In his analysis article for NBC, retired FBI special agent, Frank Figliuzzi wrote “Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the FBI transitioned from an investigative agency adept at investigating what happened after the fact to an intelligence agency capable of forecasting and preventing harm from happening in the future. Forecasting is a lot easier when there are clear clues. And when it comes to assessing the trap Attorney General William Barr and President Donald Trump appear to be setting for us, the warning signs are plentiful. We don’t need to read tea leaves for this. We only need to review tweets.”

It’s interesting that Figliuzzi wrote that “Forecasting is a lot easier when there are clear clues.” Later, Figliuzzi wrote “Trump is clearly still sensitive about the 2016 election, and especially about concerns that he may not have beaten former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fairly. He therefore has a special interest in undermining accusations of Russian meddling, something he has done since entering the Oval Office. What better way to do this than to flip the script? He didn’t have an advantage; in fact, he was the victim.”

It’s interesting that Figliuzzi is reading tea leaves that don’t exist. What is Figliuzzi basing his opinion on that “Trump is clearly still sensitive about the 2016 election, and especially about concerns that he may not have beaten former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fairly?” In transcript after transcript released last Thursday, the Obama administration’s best tea leave readers testified under oath that they couldn’t even find a hint of gossip that then-Candidate Trump or anyone associated with his campaign conspired with Russians. While testifying under oath, Jim Clapper said “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Isn’t that interesting? This is more interesting:

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said there was no smoking gun. “To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause. I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

Just where are these tea leaves, Mr. Figliuzzi? President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence and National Security Adviser testified under oath that they didn’t see anything that came close to being considered evidence of Russian collusion/conspiracy. We know that they searched hard for that proof. We’ve verified that they really wanted it to be true.

If President Obama’s top clue sniffers couldn’t find those clues, perhaps it’s a good thing that Mr. Figliuzzi retired rather than misread other nonexistent tea leaves. Check out this interview with Brian Williams:

What’s astonishing is that Figliuzzi totally ignored the aforementioned transcripts. The statements speak for themselves, Mr. Figliuzzi. Res ipsa loquitur. Translated, that Latin sentence literally means “the facts speak for themselves.” That likely means that Mr. Figliuzzi either is a disgruntled ex-FBI employee who got passed over for a job or he’s another Deep State agent sent out to mislead the public. The other possibility is that he’s a Deep Stater because he got passed over for a job. This is rich:


President Trump is constantly accused of being a dictator by Democrats. They’ll never learn. In this interview, Pelosi accused President Trump of wasting time, which led to people dying:

Dictators are known for taking their time and letting the chips fall where they may. NOT. Whether it’s Figliuzzi or Pelosi, Democrats can’t quite figure out if he’s a dictator, a traitor or someone who’s just a lot smarter than they are. I’ll go with C.

Leave a Reply