Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Intelligence category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Intelligence’ Category

To say that Sen. Grassley gave Jim Comey and Chuck Schumer a tutorial in integrity is understatement. This article highlights Sen. Grassley’s speech on the Senate floor that should’ve been delivered months ago.

First, Sen. Grassley reported that “then-FBI Director James Comey briefed ranking member Dianne Feinstein and him on the Russia probe.” Sen. Grassley then said the briefing included “telling us who was, and who was not, under investigation.” Then Sen. Grassley opened both barrels and trained them on then-FBI Director Comey and Senate Minority Leader Schumer.

During his speech, Grassley said “After that meeting, I publicly called for Mr. Comey to tell the public what he had told us about whether President Trump was under investigation. The public had a right to know. Mr. Comey told me and other Congressional leaders that President Trump was not under investigation. He even told the President himself – repeatedly. But, Mr. Comey didn’t listen to my request for transparency. He didn’t listen to the President’s request. Only months later has the truth finally come out.”

With that, Sen. Schumer was exposed. Then Sen. Grassley added this:

So the media was wrong. So the Democrats were wrong. So the wild speculation and conspiracy theories ended up harming our country. They played right into Russia’s hands. And how did we all learn about this truth? In President Trump’s letter removing Mr. Comey from office.

At first most didn’t believe it. The media scoffed when they wrote what the president said in that letter. They insisted that Mr. Comey would never tell the president that he was not under investigation. Well we learned earlier this month from Mr. Comey himself that he had done exactly that. It wasn’t a surprise to me because Mr. Comey had told me the same thing.

Check out this video of Sen. Grassley’s speech:

Let’s be clear about something. Mr. Comey didn’t tell the American people that President Trump wasn’t being investigated. Further, Senate Minority Leader Schumer didn’t tell the whole truth about the FBI’s investigation when he knew that it wasn’t focusing on President Trump. Instead, Sen. Schumer stuck with the Democrats’ chanting points, pretending that President Trump was under investigation.

At this point, Sen. Schumer’s integrity doesn’t exist. What politician ignores that type of information for political gain? A: The most corrupt leader of Senate Democrats since Harry Reid. People hate politicians because they’re morally bankrupt. Sen. Schumer is the poster child of moral depravity in the Senate. As the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, Schumer should be a leader. Instead, he’s the chief obstructionist in a party without a message.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If this article is quoting Rep. Adam Schiff right, then he’s either dumber than a sack of hair or he’s one of the shiftiest (and not in a good way) politicians in Congress.

Thursday, President Trump admitted that he didn’t tape his conversations with former FBI Director Jim Comey. Rep. Schiff issued a statement, saying “This raises a lot of questions about why he would suggest in the first place there were tapes, what he hoped to gain from that? And, moreover, why he kept the country guessing about this issue for weeks, and weeks and weeks.” He said it also raises questions about “what lengths he will go to try to intimidate people from speaking out?”

I’m betting that Rep. Schiff isn’t interested in the truth in this instance. I’m betting that he’s mostly interested in keeping this story alive. I’m betting that’s because it’s the only thing that makes him politically relevant. Further, I’m betting that he’s doing what Nancy Pelosi has told him to do. Does anyone doubt that Ms. Pelosi thinks that’s the only way to keep distracting from Trump’s agenda? Honestly, for all the talk about how the Democrats’ brand is toxic outside California, New York and universities, it’s pretty apparent that the Democratic Party is Ms. Pelosi’s party.

At the moment, here’s Ms. Pelosi’s chief wimp:

Until Democrats stand up to Ms. Pelosi, they’ll deserve to be the minority party.

Technorati: , , , ,

After watching U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, it’s clear that the Democrats aren’t interested in investigating their claims that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. For that matter, it’s apparent that they aren’t that interested in finding out whether President Trump obstructed justice. Finally, it’s apparent that their goal is to attempt to play a game of gotcha.

Tuesday afternoon, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden got into a testy exchange with Attorney General Sessions. Saying that Gen. Sessions got upset is understatement. The exchange started with Sen. Wyden saying “The question is that Mr. Comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and that he couldn’t talk about them. What are they?” Sessions replied “Why don’t you tell me? There are none, Sen. Wyden. There are none. I can tell you tell that for absolute certainty.”

The Democrats can’t pretend anymore that President Trump colluded with Russia to defeat HRC. With Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley shooting down the Democrats’ obstruction of justice arguments, there’s nothing much left but rubble of that argument, either.

After Comey’s testimony last Thursday, he exited looking like a pathetic wimp. After Tuesday’s testimony, it’s clear that this is mostly just a show produced by the Democrats. With people getting tired of the pure partisan politics played by the Democrats, they can’t afford to play this game much longer. If they do, the Democrats will hurt themselves for 2018.

It’s clear that this investigation is mostly rubbish from the Democrats. People were initially drawn to the claims like a moth to a flame. Now that we’ve had 2 witnesses, one pathetic (Comey), the other impressive (Sessions), people are questioning the validity of the collusion/obstruction of justice scandal.

Technorati: , , , ,

If this article is telling the truth, some Obama administration officials likely will be facing substantial jail time.

Circa News is reporting that “More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.”

Further, Circa quotes a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court document that said “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the unsealed court ruling declared. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

This video is stunning:

Eventually, the FISA Court got so frustrated with the Obama administration that it rebuked them. It’s clear that Obama administration officials should be worried about their legal exposure. This time, Susan Rice’s testimony won’t be off-the-record. This time, it’ll be under penalty of perjury.

Let’s just say I’m thankful I’m not facing Ms. Rice’s situation.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

God bless Tucker Carlson for calling out Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for saying that he knew that Russians hacked into John Podesta’s email account. During the debate, which lasted a little less than 9 minutes, Tucker asked Schiff about a letter Democrats sent to President Obama.

The letter they sent urgently requested his administration look into whether Russians hacked into Democrats’ email accounts. This is a political stunt because they know the intelligence community can’t complete that type of investigation in a month.

During the interview, Schiff repeatedly said that Russians hacked into Mr. Podesta’s email account. When pressed how he knew that, Schiff said that it was the opinion of intelligence agencies that Russians had hacked Podesta’s emails. That isn’t the same as saying Schiff had verifiable proof that Russians had hacked Podesta’s email account. Without proof, it’s just an opinion.

At another point in the debate, Carlson asked Schiff why the letter didn’t criticize the Obama administration for their lax cyber-security. Schiff said that he’d made some opening statements at committee hearings, as though that’s going to get the public’s attention. That’s a CYA move. If Schiff were truly distraught over Russians hacking into government email accounts, he should have held a press conference on the subject. Either that or he could’ve gone on national TV and made that announcement. The fact that he didn’t indicates that this is just another scam by Democrats. Here’s the video. Judge for yourself whether Schiff is a weasel:

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

James Comey has notified the appropriate committees that he’s re-opening his investigation into Hillary Clinton. According to the article, “FBI Director James Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress Friday that the bureau has ‘learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.'”

The letter was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as well as ranking members of those committees. Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Robert Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Sen. Charles Grassley, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also were sent this letter.

The key part of Director Comey’s letter is the second paragraph, which says “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday and I agreed that the FBI should take proper investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether these emails contain classified information, as well as assess their importance to our investigation.”

Here’s the text of Director Comey’s letter:

As much as I’d like to see the FBI recommend Hillary for prosecution, I’m still skeptical that’s what will happen. First, it’s virtually impossible for me to picture the FBI doing the right thing. Let’s be honest, too. There’s verified proof that Hillary sent classified information via her private server. Regardless of what happens with the investigation, this will have an impact on down-ticket races. Here’s a copy of the letter Marco Rubio just sent Patrick Murphy, his challenger:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Politifact’s fact checks are notoriously questionable. This Politifact fact check is among the sloppiest fact checks they’ve ever published.

Politifact’s fact check of Trump’s claim about Syrian refugees is rated as half-true. That’s based on Mr. Trump’s statement that Hillary Clinton “has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian … refugees … despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.”

Politifact says “The 550 percent figure is correct. To say that there’s no way to screen them to find out who they are or where they come from ignores the extensive screening they undergo.” That last statement would surprise FBI Director Jim Comey and Jim Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. This article publishes information that directly contradicts Politifact’s fact check when it says “Virtually no database of information exists to screen Syrian refugees coming into the United States, according to the FBI Director James Comey. The statements were made by Comey while testifying to the House Judiciary Committee about the security risks involved in taking in Syrian refugees.”

In other words, FBI Director Comey testified to the House Judiciary Committee that “virtually no database of information exists to screen Syrian refugees coming into the United States.” That directly contradicts Politifact’s published statements.

Then there’s this statement published in Politifact’s questionable fact check:

Compared to other countries, the United States has accepted very few – about 2,000 last year, for example. Half are children. Only about 2 percent are single men of combat age, the mostly likely demographic for a would-be terrorist.

That statement is directly contradicted by this information:

During the hearing, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) pointed out, according to the U.N., more than 43 million people worldwide are now displaced because of conflicts. Children constitute close to 41 percent of all refugees worldwide and women almost half.

However, the percentages are significantly different when it comes to the Syrian refugees. Of the close to 380,000 arrivals across the Mediterranean Sea from January through September of this year, 15%were children, 13% were women and 72% were men. Gohmert quoted Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as saying, “This provides a prime opportunity for Islamic State groups to attack Western targets … It’s a disaster of biblical proportions.”

This video must be watched for verification:

Based on FBI Director Comey’s testimony and DNI Director Clapper’s statement, I rate Politifact’s fact check mostly false. It ignores congressional testimony that directly contradicts their statements.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Like much of this week’s theme at the Republican National Convention, Ron Johnson’s speech was about national security mistakes made by liberals.

Sen. Johnsons started his speech by highlighting Hillary Clinton’s infamous line where Mrs. Clinton said “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Then Sen. Johnson explained what difference it makes, saying “It makes a difference to the young Yazidi woman I met who was captured and brutalized by ISIS barbarians, the joy of life hauntingly absent in her eyes.
It makes a difference to the travelers, passing through airports in Brussels and Istanbul, who just wanted to get home to their family and friends. It makes a difference to the ordinary Americans sharing holiday cheer at a Christmas party in San Bernardino.”

Having delivered some tough body blows to Mrs. Clinton, Sen. Johnson turned his fire towards his own opponent this November, saying “In Wisconsin, I’m running against Russ Feingold, who, even after 9/11, voted against giving law enforcement the tools they need to help stop international terror. During his eighteen-year Senate career, he also voted against authorizing our military eleven separate times.” It isn’t coincidence that Sen. Johnson just released this video:

Sen. Feingold isn’t hawkish, though he’s trying to sound more hawkish now. Feingold’s attempt to sound more hawkish sounds rather feeble:

At the time, he said, while he did not oppose everything contained within the bill, he did not believe it struck “the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting civil liberties.”

Feingold said Friday he stands by his vote, reiterating that the bill didn’t contain enough standards to protect Americans’ civil liberties. He added that he would support increasing resources for U.S. intelligence programs and the FBI.

Feingold didn’t worry about Americans’ civil liberties when he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform that gutted Americans’ right to political free speech. I suspect that Feingold’s answer is just a dodge to avoid looking pathetic.

This makes Feingold sound totally wimpy:

He’s been basically trying to highlight any terrorist attack for political gain throughout this campaign. So it’s no surprise that this ad would have been produced, and that’s the problem with politicizing something that shouldn’t be politicized — is you might run into a situation where there’s a terrorist attack, and it’s a little embarrassing to have an ad up that really isn’t appropriate at this time.

The truth is that we can’t tolerate politicians that won’t fight terrorists with everything in the United States’ arsenal. That’s apparently what Mr. Feingold is attempting to do.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

When James Comey announced that the FBI wouldn’t recommend that the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton, he essentially said that the United States justice system be a two-tiered justice system. In addition to him effectively rewriting existing and clearly-written federal statutes, Dir. Comey essentially said that the elitists, aka the American oligarchs, should be given preferential treatment as opposed to the peasants.

It’s ironic he’d do that the day after we’d celebrated our nation’s birthday. Comey’s logic, if it can be called that, goes against our nation’s founding principles. There’s a reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded.

The definition of oligarchy is “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.” The definition of peasant is “a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank” or “a coarse, unsophisticated, boorish, uneducated person of little financial means.”

The Clintons have always thought of themselves as oligarchs. Hillary has especially thought of those not in her social class as peasants. When Hillary talked about the “politics of meaning”, she talked about how “even janitors” lives have meaning. The liberal media at the time (1993-94) suggested that she was onto something new and meaningful. That’s Hillary’s perspective. It’s the type of ‘justice system’ that we should expect from a Hillary administration.

Here’s a hint: Hillary’s type of justice is long on using the word, short on acting justly. If Hillary was truly interested in justice, she would’ve confessed to telling the massive lies she told during the FBI’s investigation.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It’s bad enough when Hillary’s campaign spokesman tries spinning his way out of the predicament Hillary created. That’s what he’s paid to do. It’s quite another when the media, in this case CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, start playing the roll of Hillary apologist.

Toobin went straight to the ‘the government classifies too many documents’ card, saying “She is now suffering from that because people are saying there’s all this classified information she’s dealing with, but there is not a bright line between classified and unclassified, and you can see, at least to a certain extent, why she was not clear on what was what.” Hillary’s biggest problem thus far is that the Intelligence Community IG identified multiple emails that had the highest security clearance, that of SAP or special access programs. The only people with a security clearance high enough to read this information other than the President and Vice President are the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the director of the CIA and the director of National Intelligence and their deputies. That’s right. Only 10 people have a clearance to read SAPs in the entire government.

That’s because this information identifies drone deployments, submarine deployments and spies who have infiltrated terrorist networks and cells. If this information gets into the wrong hands, people will die. That’s why it’s tightly held information.

There’s no doubt that the federal government classifies too many documents. That isn’t what’s at issue here. What’s at issue is this nation’s most sensitive information. It isn’t unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to guard that information with her life.