Sunday, February 19, 2017

Ex-CIA Robert Steele Interview - 19 February 2017


Published on Feb 19, 2017
VL EXCLUSIVE - A man we have been following, personally, for years now, who we consider to be brilliant, honest and a leader in this country – Robert David Steele, just talked to us about pedo-gate, Comet Ping Pong, the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, Zionism, the Rothchilds, Soros, 9/11, the electoral reform, the shadow government, and his thoughts on President Trump and what he needs to do to be the greatest President in modern history! 
He asks us to “light up the internet” urging President Trump to NOT choose a National Security Advisor, but instead meet with Robert David Steele to set an Electoral Reform #UNRIG !
Visit Robert’s website at:
See the D3C Presidential Innovation Memorandum 3.3
Donations advancing public intelligence:
See Mr. Steele’s reviews on
Robert Steele suggested the following books in the interview:
“The Terror Factory”
Democracy Riots: We Are All Black Now – Deal With it
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency:
Of particular interest wsa the role of Wikileaks, Vault 7, and the role of Bruce Cooper Clarke, a former Deputy Director of the CIA and expert cryptographer.
Evidently Mr. Clarke and his protégé, a musician, and a leading linux visionary created Cicada 3301 with the idea of it being a vehicle to expose the Deep State and ensure personal privacy. The protégé created the concept and Clarke and the tech pioneer assembled a team to create the ciphers.
Wikileaks has created a cryptic series of clues on Vault 7 that was inspired by Cicada 3301.
Mr. Steele has created a memo for President Trump and we ask that you include #UNRIG and #ItsTime if you plan to post this video.
We are in a civil war folks, and our freedom and values are at risk. The #AmericanRevolt has begun.
Robert David Steele
The truth at any cost lowers all other costs

Wake Up, Lefties! Go Towards the Light!

"Trump CROSSED the line" Chris Wallace ATTACKS Donald Trump on Fox News
Published on Feb 19, 2017
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace warns viewers: Trump crossed the line in latest attack on media
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace cautioned his colleagues and the network's viewers Sunday that President Trump's latest attack on the media had gone too far.
“Look, we're big boys. We criticize presidents. They want to criticize us back, that's fine,” Wallace said Sunday morning on “Fox & Friends.” “But when he said that the fake news media is not my enemy, it's the enemy of the American people, I believe that crosses an important line.”
The “Fox & Friends” anchors had shown a clip of Trump recounting that past presidents, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, had fought with the press. They then asked Wallace whether Trump's fraught relationship with the media was a big deal.
In response, Wallace told his colleagues that Jefferson had also once written the following: “And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Context was important, Wallace said. All presidents fight with the media, but Trump had taken it a step further in making them out to be “the enemy,” he added.
“Yes, presidents have always had — and politicians have always had — problems with the press. They want good press. The press doesn't always give it to them,” Wallace said. “But what Jefferson [was saying] is, despite all of our disputes, that to the functioning of a free and fair democracy, you must have an independent press.”
Trump's contentious relationship with the press has again been in the spotlight in recent days after the president repeatedly attacked the media as “fake news” in several tweets. In one widely shared tweet on Friday, Trump said the media was “not my enemy” but “the enemy of the American People!”
In it, Trump tagged the New York Times, CNN and the broadcast news networks NBC, ABC and CBS. He did not mention Fox News, which has usually been exempted from his anger toward the media — a fact that Wallace acknowledged Sunday.
“We can take criticism, but to say we're the enemy of the American people, it really crosses an important line,” Wallace said.
On “Fox & Friends,” host Pete Hegseth countered that perhaps Trump was “taking on the hidden bias” of news outlets that “tell you they're unbiased.”
“Is there something there?” Hegseth asked Wallace. “It’s not about the independent press; it’s about the bias of the press.”
Wallace replied: “I think there's absolutely something there, and if he had said that, you wouldn’t have heard a peep out of me. Lord knows, Barack Obama criticized Fox News. If Donald Trump wants to criticize the New York Times, that’s fine. But it’s different from saying that we are an enemy of the American people. That’s a different thing.”
Wallace finished with a word of warning to those watching who might agree with Trump because he happened to be a president who shared their views.
“And I know there are a lot of [Fox News] listeners out there who are going to reflexively take Donald Trump’s side on this,” he added. “It’s a different thing when it’s a president — because if it’s a president you like trying to talk about the press being the enemy of the people, then it’s going to be a president you don’t like saying the same thing. And that’s very dangerous.”
Wallace is the host of “Fox News Sunday” and was the moderator of the third presidential debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus also appeared on “Fox News Sunday,” where he and Wallace sparred over the president's words.
Priebus defended Trump by saying that he was not talking about all news but about “certain things that are happening in the news that just aren’t honest.”
Wallace pressed Priebus and argued that the president was not referring to individual stories.
“You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama did,” Wallace said after continued arguments with Priebus. “Barack Obama whined about Fox News all the time, but I got to say, he never said that we were an enemy of the people.”
Wallace is not the only high-profile figure to disagree with Trump's declaration about the media. On Sunday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said he did not have any issues with the press and did not see the media as the enemy.
In an interview on NBC's “Meet the Press” that aired Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said making moves to shut down a free press was “how dictators get started.”
“In other words, a consolidation of power,” McCain told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd from Munich. “When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press. And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”
Anti-Trump Protests Erupt Across USA (VIDEO)
Published on Nov 10, 2016

Protests have broken out in over twenty-five US cities following Donald Trump’s win. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"Thousands of people across the country marched, shut down highways, burned effigies and shouted angry slogans on Wednesday night to protest the election of Donald J. Trump as president.
The demonstrations, fueled by social media, continued into the early hours of Thursday. The crowds swelled as the night went on but remained mostly peaceful.
Protests were reported in cities as diverse as Dallas and Oakland and included marches in Boston; Chicago; Portland, Ore.; Seattle and Washington and at college campuses in California, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
In Oakland alone, the Police Department said, the crowd grew from about 3,000 people at 7 p.m. to 6,000 an hour later. The situation grew tense late Wednesday, with reporting that a group of protesters had started small fires in the street and broken windows. Police officers in riot gear were called in, and at least one officer was injured, according to other local news reports
It was the second night of protests there, following unruly demonstrations that led to property damage and left at least one person injured shortly after Mr. Trump’s election was announced.”*
Hosts: Cenk Uygur
Cast: Cenk Uygur

FORWARD to Globalist Existence
No matter where the mantra FORWARD is coming from, dark Hollywood dressed in sick pink, academia, or the main stream media, it is a prescription for globalism and destruction of western civilization at the behest of billionaire elites
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh —— Bio and Archives
February 19, 2017
The glossy magazine came in the mail a few days ago from my alma mater’s College of Education, with this unfortunate name printed in big, white, bold letters, lest you miss it, FORWARD.
Maybe the dean had no idea that FORWARD graced all propaganda materials for Germany’s Social Democratic Party, Vorwärts (Forward), founded in 1876, and that it is still published monthly today and mailed to all Social Democratic Party (SPD) members. Was he trying to exclude all students who did not hold that political leaning, or was he trying to convert them all?
The indoctrination into political correctness
The German paper named FORWARD published the writings of Friedrich Engels, Kurt Tucholsky, Russian Marxist economists, the Mensheviks, and Leon Trotsky. Strangely, it refused to publish any articles by Vladimir I. Lenin.
Interestingly, Adolf Hitler sued the paper for libel in 1923 and won 6 million marks. It had claimed that Hitler was financed by “American Jews and Henry Ford.”
Because the Social Democratic Party of Germany was banned during the Nazi era, its publication, Vorwärts (Forward), stopped in 1933 but continued in Czechoslovakia until 1938 and in Paris until 1940.
Perhaps the dean is not channeling this German publication, he is moving forward to globalism, ready to create with each graduating class the global citizens of tomorrow who believe in social justice, environmental justice, and gender justice.
The indoctrination into political correctness of the last decades is finally bearing fruit – campuses have become the most intolerant places in society, spaces where free and divergent speech should be embraced by all. Yet violent mobs are protesting conservatives who come to speak or debate, preventing them from exercising their freedom of speech. Hurling rocks and words such as racists and violent fascists, these intolerant mobs are engaging in the very act they are protesting against while conservatives remain peaceful.
Greater economic freedom represents greater economic development
Administrators, professors, and parents alike are complicit in the indoctrination of our youth into an anti-American culture of hatred and intolerance. They are no longer graduating with a useful, marketable degree, with knowledge that they can improve lives and our country. They are a collective group of whiny, effeminate, drug-addled, terribly misguided, without an ethical and religious compass, and filled to the brim with illogical, morally reprehensible habits and ideas.
Their professors have drilled multi-culturalism and diversity into their brains to the point that they admire primitive cultures and worship the enemies of western civilization.  No graduate stops to think, but what exactly is this diversity doing for the economic success of our country? Is there tangible evidence that a company is successful because it proudly advertises its diverse work force? Do genial ideas come from a diverse work force that follows the orders of the boss? No, ideas come from the freedom to think and to raise capital, from the opportunity to develop human capital; constructive ideas do not come from divisive Marxist conversations and endless racial baiting, indoctrination, and protests about impossible equality, gender, and social justice.
The much maligned white male and the white race have developed the bulk of inventions that have created a western civilization unlike any other. Why exactly are leftists trying to dismantle it piece by piece? With what are they going to replace it? The seventh century existence of the religionists of hate and the Orwellian world of the control-freak globalists?  Why are they trying to destroy every remnant of our American history, good or bad, and to replace it with their revisionist history? Isn’t that what the rabid Islamists have done with the abundant archeological evidence of our past human history which they’ve blown up and erased into sad craters of ignorance and savagery?
Shouldn’t professors teach their communism-loving students that greater economic freedom represents greater economic development,” a longer, healthier, and happier life? Shouldn’t they inculcate the idea that a country without borders is not a country and that stemming illegal immigration and refugee resettlement from countries that are hotbeds of terrorism endangers everybody’s future? What is wrong with self-preservation, with protecting our families, children, and grandchildren?
Main stream media:  The real purveyors of fake news, manufactured news
We must also stop listening to the assorted alphabet soup main stream media outlets, the real purveyors of fake news, manufactured news concocted with one idea in mind, to brainwash the masses into their socialist indoctrination narrative.
We must stop watching the movies of the “bitter, unhappy, angry, divisive people of the entertainment industry” as well.  As Edward D. Spitaletta said in his Boycott the Academy Award email, “These arrogant, pompous, pampered, soulless individuals declare that half of Americans are racist, sexist, and bigoted for voicing our political choice through Donald Trump. Yet there can be no doubt that the entertainment industry does more to exploit, degrade, minimize, and stereotype women than Donald Trump or any other industry ever has. From Madonna and Miley Cyrus parading on stage while grabbing their crotches and allowing fans to do the same, to movies that depict women as whores, sluts, and gold-diggers dependent on their bodies for survival, to the deplorable speeches of Madonna and Ashley Judd talking about their periods in a vile manner,” Hollywood is a cesspool of degenerates who should not be role models for any generation.
My friend Carmel argued “how ‘Underdog’ cartoons turned out generations of pill popping grownups - what did Underdog do when he needed more power? He opened his ‘ring with the secret compartment’ and took the ‘power pill’ hidden inside.”
There is a real battle for our children’s minds, especially those who “don’t come from a large family and are by themselves too long,” said Carmel. The damage done may be irreversible for many of them.
No matter where the mantra FORWARD is coming from, dark Hollywood dressed in sick pink, academia, or the main stream media, it is a prescription for globalism and destruction of western civilization at the behest of billionaire elites who are in love with freedom-robbing social engineering and the desire to play God.
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson PaughRomanian Conservative is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website,
According to Fake News purveyors President Trump and not Obama divided America
It is Fake News 101 that the protests and riots that have occurred since his election are the fault of President Donald J. Trump
By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives
February 17, 2017
The U.S. mainstream media lost all credibility when they climbed into the tank with the DNC- manufactured messiah Barack Hussein Obama eight long years ago , and their yapping and yelping about Donald J. Trump being the “bad guy”  won’t bring it back.
For eight long years the mainstream media hurled sewage at the public from the Obama tank where they went to live.
Instead of taking on Obama’s destructive and unasked for Fundamental Transformation of America—or even questioning it—they went whole hog after the TEA Party and other American patriots.
Obama’s hateful smears of dissidents as “bigots”, “racists”,  “homophobes”, “Islamophobes”, “bitter clingers” and Christians who wouldn’t come down from their high horses would not have stuck without the seal of propaganda passed to him by the mainstream media.
Few of the scribes and broadcast media showed any respect or dignity during the first President Trump ‘presser’ that followed the one where they yelped in outrage—all because the Christian News Wire and Town Hall got to ask the first questions.
Donald Trump only took questions from right-wing news outlets for a third press conference in a row.
The US President hosted a joint conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House on Wednesday.  (Independent, Feb. 16, 2017)
“But after a speech that covered Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr Trump only took questions from Christian Broadcasting Network and Townhall, two outlets widely considered to hold conservative views.
“In a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on 13 February, Mr Trump again only took two questions; one from WJLA, a news channel found to have “a strong tilt toward Trump” during the 2016 election, and another from The Daily Caller, a conservative outlet. “
“Trump has so far called on Christian Broadcasting Network and Townhall—he’s only called on conservative outlets for the last three pressers.”
Yesterday a fearless President Trump went right into the mainstream media rat’s nest to take them on, right on their own home turf, where he conducted with aplomb and poise what Sarah Palin calls “The Trumpening”.
Calling them out on their hypocrisy and branding CNN forever as “Very Fake News”, Trump won the day when he said:
“Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest the press. The public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now maybe I had something to do with that, I don’t know. But they don’t believe you. If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right? Of course he had some questions also. But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster. I would be your biggest fan in the world, including bad stories about me.
“But if you go, as an example you’re CNN, I mean, it’s story after story after story is bad. I won. I won. And the other thing, chaos. There’s zero chaos. We are running — this is a fine-tuned machine. And Reince happens to be doing a good job, but half of his job is putting out lies by the press. You know, I said to him yesterday, you know, this whole Russia scam that you guys are building so that you don’t talk about the real subject which is illegal leaks, but I watched him yesterday working so hard to try and get that story proper, and I’m saying here’s my chief of staff, a really good guy, did a phenomenal job at RNC — won the election, right? Won the presidency. We got some senators, we got some — all over the country, you take a look, he’s done a great job. But I said to myself, you know, and I said to somebody that was in there, I said you take a look Reince, he’s working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires. I mean, they’re fake. They’re not true.”
Speaking before the press conference, Jim Acosta, senior White House correspondent for CNN, told the news channel “the fix is in”. (Independent)
“This President does not want to answer critical questions about his associates, his aides’ contacts with the Russians during the course of that campaign, just as his national security adviser is being run out of this White House on a rail,” he said.
“They may think this is being cute, or they think this is strategic in terms of trying to shield the President from questions, but those questions can only be shielded for so long.”
“Ending his press conference today, President Donald Trump addressed the increasing political tensions in this country, and how it has divided Americans.  (The Blaze, Feb. 16, 2017)
“I didn’t come along and divide this country,” said Trump. “This country was seriously divided before I got here.”
“This division is something the president says he will work on, however, and cites a few problem areas that should be addressed before these tensions can be assuaged. One of these areas is the problem with inner city crime, and education.
“It’s very important to me.” Trump said. “But this isn’t Donald Trump that divided a nation. We went eight years with President Obama, and we went many years before President Obama. We lived in a divided nation. And I’m gonna try, I will do everything within my power to fix that.”
Since Trump’s inauguration the mainstream media remains silent about the racial discord fuelled by the former Obama regime, under whose watch #BlackLivesMatter was born.
One day after the presser where Trump called out the mainstream for what they are, some media outlets still blame him as the source of “dividing” America:
“Since Trump’s election to office, protests and riots have occurred that have ranged from simple chants and marches, to violent and destructive. Even marches centered around social issues, such as many of those who participated in the Women’s March declared themselves anti-Trump marches.”-(The Blaze)
It is Fake News 101 that the protests and riots that have occurred since his election are the fault of President Donald J. Trump.
Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.
Rage-addled commie mockumentary director Moore demands Trump’s arrest as details of intel plot
A "rolling coup attempt," the manufactured mass hysteria continues, fed by fanatics
By Matthew Vadum —— Bio and Archives 
February 17, 2017
BombThrowers: The manufactured mass hysteria continues. It feeds on itself. It infects. It multiplies. It smothers. It threatens to snuff out American democracy itself.
After National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, an arch foe of Islamofascism, was forced out of his post by an East German-style Ben Rhodes-centered deep state cabal, Marxist provocateur and agitprop movie director Michael Moore is demanding that President Trump be arrested.
Moore tweeted:
 Michael Moore ✔ @MMFlint
Let's be VERY clear: Flynn DID NOT make that Russian call on his own. He was INSTRUCTED to do so.He was TOLD to reassure them. Arrest Trump.
2:45 AM - 14 Feb 2017
  19,444 19,444 Retweets   48,405 48,405 likes
More on Moore’s psychotic break on social media in a moment but first let’s look at the details that are emerging of a real-life plot against the nation’s 45th president.
Flynn, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General, fell on his sword Monday night reportedly for improper proximity to Russians. The White House claims Flynn resigned after admitting he lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
It’s not like we know what actually happened with Flynn and the alleged Russian intelligence operatives at this point, or if there was any contact at all. News reports don’t quote any on-the-record sources.
It is conjecture piled on supposition heaped on speculation to the power of 10.
Despite the ravings of Moore, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Bill Kristol, David Frum, and many others, there is no credible evidence that Trump had anything to do with the hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee or that Trump colluded with Russia in whatever may or may not have happened.
All of it could be (and likely is) completely made up. Fiction is, after all, what Ben Rhodes specialized in when he worked in the Obama White House. Rhodes bragged about duping Americans by creating a media “echo chamber” to promote the botched, unenforceable nuclear nonproliferation agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran that will actually end up helping the mad mullahs who want to kill us all get the bomb. Rhodes became a misinformation-manufacturing servant of a hostile power while betraying his fellow Americans to help an Islam-loving president cozy up to the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism.
And the media has lied over and over and over again about President Trump, especially concerning Russia.
The false media narrative about then-candidate Trump’s raging case of Russophilia got a huge boost last summer when NBC reporter Katy Tur shouted a loaded question at Trump to introduce into the mainstream media ecosystem the Big Lie that Trump had personally invited Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.
As I wrote previously at LifeZette, at a July 27 press conference Trump half-jokingly urged the Russians to hand over the personal emails from Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton’s accounts that had disappeared into the ether.“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said. He added with obvious sarcasm:“I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
Tur asked Trump,“Do you have any qualms about asking a foreign government — Russia, China, anybody — to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody in this country?”
Trump was understandably dismissive of Tur’s question without specifically denying the premise underlying it — which was the false assertion that Trump asked a foreign government to engage in hacking.
And so Tur’s strategically inserted Big Lie was carved into the Left’s narrative and repeated so many times that the mainstream media now treats it as incontrovertible fact. The Trump as pro-hacking myth is an example of the power of propaganda to alter the course of events. This kind of malevolent story-telling is what the Left and the mainstream media do every day.
Moore’s howling comes as Michael Walsh reminds us that in his final days in office President Obama green-lighted a shocking relaxation of the rules regulating the National Security Agency’s authority"to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” Walsh continued quoting the New York Times from Jan. 12, writing,
The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches. [emphasis Walsh’s]
There is a good reason why the NSA’s ability to share data was limited, Walsh notes.
Once compartmentalized to avoid injuring private citizens caught up in the net of the Black Widow (as we all are already) and her technological successors, the NSA was suddenly handed greater latitude in what it could share with other, perhaps more politicized bodies of the intelligence community. Why? [emphasis mine]
How convenient that Obama unleashed the NSA mere days before his presidency ended. These spooks, Walsh writes, are"unaccountable minions” who"lie and cheat for a living.” He adds
And the genius of the Democrats — something for the GOP to think about next time — is that they were able to leverage the transition in order to change as many rules and embed as many apparatchiks as possible before formally turning over the reins to the new kids.
Another way of putting it is Obama seems to have cleared the way for his confederates to do their dirty work to undermine the incoming Trump administration. Think about that. It’s very Stasi. Erich Honecker would be proud.Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General William G.“Jerry” Boykin went further. “So I think Flynn was targeted by them because they were concerned about where Flynn was going to go in terms of what he was going to recommend to President Trump.”The intelligence community"itself has been politicized,” he told Laura Ingraham.“And I think this is one of the results — this is one of the things that you’re seeing come out of that politicization.”“You’re seeing a guy that is key in the Trump administration being targeted, and they have used the tools that they have available to them to bring this guy down,” Boykin said. “And I think this is a devastating loss to the Trump administration and to the country as a whole.”In a separate article at PJMedia, Walsh made the case that"a rolling coup attempt” is in progress.
Make no mistake about what’s happening here: this is a rolling coup attempt, organized by elements of the intelligence community, particularly CIA and NSA, abetted by Obama-era holdovers in the understaffed Justice Department (Sally Yates, take a bow) and the lickspittles of the leftist media, all of whom have signed on with the"Resistance” in order to overturn the results of the November election.
Former CIA analyst and retired U.S. Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer says the Obama administration was"directly involved” in the Flynn saga. He said the blame lay"squarely at the feet of” former CIA director (and suspected Muslim) John Brennan, former director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, and Ben Rhodes.Meanwhile, in the magical land of unicorns, Moore called Trump a"Russian traitor” and said he should vacate the White House.“We can do this the easy way (you resign), or the hard way (impeachment).”Moore’s temper tantrum played out on Twitter. Here it is — it’s been a long d In relevant part:
So this is what I want done NOW:
I and tens of millions of Americans demand that the weak and spineless Democrats bring Congress to a halt until investigative hearings are held and impeachment charges are filed. We don’t want to hear you Dems huff and puff and grandstand and take symbolic actions. We demand that you halt all actions being taken by an illegitimately elected government until this matter is resolved.
Attorney General J Beauregard Sessions must immediately appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate these potentially treasonous acts.
So-Called President Trump could save the country a lot of time, money and pain by stepping down tonight.
Somehow, our judicial system has to find a way to make restitution to this country. Pence can’t be president as he, too, was elected under this same fraud. The court has to rule either that the President is the winner of the popular vote OR the election must be held over. The Republicans– the beneficiaries of this treason –cannot be allowed to hold on to the power by default. If it turns out there’s a traitor in the White House, the judicial branch must find a fair, peaceful way to un-do and then re-do the election of 2016.
Moore then removes all doubt he’s a rocket scientist.
 Michael Moore ✔ @MMFlint
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on: TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO THROW THE ELECTION TO HIM.
12:04 AM - 15 Feb 2017
  8,590 8,590 Retweets   25,696 25,696 likes
He repeats his Facebook demand.
 Michael Moore ✔ @MMFlint
We demand that the weak & spineless Democrats bring Congress 2 a halt until investigative hearings are held & impeachment charges are filed.
12:07 AM - 15 Feb 2017
  9,387 9,387 Retweets   27,792 27,792 likes
And then he moves on to something else. Maybe he saw a Kentucky Fried Chicken commercial on TV.
It is important to note that Moore doesn’t talk about the arguably treasonous behavior of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
There was President Obama’s infamous hot mic moment in Seoul in March 2012. At a summit, Obama leaned over to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and asked him for more time “particularly with missile defense” — until he could safely win reelection later that year. “I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who at that time was scheduled to cede the presidency to Vladimir Putin two months later.
“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” said Obama. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev.
Moore doesn’t complain about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approving the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russian interests, either.
That’s because these facts don’t follow the Left’s Trump-is-Hitler narrative.
Moore doesn’t care. Propagandists don’t have to.
Matthew Vadum, Bombthrowers, and, is an investigative reporter at a watchdog group in Washington, D.C.
His new book Subversion Inc. can be bought at (US), (Canada), and as an e-book at Kobo (Canada).ay — in what I hope is in chronological order:
Breaking - Major Wikileaks Dump Reveals Crime Scandal DIRECTLY Pointing to Obama
February 2017 (?)
Liberals pointing to Russian interference in our election seem appalled at the idea of foreign powers influencing elections. Well, what Obama did will have them eating crow.
WikiLeaks has just revealed that Obama had the CIA involved in the elections in France, via Allen B. West.
WikiLeaks, the website that is dedicated to revealing government corruption, released yet another slew of documents, but this time allegedly demonstrating there was CIA espionage conducted on French presidential candidates in the nation’s 2012 elections.
One seven-page document shows classified orders that were given to intelligence officials to obtain information about each candidate and their political strategies as well as the internal communications.
This leak was bad timing for the liberals. They are all stressed about the alleged intelligent reports that allege there is some relationship between Trump and Vladimir Putin. It turns out, however, that our intelligence community is more than happy to do Obama’s dirty work.
Obama has also expressed “concern” over Trump’s ties with Russia, which makes him a complete hypocrite because he’s the one who actually played political favorites overseas. He used the CIA to monitor French President Nicolas Sarkozy and others.
“Analysts in CIA’s Office of Russian and European Analysis (OREA) closely watched the Oct 9th and Oct 16th Socialist primaries and will be closely monitoring the April 22nd and May 6th 2012 presidential elections. Of particular interest is President Sarkozy, the Socialist Party (PS), and other potential candidate’s plans and intentions for these elections,” stated one document from the WikiLeaks report.
Remember when Obama expelled the 35 Russian diplomats, arguing that the Russians were influencing the election?
“I have issued an executive order that provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners,” Obama stated.
If Obama’s words are to be believed, then the French government had the right to dismiss the diplomats from America from their country because Obama attempted to influence their election. I imagine that Obama would have been much more upset about this turn of events than Putin was.
To those liberals still swearing up and down about the “Russian influence” in our election, it seems like you ought to have a word with your former president. Obama’s interference with free and fair elections is much more substantial than the alleged Russian connection to Trump ever was.
What do you think about Obama using the CIA to influence French elections? Please share this story on Facebook and tell us because we want to hear YOUR voice! -
Also See:
The Left Are Trying To Destroy America!
25 January 2017
If You Are On The Left, Explain This!
24 January 2017

Saturday, February 18, 2017

What's Behind the Firing of General Flynn?


Steve Pieczenik About Firing Of General Flynn
Published on Feb 16, 2017
SUBSCRIBE to see more similar videos
Most Recent Upload

Paul Joseph Watson On General Flynn Scandal
Published on Feb 15, 2017
SUBSCRIBE to see more similar videos
Most Recent Upload

Amazon Affiliate Link
Why Was the FBI Investigating General Flynn?
by Andrew C. McCarthy @ANDREWCMCCARTHY
February 18, 2017
There appears to have been no basis for a criminal or intelligence probe.
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was dismissed amid a torrent of mainstream-media reporting and disgraceful government leaks (but I repeat myself). Among the most intriguing was a New York Times report the morning after Flynn’s resignation, explaining that the former three-star Army general and head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was “grilled” by FBI agents “about a phone call he had had with Russia’s ambassador.”
No fewer than seven veteran Times reporters contributed to the story, the Gray Lady having dedicated more resources to undermining the Trump administration than the Republican Congress has to advancing Trump’s agenda. Remarkably, none of the able journalists appears to have asked a screamingly obvious question — a question that would have been driving press coverage had an Obama administration operative been in the Bureau’s hot seat.  
On what basis was the FBI investigating General Flynn?
To predicate an investigation under FBI guidelines, there must be good-faith suspicion that (a) a federal crime has been or is being committed, (b) there is a threat to American national security, or (c) there is an opportunity to collect foreign intelligence relevant to a priority established by the executive branch. These categories frequently overlap — e.g., a terrorist will typically commit several crimes in a plot that threatens national security, and when captured he will be a source of foreign intelligence.
Categories (a) and (b) are self-explanatory. It is category (c), intelligence collection, that is most pertinent to our consideration of Flynn.
At first blush, this category seems limitless: unmooring government investigators from the constraints that normally confine their intrusions on our liberty (e.g., snooping, search warrants, interrogations) to situations in which there is real reason to suspect unlawful or dangerous activity. Intelligence collection, after all, is just the gathering of information that can be refined into a reliable basis for decisions by policymakers.
As we shall see, it is not limitless. But we should understand why it needs to be broad. Most people think of the FBI as a federal police department that does gumshoe detective work, albeit at a high level and with peerless forensic capabilities. That, indeed, is how I thought of the FBI for my first eight years as a federal prosecutor, before I began investigating terrorism cases and became acquainted with the FBI’s night job. Turns out the FBI’s house has a whole other wing, separate and apart from its criminal-investigation division. Back in pre-9/11 days, this side of the house was called the foreign counter-intelligence division. Now, it is the national-security branch. Whatever the name, it is our domestic security service, protecting the nation against hostile foreign activity — espionage, other hostile intelligence ops, terrorism, acquisition of technology and components of weapons of mass destruction, and so on.
Most of the national-security branch’s work is done in secret, never intended to see the light of day in courtroom prosecutions. In some countries, including Britain, domestic security is handled by an agency (MI5) independent of domestic law enforcement (MI6). In our country, it is handled by a single agency, the FBI, based on the assumption (a sound one in my opinion) that the two missions are interrelated and that one can leverage the other more easily under one roof. 
The FBI also has the foreign-intelligence gig because the Bureau is fully constrained by the Constitution and other federal law. Our other intelligence agencies — the best example is the CIA — are prohibited from “spying” inside the United States, largely because their foreign operations are outside the jurisdiction and fetters of American law. We understand that our security requires that our domestic security service have wide intelligence-gathering latitude; but we do not permit it to be limitless — it must respect our constitutional rights.
So how do we make sure the FBI does that if we’re giving it license to investigate people even when it does not suspect a crime or a threat? We do it by dividing the subjects of its intelligence investigations into three classifications and giving the FBI commonsense authority to deal with each.
1. Aliens acting as overt foreign agents
The first classification, and the easiest to grasp, consists of aliens who overtly work as foreign agents. Such a person — for example, Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador with whom General Flynn communicated — is a non-American (i.e., one who does not have the full-blown constitutional rights of an American citizen) and is openly acting on behalf of a foreign regime — in the case of Russia, a regime notoriously hostile to U.S. interests. Clearly, there is no problem with his being targeted by the FBI for intelligence-gathering purposes.
Note that, because the FBI is constrained by federal law, even overt foreign operatives have significant protections. It is still necessary, for example, for the FBI to get a judicial warrant to search a foreign agent’s home or intercept his phone and e-mail communications — and more on those warrants momentarily. Within the wide parameters of federal law, though, the FBI is free to monitor an overt foreign operative’s activities very aggressively, even when there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing or national-security threats. The presumption that our government is entitled to observe what foreign governments are up to on our soil is sufficient — and, of course, American officials operating overseas are routinely monitored by host governments (most of which are not so fastidious about civil liberties).
2. Americans acting as foreign agents — overt and covert
The second classification is more complicated: American citizens who act as agents of foreign powers. Contrary to the legal illiteracy dismayingly peddled by Fox News from time to time, one can be an American citizen and nonetheless be an agent of a foreign power, and therefore subject to investigation under the FBI’s foreign-intelligence-gathering authority, even if there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.
One can be a U.S. citizen and also an agent of a foreign power, and therefore subject to investigation under the FBI’s foreign-intelligence-gathering authority, even if there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.
The easy example in this second classification is an American who openly and formally declares himself to be a foreign agent. Many Americans do work for and advocate on behalf of foreign regimes. Our law mandates that they register with the Justice Department. They must make periodic disclosures detailing their relationship with the relevant foreign country, their activities on its behalf, the financial arrangements, and so on. The FBI is free to investigate such American foreign agents just as it investigates alien foreign agents; in fact, the point of the disclosure requirements is to make the foreign-intelligence something our government can passively collect rather than expend investigative resources to gather.
The more complex example is Americans who act as covert foreign agents. The detection of these Americans is obviously tougher but of greater urgency. After all, if their activities on behalf of foreign powers were benign, they would not be acting covertly — and here it is worth pointing out that, under federal law, “foreign powers” are not just other countries; they include international terrorist organizations. Some of the terrorists I prosecuted in the 1990s, for example, were American citizens (some born as such, some naturalized) who were operatives of foreign jihadist cells.
Whether they are Americans or aliens, covert foreign agents merit heightened scrutiny, such as eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, or “sneak and peek” searches (when agents covertly look around a home or office, maybe take pictures and plant bugs, but don’t leave evidence that they’ve been there). To get that kind of authority, as presaged above, the FBI and Justice Department must seek warrants from the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (the FISA Court).
This requires a showing of probable cause. Significantly, this does not mean probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed — the traditional law-enforcement standard. Under FISA, the government must show probable cause that the target of its surveillance is acting as an agent of a foreign power.
Libertarians complain that this is a lower standard, a sinister pretext to make it easier to hassle Americans in the absence of evidence that they’ve broken the law. But it is not a lower standard; it is the same standard (probable cause) for making a different showing (that one is a foreign agent). If you are a covert foreign agent, it should be easier for the FBI to investigate you, especially when it is doing so under judicial oversight.
3. Americans who are not foreign agents but may possess foreign intelligence
Covering overt and covert foreign agents does not complete the FBI’s intelligence mosaic. There are many Americans who do not act on behalf of foreign regimes but who are possessed of information that would be of great value to the FBI in understanding what foreign powers are up to — owing, for example, to their travels, business dealings, or academic concentrations. Plainly, we want the FBI to be able to seek this information. Yet we don’t want these Americans to be investigated — they should be thanked, not hassled. So how should our fellow citizens in this wholly innocent classification be handled? The FBI’s guidelines for domestic operations strike the right balance: “The FBI should . . . operate openly and consensually with U.S. persons to the extent practicable when collecting foreign intelligence that does not concern criminal activities or threats to the national security.”
Openly and consensually. That means FBI agents should tell Americans in this “non-foreign agent” classification that they are not under investigation or suspicion, and that their voluntary cooperation is requested to help the FBI protect the country against potentially harmful foreign activities. They should not be “grilled” as if they were suspects.  
General Flynn’s situation
That brings us back, finally, to General Flynn. Anonymous intelligence officials (a category that may include the FBI — though we do not know who the leakers are) outrageously revealed to the New York Times that Flynn was subjected to FBI interrogation (“grilled,” the Times says) and that the Justice Department suspects that Flynn did not provide truthful, accurate information. That does not sound like a cordial, “open and consensual” conversation. It sounds like an investigation.
Why would Flynn be the subject of an investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department?
We are told that the FBI was monitoring the phone calls of Russian ambassador Kislyak under FISA. Makes sense — he’s an overt foreign agent from a hostile government. Flynn called Kislyak on December 29, 2016. It was not a nefarious communication: Flynn was a top adviser of then-president-elect Trump, a part of the Trump transition team, and just three weeks from formally becoming the new president’s national-security adviser. His communications with Kislyak were just some of the many conversations Flynn was having with foreign officials.
FBI agents did not need to ‘grill’ Flynn in order to learn about the call — they had a recording of the call.
The call to Kislyak, of course, was intercepted. No doubt the calls of other American officials who have perfectly valid reasons to call Russian diplomats have been intercepted. It is the FBI’s scrupulous practice to keep the identities of such interceptees confidential. So why single Flynn out for identification, and for investigation? FBI agents did not need to “grill” Flynn in order to learn about the call — they had a recording of the call.
They also knew there was nothing untoward about the call. We know that from the Times report — a report that suggests an unseemly conjoining of investigative power to partisan politics.
The report informs us that as the FBI set its sights on Flynn, its agents were consulting with “Obama advisers.” Interesting, no? Ever since Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on November 8, Obama’s Democratic party had been pushing a narrative that “Putin hacked the election.” The narrative continues to have two major flaws. First, while the Russian dictator may have preferred Trump to Clinton, there is no evidence that his Russian regime did anything to compromise the voting process. The media-Democrat complex has desperately sought to obscure this problem by emphasizing Putin’s likely role in publicizing embarrassing Democratic e-mail communications. Notwithstanding Democratic talking points, that is a far cry from “hacking” the voting process.
The second flaw is that, although Trump has made disturbingly flattering remarks about Putin, there is no evidence his campaign has given or promised Russia any actual accommodation in exchange for Putin’s favor. Democrats hope to erase this problem by finding something, anything, that could be spun as a quid pro quo. Obviously, they hoped the Flynn–Kislyak conversation would answer their prayers. No such luck. As the Times puts it:
Obama officials asked the FBI if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.
Asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. That’s a good one. Let me translate: The officials don’t want you to know who they are because they are corrupt — (a) FISA intercepts are classified, so disclosing them to the press is a crime; (b) by revealing the Flynn–Kislyak conversation to the press, the “officials” inform the Russians that whatever countermeasures they are taking against U.S. surveillance have failed, assuring that the Russians will alter their tactics, making the job of our honorable intelligence agents more difficult; and (c) the FBI’s investigative powers are not supposed to be put in in the service of a political party’s effort to advance a partisan storyline, like “Putin hacked the election.”
So since there was no impropriety in Flynn’s call to the Russian ambassador, why did the Bureau continue investigating Flynn? Why did FBI agents interrogate him?
Misleading statements by presidential administrations are not grounds for FBI investigations. They are left to the political process to sort out, and we don’t want the FBI turned into a political weapon.
According to press reports of other rogue intelligence leaks, the FBI was sicced on Flynn after Trump officials gave inaccurate public statements about his conversation with Kislyak, to wit: They said that it had not touched on the punitive actions President Obama took against Russia on the same day the conversation took place, when in fact there had been some discussion of that topic — which the FBI and Justice Department knew from the recording. Specifically, Flynn denied any discussion of these sanctions, unnamed Trump officials denied it to the Washington Post, Vice President Pence denied it in a CBS interview shortly before the inauguration, and finally White House spokesman Sean Spicer denied it again on January 23. According to the Times, it was the Spicer denial that triggered the FBI’s interrogation. It was as if the Bureau and Justice Department intentionally waited to pounce until Trump was in power — which meant that any misstatement could now be framed as a false representation by the sitting president.
But just ask anyone who knows that you can’t keep your health-care plan and your doctor if you like them, that the Benghazi massacre was not caused by a video, that the IRS really did harass Americans over their political beliefs, and that Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Anyone who knows those things — that would be all of us — also must know that misleading statements by presidential administrations, even egregious ones, are not grounds for FBI investigations. They are left to the political process to sort out, and we don’t want the FBI turned into a political weapon.
So how come the FBI got involved here?
Is the FBI saying that Mike Flynn is an agent of a foreign power? A covert Russian operative? That would be absurd. As I’ve detailed, Flynn is on record — unambiguously, in the core theme in his bestselling book — urging Americans to view Russia as an implacable enemy of the United States that must be checked. Now, are you unhappy — as I am unhappy — with the Trump administration’s blandishments toward the murderous, anti-American Putin regime? Sure . . . but that does not make Flynn and other Trump officials Russian agents — any more than Obama is an Iranian agent. Again, political disagreement is not a rationalization for drawing a ridiculous legal conclusion (“maybe he’s a ‘foreign agent’”) as a pretext for an investigation by the FBI. 
Fear of blackmail? That is a theory purportedly advanced by former acting attorney general Sally Yates, an Obama political hack who was eventually fired for insubordination by Trump (who had foolishly retained her). The blackmail theory is almost too stupid to regurgitate. If you can follow this, the idea is that the Russians knew that Flynn withheld information about his Kislyak call from the Trump administration and was therefore vulnerable to extortion — i.e., the Russians could expose his concealment if he didn’t do their bidding. It should go without saying that blackmail works only if the compromising information is not in the possession of the aggrieved party. Here, the United States — i.e., the Trump administration itself — had a recording of the Flynn–Kislyak call, a fact that both Russia and Flynn (who is deeply versed in intelligence craft) had to know was highly likely.
Finally, there’s Flynn’s supposed potential criminal violation of the 1799 Logan Act. Recall what we said at the start: The FBI’s criminal investigation and domestic security functions overlap. If there is not a valid foreign-intelligence basis to investigate someone, a potential law violation could do the trick. But . . . the Logan Act? Are you kidding?
The statute is a discredited relic of the President John Adams administration’s over-criminalization of political speech on the grounds of its purported seditiousness. It is a highly dubious prohibition against foreign-policy freelancing by American citizens acting without executive-branch permission. As Jeremy Duda comprehensively explains in the Washington Post, in its 218-year history, there has been just a single Logan Act prosecution, ever — an unsuccessful, aborted charge brought in 1803 by an Adams-appointed U.S. attorney.
It is not enough to say it is ludicrous to contemplate a Logan Act prosecution against a transition official who was the incoming national-security adviser over a phone call with a foreign ambassador. Beyond that, we must refer to the high-profile July 2016 press conference held by FBI director James Comey.
In contrast to General Flynn, as to whom there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, there was a Mount Olympus of damning proof that Hillary Clinton committed felony violations of a law against mishandling classified information. Yet Director Comey concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would consider indicting Mrs. Clinton. Why? Because behavior of the type in which she engaged is never prosecuted. Now it happens that Comey was wrong about Clinton — to make his assertion, he had to paint a narrowly skewed picture of her misconduct and ignore several prosecutions of military officials for far less serious violations. Nevertheless, he does run the Bureau, and so we must assume that his explicit guidance governs its investigative standards: “Responsible decisions . . . consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.”
If that is the standard, there was no conceivable chance that Flynn could ever be prosecuted for a Logan Act violation. Using the Logan Act as a pretext for interrogation would have been improper.
And Flynn is not a foreign agent.
And there was no need to “grill” him over the contents of a conversation of which the FBI and Justice Department already had a recording.
And the FBI has no business probing the veracity of public statements made by presidential administrations for political purposes — something it certainly resisted doing during the Obama administration.
There appears to have been no foreign-intelligence or criminal-investigative purpose served by the FBI’s interrogation of General Flynn. It is easy to see why Democrats would want to portray Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador as worthy of an FBI investigation. But why did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate Flynn — and why did “officials” make sure the press found out about it?
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
another point of view ...
The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn
Feb 14, 2017
By Eli Lake
If we are to believe the Trump White House, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn just resigned because he lied about his conversations with Russia's ambassador to the vice president. As White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway told NBC's "Today Show" on Tuesday: "Misleading the vice president really was the key here."
That sounds about as credible as when the president told CIA employees that the media had invented the story about his enmity toward the spy agency, not even two weeks after he had taken to Twitter to compare the CIA to Nazis. It's about as credible as President Donald Trump's insistence that it didn't rain during his inauguration. Or that millions of people had voted illegally in the election he just won. (I believe that now has credibility, as one source stated, 'between illegals and dead people, Hillary got three million votes'. Or stated otherwise, Hillary received all her votes from brain-dead people. - Ralph)
The point here is that for a White House that has such a casual and opportunistic relationship with the truth, it's strange that Flynn's "lie" to Pence would get him fired. It doesn't add up. (from a supporter of Hillary the Liar)
Conor Sen: Oroville Dam Crisis Is an Opportunity for Trump
Jonathan Bernstein: Republicans Are Fiddling While Their White House Burns
Editorial Board: Trump's Security Lapses Should Be a Wake-Up Call
It's not even clear that Flynn lied. He says in his resignation letter that he did not deliberately leave out elements of his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak when he recounted them to Vice President Mike Pence. The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the transcript of the phone call reviewed over the weekend by the White House could be read different ways. One White House official with knowledge of the conversations told me that the Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn and that Flynn responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions. That's neither illegal nor improper. 
What's more, the Washington Post reported Monday night that last month Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, had informed the White House that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak and that he could be susceptible to blackmail because he misled Pence about it. If it was the lie to Pence that sunk Flynn, why was he not fired at the end of January?
A better explanation here is that Flynn was just thrown under the bus. His tenure as national security adviser, the briefest in U.S. history, was rocky from the start. When Flynn was attacked in the media for his ties to Russia, he was not allowed by the White House to defend himself. Over the weekend, he was instructed not to speak to the press when he was in the fight for his political life. His staff was not even allowed to review the transcripts of his call to the Russian ambassador. 
There is another component to this story as well -- as Trump himself just tweeted. It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.
Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do. 
In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.
Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern."
Nunes said he was going to bring this up with the FBI, and ask the agency to investigate the leak and find out whether Flynn himself is a target of a law enforcement investigation. The Washington Post reported last month that Flynn was not the target of an FBI probe. 
The background here is important. Three people once affiliated with Trump's presidential campaign -- Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone -- are being investigated by the FBI and the intelligence community for their contacts with the Russian government. This is part of a wider inquiry into Russia's role in hacking and distributing emails of leading Democrats before the election.
Flynn himself traveled in 2015 to Russia to attend a conference put on by the country's propaganda network, RT. He has acknowledged he was paid through his speaker's bureau for his appearance. That doesn't look good, but it's also not illegal in and of itself. All of this is to say there are many unanswered questions about Trump's and his administration's ties to Russia.
But that's all these allegations are at this point: unanswered questions. It's possible that Flynn has more ties to Russia that he had kept from the public and his colleagues. It's also possible that a group of national security bureaucrats and former Obama officials are selectively leaking highly sensitive law enforcement information to undermine the elected government.
Flynn was a fat target for the national security state. He has cultivated a reputation as a reformer and a fierce critic of the intelligence community leaders he once served with when he was the director the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama. Flynn was working to reform the intelligence-industrial complex, something that threatened the bureaucratic prerogatives of his rivals.
He was also a fat target for Democrats. Remember Flynn's breakout national moment last summer was when he joined the crowd at the Republican National Convention from the dais calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed.
In normal times, the idea that U.S. officials entrusted with our most sensitive secrets would selectively disclose them to undermine the White House would alarm those worried about creeping authoritarianism. Imagine if intercepts of a call between Obama's incoming national security adviser and Iran's foreign minister leaked to the press before the nuclear negotiations began? The howls of indignation would be deafening.
In the end, it was Trump's decision to cut Flynn loose. In doing this he caved in to his political and bureaucratic opposition. Nunes told me Monday night that this will not end well. "First it's Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus," he said. Put another way, Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree.
Flynn's Resignation Leaves Trump Security Team in Turmoil
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Eli Lake at
To contact the editor responsible for this story:

Philip Gray at