Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 233 Next »

Let it go

Profile Information

Member since: Wed May 14, 2014, 11:57 PM
Number of posts: 21,153

Journal Archives

Holy crap: Obama turned the PDB into dissemination of political unmasking Intel to 30+ people

The PDB as a whole product would only exist in the White House SCIF. Parts of the PDB would be hosted by the originating participant, ex. NSA, FBI, DOJ, DoD, CIA State Dept. etc., but only the White House would have the fully assembled product. After all, it’s assembled for the President.

Putting the “Oversight” structure together with the “Compartmented” intelligence security you will note that only a few people ‘could’ traditionally access the full PDB. However, under President Obama the President’s Daily Brief went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB:

But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers.

By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

Pay attention to that last part. According to the Washington Post outline Obama’s PDB’s were going to more than 30 recipients including: “Deputy Secretaries of national security departments”.

During an MSNBC interview about her unmasking U.S. citizens within intelligence reports, in April 2017, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, defined the Obama national security departments to include: “State” – “Defense” (Pentagon includes NSA) and “CIA”….

So under President Obama’s watch Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense had daily access to the PDB. An example of an Obama Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas.

****With dozens of people having access to President Obama’s PDB, Rice’s unmasking of names within the intelligence product gave dozens of people direct access to unmasked intelligence – including Obama officials who could, likely did, use the PDB for specific and intentional political purposes. This political outcome was essentially confirmed by Evelyn Farkas who was one of the downstream recipients of the unmasked intelligence.***

If the House Intelligence Committee, or Senate Intelligence Committee, as a whole – wanted to see the President’s Daily Briefing, they would have to request the individual components from the individual intelligence agencies because the PDB product was not created for them; it was created for the Office of The President.

Only the Chairman and Minority leader from each Intel committee could go to the White House to see the PDB end product.

This is why Devin Nunes, who is a Go8 member, has to request the intelligence from each department (NSA, DOJ, FBI etc.) in order to share it with the oversight committee. Nunes can review the ‘executive SCIF product’ but cannot export or import intelligence product he did not create.

This is how they turned our intel agencies into their own weaponized political machine.

Byron York: What the Trump dossier criminal referral means

The two senators sent a brief letter Thursday to deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and FBI director Christopher Wray. The letter, which was unclassified and released to the public Friday, was a cover letter for what Grassley and Graham called a "classified memorandum related to certain communications between Christopher Steele and multiple U.S. news outlets regarding the so-called 'Trump dossier' that Mr. Steele compiled on behalf of Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee and also provided to the FBI."

Grassley and Graham said that, on the basis of the classified information laid out in the memo, "we are respectfully referring Mr. Steele to you for investigation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, for statements the committee has reason to believe Mr. Steele made regarding his distribution of information contained in the dossier." (18 U.S.C. 1001 is the same federal false statements law that special counsel Robert Mueller has used to charge Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos in the Trump-Russia investigation.)

What are the "statements the committee has reason to believe Mr. Steele made" that Grassley and Graham believe might be false?

The answer is that Steele talked — and talked a lot — to the FBI. Remember that when he began to compile the dossier in the summer of 2016, Steele reportedly concluded the sensational information he had picked up — allegations of election collusion and Trump sexual escapades in Russia — was so important that he had to take it to the FBI. Steele told the lefty magazine Mother Jones that he first took the material to the FBI "near the start of July."

That began a series of communications between Steele and the bureau in which Steele made certain representations to the FBI about his work. It is a crime to make false statements to the FBI — doesn't have to be under oath, doesn't have to be in a formal interview or interrogation setting, it's simply a criminal act to knowingly make a false statement to the FBI.

So now the question is: When Steele was discussing working for the FBI, did he fully inform the FBI of what his work for the Clinton campaign involved, in particular his briefing the press on the findings he would be reporting to the FBI? To use Grassley's and Graham's words, were the "statements the committee has reason to believe Mr. Steele made regarding his distribution of information contained in the dossier" accurate?

One way to find that out is to compare what Steele told the London court with what Steele told the FBI. Some of the London court testimony is public. As for what Steele told the FBI, the Senate Judiciary Committee has examined a lot of dossier-related material from the FBI under an agreement that allows the committee to view materials the bureau has originally produced to the House Intelligence Committee.

It appears that Grassley and Graham are pursuing inconsistencies between what Steele told the FBI and what Steele told the London court. If they conflict, which is true? If what Steele told the FBI was untrue, that's a problem.

Over 1 million getting "Trump Bonus" from tax reform victory, up to $3,000

Whoa NBC News: Donald Trump rises with Steve Bannon's fall

Steve Bannon has unified the Republican Party — against Steve Bannon.

And President Donald Trump stands to benefit most from his former chief strategist's comeuppance.

Without Bannon barking in his ear — and nipping at the heels of Republican senators — it will be easier for Trump to deliver on the remainder of a legislative agenda that threatens to strain his base over issues such as federal spending, government wiretaps and immigration.

Similarly, a weakened Bannon figures to have less firepower to challenge sitting Republican senators — and imperil Trump's GOP majority — in this year's midterm elections.

And, perhaps most important for Trump, the president has sent a clear message that he won't tolerate Bannon trying to drive a wedge between him and his political base ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

That may help explain why Trump weighed in so decisively against Bannon, essentially signaling to fellow Republicans that it was time to choose between the two men.

That was a fight Bannon, the self-styled general of the "populist nationalist" side of the GOP civil war, couldn't possibly win.

"In a clash of personal brands, Bannon's name ID and bully pulpit is just so much smaller than Trump's among the Republican base that there's really no contest," said Chris Wilson, CEO of WPA Intelligence and the director of research, analytics and digital strategy for Sen. Ted Cruz's 2016 presidential campaign.

Republican donor Dan Eberhart, CEO of the oilfield services company Canary, said Bannon's power with the GOP base comes from Trump.

Yup Bannon blew it. Too bad.

Official: FBI investigating Clinton Foundation 'for months'

WASHINGTON — A Trump administration official said Friday that a revived investigation of the Clinton Foundation "has been going on for months."

The Hill newspaper reported that FBI agents from Little Rock, Arkansas, recently conducted an interview with a potential witness. The paper said the Justice Department "has launched a new inquiry" into the foundation.

But the administration official said the investigation was quietly re-opened several months ago.

The FBI has looked at the foundation's activities before. The question was whether donors to the foundation received favorable treatment from the State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

The investigation was dialed back during the 2016 presidential campaign. It is now being run by the FBI's office in Little Rock, where the foundation has an office. And though the inquiry has been revived, it is being conducted at a substantially lower profile.

Conan oBrien Is beginning to get it.

Did Bannon and Trump just pull off the biggest troll ever?

I’m beginning to think so.


Wolff: Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in the book that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

MSM: Please please please quote from this book!

Holy crap fake news is exactly right.

What Caused Michael Wolffs Strange and Provably False Attack on Stephen Miller?

This brings us to one particularly strange episode. The treatment of Stephen Miller. This is the quote via NBC’s Katy Tur:

First and foremost, regardless of your opinion of Miller’s intellect, the process described here is simply false. Via Politico from January 30, 2017. This would be ten days after the inauguration

Summed up:

He obviously isn’t dumb and he has a total command of the material. And if he is dumb, what does that make Jim Acosta? A cabbage?

Now it isn’t hard to understand why a fairly progressive guy like Wolff would want to take some shots at Miller. The real mystery here is why Wolff chose to go after Miller on his technical knowledge of immigration and totally misrepresent a process issue when there was a lot of fertile ground for criticism on Miller’s association with some of the unsavory parts of the anti-illegal-immigration movement? Is Wolff taking the shots, or was it Bannon taking the shots and Wolff transcribing them? Either way, they are demonstrably and provably false and underline Wolff’s caution that not everything in the book is true.

I hope the MSM quotes Michael Wolff ad nauseum.

Lol at lefty!!!

Michael Wolff admits: Not everything in Trump book true

Well, well, well, turns out even Michael Wolff, author of the “Fire and Fury” book that has sparked such national discussion about the Donald Trump White House, admits that not everything he wrote is true.

In his prologue, Wolff writes, as Business Insider noted: “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are boldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.”

In other words: Take with a grain of salt, Dear Reader, what you read.

So why did Wolff include the maybe-maybe not true statements?

“Sometimes,” he wrote, “I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.”

Of course, that belief may be misplaced — and voila, a little untruth is born. But it’s up to the reader to decide. Or, the anti-Trump media and Democratic Party “Impeach Trump” crowd, as the case may be.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 233 Next »