Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Who let the Farkas out, who who?

I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.  We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to [Democrat politicians].

But wait, it didn't just stop there. It gets worse – or better, depending on your position.

With the help of MSNBC, simultaneous to her admission of first-hand specific knowledge of the administration spying on Mr. Trump, Ms. Evelyn Farkas outs herself as the key source for a New York Times report which discussed President Obama officials leaking classified information to media.

Considerable irony jumps to the forefront when you recognize, the New York Times tried to protect Evelyn Farkas as the source of their reporting by stating:

"More than a half-dozen current and former officials described various aspects of the effort to preserve and distribute the intelligence, and some said they were speaking to draw attention to the material and ensure proper investigation by Congress. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified information, nearly all of which remains secret." (link)



Looks like Devin Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee has a new person to bring in for testimony.   A positive development because at this rate the media leakers will out themselves without much need for investigation.

I wonder what the criminal penalties are for having access to intelligence and sharing it with Democrat politicians ["The Hill People"].

Question #1:

Who, specifically, are these "Hill People" you speak of Mrs. Farkas?

Watch again.  Longer version – key moment at 04:50 [prompted] Just hit play:

Combine all of these data-points and you discover that Evelyn Farkas was essentially part of a disinformation campaign with Obama insiders spreading a fake DNC constructed story using false information.    However, in addition to pushing the false Trump Russian conspiracy narrative, Farkas has knowledge of the outcome of the original pushing of the narrative leading to actual surveillance of the Trump team.

This bolsters the information already presented by Devin Nunes that an entirely separate network of surveillance, unrelated to the Russian conspiracy story, was directly targeting the candidacy of Trump and the post-election surveillance of the President Elect Trump-transition team.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

"Because of the sensitivity of the matter" ~ James Comey avoids Congress, blocks Q/A on Obama

It Took a Freshman GOP Congresswoman To Pull The Mask From FBI Director Comey…

FBI Director James Comey unmasked as a Deep State Black Hat Operative.

Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area.  And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice.

Obviously Ms. Stefanik has not been in the swamp long enough to lose her common sense.

In the segment of the questioning below Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.

The parseltongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. "quarterly".

With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen "generally quarterly", and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:

…"when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership"?

BOOM!  Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama's DNI.


Watch it again.

Watch that first 3:00 minutes again.  Ending with:

…"Because of the sensitivity of the matter"  ~ James Comey

Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.

The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016.  Congress was not notified until March 2017.  That's an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.

The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey's transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama.  Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.

Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives.   Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.

The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear.  Comey's understanding of the questions was clear.  However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question.   When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.

There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress.    Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes – wittingly, or unwittingly.

As a direct consequence of this mid-thought-stream Comey obfuscation, it is now clear -at least to me- that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for the political purposes of the Obama White House.

Unfortunately, a slightly nervous Stefanik, never forced Comey to go back to the non-answered question and respond by saying:

No, Mr. Comey, there WAS a DNI in place in 2016, please answer the question of when did you notify him (Clapper) and the White House?

….. then it would get a little ugly:

Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?

With all the banter about these hearings, and against this slight moment of clarity of purpose, it bears repeating:

There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn's name to the media.

FBI Director Comey states his organization is "investigating".  Fair enough, however – not a single congresscritter asked HIM if he is the source of the unmasking or leaks.

♦ How can a congressional committee conduct an investigation if they don't know if the primary witness, the lead investigator, is the source of the leaks?

♦ Wouldn't the very first step, the actual basis of the foundation for the investigation itself, be to ensure the person conducting the investigation did not participate in the illegality of the conduct being investigated?


Avoid the shiny things.

Why wouldn't congress ask this simple question?

Admiral Mike Rogers answers that approximately 10-20 people within his NSA organization had the potential to unmask and/or leak to the media.  Fair enough.

♦ Wouldn't the first question as follow-up be to ask Admiral Mike Rogers if he is one of those numbered possibilities?

♦ Wouldn't the second follow-up question, in an authentic inquiry, be to ask Mike Rogers: if he is one of the possibilities with access to that information, then was he actually the person who unmasked or leaked?

If Mike Rogers and James Comey admit they are in charge of two of the possible source organizations for leak activity (expressly known illegal behavior)… then what affirmative confidence has either person expressed to congress to ensure the inquiring body that they personally were not the originating source?

And why didn't congress ask them?


There is NO PEA in this shell game of distraction.

Why didn't congress ask them?

Occam's Razor – Because the question(s), the brutally obvious question(s), then lead to the follow-up:  If the only criminal activity is the sourcing of the leak, and the two people giving testimony are potential suspects in that criminal activity, then: A)  How can we trust their testimony, and B) Why are we even having this hearing"? (with two people who are suspects in an ongoing investigation)…

The answers reveal the current intention of the intelligence committee is not to actually investigate, but rather to give the outward illusion of investigation.

If they were not merely giving an illusion….  Congress would be pointing out that FBI Director James Comey has a direct and specific conflict of interest that is so glaringly obvious it's unfathomable no-one see it.

Director Comey, and to a lesser extent Rogers, would have been in direct contact with the prior administration individuals, and entities acting on their behalf, who were politicizing the information being gathered and lying about (ie. leaking to the media) the content therein.

"Because of the sensitivity of the matter"  ~ James Comey

Didn't Comey further claim in this hearing that lying about the content of (or even the existence of) a counter-intelligence investigation was not itself a criminal act?    Hello?

That said, James Comey has an expressed interest in claiming an ongoing investigation exists (even if it doesn't) just to ensure the prior administration contact and behavior was shielded behind the wall of "an ongoing investigation".  Comey says: "Because of the sensitivity of the matter"..  Where "the matter" is the politicized and entirely false information from the White House.

FBI Director James Comey has singularity of knowledge and has cleverly placed himself in a position where there is no "oversight" of his claims.

…"Because of the sensitivity of the matter"  ~ James Comey

See how that works?

At one point in his political life Comey may have been a White Hat, but there's no doubt his behavior is exactly what a black hat operative would be doing to shield his connection to the black hat activity of the prior administration.

Summary:  Hillary Clinton political operatives manufactured the illusion of a computer connection between Russian entities (financial banks) and the Trump campaign/organization.  Those manufactured points of evidence were then passed along to White House entities who used the political intel community (Clapper to Comey) to open an investigation of nothingness – to nowhere.  The mere existence of that investigation was then used as the originating point for a series of media intel leaks (the narrative) intended to cloud and damage the Trump campaign/organization. FBI Director James Comey, as head of one of the investigative agencies, became part of that political apparatus.  Now, usefulness exhausted and with the media engaged, it's CYA time all around for the originating entities.

"Because of the sensitivity of the matter"  ~ James Comey

Friday, March 17, 2017

More fake news - the handshake

Oh no, there was no handshake. I believe the media totally! #FakeNews @realDonaldTrump #Merkel

There you have it

Friendly handshake amongst allies

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Dilbert and Trump

Like the Tie!

Monday, March 06, 2017

Young Girl: our next president

She's great. I'd vote for her. On Another Note: I've heard of a Mikraphone, but what the heck is a Mika?

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Crybaby Dummycrats

Right after the speech, the raced out fast,
apparently many of them had to get to their KKK meetings... At least they didn't bring the hoods inside.

Pence: No one will “fall through the cracks” in ObamaCare repeal

Miki, the replacement will be very similar to ACA, except they will
add the options that the Republicans wanted to amend in the first
place, and the Democrats wouldn't allow because their donors said no.
Two of those options are Cross-State competition (BIG TIME COST
REDUCTIONS!), and Job-Job portability.

If those were originally part of ACA, then it's quite likely Hillary
would now be president. SO thank you to Pelosi for refusing :)

Pence: No one will "fall through the cracks" in ObamaCare repeal

Last night, Vice President Mike Pence fulfilled his office's
traditional role when the president speaks to Congress: remain in the
background and lead the applause. This morning, Pence has taken the
lead among the administration's surrogates, hitting the morning news
shows to boost Donald Trump's well-received presidential address. The
most contentious issue raised last night was ObamaCare, and Pence
tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos on the set of Good Morning America
that Trump takes the transition very seriously. The top principle,
Pence says, will be to ensure that no one "falls through the cracks":

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Vice President Mike Pence today said "no one is going to fall through
the cracks" in President Trump's plan to repeal and replace Obamacare
amid fears that those who have health coverage now will lose it.

"What the president wants the Congress to do is to create a framework
for people to be able to afford coverage," Pence said on ABC News'
"Good Morning America." "I think the president has made it clear, no
one is going to fall through the cracks in this."

How does one define falling through the cracks? Does it mean not being
able to afford less-expensive plans in the future, or does it mean any
interruption in the status quo? Stephanopoulos tried three times to
define it as the latter, asking Pence repeatedly whether Trump's plan
would "guarantee that no one loses coverage?"

Recall that ObamaCare itself didn't meet that standard. Despite dozens
of promises from Barack Obama himself that "if you like your plan, you
can keep your plan," millions of Americans had their plans canceled in
October 2013 for being non-ACA compliant. Over the course of
succeeding enrollment periods, many more continued to lose their
existing plans as insurers bailed out of marketplaces and consolidated
their offerings. Stephanopoulos' question applies every year to the
current system, even if the media isn't quite as interested in
covering the answer to it.

However, the media will get very interested in each and every case of
canceled coverage when Republicans repeal and replace ObamaCare, and
Republicans know it. That's why a large number of them want a
replacement plan ready to approve either at the same time as repeal or
very quickly afterward. They understand the political risks involved —
and so does Pence and Trump himself, who warned Congress last night to
ensure a "stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the
healthcare exchanges." Fair or not, the Trump administration
understands that they will get judged harshly on any failure in that

To say that this has made some Republicans on Capitol Hill a little
risk adverse is an understatement. Unfortunately, there's no easy way
to unwind ObamaCare unilaterally. The best policy is a rapid repeal to
take effect at the end of the current insurance cycle, and then
challenge Democrats to work on a replacement. As long as ObamaCare and
its top-down control of health insurance markets is still in
existence, they will fight tooth and nail to keep it. Only after
getting rid of it entirely first will there be an opening for another

Republicans — including Trump — ran on this promise for the last
several years. They may take some heat in the transition, but it's
nothing compared to what will happen if they don't show some courage
and deliver on this promise. Not only will it be a massive betrayal of
voters who have elected them largely on this issue, it will make it
look like the Democrats had the right answer all along, regardless of
how disastrous it has proven to be. Republicans may be between a rock
and a hard place, but they put themselves there — and they'd better
take action to resolve it, the more quickly the better.

CBS: Viewers strongly approve of Trump's speech to Congress

Viewers strongly approve of Trump's speech to Congress

By Anthony Salvanto, Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and
Kabir Khanna

Viewers nationwide strongly approved of President Trump's speech
Tuesday night, with many Democrats joining Republicans in calling it
"presidential" and positive in tone. Republicans and Independents
found it "unifying," though Democrats were slower to come around on
that measure.

The President gained support for his policy plans among viewers:
Interviewed before and after the address, they came away from it more
positive on his ideas for the economy, immigration, terrorism, crime
and Obamacare.