties to Mexican drug cartels are contributing to death and
destruction on U.S. lands along the southern border.
While the declining job market in the
United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of
illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as
drug-smuggling “mules.”
THE
INVADING CRIMINALS:
A county by county chart:
OBAMA’S INVASION OF ILLEGALS IS WORKING!
They’re already signed up to vote LA RAZA
SUPREMACY DEM!
“According to Immigration and Customers
Enforcement data first obtained by the Associated Press this week, about 70
percent of the 40,000 migrant family members arrested at the border since May
did not follow up their arrest with a necessary visit to an immigration office.”
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and the RISE OF THE
MEXICAN FASCIST WELFARE STATE and MEX FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA “The Race” NOW
CALLING ITSELF UNIDOus.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/02/larry-elder-who-said-this-about-illegal.html
Not long ago, both Democrats and Republicans advocated safe, secure
borders and an immigration policy of admitting immigrants who benefit, not
burden, Americans. Que pasó? ….. LARRY ELDER – FRONT PAGE MAG
Mecha's
(M.E.Ch.A.) own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside
the race, nothing."
LA RAZA: The Mexican Fascist Party of LA
RAZA “THE RACE” and the Reconquista and surrender of America to NARCOMEX.
The comparison to the Nazi Party is well
deserved. La Raza openly supports pushing all but Latino Americans out of a
portion of the United States (ethnic cleansing), they call for 'Reconquista' or
the re-conquest of the American Southwest by Mexico (the re-occupation of the
Sudetanland), and the establishment of 'Atzlan' which is the utopian all-Latino
version of the American Southwestern states (Adolf Hitler planned to called his
utopia Germania).
Jose
Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La
Reconquista" in California."
"Remember
187 -- the Proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens ---
was the last gasp of white America in California." --- Art Torres,
Chairman of the California Democratic Party
OF COURSE THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION IS NOW
BORDER TO BORDER!
"The American Southwest seems to be
slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single
shot." --- Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico
DURING
OBAMA'S 8 YEAR BANKSTER REGIME, HE OPERATED LA RAZA (NOW CALLING ITSELF
UNIDOus FROM THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER LA RAZA V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ. HE
FUNDED THE MEX FASCIST PARTY WITH U.S. TAX DOLLARS.
BOTH
OF OBAMA’S SECRETARY of (ILLEGAL) LABOR WERE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST. THESE WERE
HILDA SOLIS AND TOM PEREZ.
Jose
Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of
La Raza Unida political party screams at rallies: "We have
an aging white America. They are dying. They are shitting in their
pants with fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what
I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to ki ll
him!"
WAS THE RUSSIAN HOAX
ONLY OBAMA’S ATTEMPT TO PUT ASIDE TRUMP FOR AN OBAMA THIRD TERM FOR LIFE???
They
Destroyed Our Country
“They knew
Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a
train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury
of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an
egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic
(perhaps irreparable.)”
These people
were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The Democrats made a decision
from the outset—beginning with the election campaign of the favored candidate
of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they would not oppose Trump on
his anti-working-class social policy or his authoritarian hostility to democratic
rights and promotion of anti-immigrant racism, but on issues of imperialist
foreign policy.
“Obama’s new home in Washington has
been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition.
Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll”
and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former
high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a
variety of groups organizing direct action against
Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features
lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
Former
President Barack Obama (L) listens to Eliseo Medina and other people taking
part in the Fast for Families on the National Mall in Washington on Nov. 29,
2013. Obama offered support for those fasting for immigration reform. (NICHOLAS
KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)
WAS THE RUSSIAN HOAX
ONLY OBAMA’S ATTEMPT TO PUT ASIDE TRUMP FOR AN OBAMA THIRD TERM FOR LIFE???
They
Destroyed Our Country
“They knew
Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a
train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury
of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an
egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic
(perhaps irreparable.)”
These people
were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The Democrats made a decision
from the outset—beginning with the election campaign of the favored candidate
of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they would not oppose Trump on
his anti-working-class social policy or his authoritarian hostility to democratic
rights and promotion of anti-immigrant racism, but on issues of imperialist
foreign policy.
“Obama’s new home in Washington has
been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition.
Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll”
and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former
high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a
variety of groups organizing direct action against
Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features
lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
Former
President Barack Obama (L) listens to Eliseo Medina and other people taking
part in the Fast for Families on the National Mall in Washington on Nov. 29,
2013. Obama offered support for those fasting for immigration reform. (NICHOLAS
KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)
Eliseo Medina: Revolution Through Illegal Immigration
https://www.theepochtimes.com/eliseo-medina-revolution-through-illegal-immigration_2748588.html?ref=brief_Archives&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=6432f3abd5-
“Before
immigration debates took place in Washington, I spoke with Eliseo Medina
and SEIU members,” said
then-Sen. Barack Obama, addressing the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) at a stop for his 2008 presidential campaign.
Eliseo
Medina, Obama’s informal immigration adviser, has dedicated his life to obtaining
citizenship and voting rights for America’s illegal aliens—now at an estimated
22 million—with the expressed goal of transforming the United States into a
one-party state.
As
a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supporter and former honorary chair of the
largest Marxist organization in the United States, the Democratic Socialists of
America (DSA), Medina is undeniably the leader of today’s amnesty movement.
At
the far-left “America’s Future Now!” conference in Washington on June 2, 2009,
Medina, then SEIU’s international executive vice president, addressed attendees on the vital importance
of “comprehensive immigration reform”—a code phrase for amnesty.
Medina failed to mention the plight of illegal aliens, focusing
instead on how—if given amnesty—they would eventually vote for Democrats.
Speaking of Latino voting patterns in the 2008 election, Medina
said:
“When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted
overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every
three voters that showed up.
“So,
I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community:
“Number
one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community
needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will solidify and expand
the progressive coalition for the future.
“Number
two: [If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path
to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have—even the same
ratio—two out of three?
“If
we have 8 million new voters … we will create a governing coalition for the
long term, not just for an election cycle.”
Medina’s
“governing coalition” refers to Democrats having control of the federal
government for the foreseeable future, “not just for an election cycle.”
“Before
immigration debates took place in Washington, I spoke with Eliseo Medina
and SEIU members,” said
then-Sen. Barack Obama, addressing the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) at a stop for his 2008 presidential campaign.
Eliseo
Medina, Obama’s informal immigration adviser, has dedicated his life to obtaining
citizenship and voting rights for America’s illegal aliens—now at an estimated
22 million—with the expressed goal of transforming the United States into a
one-party state.
As
a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supporter and former honorary chair of the
largest Marxist organization in the United States, the Democratic Socialists of
America (DSA), Medina is undeniably the leader of today’s amnesty movement.
At
the far-left “America’s Future Now!” conference in Washington on June 2, 2009,
Medina, then SEIU’s international executive vice president, addressed attendees on the vital importance
of “comprehensive immigration reform”—a code phrase for amnesty.
Medina failed to mention the plight of illegal aliens, focusing
instead on how—if given amnesty—they would eventually vote for Democrats.
Speaking of Latino voting patterns in the 2008 election, Medina
said:
“When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted
overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every
three voters that showed up.
“So,
I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community:
“Number
one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community
needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will solidify and expand
the progressive coalition for the future.
“Number
two: [If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path
to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have—even the same
ratio—two out of three?
“If
we have 8 million new voters … we will create a governing coalition for the
long term, not just for an election cycle.”
Medina’s
“governing coalition” refers to Democrats having control of the federal
government for the foreseeable future, “not just for an election cycle.”
Who Is Eliseo Medina?
Medina‘s road to power began in 1965
when, as a 19-year-old grape-picker, he participated in the United Farm
Workers’ strike in Delano, California. Over the next 13 years, Medina worked
alongside labor leader and beloved socialist Cesar Chavez, eventually
surpassing his mentor as a skilled union organizer and political strategist.
Medina met his future wife Liza Hirsch during this period.
Medina
had met Chicago DSA comrades in the 1970s when he was in the Windy City
organizing a grape boycott for Chavez. From 2004 until 2016, Medina served as
an honorary chairman for the organization.
Like
many DSA members, Medina also worked closely with the CPUSA.
Medina
gave the keynote speech at the CPUSA publication’s People’s Weekly World (PWW)
banquet in Berkeley, California, on Nov. 18, 2001.
The PWW quoted Medina praising the
communist publication: “’Wherever workers are in struggle,’ Medina said, ‘they
find the PWW regularly reporting issues and viewpoints that are seldom covered
by the regular media. For us, the PWW has been and always will be the people’s
voice.’”
In
2007, Medina personally endorsed the People’s World (by then renamed from
People’s Weekly World).
Medina‘s road to power began in 1965
when, as a 19-year-old grape-picker, he participated in the United Farm
Workers’ strike in Delano, California. Over the next 13 years, Medina worked
alongside labor leader and beloved socialist Cesar Chavez, eventually
surpassing his mentor as a skilled union organizer and political strategist.
Medina met his future wife Liza Hirsch during this period.
Medina
had met Chicago DSA comrades in the 1970s when he was in the Windy City
organizing a grape boycott for Chavez. From 2004 until 2016, Medina served as
an honorary chairman for the organization.
Like
many DSA members, Medina also worked closely with the CPUSA.
Medina
gave the keynote speech at the CPUSA publication’s People’s Weekly World (PWW)
banquet in Berkeley, California, on Nov. 18, 2001.
The PWW quoted Medina praising the
communist publication: “’Wherever workers are in struggle,’ Medina said, ‘they
find the PWW regularly reporting issues and viewpoints that are seldom covered
by the regular media. For us, the PWW has been and always will be the people’s
voice.’”
In
2007, Medina personally endorsed the People’s World (by then renamed from
People’s Weekly World).
Medina’s Wife and Flexible
Socialist Ethics
Medina’s
wife, Liza, is the daughter of Fred Hirsch, a self-described “communist
plumber” and his even-more-radical wife, Virginia, known as Ginny. In the early
1960s, Ginny Hirsch left her husband and
young children in San Jose while she drove to Guatemala with nearly a ton of
smuggled ammunition destined for leftist rebels.
From
the age of 12, Liza Hirsch was partially raised by Cesar Chavez and, at his
personal request, committed herself at an early age to earning a law degree so
she could serve as an attorney for the movement.
Though
a sometimes-socialist himself, Chavez had no time for illegal aliens (who he
dubbed “wet-backs”) fearing they would “scab” against his strikes and take jobs
from his members. Chavez even launched an “Illegals Campaign”—an organized
program to identify illegal alien workers in the fields and turn them in to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS).
Hirsch
was put in charge of this program. In 1974, just before she went to law school,
she “distributed forms printed in triplicate to all union offices and directed
staff members to document the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and
report them to the INS,” according to the book “The Crusades of Cesar
Chavez” by Miriam Pawel.
Hirsch
would later marry New York DSA member Paul Du Brul. After his untimely death, she
married Medina, also a card-carrying DSA member by then.
Socialist
ethics can be very flexible.
Medina’s
wife, Liza, is the daughter of Fred Hirsch, a self-described “communist
plumber” and his even-more-radical wife, Virginia, known as Ginny. In the early
1960s, Ginny Hirsch left her husband and
young children in San Jose while she drove to Guatemala with nearly a ton of
smuggled ammunition destined for leftist rebels.
From
the age of 12, Liza Hirsch was partially raised by Cesar Chavez and, at his
personal request, committed herself at an early age to earning a law degree so
she could serve as an attorney for the movement.
Though
a sometimes-socialist himself, Chavez had no time for illegal aliens (who he
dubbed “wet-backs”) fearing they would “scab” against his strikes and take jobs
from his members. Chavez even launched an “Illegals Campaign”—an organized
program to identify illegal alien workers in the fields and turn them in to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS).
Hirsch
was put in charge of this program. In 1974, just before she went to law school,
she “distributed forms printed in triplicate to all union offices and directed
staff members to document the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and
report them to the INS,” according to the book “The Crusades of Cesar
Chavez” by Miriam Pawel.
Hirsch
would later marry New York DSA member Paul Du Brul. After his untimely death, she
married Medina, also a card-carrying DSA member by then.
Socialist
ethics can be very flexible.
Changing the Democrat Position
to Pro-Amnesty
Medina joined the SEIU in 1986, where he helped
revive a local union in San Diego, building its membership from 1,700 to more
than 10,000 in five years. Medina became international executive vice president
of the 2.2 million-member SEIU in 1996.
The
SEIU has a huge number of illegal alien workers in its ranks. Medina used that
leverage to promote amnesty in the union movement, as well as in the organized
left and in the Democratic Party.
In
the mid-1990s, most unions were still hostile to illegal alien workers who
worked at a much lower rate, taking jobs away from union members. But in 1994,
several far-left union leaders led by DSA member John Sweeney took over the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), setting the stage for a major policy change for the unions—and
ultimately for the Democrats.
Claiming
U.S. immigration policy was “broken and [needed] to be fixed,” the AFL-CIO on
Feb. 16, 2000, called for a new amnesty for
millions of undocumented workers and the repeal of the 1986 legislation that
criminalized hiring them.
According
to the DSA website in 2004, Medina was
“widely credited with playing a key role in the AFL-CIO’s decision to adopt a
new policy on immigration a few years ago.”
From
his union position, Medina reached across the labor movement into the social
movements and the Catholic Church to create the widest possible pro-amnesty
coalition.
According
to the SEIU:
“Working
to ensure the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform does not
slip away, Medina led the effort to unite the unions of the Change to Win
federation and AFL-CIO around a comprehensive framework for reform. Serving as
a leading voice in Washington, frequently testifying before Congress, Medina
has also helped to build a strong, diverse coalition of community and national
partners that have intensified the call for reform and cultivated necessary
political capital to hold elected leaders accountable.
“Medina
has also helped strengthen ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the labor
movement to work on common concerns such as immigrant worker rights and access
to health care.”
In
August 2008, the Obama campaign announced the formation of its National Latino
Advisory Council. The new body consisted of several Democratic
Congress members, a Catholic bishop, a former ambassador, two former cabinet
members, and Medina.
After
the election, Medina became Obama’s informal adviser on issues concerning
immigration and amnesty. The fact that a DSA member and CPUSA supporter was
advising the U.S. president on issues of vital national security importance
appeared to concern no one.
Eventually,
Medina and his movement were able to get an amnesty bill passed through the
U.S. Senate. If they could only pass a bill through the House, the United
States would be set on an irreversible path to socialism.
Fortunately,
Tea Party-aligned Republican Congress members refused to sell out their nation.
They held the line against intense pressure, and no amnesty bill was passed through
the House in Obama’s eight years in the White House.
Medina joined the SEIU in 1986, where he helped
revive a local union in San Diego, building its membership from 1,700 to more
than 10,000 in five years. Medina became international executive vice president
of the 2.2 million-member SEIU in 1996.
The
SEIU has a huge number of illegal alien workers in its ranks. Medina used that
leverage to promote amnesty in the union movement, as well as in the organized
left and in the Democratic Party.
In
the mid-1990s, most unions were still hostile to illegal alien workers who
worked at a much lower rate, taking jobs away from union members. But in 1994,
several far-left union leaders led by DSA member John Sweeney took over the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), setting the stage for a major policy change for the unions—and
ultimately for the Democrats.
Claiming
U.S. immigration policy was “broken and [needed] to be fixed,” the AFL-CIO on
Feb. 16, 2000, called for a new amnesty for
millions of undocumented workers and the repeal of the 1986 legislation that
criminalized hiring them.
According
to the DSA website in 2004, Medina was
“widely credited with playing a key role in the AFL-CIO’s decision to adopt a
new policy on immigration a few years ago.”
From
his union position, Medina reached across the labor movement into the social
movements and the Catholic Church to create the widest possible pro-amnesty
coalition.
According
to the SEIU:
“Working
to ensure the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform does not
slip away, Medina led the effort to unite the unions of the Change to Win
federation and AFL-CIO around a comprehensive framework for reform. Serving as
a leading voice in Washington, frequently testifying before Congress, Medina
has also helped to build a strong, diverse coalition of community and national
partners that have intensified the call for reform and cultivated necessary
political capital to hold elected leaders accountable.
“Medina
has also helped strengthen ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the labor
movement to work on common concerns such as immigrant worker rights and access
to health care.”
In
August 2008, the Obama campaign announced the formation of its National Latino
Advisory Council. The new body consisted of several Democratic
Congress members, a Catholic bishop, a former ambassador, two former cabinet
members, and Medina.
After
the election, Medina became Obama’s informal adviser on issues concerning
immigration and amnesty. The fact that a DSA member and CPUSA supporter was
advising the U.S. president on issues of vital national security importance
appeared to concern no one.
Eventually,
Medina and his movement were able to get an amnesty bill passed through the
U.S. Senate. If they could only pass a bill through the House, the United
States would be set on an irreversible path to socialism.
Fortunately,
Tea Party-aligned Republican Congress members refused to sell out their nation.
They held the line against intense pressure, and no amnesty bill was passed through
the House in Obama’s eight years in the White House.
‘Fast for Families’
In
November 2013, Medina, along with Cristian Avila of amnesty advocacy group Mi
Familia Vota and Dae Jung Yoon of the National Korean American Service and
Education Consortium (a hard-left group that supports communist North Korea),
started a 22-day “fast for families” in front of Capitol Hill “to demand
Congress approve comprehensive immigration reform,” according to People’s World.
The
staged protest gained worldwide media attention. Several Democratic members of
Congress dropped by to offer support, along
with then-President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe
Biden.
Still,
House Republicans did not budge.
On
May 17, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign announced that long-time DSA
activist Dolores Huerta and Medina would join the
team as senior advisers in California.
“Huerta
and Medina will build on the campaign’s robust outreach to the Latino community
in California and work with the campaign’s senior team to organize and engage
Californians in conversations about Hillary Clinton’s plans to break down
barriers and help move the country forward.
“’We
are thrilled to be joined by two incredibly accomplished and admired leaders in
the Latino, immigrant and labor communities, Dolores Huerta and Eliseo Medina,’
said Buffy Wicks, State Director for Hillary for California. ‘Their advocacy
and leadership … will go a long way in continuing the important work of
reaching every California voter in advance of the June 7 primary.’”
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure
was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
In
November 2013, Medina, along with Cristian Avila of amnesty advocacy group Mi
Familia Vota and Dae Jung Yoon of the National Korean American Service and
Education Consortium (a hard-left group that supports communist North Korea),
started a 22-day “fast for families” in front of Capitol Hill “to demand
Congress approve comprehensive immigration reform,” according to People’s World.
The
staged protest gained worldwide media attention. Several Democratic members of
Congress dropped by to offer support, along
with then-President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe
Biden.
Still,
House Republicans did not budge.
On
May 17, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign announced that long-time DSA
activist Dolores Huerta and Medina would join the
team as senior advisers in California.
“Huerta
and Medina will build on the campaign’s robust outreach to the Latino community
in California and work with the campaign’s senior team to organize and engage
Californians in conversations about Hillary Clinton’s plans to break down
barriers and help move the country forward.
“’We
are thrilled to be joined by two incredibly accomplished and admired leaders in
the Latino, immigrant and labor communities, Dolores Huerta and Eliseo Medina,’
said Buffy Wicks, State Director for Hillary for California. ‘Their advocacy
and leadership … will go a long way in continuing the important work of
reaching every California voter in advance of the June 7 primary.’”
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure
was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
Senate Hearing:
Obama’s DACA and Flores Orders Spiked Illegal Migration
Sen. Ron Johnson
NEIL
MUNRO
23 May 201918
4:54
Sen. Ron Johnson
NEIL
MUNRO
23 May 201918
4:54
The illegal
migration of “family units” and “unaccompanied alien children” spiked after
former President Barack Obama signed off on the “DACA” amnesty and the Flores court order, according to a graphic
used by the chairman of the Senate Homeland Defense Committee.
Committee chairman Rep. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., touted the jarring
graphic by printing it on paper cups used by the committee members. The graphic
contradicts claims by Democrats that the huge wave of Central American economic
migrants are really refugees from a humanitarian disaster caused by crime and
crop failures in Central America.
Officials expect almost one million Central American migrants in
the 12 months prior to October 2019. The migrant wave includes hundreds of
thousands of people in “family units.” These units consist of adults who bring
youths and children to help trigger the border catch-and-release loophole.
The primary catch-and-release loophole is the Flores court
order, because it requires border agencies to release migrants within 20 days
if they bring children. Once released, the migrant adults take jobs in American
workplaces and their children are sent to the schools used by the children of
blue-collar Americans.
The Flores decision “has been the essential
driver, frankly, for the increase in family units,” said Kevin McAleenan, the
acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in a May 23 committee
hearing. He continued:
That certainty, that knowledge, that they will be allowed to
stay in the US. indefinitely, pending a court [asylum] proceeding that could be
years away … is a huge draw. Smugglers have capitalized on that. They’re
advertising that fact. We hear that routinely from our interviews with
families.
The 2015 extension of the 1993 Flores judgment
was accepted by the Obama administration, even though it requires border
agencies to release migrants within 20 days if they bring children. Obama’s
legal team could have fought the decision by filing appeals with higher courts,
but it instead signed an agreement to implement the decision.
Under policies set by judges, the 2015 agreement by Obama, ACLU
activists, and the judge binds President Donald Trump, even though he did not
approve it, and even though the Supreme Court did approve the extension.
Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty offered a sanctuary from deportation,
plus work permits and Social Security Numbers, to roughly 800,000 migrants who
had been smuggled over the border by their parents. The giveaway is legally shaky, but it prompted many
other illegal migrants to get their children
delivered from Central America by smugglers to U.S. border agencies,
which then passed the children to the parents.
This government-enabled smuggling operation helped bring tens
of thousands of carefuly smuggled Unaccompanied Minor Children (UACs) into the
United States. Very few migrants have been sent home, according to federal
data.
Democratic legislators have refused to reform the border rules,
ensuring that 100,000 migrants — including 40,000 children — walked over the
border in April 2019, into the nation’s job sites and schools.
However, Trump’s deputies are preparing a regulation that would
allow them to detain migrants with children for more than 20 days.
But Obama holdovers in the agencies have slowed the regulation.
The Flores requirement that state officials set up a health
and safety inspection process for family detention centers has also delayed the
regulatory fix.
Democrats say the migration is a humanitarian crisis but deny
their role in creating the disaster, which is now emptying parts of Guatemala.
Committee chairman Rep. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., touted the jarring
graphic by printing it on paper cups used by the committee members. The graphic
contradicts claims by Democrats that the huge wave of Central American economic
migrants are really refugees from a humanitarian disaster caused by crime and
crop failures in Central America.
Officials expect almost one million Central American migrants in
the 12 months prior to October 2019. The migrant wave includes hundreds of
thousands of people in “family units.” These units consist of adults who bring
youths and children to help trigger the border catch-and-release loophole.
The primary catch-and-release loophole is the Flores court
order, because it requires border agencies to release migrants within 20 days
if they bring children. Once released, the migrant adults take jobs in American
workplaces and their children are sent to the schools used by the children of
blue-collar Americans.
The Flores decision “has been the essential
driver, frankly, for the increase in family units,” said Kevin McAleenan, the
acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in a May 23 committee
hearing. He continued:
That certainty, that knowledge, that they will be allowed to
stay in the US. indefinitely, pending a court [asylum] proceeding that could be
years away … is a huge draw. Smugglers have capitalized on that. They’re
advertising that fact. We hear that routinely from our interviews with
families.
The 2015 extension of the 1993 Flores judgment
was accepted by the Obama administration, even though it requires border
agencies to release migrants within 20 days if they bring children. Obama’s
legal team could have fought the decision by filing appeals with higher courts,
but it instead signed an agreement to implement the decision.
Under policies set by judges, the 2015 agreement by Obama, ACLU
activists, and the judge binds President Donald Trump, even though he did not
approve it, and even though the Supreme Court did approve the extension.
Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty offered a sanctuary from deportation,
plus work permits and Social Security Numbers, to roughly 800,000 migrants who
had been smuggled over the border by their parents. The giveaway is legally shaky, but it prompted many
other illegal migrants to get their children
delivered from Central America by smugglers to U.S. border agencies,
which then passed the children to the parents.
This government-enabled smuggling operation helped bring tens
of thousands of carefuly smuggled Unaccompanied Minor Children (UACs) into the
United States. Very few migrants have been sent home, according to federal
data.
Democratic legislators have refused to reform the border rules,
ensuring that 100,000 migrants — including 40,000 children — walked over the
border in April 2019, into the nation’s job sites and schools.
However, Trump’s deputies are preparing a regulation that would
allow them to detain migrants with children for more than 20 days.
But Obama holdovers in the agencies have slowed the regulation.
The Flores requirement that state officials set up a health
and safety inspection process for family detention centers has also delayed the
regulatory fix.
Democrats say the migration is a humanitarian crisis but deny
their role in creating the disaster, which is now emptying parts of Guatemala.
No comments:
Post a Comment