Guest Post by Michael Hudson and Paul Craig Roberts
Mike Whitney has written an excellent expose of the “Russiagate” cover story for Obama’s political use of national security to help his party oppose Republicans. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46775.htm
Covert surveillance of politicians on Obama’s Nixon-like “Enemies List” has been going on for many years, but is only now being unmasked as a result of the failure of Obama’s cover story–“We weren’t spying on political opponents; only on Russians to protect America.”
The presstitute media has passed on the cover story authored by former Obama-administration officials led by CIA director John Brennan, FBI director James Comey, the DNC, and Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff. The loose ends in this cover-up have now been so widely exposed as hearsay and political that only 13% of Republicans believe the fact-free story – but 67% of Democrats cling to it.
Whitney reports that Comey began the investigation in July 2016. As of last Friday (March 31, 2017) not a scrap of evidence has turned up. This did not deter Comey from telling Congress that Putin “hated Secretary Clinton so much that the flip side of that coin was that he had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much.” So the Russians allegedly “engaged in a multifaceted campaign to undermine our democracy.”
Comey based this conclusion on what has become a hilarious bit of gullibililty. The Russians, he said “were unusually loud in their intervention. It’s almost as if they didn’t care that we knew, that they wanted us to see what they were doing.”
Alternatively, someone wanted investigators to infer that the Russians were doing the hacking. As Wikeleaks Vault 7 releases prove, the CIA can hack computers and leave anyone else’s signature. Due to poor security, the CIA’s cybertechnology ended up in the Internet domain.
“They’ll be back. They’ll be back, in 2020. They may be back in 2018,” warned Mr. Comey. But who is the “they”? “They” seem to be “us,” or at least what numerous former national security officials have suggested: either the NSC, CIA or its “Five Eyes” partner, British MI6.
Wall Street Journal editorialist Kimberley A. Strassel poses the real question: Why hasn’t the Trump administration had the Secret Service to arrest Comey, Brennan, Schiff, the DNC and Hillary for trying to overthrow the President of the United States? “Mr. Nunes has said he has seen proof that the Obama White House surveilled the incoming administration—on subjects that had nothing to do with Russia—and that it further unmasked (identified by name) transition officials. This goes far beyond a mere scandal. It’s a potential crime.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-devin-nunes-knows-1490914396
What we are watching is turning out to be traces of a plot against a government elected by the American people. Attempts to get at the truth by House national security committee Chairman Devin Nunes have been countered with demands by Democrats to recuse himself so as to stop his exposé of how “Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.”
It seems that this has been going on for many years now. Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich has dropped a bombshell about what appears to be his own illegal surveillance under Obama’s NSC. “When the president raised the question of wiretapping on his phones in Trump Tower, he was challenged to prove that such a thing could happen. It happened to me.”
Here’s what happened, which was revealed two years after he left office in 2013 when the Democrats were overjoyed to see Ohio Republicans redraw the election district lines to get rid of his candidacy. The Washington Times asked him to authenticate a secret recording of a cell phone call “from Saif el-Islam Qaddafi, a high-ranking official in Libya’s government and a son of the country’s ruler, Moammar Qaddafi.”
Before taking the call, Rep. Kucinich “checked with the House’s general counsel to ensure that such a discussion by a member of Congress with a foreign power was permitted by law.”
“I was assured that under the Constitution a lawmaker had a fundamental duty to ask questions and gather information—activity expressly protected by the Article I clauses covering separation of powers and congressional speech and debate.”
Given the quality of the recordings was excellent on both ends of the call, Kucinich concluded that “the tape was made by an American intelligence agency and then leaked to the Times for political reasons. If so, this episode represented a gross violation of the separation of powers.”
His repeated Freedom of Information Act requests made in 2012 before leaving office have been stonewalled by the intelligence agencies for five years.
We are now in a position to see the real story behind “Russiagate.” It’s not about Russia. The real news is the Obama regime’s abuse of the government’s surveillance powers to spy on Donald Trump and other Republicans in order to build a dossier for the DNC to leak to the press in an attempt to slander or compromise Trump and throw the election to Hillary.
They’ve been caught, but we can now see that they took steps to protect themselves against this. They prepared a cover story. They pretend they were not spying on Trump, but on Russians – which only by fortuitous happenchance turned up alleged incriminating smoke against Trump.
This cover story was buttressed by the fake news story prepared by former MI6 freelancer Christopher Steele. As Whitney reports, Steele “was hired as an opposition researcher last June to dig up derogatory information on Donald Trump.” Unvetted and unverified information by so-called informants somehow found its way into U.S. intelligence agency reports. These reports were then leaked to Democrat-friendly media. This is where the crime lies. Obama regime and DNC were using these agencies for domestic political use, KGB style.
The Obama/Clinton cover story is now falling to pieces. That explains the desperation in the attack by Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, on Committee Chairman Devin Nunes to stop the exposure. Russiagate is not a Trump/Putin collusion but a domestic spy job carried out by Democrats.
Law requires Trump to arrest those responsible and to put them on trial for treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. If Trump fears to prosecute the Obama operatives within the Deep State, they will try all the harder to attack him to the point of forcing his removal or at least discrediting him and his fellow Republicans to pave the way for the 2018 elections.
Just humor:
Kokoda, yeah yeah ha ha. Show me a picture of Obama’s neck-tie party and they’ll hear me laughing all the way from to Cuba to North Dakota.
“Law requires Trump to arrest those responsible and to put them on trial for treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.”
Is this true? If it is, how can Trump do any such thing with the current team he has to work with? Comey would just call a press conference giving the conspirators a clean bill of health, after Sessions recused himself, of course.
“Law requires Trump to arrest those responsible and to put them on trial for treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.”
When a statement like this is made the specific law needs to be stated.
Treason I can’t see since it has several elements in it that require, among other things, that we actually be at war and that the person charged deliberately and knowingly aided or fought on the side of that enemy with the intention of defeating the United States.
A “conspiracy to overthrow the government” would be an act of sedition, much different than Treason, and could be possible if it can be shown the knowing intent was to overthrow the government and replace it with a different one (which would be difficult in this situation). Overthrowing a political opponent does not qualify as overthrowing the government and wouldn’t be prosecuted as such.
Additionally, I know of no law that would require the President to arrest anyone for anything but would certainly like to know which statute is being referred to in this statement to reference it.
In any event, there are many, many other charges that could apply and be easily prosecuted and proven in court for a conviction, maybe we should concentrate on them.
We are at war; we have been in a “State of Emergency” continually since 1979:
“The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows the government to freeze assets, limit trade and confiscate property in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States that originates substantially outside of it. As of 2015 more than thirty emergencies under the IEEPA remain active regarding various subjects, the oldest of which was declared in 1979 with regard to the government of Iran. Another ongoing national emergency, declared after the September 11 attacks, authorizes the president to retain or reactivate military personnel beyond their normal term of service.[64]” – Wikipedia
This ties in nicely with “In response to the September 11 attacks, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists on September 14, 2001, which authorized the US President to fight the War on Terror.[51]”
If we are at war, then any act against the USGov by domestic politicians (such as the de-stabilizing behavior by Jarrett, Pelosi, Hillary and so forth) qualifies as TREASON, the punishment for which is prescribed by the Constitution (and I’ll let you look that one up yourself!)
So who is the declared enemy? And how was a deliberate action to help that enemy make war on the United States conducted?
Remember why Fonda was never prosecuted for Treason for manning a NV antiaircraft gun?
Words have specific meaning, particularly in law, and laws have specific stated elements that must be met to constitute a violation of them.
Again, you both need to have a declared enemy and show a specific intent to help that enemy win against the United States during war to charge Treason.
“18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)”
How does this qualify as waging war against the United States?
The last conviction for Treason was in 1952 against a Japanese/US citizen that went to Japan during WWII to join Japan’s side during the war. It’s a legal hard standard to meet for prosecution.
That isn’t even close to what is going on here.
(BTW, take notice that I referenced actual law to support my position, not opinion and wishful thinking.)
This is a great example of how liberals twist words to suit their moods.
“adheres to their enemies … ” ; do you consider Islamics, communists and socialists to be friends? Is it OK to enable George Soros to attempt to overthrow the US government so he can repeat his British pound speculative triumph?
I referenced the Constitution, here Article 3 Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Why didn’t you bother to look that up? Do you NOT consider the Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land? Or do you just not care who dies for your position?
We have plenty of witnesses, even news coverage, so that’s not at question. Also, the penalty for treason is death, or used to be. But that’s not humane, is it counselor?
“Overt act”? Disseminating classified intelligence for political purposes? Acting to create doubt or discord against an ELECTED Federal government during the transition period?
YOU are trying to justify treason. As a accessory, I wonder what the punishment for that would be? And whether those judging you will be merciful or diligent in the pursuit of justice?
“adheres to their enemies” is the wording of the Treason law, not a twisting of words. Since it is preceded by the condition of war, it clearly applies to enemies in a declared war and not simple animosity.
But tell me why treason prosecutions are so rare if it is as all inclusive as you say?
FWIW, I referenced the Statute regarding Treason since that is what would be used to prosecute, the Constitution being a limit on what the Statute can include. No one is prosecuted under the wording of the Constitution, only under the laws written pursuant to it.
Do a bit of legal research on the law, how it is interpreted and applied, and how it is applied before deciding you know what it means or you will find yourself in trouble that is hard to get out of someday. The law isn’t something somebody tell you it is, it isn’t what you want it to be: It is what is written in the books.
This merely buttresses my belief they thought it was in the bag and were laying the groundwork to go full police state on us.
That is why the leftards are so hysterical. They were dreaming of a new Red October with them as the commissars. Trump and voters such as myself prevented them from getting their dream jobs.
Prosecute them all.
I think the left is hysterical because they never even had the concept of people not bowing to their agenda and going along with it.
They are just in total mental dissonance as a result and can’t handle the concept now that it has been forced on them, hysteria being how they respond to it to avoid the accepting idea that maybe they aren’t as superior to the rest of us as they think they are (or should be).
Their hysteria will not stop them from trying to force their narratives down everybody’s throat. They will continue to use government to help them achieve their agenda even to the point of burning books that they disagree with. How dare climate scientists with PhDs write books denying man made climate change. What do they know? They’re not members of congress!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/04/house-dems-ask-teachers-to-destroy-books-written-by-climate-deniers/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social