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: http://robertdavidsteele.com/ See the D3C Presidential Innovation Memorandum 3.3 Donations advancing public intelligence:http://paypal.me/EarthIntel See Mr. Steele’s reviews on https://phibetaiota.net/2011/08/worth... Robert Steele suggested the following books in the interview: “The Terror Factory” https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory... Democracy Riots: We Are All Black Now – Deal With it https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Riot... Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency:https://www.amazon.com/Vice-Cheney-Hi... 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. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/wash... 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 robertdavidsteele.com
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.”
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. http://tytnetwork.com/join
"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 SFGate.com 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.”*
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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 Paugh, Romanian 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
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the
economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com
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
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
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
“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
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
“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”.
“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,
“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
It is Fake News 101 that the protests and riots that have
occurred since his election are the fault of President Donald J. Trump.
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,
Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, 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
—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.
Michael Moore ✔
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
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
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
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
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
Moore then removes all doubt he’s a rocket scientist.
Michael Moore ✔
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
Retweets 25,696 25,696 likes
He repeats his Facebook demand.
Michael Moore ✔
We demand that the weak & spineless Democrats bring
Congress 2 a halt until investigative hearings are held & impeachment
charges are filed.
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
Moore doesn’t complain about then-Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton approving the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russian interests,
That’s because these facts don’t follow the Left’s
Moore doesn’t care. Propagandists don’t have to.
Matthew Vadum, Bombthrowers, and matthewvadum.blogspot.com,
is an investigative reporter at a watchdog group in Washington, D.C.
His new book Subversion Inc. can be bought at Amazon.com
(US), Amazon.ca (Canada), and as an e-book at Kobo (Canada).ay — in what I hope
is in chronological order:
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, viaAllen 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.
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
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
Categories (a) and (b) are self-explanatory. It is category
(c), intelligence collection, that is most pertinent to our consideration of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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)
MORE FROM BLOOMBERG VIEW
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
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
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
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
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
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
Flynn's Resignation Leaves Trump Security Team in Turmoil
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.