RUTHFULLY YOURS

Sometimes the hysteria of crowds causes them to overlook the obvious. Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble anyone, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.

1) Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would we now even know of a Fusion GPS dossier? Would assorted miscreants such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, or Peter Strzok now be under a cloud of suspicion? Or would they instead have been quietly lionized by a President Clinton grateful for noble services in the shadows rendered during the campaign?

2) If Clinton had won, would we now know of any Russian-supplied smears against Donald Trump? Would a FISA judge now be complaining that he was misled in a warrant request? Would likely Attorney General Loretta Lynch be reassigning Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr for his consultations with Fusion GPS operatives? Or would Russian operatives alone be likely, at an opportune moment, to threaten to leak to the media that they had given salacious material to Clinton operatives to ensure her election, and thus they were to be owed for their supposed help in ensuring a Clinton victory? Would anyone be now listening to a losing candidate Donald Trump making wild charges that he had been smeared in the closing days of his campaign by leaks of a Clinton cabal that drew on Russian help?

3) Are any Russian related interests currently still donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation? Why is Bill Clinton not being asked to speak by various groups—including those with Russian-ties—for $500,000 and above per talk? Is he now less persuasive than he was between 2009 and 2015?

4) Why did Andrew McCabe believe that two Democratic political action funds, one controlled by Clinton “best friend” Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, donated a total of $675,288 to his wife’s campaign for a rather obscure state senate post? What percentage of Jill McCabe’s actual campaign budget did the $675,288 comprise? And why after her defeat would Andrew McCabe still not recuse himself from directing FBI inquiries into allegations of (likely next president and past generous benefactor) Hillary Clinton’s prior improper use of an email server while Secretary of State? Does quid pro quo refer really more often to simultaneous benefactions or rather sequential ones?

As President Trump deliberates on whether to be interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a look at Mueller’s record of indicting ham sandwiches ought to give him pause.

Mueller, as The Federalist points out, botches high-profile cases and can drag them out for a decade. Reporter Daniel Ashman found this case with Mueller’s name on it, the anthrax attacks case dating back to 2001. That was when some maniac or terrorist, some beast, sent anthrax powder in the mail to news agencies, injuring people who opened the packages. I worked at Forbes magazine in New York at the time and remember how the mail was quarantined, depriving us of that communication line, and I remember how terrified people were at this nasty coda to the horrific 9/11 terror attacks.

The Federalist reports:

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax, setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers. Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax: Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from “bumping into a suitcase,” and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for “skin irritation.” A team of bioterrorism experts from Johns Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes.

So how did Mueller’s investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found “no direct link to organized terrorism.” The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued, Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.

Considering that John Brennan once proudly admitted that he voted for Communist Party leader Gus Hall and openly supports liars and perjurers like Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, and James Comey, he redefines chutzpah when in a tweet he describes President Trump in words that sound as though they were plagiarized from FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok:

When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.

The only “disgraced demagogues” in this scenario are John Brennan; James Clapper; Andrew McCabe; James Comey; Peter Strzok; and, yes, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, all parties in a political resistance whose purpose was to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House. And John Brennan dares to talk about political corruption?

So much for an apolitical intelligence community that is supposed to gather intelligence on and about America’s enemies to guarantee the safety and security of the United States, its people, and the leaders they have democratically elected. Brennan’s venomous tweet, like Strzok’s infamous text messages to his lover and co-conspirator in the FBI, Lisa Page, show the depth of the political corruption infesting an intelligence community that conspired to interfere in our elections to deny Donald Trump the presidency. Brennan and his colleagues are supposed to serve the president, not conspire against him.

President Trump wants to make the federal bureaucracy a meritocracy. He has proposed slapping a cap on federal employee salaries and shifting more dollars to merit-based performance bonuses.

Many will consider this a great proposal, but there’s a catch. While taxpayers can see most federal salaries, they can’t see performance bonuses.

In fiscal year 2016, the federal government awarded 1 million performance bonuses, racking up a $1.1 billion tab paid for by taxpayers. Every cent, however, was hidden from public disclosure. Anti-transparency language inserted into government union contracts is blocking the right of taxpayers to see how their money is being spent.

Last month, a Treasury Department watchdog uncovered$1.7 million in bonuses to IRS employees who had been disciplined by the agency during fiscal year 2016-2017. These 2,000 IRS employees received “high-performing” bonuses despite their record of “serious misconduct such as unauthorized access to tax return information, substance abuse, and sexual misconduct.”

Transparency is especially crucial for federal agencies that have failed in the past. The Department of Veterans Affairs has an ugly history with performance bonuses. For example, in 2014, the VA doled out up to $100 million in undeserved performance bonuses while sick veterans died waiting to see a doctor.

To make any sense of Russiagate the point to begin is an acknowledgement that today in America, and almost all Western nations, we are confronted by a Left elite which will stop at nothing to maintain the hold on institutions and cultural influence it has so assiduously pursued and achieved.

There are two very different narratives about Donald Trump’s first twelve months in the White House. From one perspective, Trump’s presidency has been illegitimate, the result of Vladimir Putin’s interference in America’s 2016 presidential race. This version of events is referred to as Russiagate. In a very different scenario—we might call it Deepstategate—Donald Trump is the modern-day populist outsider who has been ambushed by the Intelligence Community, the Department of Justice and key members of the Obama administration acting in concert with the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the mainstream media. All the two “gates” have in common is a conviction that American democracy has been sabotaged by misconduct “worse than Watergate”.

If the November 2016 election was stolen by the usurper-in-chief with the connivance of the Russians, then the reality of a booming economy during the first year of his tenure can be discounted. The creation of 1.7 million new jobs, an unemployment rate that fell to 4.1 per cent, the lowest in seventeen years, and the greatest stock-market rally in America’s history become mere background noise. That is why Russiagate remains critical for the Democrats. Were any of the salacious contents of Fusion GPS’s “Steele dossier” to be corroborated—for example, the engagement of prostitutes in Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton—it would be curtains for Trump. He would stand condemned not only as a reprobate but as a dupe who allowed himself to be co-opted by the FSB, Russia’s intelligence agency. An exposé of this kind would also explain the motivation for President Putin’s alleged intervention in the presidential election. This could be reasonably described as “worse than Watergate”, since both wrongdoing and a foreign power were involved. No wonder Nancy Pelosi has displayed little enthusiasm for premature impeachment resolutions. The real showdown awaits the moment Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicts Donald John Trump for colluding with the FSB.

David Corn, of the progressive magazine Mother Jones, made the earliest public reference to the Steele dossier on October 31, 2016. Author of The Lies of George W. Bush and Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor and the Tea Party, Corn was doubtless considered a reliable conduit by whoever provided him with a copy of the thirty-five-page report. Corn withheld Christopher Steele’s name from his article, “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump”, but endorsed the reliability of the author of the report: “a senior US government official not involved in the case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government”. Corn acknowledged the Steele dossier had been funded by “a client allied with Democrats”, but it would be a full year before the client’s full identity became public knowledge: Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

Ken Bensinger, Miriam Elder and Mark Schoofs of BuzzFeed News went a step further than David Corn by publishing the Steele dossier in its entirety on January 10, 2017, just days before Trump’s inauguration. Although Bensinger et al admitted the report contained obvious errors and that none of the compromising material had been verified, they nevertheless posted the following “research” online: “According to several knowledgeable sources, his conduct in Moscow has included perverted sexual acts which have been arranged/monitored by the FSB.” BuzzFeed News justified its action in terms of helping Americans to “make up their minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government”. A little disingenuous, perhaps, given the record of BuzzFeed as an unapologetic Trump-hater.

Great news! Hillary Clinton has finally figured out What Happened! It wasn’t, after all, James Comey or racism or Vladimir Putin or sexism or the hostile media that torpedoed her bid for the White House. Instead, it was…(drumroll please…) millions of Stepford wives, voting the way their husbands told them to.

In her insatiable thirst for redemption Hillary casts an ever-wider net, trying to scoop up those responsible for her defeat. Speaking in India recently, she again revisited her stinging 2016 election loss, this time hauling in white women, who vote the way “your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

What an offense to the millions of women who didn’t trust Hillary, didn’t like Hillary, and didn’t think she had earned the right to be our first female president. And what an embarrassment to her party, some of whom have disavowed her comments. Senator Claire McCaskill, for instance, who is battling to be reelected in red state Missouri, criticized Hillary’s remarks; nonetheless, the Republican opponent hoping to dislodge McCaskill wasted no time tying her to Clinton, whom she previously had endorsed.

Republicans hope Hillary will hang around, reminding Trump voters how delighted they are that she isn’t president. More and more Democrats would like her to disappear Stage Left, for good.

According to one survey, 61 percent of white women without a college degree voted for Donald Trump as did 45 percent of white women who graduated from college. Did all those tens of millions of females simply do as they were told by the men in their lives? Please, women are not that compliant or that stupid.

The irony is, of course, that Hillary would never have been a candidate for president but for the men in her life. It was husband Bill who pushed her forward from the start and, against all odds, became a beloved leader of the Democratic Party. And she would never have come close to cracking the glass ceiling but for the dogged efforts of President Obama, who saw her as willing to carry on his legacy.

Democrats who put gender ahead of the economy, or jobs, or national security, or who think that their dogmatic positions on abortion or equal pay are the only key to winning elections, are insulting women.

What went wrong is corruption, political bias and the agency sank into the swamp….rsk

Mr. Baker is a retired FBI special agent and legal attaché.

Americans have grown increasingly skeptical since 2016 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an institution they once regarded as the world’s greatest law-enforcement agency. I spent 33 years in a variety of positions with the FBI, and I am troubled by this loss of faith. Many lapses have come to light, and each has been thoroughly covered. But why did they happen? The answer is a cultural change that occurred in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

For reasons that seemed justified at the time, the bureau set out to become an “intelligence driven” organization. That had unintended consequences. The FBI’s culture had been rooted in law enforcement. A law-enforcement agency deals in facts, to which agents may have to swear in court. That is why “lack of candor” has always been a firing offense. An intelligence agency deals in estimates and best guesses. Guesses are not allowed in court. Intelligence agencies often bend a rule, or shade the truth, to please their political masters. In the FBI, as a result, there now is politicization, polarization, and no sense of the bright line that separates the legal from the extralegal.

Part of making the FBI more like an intelligence agency was the centralization of case management at headquarters in Washington, rather than the field offices around the country. With this came the placing of operational decisions in the hands of more “politically sensitive” individuals at headquarters.

The 9/11 investigations and related matters were the first to be moved from the field to headquarters. But the trend culminated with the investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails and Russian election interference—both run from headquarters as well. Levels of review—and independent judgment—were eliminated. Thus, we learn that Peter Strzok —who held the relatively high rank of deputy assistant director of counterintelligence—was himself conducting interviews in both politically sensitive investigations. CONTINUE AT SITE

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Sunday suggested President Trump should not publicly criticize Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into his 2016 campaign. “When you are innocent,” he said, “if the allegation is collusion with the Russians and there is no evidence of that, and you’re innocent of that, act like it.”

Gowdy was responding to “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace’s question about whether Trump’s lawyer should be demanding the end of Mueller’s probe, and if Trump’s tweets related to the investigation were appropriate.Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor who is not running for reelection, strongly defended the Mueller investigation, even though his committee just concluded there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign in 2016.

“If you believe, as we found, there is no evidence of collusion, you should want Special Counsel Mueller to take all the time and have all the independence he needs to do his job,” Gowdy said. “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you should want the investigation to be as fulsome and thorough as possible.”

Former CIA director John Brennan issued a stinging rebuttal to President Donald Trump’s Thursday tweet celebrating the dismissal of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

Brennan, who led the CIA under President Barack Obama, referred to Trump as a “demagogue” and hinted that damning evidence of “political corruption” would eventually emerge.
John O. Brennan
✔ @JohnBrennan When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/974859881827258369 …

Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe Friday, threatening a pension the career agent would have received if he was allowed to retire on Sunday as he intended. Sessions cited McCabe’s lack of “candor” during interviews related to contacts he and his staff had with a reporter.Trump’s personal lawyer, John Dowd, publicly called for the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation Saturday morning, following Trump’s tweet. This prompted backlash from Democrats, who insisted Mueller must be allowed to continue his investigation unimpeded.