Diana West

Lie-Buster. Author of American Betrayal & The Death of the Grown-Up

Share This Resource
News Feeds
Twitter Rss
Profile Links

Please Help to Expand AgendaOfEvil.com

These links and any other content or links on this website are provided for information only. No warranty is provided regarding their accuracy, and no liability is accepted for reliance on them. AgendaOfEvil.com is not responsible for the content of external sites. AgendaOfEvil.com does not necessarily endorse any or all of the views expressed on these external sites.
Andrew C. McCarthy lays out three clear measures the Trump administration and Congress must take in order to expose Russian collusion for what it is, not what Democrats and the media want it to be:He writes:Merely calling Democrats out on this farce is not going to end it. Thanks to President Trump’s unruliness, it is working too well. So, I have three suggestions.First, the Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate the potential abuse of government surveillance powers for the purposes of political spying and leaks to the media. The investigation should scrutinize all unmasking of Americans to determine whether it conformed to court-ordered restrictions. The president should immediately announce that he is ordering U.S. intelligence agencies to cooperate fully. He should add that he is willing to declassify forthwith relevant reports and the identities of officials involved in the unmasking of Americans — with the caveat that important intelligence secrets will be safeguarded. It should be made clear that any official who had access to classified information that was leaked to the media should expect to be summoned for grand-jury testimony about his or her handling of it.Second, the appropriate committees of Congress should convene hearings on whether the Obama Justice Department sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, and whether it colluded with the Clinton campaign toward that end. The committees should examine, compare, and contrast the Justice Department’s treatment of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and destruction of tens of thousands of government files, versus its treatment of the investigation of suspected collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The review should include such matters as whether an effort was made by Obama-administration departments and agencies to downgrade the significance of classified information found on Mrs. Clinton’s servers, while a simultaneous effort was being made to inflate the significance of suspected Trump ties to Russia.Third, the appropriate committees of Congress should convene hearings on collusion between the Clinton Foundation and Russia, focusing especially on payments by Russian interests to Bill Clinton and to the foundation, and actions taken by then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton that benefited Russia (including approval of the sale to a Kremlin-tied energy company of major U.S. uranium assets). The committees should compare and contrast the concrete evidence of Clinton Foundation collusion with Russia versus unproved suspicions of Trump campaign collusion with Russia.Democrats are not fighting for advantage. They are fighting to annihilate their opposition — not just the Trump administration but the Republican Congress. It is not enough to say they are not fighting fair. Everyone knows that. Look at John Brennan: as a national-security official throughout the Obama years, his principal job was to appease Islamist regimes and organizations. He wanted to engage the “moderate elements” of Iran and Hezbollah, while airbrushing the concept of jihad (“a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”) and purging agent training materials of background information of sharia-supremacist ideology. Yet, we’re to believe Brennan suspected that the nation was truly imperiled by the Trump campaign due to suspected collusion with Russia? Collusion that he can’t even describe, much less prove?You either fight back against this sort of thing or you get rolled over by it.

It's Not Reporting, It's Suppressing
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
It's not reporting, it's suppressing.Take today's headline "news" from CNN:"A Texas congressman just said something deeply irresponsible about Seth Rich" Yes, that's a headline. No doubt it was crafted by a snowflake who got a start telling on kids back in kindergarten.And never mind that the congressman, Blake Farenthold (R-TX), didn't mention Seth Rich and was very clearly trying to make a completely separate and extremely crucial point. Thus, CNN had its work cut out for it -- suppression, not reporting -- as indicated in the subhead about the cable network's hero-supressors:"Lawmaker confronted over debunked story" Since his 'n' her suppressors John Berman and Poppy Harlow (real name?) were so good at their craft, CNN had to write an introduction to explain what Farenthold wasn't talking about: (CNN)Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold, during an appearance on CNN Wednesday morning, offered what seemed to be a wink and nod to the debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.Note to the reader: Suppressing, as opposed to reporting, requires an awful lot of interupting and talking over, lest the source, in this case a democratically elected representative on the Government Oversight Committee and Cybersecurity Caucus, be able to communicate freely about things he knows about. That, naturally, would defeat the whole purpose of news suppression. As a result of the ensuing cacophony (hazard of the trade), my own transcript of the following exercise in news suppression may not be perfect. FARENTHOLD: "My fear is our constant focusing on the Russians is deflecting away for some other things that we need to be investigating. There's still some question as to whether the intrusion of the DNC server was an insider job or whether or not it was the Russians, yet no federal agency has --BERMAN: "What evidence -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, sorry, the insider job, what are you referring to here? Because I hope it's not (Berman's left hand outstretched in suprressing exertion), th-th-this information that Fox News just refused to be reporting."FAHRENTHOLD: "Well, again, there's stuff circulating on the internet. My question is --BERMAN: What. What's circulating on the internet? What's, what's circulating --?[talking over]FARENTHOLD: Again, my question is, why haven't the federal officials examined, why haven't federal, why -- BERMAN: "What's circulating on the internet that, that you think is worthy of a congressional investigation? Because the DC police are investigating this, an-an-and, so far, they haven't said there's any there there."FARENTHOLD: "Yet the DC police nor no federal investigator has ever had a look at the DNC computer. We're relying only on the report of somebody that the DNC contracted to examine their computer, rather than having federal officials. To me, we need to let the feds look at it."Ta-da! He said it! He got it out! Yes, indeed, Congressman; it is a fact that the DNC did not ever permit the FBI to examine the DNC servers, and therefore that the whole story of "Russian hacking" of the DNC was the conclusion not of any responsible US agency but of a DNC contractor (CrowdStrike). But the news must not go on, which is why top-notch news-suppressing professionals never follow up with pertinent questions.HARLOW: Congressman, do you think it's responsible to bring up, as a representative of the Amer -- of the American people, to bring up things in your words that are "swirling on the internet" --FARENTHOLD: Listen --HARLOW: -- and, and, and, give it justification, as, you know, as if there's a there, there, when, when, we know nothing -- on that, yet?FARENTHOLD: I, I think the same is true with what the media is doing with Trump. We're basing allegations HARLOW: Do you mean --FARENTHOLD: -- on anonymous sources --HARLOW: Ok, so do you mean quoting a former CIA director who said, quote, I saw evidence worthy of investigation ... Hah. Suppressors scuttle all evidence worthy of investigation. Get it?

Former DCIA Brennan, he who voted Communist in 1976, has been testifying about "Russian influence" in the House today.At about 31:00 here, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) starts to build his question, mentioning the "Russian playbook," how Russians try to build relationships, especially with influential Americans, and how that's one of the things the CIA is looking out for.Wenstrup continued: "So I'm just trying to understand process here a little bit, what sets up a red flag, what type of conversation do you hear that says, hmm, maybe we need to take a little bit further look into this, or refer it on. Wenstrup then harkened back to the previous election when a hot mic picked up That Exchange between President Obama and President Medvedev. The congressman related the two famous lines. Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."Medvedev: "I understand. I'll transit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.*In fact, the full script was far more patently collaborative:Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]...Wenstrup: "Now you talk about the playbook, sounds like "I stand with you" -- that's pretty strong relationship -- this is certainly an influentional American, and we're talking openly about elections. So again, I'm just -- I'm not trying to launch another investigation here, but I am concerned about the process. So you weren't sitting as the director at that time, but ... that's a pretty disturbing image, I think, to a lot of Americans. ... So would you question this interaction, or that type of conversations taking place? And again, I'm just trying to understand process, of how it moves from CIA to FBI to DOJ.Brennan: "That was a direct conversation between the heads of government and state between two countries. I'm, I'm not going to respond to your --"Wenstrup: OK, but I think that's what we're [talking about]. Im just again trying to get some understanding of what sets off a red flag, you know, and when do you refer to law enforcement -- I know you weren't the director at that time, um, but, boy, that just hits all the things you were talking about in the playbook: elections, influentual American, and building a relationship ... That's interesting you can't respond to a personal conversation, but this what what we're talking about.Brennan: I try to avoid getting involved in political issues, partisan issues, and so with respect, Mr. Wenstrup, I just will not recognize that question.

The Road to Riyadh
Monday, May 22, 2017
Now at The Daily CallerI really, really do not want to waste a lot of time on Donald Trump's Saudi Arabian visit; however, for the record, which is still important, it was a nightmare.The images could not have been more ghastly.The substance could not have been more repulsive.The nation-to-nation exchange could not have been more shameful: Yet another American president, a decade and a half after 9/11, lying to himself and the entire world to declare that Islam is wonderful, it's just extremism that's a mortal threat, in exchange for hundreds of millions of Saudi petrodollars in arms deals. The $100 million pledged by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to "empower women entrepreneurs" through a World Bank "initiative" (slush fund?) Ivanka Trump is associated with was particularly ugly. It turned the president's daughter into a pitchwoman for these very nations whose Islamic laws and culture recognize women as chattel. How they must have rolled on the tent floor after the pathetic American delegation was en route to Israel, a nation Saudi Arabia does not recognize. There is also the peril of further deepening ties with the Sunni Muslim world such that the fate of this great nation remains tied to the tails of warring Islamic tribes in the Middle East. A dear friend and astute observer, John L. Work, has posted something which, ever since I read it, has been echoing at the back of my mind, at least when my guard goes down and I'm unable to repress it. I have known John for many years, first as a favorite email correspondent writing to discuss my syndicated column; later, when he became a blogger for Frontpage, I got to know him much better after an editor working for David Horowitz directed John to stop linking to my work and John resigned rather than "follow orders" (sorry to mention the H word; the corruption, however, is emblematic). Last week, John wrote about a conversation he had with another dear friend, medical doctor and Islam expert, Andrew Bostom, author of seminal, post-9/11 works on Islam, jihad, and Islamic anti-Semitism."We lost the argument," Andy said to John -- the argument about what Islam is and what it is doing and what it will do to us. This is true, and John recognized in Andy's comment an important marker in the timeline.In political terms, we almost seemed to be gearing up to win, or at least duke it out, for a short while there, gaining momentum as Brexit, then Trump racked up relevant and improbable victories. When Geert Wilders likely crested in his second-place finish in the Netherlands, however, a door seemed to be closing. Marine Le Pen's massive defeat in France was its resounding echo. Trump now exhorting Islam's potentates to condemn and cast out "extremism," just as his predecessors more or less did before him, was the reassertive, steadying helm of Islamic apolegetics -- the creed of dhimmitude. Dhimmitude does prevail. We lost that argument. This is the reality to face even while refusing to partake in it. When Donald Trump came along, a national figure for the first time at least signalling the truth about Islam, citing the terrifying polling showing the support of American Muslims for sharia, later boldly articulating the perils of the spread of sharia (Islamic law) in this country through Islamic immigration (which he and, overwhelmingly, his primary voters wanted to halt), he burst through the lockdown on honest talk of Islam that the Establishment had enforced ever since 19 Muslims (15 Saudis) on the jihad took down the Twin Towers on 9/11. With such a president, things might have gone very differently ... and so long as Trump remains in office, it is at least conceivable that they still might. But such a turnabout would require fundamental changes inside the White House itself -- and inside Trump himself.There is a Twilight Zone aspect to the last several months, which already feel like an eternity.Like other supernatural phenomena, these months contain a mystery:How did they rewire the Donald Trump we Deplorables voted for?

A Seth Rich Chronology, Part 1
Saturday, May 20, 2017
CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED:June 14, 2016: The Washington Post reports "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee." On what did the paper base this claim? The Post cites "committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach." These "security experts" are with CrowdStrike, a private cyber security firm hired and paid by the DNC.While reading the following chronology, it is important to bear in mind that the FBI has never examined the DNC computer network because the DNC prohibited the FBI from doing so. Also, that the FBI, under former Director Comey, not to mention former President Obama and the "Intelligence Community," thought this was perfectly ok.Another point: According to a NYT story that would be published on December 13, 2016, by mid-June of 2016, about when the DNC went public with claims of "Russian hacking," the DNC had already secretly replaced its entire computer system!The Times reported:In the six weeks after CrowdStrike’s arrival [in late April, it seems], in total secrecy, the computer system at the D.N.C. was replaced. ... All laptops were turned in and the hard drives wiped clean ... This same Times story further noted that it was also in mid-June of 2016 that the DNC, its lawyer, Michael Sussman, and senior FBI officials met for the first time.Among the early requests at that meeting, according to participants: that the federal government make a quick “attribution” formally blaming actors with ties to Russian government for the attack to make clear that it was not routine hacking but foreign espionage.“You have a presidential election underway here and you know that the Russians have hacked into the D.N.C.,” Mr. Sussmann said, recalling the message to the F.B.I. “We need to tell the American public that. And soon.”Was the evidence of this incendiary charge already "replaced"? If so, does that mean the evidence of "Russian hacking" was already destroyed before the FBI walked in the door?I don't know the answers to these questions -- but I think they are perfectly good questions.---In the Washington Post story of June 14, 2016, DNC chief executive Amy Dacey explained to the Post what happened after she received a call from "her operations chief" about "unusual network activity" noticed by the IT team in "late April."That evening, she spoke with Michael Sussman, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who handled computer crime cases, called [CrowdStrike president Shawn Henry], whom he has known for many years.I highlight "that evening" "DNC lawyer" "Perkins Coie" "Crowdstrike" and "many years" to highlight the political nature of this chain of damage control. Dacey spoke with Sussman, the DNC lawyer, that evening -- instead of, say, the FBI cyber crime unit that day. As a Perkins Coie partner, Sussmann is with the leading Democrat law firm: Perkins Coie has produced an Obama White House Counsel; a lawyer to ferry that copy of Obama's "birth certificate" from Hawaii to the White House; and it has represented the DNC, Democrats in Congress, Obama's presidential campaign, and, at that moment in June 2016, the Clinton presidential campaign.With all of those Democrat interests in mind, the DNC and Perkins Coie chose to turn to CrowdStrike. Who, what is Crowdstrike? Here is one hair-raising theory. It is a fact that CrowdStrike's Moscow-born co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, a globalist, interventionist and swampist think tank, which gave Hillary Clinton its Distinguished International Leadership Award in 2013. The political nature of the DNC's choice of a politically connected cyber-security firm itself is not surprising; what is five-alarm-shocking, though, is that the FBI has never verified the firm's "Russian hacking" findings. June 22, 2016: John Ashe dies of his throat being crushed by a barbell at his home shortly before appearing in court with co-defendant Ng Lap Seng in a fraud case alleging payola to the late UN official. As New York Post notes: "Seng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration."June 27, 2016: Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch meet privately in her jet on the tarmac in Phoenix, AZ.July 5, 2016: FBI Director Comey holds a press conference enumerating Secretary Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of classified and secret information, announcing:Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. July 10, 2016: DNC staffer Seth Rich, whose title is reported as "voter expansion data director," is murdered in the street near his home in Washington, DC. The police will attribute his murder to robbery, although nothing was stolen from Rich. His murder remains unsolved. Here, thanks to William Craddick of Disobedient Media, is the crime report, which tells us that three of the officers at the scene were wearing body cams.July 12, 2016: Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary ClintonJuly 22, 2016: It is three days before the start of DNC convention, and Wikileaks starts releasing 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from the Democratic National Committee. The emails document the DNC's efforts to sink Bernie Sanders' primary run against Hillary Clinton. DNC chairman Wasserman Schultz will resign over this election-meddling scandal within the week. July 23, 2016: A spate of Trump-Putin stories begins to appear about now, including FP's Julia Ioffe's piece titled, "Is Trump a Russian Stooge?" A deflection to "Russian hacking" from DNC primary-rigging is immediately apparent, at least on the Left: "So what was once dismissed out of hand -- that the DNC was actively working against the Sanders campaign -- is now obviously true, but not a big deal." July 25, 2016: Sanders supporters boo DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the stage at national convention event over Wikileaks revelations of DNC collusion in Hillary Clinton's favor. W-S resigns from the DNC on July 28, 2016.August 1, 2016: Peter Schweizer publishes "From Russia with Money," a stunning report on Clinton cronyism and corruption detailing multiple and profitable connections between Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, John Podesta, and Russia. (More info on Podesta and his Russian business dealings will follow from Wikileaks.) Hillary-tanked MSM ignore evidence of "Russian influence" on Clinton and Podesta both.On or about August 9, 2016: During an interview (video above), Julian Assange brings up the recent murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich while discussing the great risks Wikileaks sources take. Wikileaks will contribute $20,000 to what grows to more $125,000 in reward money for information leading to arrest of the murderer(s) of Seth Rich. According to private investigator Rod Wheeler, no one has come forward to try to claim the money.August 11, 2016: House Minority Leader Pelosi tells reporters: "I know for sure that it is the Russians; I said that at the convention two weeks ago. ... This is an electronic Watergate. This is an electronic Watergate. ... This is a break-in. This is a break-in, and I think we have to recognize what is happening here." August 25, 2016: CIA Director John Brennan was "so concerned about increasing evidence of Russia’s election meddling," that he privately briefs congressional leaders by secure phone, the NYT later reported.It is unclear what new intelligence might have prompted the classified briefings. But with concerns growing both internally and publicly at the time about a significant Russian breach of the Democratic National Committee, the C.I.A. began seeing signs of possible connections to the Trump campaign, the officials said. By the campaign’s final weeks, Congress and the intelligence agencies were racing to understand the scope of the Russia threat.September 5, 2016: Washington Post reports DNI James Clapper is leading an investigation into Russian efforts to "sow distrust" in the presidential election and U.S. institutions.The Kremlin’s intent may not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos and provide propaganda fodder to attack U.S. democracy-building policies around the world, particularly in the countries of the former Soviet Union.U.S. intelligence officials described the covert influence campaign here as “ambitious” and said it is also designed to counter U.S. leadership and influence in international affairs. October 7, 2016: Washington Post: "US government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections." The story reports on a joint statement released by the DNI and DHS. The paper only quotes this much: “The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations,” said a joint statement from the two agencies. “. . . These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”Also of October 7, 2016: The Washington Post releases Access Hollywood/Trump tape, although the published story is dated October 8, 2016. Also on October 7, 2016: Wikileaks releases the first cache of Podesta emails.October 14, 2016: Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin, tweets the following:October 17, 2016: Julian Assange accuses a "state party" of severing his internet connection. October 19, 2016: Hillary Clinton turns the DHS-DNI statement into "17 intelligence agencies" during a debate with Donald Trump: CLINTON: We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.I find that deeply disturbing. And I think it is time —TRUMP: She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.CLINTON: I am not quoting myself. I am quoting 17, 17 — do you doubt?TRUMP: Our country has no idea.October 20, 2016: At National Review, Fred Fleitz writes: First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies.Fleitz goes on to quote from the same joint DNI-DHS statement the Post cited so sparingly. The disclosures ... are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.Fleitz, formerly with the CIA, writes: "Saying we think the hacks `are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts' is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks." October 22, 2016: Gavin McFadyen died of lung cancer in London on October 22, 2016 at the age of 76. According to a May 2017 Fox News report, Gavin McFadyen was Seth Rich's Wikileaks' contact.October 28, 2016: FBI Director Comey writes to congressional leaders informing them that "in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation" of Secretary Clinton's personal email server, and that the FBI will review these emails for classified information.November 2, 2016: Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin, tweeted the following reply to a question about the Clinton body count:November 6, 2016: FBI Director Comey informs congressional leaders: "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton."Around November 9 or 10, 2016: According to the April 2017 book Shattered, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and chairman John Podesta gather campaign staff in Brooklyn to set the post-election defeat narrative: Hillary's unsecured email sever was major over-reported story of the campaign, and Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign. December 9, 2016: Washington Post writes:The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.December 14, 2016: Former UK Amb. to Uzbekistan and Wikileaks associate Craig Murray tells the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington in September 2016 to receive emails from one of Wikileaks' sources. Both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails, Murray said, came from inside leaks, not hacks. "He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' "December 22, 2016: The Washington Post reports CrowdStrike links Russian hacking of the DNC to Russian hacking of the Ukrainian military. Said CrowdStrike's Alperovitch: 'The fact that [these hackers] would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling." This new Russian hacking claim will be widely and loudly debunked by British, Ukrainian and other sources. December 29, 2016: DHS and FBI release a joint report entitled "Russian Malicious Cyber Activity." The FBI, to repeat, has not examined the DNC servers to verify Crowdstrike's findings of "Russian hacking," but President Obama goes ahead orders sanctions on Russia and expels 35 diplomats anyway! Russia does not respond in kind, which intensifies the air of unreality about the whole exercise. It all feels stagey. January 4, 2017: Buzzfeed reports "The FBI did not examine the servers of the Democratic National Committee before issuing a report attributing the sweeping cyberintrusion to Russia-backed hackers" because, according to Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, the FBI never requested to examine them. Instead the bureau relied on the work of a "third-party tech security company," CrowdStrike.Walker states in an email to Buzzfeed: "The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers.” FBI Director Comey will soon contradict this statement. January 10, 2017: For the first time, FBI Director James Comey publicly addresses the DNC-Russian hacking story, affirming that the FBI has not had direct access to the DNC servers or John Podesta's personal devices, despite "multiple requests at different levels." Comey told the Senate committee, "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the orginal device or server that's involved ..." but no worries! "A highly respected private company eventually got access and shared with us what they saw there."Right then and there, President-elect Trump should have planned to ask Comey to resign over this single act of rank incompetence (or corruption). March 15, 2017: According to Daily Mail, "CrowdStrike's Alperovitch cancels interview with VOA, the news outlet that first reported CrowdStrike had misstated data ..." Also in March of 2017 and also according to Daily Mail, CrowdStrike is stonewalling :CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch and its president Shawn Henry turned down an invitation to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the U.S. election.'They declined the invitation, so we're communicating with them about speaking to us privately,' said Jack Langer, a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes."Speaking to us privately..." (A request: Could Republicans please roll over, pull the trigger and put us out of their misery?) Also in March 2017: In a May 16, 2017 interview with Sean Hannity, private investigator Rod Wheeler says that in March, when he began his investigation into the murder of Seth Rich on behalf of the Rich family, he called the DCPD but didn't hear back from anyone for two to three days. Wheeler says he learned from the family on May 15 that during that March interim, a high-ranking official at the DNC got the information about his query and called the Rich family "wanting to know why I was snooping around." (Who in the DCPD called the DNC official and why?)In this same interview, Wheeler adds that Seth Rich was having problems at work, and that the person he was having problems with was the same DNC official who called the father.Rod Wheeler later identified the official as Donna Brazile, vice chairman of the DNC before assuming chairmanship after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced out over DNC-Wikileaks. March 20, 2017: Then-FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Rogers appear before the House Intelligence Committee. HURD: Have you been able to -- when did the DNC provide access for -- to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.HURD: Director Rogers, did the NSA ever get access to the DNC hardware?ROGERS: The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job...HURD: ... So director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaks and when -- you have still been -- never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were -- that were hacked by the Russians.COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this -- my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.Again, this shocking dereliction alone is enough to justify Comey's removal -- plus a thorough investigation into exactly how it was that DNC/CrowdStrike was able to thwart an FBI investigation -- and why Director Comey, not to mention why Barack Obama and on down, went along with all of it. Smells, the whole thing, the whole gang, to high heaven. March 27, 2016: Jonathan Rich, Seth Rich's cousin whose Twitter account bases him in Omaha, tweets that former DNC Chairman Donna Brazile, fired by CNN for leaking debate questions to Hillary, was "here."April 5, 2017: Alana Goodman of the Daily Mail reports CrowdStrike has "quietly retracted" key portions from its debunked Ukrainian report "after the firm was found to have relied on inaccurate data posted online by a pro-Putin 'propaganda' blogger."Too bizarre --The errors prompted both the Ukrainian military and a prominent British think tank to issue public statements disputing CrowdStrike's data.The Daily Mail quotes cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr, who, as the paper puts it, explained that "this is part of 'a pattern' for [Crowdstrike], and raises concerns about its credibility."Carr:'They just found what they wanted to find…they didn't stop for a moment to question it, they didn't contact the primary source,' added Carr. 'This is like an elementary school-level analysis.'Note: It is this same "elementary school-level analysis" that remains the basis of the DNC-"Russian hacking" story!This is outrageous and alarming on multiple levels. To begin with, if a private firm claims that a foreign power has cyber-attacked a leading political organization critical to the functioning of the US national election process, how does the US government not become involved to investigate to ensure that any actions the US government may take in response -- sanctions, expulsions, to take the real- world example -- to that foreign attack are based on verified findings?It does not seem possible that the DNC has the authority to rebuff the FBI in a case of a purported foreign strike -- unless the fix is already in. I mean, imagine a private eye putting off the FBI, saying, don't worry, we've got that Rosenberg spy ring covered, and we'll keep you fully apprised.It's not really all that different. There's more.The Daily Mail:There remain unanswered questions about the sequence of events which led to the secrets of the DNC being laid bare. The DNC said it originally hired CrowdStrike in late April last year after discovering suspicious activity on its computer system indicating a 'serious' hack. That's right. See entry for June 16, 2016 above. But according to internal emails, CrowdStrike was already working for the DNC to investigate whether Bernie Sanders campaign staffers had gained unauthorized access to its voter database. That five-week investigation appeared to have wrapped up on April 29, 2016. ..."Already working for the DNC" in this timeframe of still-undisclosed anti-Bernie collusion means, in effect, already working in support of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign against Sanders. Great source for non-partisan and official intelligence. And check this out: voter data base, Bernie Sanders staffers. Seth Rich's job at the DNC has been reported as "voter expansion data director." Related? Should the Seth Rich chronology go back to alleged dirty tricks in December 2015 involving yet another data breach?Yes, my head hurts, too. But out of this giant headache may emerge some clear truths. In the meantime, it is extremely notable that Twitter talk of supression of the investigation into or even discussion of whether Seth Rich was a DNC source for Wikileaks and murdered as a result is coming not only from the MSM, but hard Left and Democrat "data" professionals.Take, for example, Andrew Therriault, former "Director of Data Science" for the DNC. Zero Hedge reports that Therriault tweeted and deleted the following tweet calling Seth Rich "an embarassment" -- ten months after his murder.More recently, Therriault retweeted Rob Flaherty's tweet (below), which includes a link to a petition against the advertisers of WTTG, which re-introduced the Seth Rich story this past week.Flaherty, too, is a Democratic operative, data pro, Hillary Clinton supporter, and works for the lavishly Soros-funded PAC, Priorities USA. The petition, by the way, written by another hard left activist, Karl Frisch of Allied Progress, announces a boycott of WTTG advertisers unless they pull their WTTG advertising until the news station retracts their developing Seth Rich story.Think there are some high stakes hiding in the tall Swamp grass? Just keep saying "Russian hacking," "Russian hacking." Everything will be just fine.To be cont'd.

One Question About Robert Mueller
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Now at The Daily CallerFlipping back the pages of my proverbial notepad I find a fair amount about Robert Mueller and his Bush-to-Obama tenure at the FBI.Despite the rose petals bestrewing his path back to DC as special counsel, it was not a pretty thing. Summing up -- as Patrick Poole began here in 2012, as former FBI special agent John Guandolo does here -- Mueller's FBI tenure should be remembered in large part for having been one long "Muslim outreach" to combat so-called Islamophobia, one long purge of Islamo-realism; and literally so, as when Mueller's FBI purged lecturers and training materials for their supposed offensiveness to Muslims [read: truthfulness about Islamic teachings on jihad and sharia]. This purge was the result of an "inquiry" beginning in September 2011, described by Wired magazine as an "Islamophobia probe," and which the magazine claims to have instigated. In February 2012 Wired reported, "The bureau disclosed initial findings from its months-long review during a meeting at FBI headquarters on Wednesday with several Arab and Muslim advocacy groups, attended by Director Robert Mueller." As a result, John Guandolo notes, "The FBI no longer teaches anything about sharia, the MB networks, or the Global Islamic Movement." Mueller's legacy.Here are some of my own reports on Mueller and his FBI -- "They Call It Intelligence" (2010) "Uncle Sam Conducts Another `Anti-Islamic' Purge" (2012), "The Continuum ... Continues" (2012), "Making Islam (Not Terrorism) Disappear (2013), "Will FBI Director Mueller Ever Be Held Accountable For Anything? (2013).That last piece appeared after the jihad attack on the Boston Marathon, where, it might well be argued, Mueller's see-no-Islam FBI policies, honed over both the see-no-Islam Bush and Obama administrations, came to deadly fruition. In the explosive video clip above, Rep. Louie Gohmert extracts from Mueller the extraordinary admission that he, as FBI Director, did not know the mosque the Tsarnaev brothers attended – Islamic Society of Boston/ISB (Muslim Brotherhood) – was founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi. Director Mueller defended not sending FBI agents to the ISB [until] after the bombing because the FBI was there before the bombing doing `outreach' with the Imam."Which brings me to my question. How can someone who has long engaged in the political and ideological exercise of blinding himself, the FBI, and the USG to Islamic influence on terrorism and subversion suddenly be expected to assess Russian influence on the Trump (and, a must, Clinton) campaign(s) free from politics and ideology?

To Gotcha or Not to Gotcha, that is never the question for the Washington Post -- or, for that matter, those "current and former U.S. officials" hiding in anonymity to leak what they allege are specifics of an Oval Office meeting between President Trump and the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.On second thought, I must qualify: To Gotcha-Trump or Not to Gotcha-Trump is never the Post's question. This is not across-the-board journalism, it's information warfare. If that were not the case, to take a few examples, Post readers might well have have been treated to some of these headlines: "Obama reveals secret intelligence to Iranians"Or, going back a few years:"Clinton reveals secret intelligence to Chinese"Or, from breaking history:"FDR's Top Aide reveals secret counterintelligence to Soviets"Or simply:"Hillary's unsecured server reveals secret intelligence to whoever"Nope, we just get:"Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians"What was this "secret intelligence" Trump revealed? Israel's base of operations for a surprise attack on Iran (Obama)? Advanced military technology galore (Clinton)? FBI surveillance of Soviet atomic espionage (Harry Hopkins)?Hardly. It was the name of a city.The Post boils down Trump's "disclosures" in paragraph fifteen. "The threat" under discussion is laptop computer bombs. Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not disclose the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State's territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat. The Post continued:The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved.Hang on a sec. Even according to the Post, Trump "did not disclose the specific intelligence gathering method." Does the name of this city automatically reveal to the Russians the identity of the "U.S. intelligence partner" operating there? I don't know the answer to that question. However, no one has accused Trump of mentioning a third party intelligence service. Thus, it seems reasonable to wonder whether it is the Post story itself, not Trump, that has just alerted the Russians, along with the rest of the world, that this third party "intelligence partner" is even operating in City X.Whether such a "revelation" is so earth-shattering in the first place is also an open question. However. would the Post and its secret sources care if they, not Trump, were its source? I think not. The whole story has an ersatz quality. Here's a quotation (anonymous, natch) that almost comes across as it if were spoken in a stage whisper: "If that partner learned we'd given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first, that is a blow to that relationship."If "that partner" didn't know before, it does now! And therein, it sure seems, lies the mission: sabotaging Trump. Undressing him before the Russians, frosting our intelligence partners, condemning Trump to the American people for a supposed gaffe or breach that, surely as described, is insignificant next to what presidential predecessors have done without media question, and, when it comes to Bill Clinton with China, and Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton with Skolkovo, on a scale that is almost incomprehensible. To be sure, it's worth noting that to the Post and its "officials," the alleged Trump gaffe itself, ostensibly the driver of the story, doesn't come across as Red Alert stuff."Officials expressed concern..." "Exposure ... could hinder..." "It's all kind of shocking..."Kind of? Not exactly crisis talk.Which is not to say that the story doesn't offer plenty of opportunties to vent. For example: "Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn't grasp the gravity of the things he's dealing with [doesn't take my advice], especially when it comes to intelligence and national security [the way I view the world]. And it's all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia." The problem he has with Russia ...? How long does this go on? I know: until we get a proper investigation of Russian influence on the Trump and Clinton campaigns, including Podesta/Joule/Clinton/Skolkovo/Uranium One/the Illegals, which should do for starters. And speaking of Russia, will the Washington Post ever investigate the credible claims of former DCPD homicide detective Rod Wheeler, now a private investigator hired by Seth Rich's family, which indicate that murdered DNC official Rich was a DNC source for Wikileaks? How about calling for the evidence on Seth Rich's computer? Hah.No, the Post is too busy venting about Trump and Russia."Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling," said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team.I would like to know: "Troubling" to whom? To this former CT official? Other like-minded "professionals"? "Experts"? The Swamp? If Trump is making a mistake in allegedly sharing with the Russians the name of a city in ISIS-held territory, he is following the footsteps of his predecessors, almost every one of whom has made nothing but mistakes in dealing with the Russians.If Trump, the duly elected president, seeks to create a relationship with Russia predicated on sharing such information about ISIS's bomb-making capacity, which he, as president, is lawfully permitted to share, it is not the place, constitutional or otherwise, of these "officials" to step in anonymously and mess it up -- except, that is, out of their fealty to the Swamp, which is where Washington loyalty lreally lies.Me, I don't trust the Russians a bit, and wouldn't have invited them into the Oval Office in the first place. I would assume they already know about ISIS's laptop bomb-making capability, are onto all intelligence operations in City X -- and may well have come up with the laptop bomb technology themselves and passed it along to ISIS. Heck, if they're anywhere near as good as they used to be, they are probably controlling, or, at least, inside all of the relevant intelligence organizations.Even more alarming than that, though, is the Swamp campaign of presidential sabotage at home, with ginned-up stories designed to destablize the Trump White House. Remember, they start from within. Indeed, the lone source named by Post is Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, formerly an advisor to Bush 43 and late of the internationalist/globalist Atlantic Council. It is Bossert who thought it was a good idea to call up the directors of the CIA and the NSA, and the rest is Swamp History. It is up to Trump to regain control of his administration -- clearly, the hardest task of his presidency.I asked a bona fide Russian intelligence expert what Trump should do. His answer was definite: Trump should polygraph everyone at that small meeting with the Russians; get their phone and computer records from the FBI and NSA (probably a lost cause); and then watch their reactions.He recalled a time when President Reagan wanted to polygraph the State Department and George Shultz threatened to resign."Reagan should have called his bluff," he said. "If Trump doesn't get his staff under control and get rid of the Obama holdovers and treacherous RINOs (plus liberal Generals, beginning with Mattis), he's history."

It's A Weird, Weird World
Monday, May 15, 2017
One hundred and some days in, it's not looking good, as Ann Coulter, Candidate Trump's fiercest and fearsome-est supporter, notes at The Daily Caller; meanwhile, back at the White House, the Weekly Standard reports that it's Steve Bannon against everyone when it comes to trying to prevent Trump from renewing and extending the debacle in Afghanistan. In other words, the ship of state is still sinking when Trump's National Islamic Apologist -- I mean, National Security Adviser -- lectures from the podium all about "three of the world greatest religions."Then there's this. The president's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who is not a White House official, heretofore known mainly for not being the same "Michael Cohen" who travelled to formerly Eastern Bloc Europe during the presidential campaign, posted a picture of his college-student-daughter on Twitter. It has made news (see above).In the posed black and white shot, Miss Cohen is wearing a black lace bra and panty hose, or leggings, her make-up dark, her eyes downcast, her updo messed, her shoulders hunched forward. Her father tweets: "So proud of my Ivy League daughter...brains and beauty channeling her Edie Sedgwick. On Instagram @samichka_ "While it is the "creep factor" of father posting daughter-in-lingerie that sparked Twitter, there are many layers on display here -- as only social media can put things on display.That is, how fatherhood has changed. Today, the highly successful, publicly prominent, doting dad (on whom the President of the United States relies for legal advice) not only raises and enables his daughter to attend college in the Ivy League, he presents her in lingerie to his 200K Twitter followers. When you need words to explain what's wrong with this picture, also literally, there's no point to writing them.Then, he proudly explains his 20-something bundle of "beauty and brains" is "channeling her Edie Sedgwick."Channeling her Edie Sedgwick? Edie Sedgwick is one of those names from the 1960s that evokes tragedy and waste, and with ample reason. That's my girl? Doubtless, it's all pretend, but Sedgwick as a role model is as "off" as this father's ideas of paternal discretion -- which, he further explodes, if anyone is still monitoring flatlining modes of "sensibility," by including a link to his partly disrobed daughter's Instagram account!Cohen was taken to Twitter-task by various and sundry, almost as if some memories of behaviorial standards were out there flickering. What really rises to the level of weird, though, is how this Father of Today responded with not a second thought in his head, or even the instinct to duck. No, he got obstreperous.To be sure, Cohen mainly resisted replying to hundreds of comments, but after one commenter tagged the picture as pornographic, Cohen responded: "Jealous?" Then this:Sigh. Once upon a time ... oh, skip it.

Axios Presented by Koch Industries is a news?site created by Politico's co-founders, which opened shop this year, having, it seems, pretty easily come up with $10 million to get going late last summer. According to a celebratory launch piece in Vanity Fair, Axios collected its pile of cash in a "round" led by Lerer Hippeau Ventures, which is described a main backer of Huffington Post and BuzzFeed.So sheltered is my life I had not heard of either Lerer or Hippeau of said Ventures. Apparently, LHV was "founded by the incredibly liberal and politically minded Huffington Post crew" -- that, according to Pando. (Pando?) Lerer, it turns out, is a high-rev media leftist, raising big bucks for Democrats, launching an anti-NRA site, and, as chairman of Buzzfeed, prohibiting the RNC from buying adspace for then-GOP-nominee Trump, that kind of thing. Trump is "a dangerous reckless person who must be defeated in my view. A serial liar and someone who has racist views. But everyone knows that," said Ken Lerer last year. "I agree with Kenny," said Eric Lippeau. "However, as a firm we don't make political statements."Seriously.Back to Axios, which, of course, is the Greek word for "worthy." (What else?)Here are other backers of Axios/Worthy/Presented by Koch Industries/ mentioned by Vanity Fair:1) NBC News, "which is a media partner and whose president, Andy Lack, will sit on the board"2) Laurene Powell Jobs's Emerson Collective (Jobs is a Hillary SuperPAC contributor, and her Emerson Collective bills its mission in part as "securing human rights for immigrants")3) Greycroft Partners, which is Clinton-funder and Russian mark Alan Patricof's hedge fund (which as of December 2015 had raised $100,000 for Hillary's presidential run)4) David and Katherine Bradley, whose Atlantic Magazine departed from non-partisan tradition to publish an endorsement of Hillary Clinton that was "more condemnation of the Republican nominee," as the Daily Beast put it. (The last time the magazine departed from tradition it was to take a similar stand against GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.)Axios, in other words, is more spawn of left-wing advocacy playing at "mainstream" journalism, as presented by Koch Industries," which is listed as a "launch partner." All of which prelude to the lead item in this morning's Axios e-blast. Headline:"1 big thing: Building walls -- around Trump"The story (emphasis in the original):White House officials talk freely about putting "fences" around President Trump and his decision-making to protect him from his self-indulgent instincts.The wall strategy has worked pretty well so far on national security. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster demanded and got control of the National Security Council, and set up a process for keeping SecDef Mattis, SecState Tillerson and Homeland Security Secretary Kelly in the loop — and, as importantly, keeping others outside it.Inside the defense wall, the principals work hard to present Trump with black-and-white options in brief, visual ways. The wall has successfully guarded against unforced international errors.No such wall exists on the home front, which helps explain unexplainable mistakes like the handling of the Comey firing. So governing by grievance runs unimpeded. An overnight AP headline captures the madness: "Trump contradicts White House."Sound smart: The one idea floating for tighter control on domestic policy is an even bigger role for the Jared/Ivanka/Gary Cohn wing. BUT Trump so far has resisted an internal push for more order.I hate to say it, but that sounds like a casually insolent description of a coup! If there are such "White House officials" talking this way to Axios and the rest, they better be history before Trump is.

File this in the Passing Parade.The late Avi Davis was the founder of the American Freedom Alliance, a conservative group dedicated to elucidating and preserving the values and underpinnings of Western civilization. When he died unexpectedly in 2015, we lost a champion whose verve and kindness really are irreplaceable. I feel that loss keenly, and selfishly so, in part because Avi was such a strong champion of my work. While I think we had connected even before 2007, the year The Death of the Grown-Up appeared, that book, I am happy to say, deeply resonated with him. Over the years, we had many occasions to come together in in-depth interviews and conferences, and naturally I accepted when Avi asked me to become an AFA fellow.In 2009, I was honored to introduce Geert Wilders at an AFA gala dinner in Los Angeles, where he was receiving the AFA's Hero of Conscience Award.In 2013, after the publication of American Betrayal, which Avi read immediately, our friendship would deepen as we watched, in growing disbelief, the smear campaign against my book spearheaded by David Horowitz, his lifelong friend Ron Radosh and Frontpage magazine, locus of what some might see as a competing conservative group in Southern California, The David Horowitz Freedom Center. Avi was very disturbed and outraged over the defamation of both my book and person by Horowitz et al, and there were some very long telephone calls between us discussing the latest surreal developments in this unrelenting effort (nearly two dozen related pieces) to kill the book and my crediblity.Avi was determined to do something about it, and we came up with a marvelous two-day program in LA at the end of 2013, dedicated to American Betrayal, including the controversy. I went to LA to give a lecture at the Skirball Center, which was followed by commentary and discussion featuring skyped-in appearances by M. Stanton Evans and Sebastian Gorka. On the second day, Avi hosted (and cooked!) a gourmet dinner for special guests at his home, after which we went to another home for dessert, where we joined guests gathered to hear Avi interview me about American Betrayal and all of that radioactive fallout, followed by a lively Q & A. It was an excellent, probing discussion (alas, not recorded).In 2014, Avi bestowed the AFA's Hero of Conscience Award on both Jesse Lee Peterson and me — truly, a capstone honor. Looking at the handsome plaque today, I realized I had forgotten the inscription. It says: American Freedom Alliance is proud to present The 2014 Hero of Conscience Award (to me) "for her outstanding commitment to revealing the truth about the penetration of Soviet influence into the highest realms of the U.S. government in the 1930s and 1940s and her continuing commitment to the advancement of Western values and ideals."Part of that commitment included fighting and triumphing over the Horowitz-led disinformation campaign.How tragic it was when Avi Davis died in December of 2015 at age 57. In 2016, the Hero of Conscience Award went to Avi, postumously. I am reminded of all of this on seeing that the American Freedom Alliance, under its new leadership, will be awarding the Hero of Conscience Award of 2017 to ... David Horowitz.Is "irony" a sufficient label here? I think not; however, I will leave to others the work of describing this juxtaposition of persons and events.More important is just to set it down for the record.

I think Debbie Wasserman Schultz is terrified that Trump will do to the Clintons what he does to everything else: Tear down the carefully constructed fake PC edifice and say what's what. If that ever happens, the Clintons will have to go hide their heads in shame where they belong.

Brent Bozell has called on conservatives to rally around Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the Republican presidential nomination. Ted Cruz is a good man and a fine candidate -- my own second choice -- but I believe GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is the candidate for American patriots to rally around.

About   Privacy   Disclaimer   Fair Use   Contact
Twitter   Gab   Google+   YouTube   Pinterest   Facebook   V Votable   Minds
Copyright © 2017 - All rights reserved AgendaOfEvil.com