All The President’s Hacks: Media Fake News Fueled Obama’s Watergate

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

 

Frontpage Mag

Daniel Greenfield

 

When Hillary Clinton cites the “intelligence community assessment” to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the presidential election, she’s really repeating her own lie, that her campaign created, rolled through the media and the government, which used it to spy on the Trump campaign, and then finally became an “assessment” under orders from Obama carried out by political allies like Clapper and Brennan.

The media, which once boasted of exposing Watergate, had played a key role in Obama’s Watergate.

The release of a redacted FISA warrant application exposes the fact that the spying on Carter Page, a figure associated with the Trump campaign, relied on no sources other than Democrats and media allies.

In 2016, an arm of the Clinton campaign began assembling a dossier claiming that the Trump campaign was seeking damaging information about it from the Russians. The dossier actually represented an effort by the Clinton campaign to seek damaging information from the Russians about the Trump campaign.

The man tasked with that job, a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele, then went on to accuse figures involved with the Trump campaign, of doing the very thing he had been hired to do.

One of those men was Carter Page.

Continue reading

The Deep State and Tyranny

Frontpage mag

by Bruce Thornton

The Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report released last week didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know, but merely added more damning evidence for the corruption of the FBI and its investigations over the last few years. More worthy of comment, as Andy McCarthy writes, is its refusal to use common sense and note the obvious interconnections among the various bad actors, and the bond of political bias, seasoned with careerism and arrogance, that united them.

But the problems we are confronting reflect deeper dangers than the professional corruption of some functionaries of corrupt executive agencies armed with the coercive power of the state. The true moral of the story is the dangers to freedom of centralized and concentrated power––the very dangers consensual governments, including our own, were created to minimize.

 

The issue of political bias, which the IG report scanted, has to be understood in the larger nature of the large-scale bureaucratic public institutions that comprise the Deep State. In other words, the structure and functioning of the institution itself creates a bias that selects progressive employees. The bias insidiously becomes a second nature of which they often are no more conscious than a fish is that it’s wet.

Leftist ideology from Marxism to Progressivism is particularly useful for creating such self-serving agencies. American progressivism was founded on the conceit that “technopolitics,” the notion that modernity requires specialists and experts in the “human sciences” who can most efficiently manage the state. Progressives rejected the old democratic and republican notion that virtue, practical experience, and common sense, none of which is dependent on university credentials, are adequate for citizens to govern no matter their wealth, lineage, or education.

This debate about whether men in general are capable of self-government runs throughout the whole history of political philosophy. The antidemocrats denied that the masses are capable of acquiring the knowledge required for participating in government. The champions of democracy, like the Greek philosopher Protagoras, countered that for social life itself to exist, all men must be capable of acquiring the skills of managing relationships with other people. That task always necessarily involves hierarchies of power, common sense borne of experience, and notions of fairness and justice that form the heart of politics.

Two thousand years later, James Madison in 1792 defined the nascent political parties, the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans, in the same terms. The former, Madison argues, hide their aggrandizement of power to an elite behind the ancient charge “that mankind are incapable of governing themselves,” even as the elites use government to further their own interests. The latter believe people “are capable of governing themselves” and can recognize that the opposite view is “an insult to the reason and an outrage to the rights of man.” Thus they oppose any measure “that does not appeal to the understanding of the general interest of the community” or “is not strictly conformable to the principles, and conducive to the preservation of republican government.” All men are capable of thought, and recognize the principles of political equality and freedom, the “rights of man” that government is created to protect and preserve.

Progressives, of course, for all their talk of “equal rights” and “equality” and “democracy,” in fact have more in common with the antidemocratic tradition. Rejecting the permanence of human nature and its vulnerability to the temptations of power and its corrupting influence, they argued that the new technologies and economic institutions had created problems beyond the understanding of the average man, but also created new understandings of how to improve human nature. Now power must be centralized and concentrated, and the federal government expanded with new agencies and offices staffed with credentialed technocrats who understand the “new sciences” of human nature and society, and so can create policies and rules that better serve the citizens now shrunk into wards of government agencies.

Having pursued these aims for over a century, progressives have midwifed the bloated Leviathan that now encroaches into our lives, communities, and businesses. The costs to our freedom and autonomy, as well as the weakening of the Constitutional order, are obvious. But the bureaucratic structure of government agencies leaves them vulnerable to the long-documented pathologies of bureaucracies equally malign to the common good.

Continue reading

Hit Gas, Not Brakes, On Spygate

https://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/trump-spygate.jpg?w=637&h=636

Image via reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com

 

The American Spectator

George Neumayr

“I’d be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping,” Jon Favreau, one of Obama’s speechwriters, tweeted out in 2017. Members of the media, loath to let anything complicate their anti-Trump propaganda, chided him for this unhelpful slip and he quickly withdrew it, saying that he deferred to James Clapper’s denial of any wiretaps. But Favreau had already given himself away. In retrospect, the tweet is even more telling and confirms that knowledge of the spying was widespread at Obama’s White House. If a White House speechwriter far from the action knew about warrants on Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn, who didn’t?

From the beginning of this farce, the Obama administration has shifted back and forth between taking pride in the spying and denying its existence. We are back in the denial phase. But at the height of the hysteria after Trump’s election and inauguration, members of the Obama administration wanted everyone to know they had been spying on Trump and feared that he would destroy their “intelligence.” They leaked to the New York Times in March 2017 that they had “scrambled” to preserve the supposed damning results of their spying, in order to leave a “clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.”

By “intelligence,” they meant their own feverishly partisan sifting through negligible, half-cocked leads. Had there been any substance to their “intelligence,” they would have leaked it out. Having failed, they still thought they deserved an A for effort. They also saw the future political benefits of sliming Trump with innuendo, striking a posture that can be summed up as: Trust us, you guys, what we have found is really bad, but we can’t tell you yet. They couldn’t tell us because they had nothing to tell, but they needed to leave the impression of yet-to-be-disclosed dirt in order to trigger the Mueller investigation, and thanks to the recusal of Jeff Sessions they pulled it off.

Continue reading

Law Firm Behind Dossier Has Another Lawyer Resigning Ahead Of IG Report

Bauer on far right.

 

 

Founders Code

by

 

Tag team or the whole firm?

So, we know Perkin Coie was the law firm that was hired by Hillary Clinton to pay for the work done on the Trump dossier. The lawyer pinpointed was Marc Elias. Letter of evidence is here. But could there have been another lawyer in the operation, once such Bob Bauer?

Bauer was formerly the top White House lawyer under the Obama administration. His wife is Anita Dunn who was the White House Communications Director at the same time. She is known for giving a speech where she declared her admiration for Mao Zedong. What a pair eh? Anita by the way is a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker, a strategic communications firm in DC. Just so you know, SKDKnickerbocker only represents Democrats including Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Fluke. Their favorite issues such as Center for Reproductive Rights, the Obama Presidential Library.

Okay, so meanwhile, her husband, Bob has resigned from Perkins Coie to continue teaching at NYU. He has been a the law firm for 40 years. Bauer served as counsel to the Senate minority leader during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial of 1999, and took leave from the firm to work as Obama’s White House counsel from 2010 through July 2011.

Bob Bauer is also the legal counsel for the Obama Foundation and the Biden Foundation as well as the Democratic National Committee, where Marc Elias served as chair. Elias was the lead counsel of record for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Bauer remains in full support of James Comey and his loyalty characteristics. In part from Bauer’s article on Comey is:

Continue reading

The dossier on Trump and the supposed collusion with Russia

Free Republic

a friend wrote: “re the dossier on Trump and the supposed collusion with Russia , it was all made up as part of a much bigger plan to ensure a one-party one-branch government in perpetuity as part of the fundamental transformation of America. Where did we get Barack Obama to begin with? He came out of nowhere, seemingly. But everyone comes from somewhere. We just didn’t know where.

I deeply suspect that the rotten core of the Obama cabal, in which I’d include Jarrett and others, like Soros, simply determined that they were going to stay in control for the foreseeable future by any means necessary. Rather like Bolsheviks. They lie, cheat, steal, spy, and conceal, because that is what the left does. It needs no other reason. We are seeing it now with the Stalin-Beria style Mueller investigation in which the criminal is identified first and then the crime is found.

What the far left found, with Obama’s dictatorial tendencies, especially after losing the House, that the way to stay in control was to fundamentally change how government worked.

They would rely on extensive use of executive power, exploit their control of the bureaucracy to rule by fiat, control the military and the intelligence apparatus and use it to benefit the Party, and appoint progressive post-Constitutionalist judges en masse.

What Obama and his minions and masters realized very quickly was that they were going to have to get around Congress and the Judiciary, AND that the only way to guarantee continuity of power was to ensure that Republicans never again won the Presidency.

Continue reading

Indictments Are Comey…er, Coming

American Thinker

By William L. Gensert

Since Barack Obama weaponized the FBI, the IRS, the NSA, the FISA court, and the CIA, citizens who believe that America is a nation of laws have been on a collision course with progressives.  Core constitutional tenets including checks and balances, equality under the law, innocent until proven guilty, and no man is above the law have been replaced with identity politics, victim culture, and weakened First and Second Amendments.

Apocryphally, Bismarck said: “God looks out for idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.”

Thank God for Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Congressman Devin Nunes, Congressman Trey Gowdy, and prosecutor John Huber (appointed by Sessions to investigate the DOJ and prosecute crimes uncovered by I.G. Horowitz).

Thank God for Hillary Clinton.  Had she won, or gone gracefully into the night after losing, we wouldn’t know of the left’s plan for the usurpation of the United States Constitution.

Had Comey not wanted to be the “corpse at every funeral, the bride at every wedding and the baby at every christening,” these shenanigans would still be secret.

Continue reading

The grand political espionage plot against Trump

 

Flopping Aces

There are two parts to the anti-Trump conspiracy. The first was to stop him from being elected. The second ongoing part is to take him down.

The day before yesterday it was reported that Andrew McCabe, at the request of two democrat Senators, opened a criminal investigation into Jeff Sessions in 2017.

Nearly a year before Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired senior FBI official Andrew McCabe for what Sessions called a “lack of candor,” McCabe oversaw a federal criminal investigation into whether Sessions lacked candor when testifying before Congress about contacts with Russian operatives, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly accused Sessions of misleading them in congressional testimony and called on federal authorities to investigate, but McCabe’s previously-unreported decision to actually put the attorney general in the crosshairs of an FBI probe was an exceptional move.

The probe was requested by two democrats of highly questionable ethics:

Continue reading