Tuesday, June 6, 2017

My Own Q & A With Comey, Brennan and Clapper.

With former FBI Director Jim Comey having  testified yet again to another congressional committee, and with former CIA Director  John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper having already testified before congressional committees investigating Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 election no doubt many watching those hearings have moments where they wished they could be the ones asking the questions especially when they feel the obvious is being missed which inevitably leads to teeth gnashing and shouting at the TV screen. So to clear up many unanswered questions relating to the investigation into Russian interference with our democratic process, I had a number of questions to pose to former Directors Comey, Brennan and Clapper. And I present their answers here with a 100% certainty of their accuracy.

Q: We hear the same generalized phrases repeatedly that the Russians interfered with our elections and democratic process and the possibility of collusion. But the primary and specific action the Russians took that is referred to as "interfering with our democratic process" was the hacking into the emails of the DNC and Clinton campaigns, then turning those emails over to Wikileaks who authenticated them and published them. Is that accurate?

Brennan, Clapper & Comey: Yes 

Q: Mr.Brennan, when you stated during your last appearance that Russia gave those emails to WikiLeaks for publication because they wanted to "denigrate" - your word -  Hillary Clinton,  was it the authenticity of what was in the emails, their content and what they showed that was denigrating to Hillary Clinton and her campaign?

Brennan: Yes

Q: Mr. Comey and Mr.Clapper, do you both agree with that assessment?

Comey & Clapper: Yes. 

Q: So just to be clear, when you or Congressman Adam Schiff or Senator Warner  or anyone refers to Russian interference that "denigrated" or was  "damaging to Hillary Clinton" "denigrated and damaging" refers  to exposing to the public what was in those emails is that right?

Brennan Clapper & Comey: Yes

Q: Among the items exposed was a secret recording made during the campaign where we hear Hillary Clinton describe young Bernie Sanders voters as "baristas living in their parents basement". Based on the analysis by the intelligence agencies and those conclusions, was there any evidence that was a Russian agent imitating Hillary Clintons voice?

Brennan, Clapper & Comey : No.

Q: So that was actually Hillary Clinton saying that.

Brennan ,Clapper & Comey: Yes 

Q: There was another leaked recording of a private closed door meeting with Clinton campaign donors where we hear Hillary Clinton's voice refer  to Trump voters as "irredeemable deplorables". Any intelligence that showed that was a Russian agent imitating Hillary Clintons voice?

Brennan, Clapper, Comey: No

Q: So that was really Hillary Clinton saying that?

Brennan Clapper, Comey : Yes

Q: There was a Podesta email published by WikiLeaks,  a fragment of one of Hillary Clinton's closed door speeches to Wall Street,one of the $21 million in paid speeches  she gave that she refused to make public despite calls for her to release them much like the calls for Trump to release his tax returns, and in the speech  she tells Wall Street executives that at times she thinks it's necessary for her to say one thing publicly for political reasons about her policies but privately she would do something else. Did the Russians fabricate that transcript to denigrate or damage Hillary Clinton? 

Brennan, Clapper, Comey: No

Q: So it was genuine.

Brennan Clapper,Comey: Yes 

Q: So Hillary Clinton actually said that to Wall Street executives  in one of her closed door speeches.

Brennan Clapper & Comey: Yes

Q: And the email showing Donna Brazille  while at CNN stole questions for an upcoming CNN presidential debate and gave them to Hillary Clinton in advance was also authentic?

Brennan,Clapper, Comey: Yes

Q: There were DNC and Clinton campaign emails published days before the Democratic nominating  convention that showed extensive collusion between Hillary Clinton, Debby Wasserman-Schultz,  the DNC and many in the news media to undermine and sandbag Bernie Sanders to rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton and that Debby Wasserman-Schultz had been publicly lying about the DNC being impartial and neutral.  Were those emails not only damaging to Hillary Clinton but coming before the nominating convention also beneficial to Bernie Sanders?

Brennan Clapper &amp Comey: Yes 

Q: And all the polls up to that time showed  Bernie Sanders beating Trump by as much as 15 points in a general election while the same polls showed Clinton's lead to be about 6 points.

Brennan Clapper and Comey: Yes.

Q: So based on all those polls is it fair to say Bernie Sanders was the candidate most likely to beat Trump?

Brennan,Clapper & Comey: Yes 

Q: But the intelligence report  written at the behest of president Obama and made public concluded the hacking and exposing of the DNC emails which benefitted Bernie Sanders was because the Russians wanted Trump.

Brennan Clapper & Comey: Yes 

Q: Even though Bernie Sanders was the candidate most likely to beat Trump?

Brennan,Clapper& Comey: Yes 

Q:So the hack of the DNC by the Russians was to the benefit of the candidate who was most likely to beat the candidate the intelligence report said the Russians wanted to win.

Brennan,Clapper, Comey: Yes

Q: My time is short so I only have a few more questions. Were all the documents and emails from the Clinton campaign and DNC published by WikiLeaks that have been called damaging and denigrating to Hillary Clinton authentic?

Brennan Clapper & Comey: Yes 

Q: So nothing was falsified or fabricated by the Russians.

Brennan Clapper & Comey: No 

Q: So what Congressman Adam Schiff, Senator Mark Warner and other Democrats have said denigrated and damaged Hillary Clinton was simply the truth.

Brennan,Clapper,Comey: Yes.

Q: And so far the only hard proof of any collusion during the 2016 presidential election was collusion between the Clinton campaign, the DNC, Democratic party super delegates, Debby Wasserman-Schultz and major print and TV news organizations.

Brennan,Clapper, Comey: Yes.

Q: Finally,Mr, Comey, you recently testified that in 2016 Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered you to stop using the word "investigation" publicly in relation to the FBI criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's email and to use the word "matter"  which dovetailed and re-enforced the Clinton campaign's use of the same word when referring to the email investigation. You testified that when you said, "Why would I do that? Its an investigation" Attorney General Lynch replied "just do it". Was that an attempt by the Obama administration and the Attorney General to politicize the FBI by having you use the Clinton campaign word "matter" instead of "investigation" to help the Clinton campaign in the 2016 election? Could that be called Obama and Attorney General Lynch using their power and position and authority to meddle and collude with the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election?

Comey: Yes.

My time is up. Thank you all for clearing up how the Russians and WikiLeaks interfered with our democracy and undermined our democratic process.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Hillary Clinton's Recipe For Nothing Burgers.

Ever since Hillary Clinton claimed at a Codec conference in California that the investigation into her email server and mishandling of classified information  was " the biggest nothing burger in US history" people have been clamouring for that secret Nothing Burger recipe. Thanks to an anonymous source here it is:

1 private email server kept in a cool dry place (preferably a basement)
2 years of lying 
500 grains of salt 
1/16 oz of prevention
30,000 subpoenaed emails  
1 package of bleach bit 
1 package Anthony Weiners  combined with 1 guilty plea 
10 lbs scape goat cheese, finely crumbled
5 State Department adjudication guidelines for handling classified information broken and scrambled until security clearances are revoked
300 pieces of classified information repeatedly mishandled 
1  State Department Inspector General criminal referral to the FBI

Compound entire mixture, mishandle repeatedly until everything  mushrooms, grill on low heat by the FBI

Serve with your favorite whine 

Wrap leftovers in the New York Times

While many say Hillary's Nothing Burgers don't pass the smell test, all seem to agree, serving Hillary's Nothing Burgers to your guests will have them all saying: Clinton doesn't deserve a break today.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

On Comey Firing, Democrats, News Media Closer To Saturday Night Fever Than Saturday Night Massacre.

Everyone has seen this Democratic Party-media dance before . They've been dancing together ever since the start of the Democratic primaries when they,the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to sandbag Bernie Sanders to hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton and continued the dance clumsily through the general election, the email hack exposing the extent they were cheating and willing to cheat to win the trophy they wanted. In the end the  prize they won was Donald Trump.

They tried the same feverish dance when Sally Yates an Obama administration leftover whose days were numbered anyway as soon as Sessions was confirmed, was fired for doing her imitation of the Supremes over the  6 country immigration review executive order and Democrats and their partners in the media cried "Saturday Night Massacre" then too. But that was also more "Saturday Night Fever".

They're trying again after Jim Comey was fired largely ignoring the case made by Rod Rosenstein, the new Deputy Attorney General who wrote a lengthy letter to Trump outlining the reasons why he felt Comey needed to be replaced, especially important since it is the Deputy Attorney General who the FBI Director reports to on a regular basis and who must work closely together. Rosenstein was so critical of Comey's decision not to prosecute Clinton he made a point of writing, " I cannot support it". Neither could a lot of rank and file FBI agents.  But you dont hear the name "Rosenstein" much in all this because he was appointed as a US Attorney by Obama and recommended for the job as Deputy AG by two Democratic senators from Maryland.

Nevertheless, "Saturday Night Massacre!" and historically ignorant Watergate analogies has been the cry by Democrats and their usual dance partners  in the media showing that, like most things they report, they have no real knowledge of Watergate or the real Saturday Night Massacre making them sound like characters in a "Peanuts" cartoon making accusations against Charlie Brown.

In the wake of Jim Comey's firing  Democrats continue to grasp for  comparisons to Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre every chance they get either exposing themselves as completely ignorant as to facts and circumstances related to Watergate  or hoping the people they want to influence are.

There is obviously no comparison to be made between the firing of Jim Comey  to anything related to Watergate and Nixon's firing of a special  prosecutor who was gathering evidence to use in actual criminal trials to prosecute actual crimes that had been actually committed by actual persons who had been part of the Nixon White House and as high up as the former Attorney General himself and was investigating just how far the criminal conspiracy went.

Which also makes Democrats repeated calls for a special prosecutor  not just embarrassingly ignorant when it comes to history but what a Special Prosecutor actually is and what they do.

 The only reason there was ever a special prosecutor in the first place during Watergate is because the people who would normally be charged with prosecuting those indicted for crimes at the Department of Justice were themselves many of the criminals. There was actually no one else to do the prosecuting and nothing else to do but appoint a special prosecutor. 

It was not possible for the Department of Justice to do the prosecuting when two Attorneys General,  some of their staff and an acting Director of the FBI along with members of Nixon's White House were among the people being prosecuted. And lest the Democrats or their dance partners forget, the Special Prosecutor in Watergate was appointed by  a judge -- Judge John Sirica who was presiding over the Watergate trials, not congress .

 Right now there is no judge to appoint a Special Prosecutor because there are no trials to preside over because there are no defendants to prosecute because there are no crimes that have been committed and no crimes even alleged. In fact no one is even investigating a crime because the current FBI investigation into the Russian email hack is a counter-intelligence investigation not a criminal investigation which would never be conducted by any prosecutor anyway no matter how special he or she was. So there is no need for a Special Prosecutor when there is nothing to prosecute. But that doesn't stop Democrats from calling for a special prosecutor anyway like "Special Prosecutor" were their first words out of their mouths when they were infants.

But  if Democrats want a special prosecutor which they have been been demanding for months now anyway, it was only because they said they had no faith in Comey to preside over the counter-intelligence investigation,so why are they and their dance partners complaining about replacing Comey now when Trump played the same music theyve been dancing to for months? Democrats called for Comeys firing repeatedly. Now its a "massacre".because Trump did it. So they change their tune.

The idea that firing Comey would have anything to do with either interfering or impeding or shutting down the current FBI counter-intelligence investigation is as blatantly stupid as thinking that if the Board of Directors of General Motors fired the CEO they would stop making or selling cars until there was a replacement. Any journalist or politician that tries to use that as criticism or as "evidence" of hoping to impede the investigation into the Russian hack of the DNC and Podesta emails or any connection with someone in the Trump campaign, is revealing themselves to be either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest as the Acting Director of the FBI proved in shooting down more false headlines and stories from the Times and Washington Post that Trump fired Comey because Comey wanted more resources.

For now the mock hysteria of Democrats and their dance partners in the media including a couple of paid for pea brains at CNN putting out their prearranged prefabricated opinions which is standard operating procedure for most issues at CNN, calling it the "act of a tyrant" while forgetting that president Bill Clinton had fired FBI Director William Sessions, is "Saturday Night Fever" not Saturday Night Massacre. Which makes Democrat and their media dance partners still look clumsy and out of step no matter how hard they try to impress the judges. 

Friday, March 24, 2017

Was The Russian Email Hack of the DNC and Clinton Campaign a Threat to Democracy Or Did It Expose One?

The New York Times front page  above tells an important story but not the one the Times hoped to tell. It tells a story of media collusion with the Clinton campaign and the DNC that was and is and has been the real threat to democracy.

When was the last time anyone saw a banner headline in the New York Times  that was simply reporting what another news organization was reporting?

The answer is never.

And what were they reporting? That a number of anonymous super delegates called the AP in the middle of the night, no doubt at the behest of Debby Wasserman-Schultz, the night before the crucial Democratic California primary, the last big piece in a primary battle where Bernie Sanders had already won 23 states and by landslide numbers, to say they would vote for Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention to give her enough super delegate votes to win the nomination. Even though those anonymous "declarations" at the time didnt actually count as votes and there was no guarantee they ever would. 

The message to Sanders voters was clear: don't bother to show up tomorrow.No reason to vote. You have no chance so stay home. It's all over. Because we say it is. 

It was not just dishonest and untrue for many reasons its distinct purpose was to undermine our democracy and the single most important component of it -- the vote -- for the benefit of Hillary Clinton helped by a cabal of news organizations who for their own purposes were in on the collusion. Everything Democrats, without any proof or evidence tried to claim, so far with no success, occurred between the Trump campaign and Russia.

  It was the Democrats', the DNC, Clinton campaign and news media colluding to pull off a Putsch --  a German word for the kind of middle of the night power grab that happened in Germany in the 1930's --  to rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton and supress the vote for Bernie Sanders with the help of a dishonest news media, the DNC and its unethical use of super delegates which the media also aided and abetted. Unethical because never in the history of the Democratic party has even one super delegate ever voiced a preference before the last primary was over, yet they began announcing preferences to selected media outlets anonymously  back in February which were intentionally included and counted by those media outlets as one total along with pledged delegate totals to try to blunt the effect of landslide victories over Clinton by Sanders.

The news media outlets like CNN and MSNBCm included those "declarations" without even verifying them and simply added them to the pledge delegates won in primaries, the only delegates that actually counted at the time, even though super delegates hadnt voted to decide a nominee in 32 years. It was all designed to help rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton with the help of a dishonest, almost Pravda-like news media. They succeeded when it came to the nomination. They tried it in the general election and failed.

After the election, the Democrats refrain or excuse, was that somehow the Russian email hack and subsequent  publishing of those emails by Wikileaks which exposed all that fraud, rigging,deceit and collusion between the DNC,Clinton and her campaign and many in the mass media was the reason Clinton lost as if the issue was who exposed it instead of what was exposed.

While the consensus of the intelligence agencies said that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails, then turned them over to Wikileaks, what Adam Schiff, the Democrats' spin merchant on the Intelligence Committee whose job is to put out the Democrats predetermined strategy via talking points always tries to bury by using over-generalized and even blatantly false language like "the Russian hack of the election" (they didnt "hack" the election which insinuates hacking actual vote) is that it was the content of those emails and the truth it exposed that was damaging to the DNC and Clinton not who exposed it. It was what the Russians found when they hacked those emails that was damaging, not that it was the Russians uncovered it.

Any damage to Democrats, the DNC and the Clinton campaign as a result of those emails being made public was damage they did to themselves because of  what those emails contained, not who exposed them.

And what was exposed was a vipers nest of lies, fraud and deceit in trying to undermine our democratic process and elections in collusion with many major media organizations like CNN and MSNBC, first to take down Bernie Sanders and then do the same in the general election. Trying to put the focus on the Russians for  exposing  emails showing Debby Wasserman-Schultz lying about her role and DNC collusion, doing everything she can to help rig the nomination for Clinton, Donna Brazile lying about feeding CNN presidential debate questions in advance to Clinton,emails and transcripts exposing  Clinton saying one thing privately and another publicly and Democratic super delegates colluding to rig the nomination and suppress both Sanders vote and fund raising ability with the help of  the already outed news outlets, that is what damaged Clinton and the Democrats. 

Though using the word "damage"as Democrats do to apply to Clinton who began with the worst unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidate in history as far back as January, 2016 before a single vote was cast is disingenuous. "Further damaged" is more honest and more to the point for a candidate who  polls showed 65% of the American people believed was dishonest and untrustworthy.

Yes the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails and you don't have to be an FBI or CIA analyst to know what happened next. Their eyes lit up. They saw  a treasure trove of political lying,fraud, rigging and collusion trying to undermine our democratic process from outright lying, deceit and fraud, to Glenn Thrush's infamous email to Podesta offering him approval of a piece he was writing on Clinton for Politico that began, " I know Im a hack".

Did the Russians know the emails would be damaging to Hillary Clinton? Obviously. But the other false premise Democrats try to push to both save face and continue the same deceit they were engaged in that was already exposed, is that it was done specifically to help Trump. The argument is preposterous on many levels.

First, given there were 20,000  emails from the DNC alone and that the Russians would have had to read them first and then give them to Wikileaks who would also have to read them and  authenticate them, and given when they were released, days before the Democratic National convention ( timing the Russians had no control over) the timeline indicates the hack of the DNC first occurred sometime in February but  no later than March,at least 4 months before Trump won the nomination. At the time of the first Russian hack most people including Republicans and almost every media outlet were mocking the idea that Trump was even running. So the entire process of hacking the 20,000 DNC emails  and Podesta's 20,000+ emails  had to have begun before anyone could have known Trump would be the nominee.

 Damage Clinton for the sake of damaging her because the emails themselves were damaging? Obviously. Damage Clinton because they could? Yes. But to help Trump win because they wanted Trump? Ridiculous.

While hacking those emails were certainly illegal it was a lot like a burglar breaking into a home where he clearly didnt belong and clearly committing  a criminal act by even being there, but found a man beating his wife and reported it to the police. Then having the man complain the burglar calling the police was interfering in his marriage and everything he saw needs to be ignored because he's a criminal who had no business being in his house. The Russians were indeed criminals who broke into those email accounts but what they found was the DNC,Clinton campaign and a colluding news media committing domestic political and electoral abuse. Democrats want everyone to ignore that and focus on the criminal who exposed it.

Democrats and their allies have been trying to deflect those facts with dishonest, distorted and overly exaggerated language like calling the email hack "a Russian attack on our democratic institutions".

Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign were not "one of our democratic institutions". But it certainly sounds more sinister than "the Russian hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails".

People like playing the "imagine if the roles were reversed" game and often its a good way to get to the truth and expose whats real and who the hypocrites are. And if the roles were reversed and an email hack by any foreign government, or even domestically, exposed the kind of lies, deceit, fraud, collusion and the rigging of the democratic nominating and election process  by the GOP to help for the Trump campaign despite public statements to the contrary and in collusion with friendly but corrupt media outlets trying to help rig the general election for Trump,one can imagine Democrats on CNN and MSNBC, while admitting the hack illegal, praising the exposure as helping to save the democratic process  and something the country can be grateful for.

Had those DNC  and Clinton campaign emails revealed paragons of honesty and truth protecting our democratic ideals and processes, had they shown Clinton and Democrats to be pillars of integrity instead of what they did show, the Russians would have been bitterly disappointed.  What they found didn't disappoint.

One further point regarding the continued false idea that the email hack was to benefit Trump as opposed to only damage Clinton, as if Trump were some kind of Manchurian,or Kremlin candidate:  the first batch of DNC emails were exposed before the Democratic nominating convention and after a  contentious primary season that saw Sanders beat Clinton by landslide margins in many states winning 23 states and tying in 2 more. Making the state victory totals even. The result of those primaries was that Clinton did not have enough delegates won in primary elections to win the nomination going into the convention and would have to rely on super delegates whose previous "declarations" officially meant nothing,  to get her over the top.

 Those DNC emails which revealed the deceit, dishonesty and collusion by the DNC and Clinton campaign to damage Bernie Sanders and rig the nomination for Clinton,including outright lying and duplicity by Debby Wasserman-Schultz who was forced to resign as DNC Chair, was all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders the candidate every poll showed was the candidate most likely to beat Trump,in some polls by as many as 15 points. Those emails helped fuel massive protests at the convention against Clinton and on behalf of Sanders days before the roll call vote.

So the idea that the hack of the DNC emails and their release were somehow a Russian desire to help Trump win as opposed to just damaging Clinton when they actually benefitted the Democratic candidate most likely to beat Trump, is not just absurd, its stupid.

What damaged Hillary Clinton the most wasnt the Russians, it was Hillary Clinton.

 Whether it was the State Department Inspector General issuing a report during the primaries that concluded Clinton had publicly and repeatedly lied  for two years about her unauthorized private server being "allowed" or "approved" when it hadnt been, or the FBI criminal investigation that concluded she was sloppy, negligent, irresponsible and careless with classified information by using that server which she did for her own benefit, or the 30,000 emails ordered destroyed, or  many other things including what the hacked emails exposed, what did the most damage to Hillary Clinton was Hillary Clinton not the Russians. 

That the Democrats would rig a nomination for a candidate with the highest unfavorable rating in history, the lowest favorables, and a candidate who 65% said was dishonest and untrustworthy is something Democrats cant blame on the Russians. It has more in common with Groucho Marx than Karl Marx.

In an answer to a question by Rep (D) Denny Heck of Washington State during the House Intelligence Committee hearings who as part of his question self righteously insisted that Democratic persistence in exploring unproven ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as "evidenced" by the email hack was not political but patriotic, Director of the NSA, Admiral Mike Rogers said that what is most important and inherent to democracy is to preserve the choice of the voters. He was right.

To that end Rep. Heck who comes from a state whose voters in the Democratic primary voted for Bernie Sanders to be the nominee 80-20 over Hillary Clinton but as a super delegate voted for Hillary Clinton to tow the party line, as did all super delegates in states Sanders won, did more to undermine our democratic processes and institutions by not preserving  the choice of the voters than Vladimir Putin and the Russians could ever do.

The Democrats continuing the charade of blaming Clinton's loss on "Russia interfering with our democratic process" because the emails exposed Clinton, Democrats and the news media interfering with our democratic process, belongs in a George Orwell novel or a Marx Brothers movie. 

The Democrats on the Intelligence Committee are not doing this to save our democracy or democratic process they're doing it to save face.  Even if it means continuing to undermine the same democratic principles they profess to champion.