By Rick Wells

Detailing the corruption and grim prospects for salvaging our federal govt without Trump taking matters into his own hands, Dobbs asks if America is ready to say…

The Lou Dobbs interview of Chris Farrell begins with them coming to an easy agreement that James Comey is nauseating, that he’s a disgrace and it is “barely tolerable to watch him, with his smug, sort of self-satisfied approach, where he gets to decide what is or isn’t applicable to him with respect to the law.”

Farrell points out that Comey has now also invoked Daniel Richman, his professor friend and leak-mate, as his personal attorney, “trying to cover every base so that no one actually asks tough questions of either Comey or Richman.”

Dobbs makes the observation that President Trump was sworn into office on January 20th, 2017, that it’s been 16 months and the ignorance continues. He says, “Truly our government is a captive of a corrupt legal system, a corrupt Justice Department, a corrupt set of judges, a corrupt government deep state and the obstructionism of RINOs and the left and the Dems. And I don’t see it getting better anytime soon. My God, what will we tolerate next?”


Farrell says, “The lesson here, I think, for the President and those that serve him in his inner circle is that it’s now time to fight like hell. This kind of sitting back and letting it play out and letting all of these characters kind of run the tables, make their various declarations, moving the ball – look, this is not really a legal investigation. This is a slow-motion political coup that’s being carried out by legal processes.”

Dobbs agrees, with the two discussing the politically motivated decisions by the judge in the Manafort case, contorted and favoring the deep state witch hunt, as more evidence that the situation is not getting any better and corruption permeates all of the federal government. Dobbs notes, “We have a corrupt leadership in Congress that is doing the bidding of their billionaire masters and corporatists and the elite establishment.”

He asks, “How do we break out of this?” Farrell replies that “the President and his inner circle need to go on offense and that means that Rosenstein needs to be talked to in a way that it’s clear to him that the jig is up” and that the Mueller investigation needs to be shut down “and not be terribly politic about it because no one’s being that way towards the President.”

Dobbs asks, “How close are we to that inflection point in which the American people say, ‘the Hell with it. We know that we can’t get a fair trial,” blaming the left-wing media for enabling and orchestrating the situation taking place.

Farrell spells it out once again, “This is a political process masquerading as a legal process. These are people, as you’ve mentioned, the establishment and the sort of embedded political operatives who are dedicated to making sure there is no second term for President Trump.”

After criticizing the passive and feckless nature of the Trump legal team, Dobbs asks how quickly President Trump can turn things around. The answer from Farrell is not new, saying, “He can do it with a thanks very much, I’m doing this anyway decision.”

He says President Trump “needs to make a political calculation about a legal question, and that’s politics and the law do not line up one for one. And so he has to make a calculus and say ‘Look, I understand the legal exposure, that’s fine. Damn it, I’m going this way anyway.”


By Rick Wells

Judicial Watch’s Chris Farrell is sure the DNC and Mueller discussed the fact their witch hunt is running out of gas and time, conspiring for a witch hunt lawsuit to…

 Lou Dobbs begins with the announcement by Reps Bob Goodlatte and Trey Gowdy that they’ve reached a secret agreement for document production to their committees by the DOJ, without providing any specifics as to how, how many, what, when and in what stage of redaction those documents will be delivered.

We’re supposed to just trust that Mr. Benghazi Committee and Establishment Bob are acting in our interests and not those of the swamp creatures. That’s more or less exactly the type of shenanigans we expected when these two suddenly, out of nowhere, became the face of the investigation into DOJ corruption. Shall we say, along with Rosenstein, Wray and Sessions, the faces of the cover up. The best way to obstruct is to be on the inside, pretending to be objective and transparent.

On Sunday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes revealed on Maria Bartiromo’s program that there was absolutely no intelligence information underlying the undertaking of the Russia-Trump collusion investigation. It was completely crafted as a political witch hunt without a shred of evidence or anything else indicating that the collusion or any crimes existed.

Dobbs asks Chris Farrell why the “investigations” persist with nothing to indicate there is any legitimacy to them. On the Democrat side there is plenty to indicate wrongdoing on their part, including as it relates to two political operatives, Cody Shearer and Sydney Blumenthal. Dobbs notes, “Their role in this looks profound, important and yet, we hardly hear their names.”

Dobbs points out that James Comey admitted last Wednesday that the deep state exists and then tried to put a spin on it to indicate it was some sort of patriotic alliance. That’s what Hitler would have called his SS.

Farrell calls it “more virtue posturing by Mr. Comey, not that he’s talking about himself, of course, but there are American heroes who know better. So keep your heads down and obey, because we have all the right answers.” Dobbs calls it “gag-worthy.” Farrell agrees, “It’s insulting, it really is insulting. And it’s so self-referential in the way he says it.”

Farrell jokes that the reason for the lawsuit by the DNC against Trump, Russia and WikiLeaks is because DNC Chairman Tom Perez wants his money back. He says Perez “paid for a dossier that was supposed to tank Trump in connection with the Russian government and it didn’t work so I guess they want their money back.”

He gets serious, saying, “The real story is that, I believe that Democratic operatives in the Mueller operation have told them, ‘Look, we’ve got a big zero, we’re in a slow motion meltdown over here. So go out and file a civil suit to continue the publicity stunt and allow them to talk endlessly about it because the civil litigation will drag on into the next century.”

Dobbs asks if he thinks there was coordination between the Mueller camp and the DNC with the lawsuit. Farrell says he can’t prove it but his gut instincts tell him that whether it was at a cocktail party or a kid’s soccer game, someone said, ‘hey look, here’s a bright idea. We’re not going anywhere but you can do something civilly and you can use the discovery process to churn up maximum confusion.”

As they close out the interview the pair note that the reciprocity of discovery has not been lost on the Trump administration. Democrats must really be desperate to open themselves up to that level of under oath testimony.

Former Officials Give Conflicting Accounts of Kerry State Dept’s Handling of Trump Hoax Dossier

by AARON KLEIN  14 Feb 2018

TEL AVIV – Seeming discrepancies between the claims of two former officials in John Kerry’s State Department about actions taken involving the infamous, 35-page largely discredited anti-Trump dossier raise immediate questions about the State Department’s possible role in the sordid affair.

The dossier, which contains wild and unproven claims about Trump’s campaign and Russia, was authored by ex-British spy Christopher Steele on behalf of the controversial Fusion GPS firm and was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

The dossier was reportedly utilized by the FBI to launch its probe into Trump. According to House Republicans, the questionable document was used by Obama administration officials to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign. The political origins of the dossier and issues relating to Steele’s credibility as a source were kept from the FISA court, a House Intelligence Committee memo documents.

Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who worked under the Clintons and served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs under Kerry, described in a recent Politico podcast interview what she claimed was her reaction when she was presented with Steele’s dossier information at the State Department.

She said that she offered advice to “those who were interfacing with” Steele, immediately telling the intermediary or intermediaries that Steele “should get this information to the FBI.” She further explained that a career employee at the State Department could not get involved with the dossier charges since such actions could violate the Hatch Act, which prevents employees in the executive branch of the federal government from engaging in certain kinds of political activities.

In a second interview, this one with CBS’s Face The Nation, Nuland also stated that her “immediate” reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.

Here is a transcript of the relevant section of her February 5 interview with Susan B. Glasser, who described Nuland as “my friend” and referred to her by her nickname “Toria”:

Glasser: When did you first hear about his dossier?

Nuland: I first heard — and I didn’t know who his client was until much later, until 2017, I think, when it came out. I first heard that he had done work for a client asserting these linkages — I think it was late July, something like that.

Glasser: That’s very interesting. And you would have taken him seriously just because you knew that he knew what he was talking about on Russia?

Nuland: What I did was say that this is about U.S. politics, and not the work of — not the business of the State Department, and certainly not the business of a career employee who is subject to the Hatch Act, which requires that you stay out of politics. So, my advice to those who were interfacing with him was that he should get this information to the FBI, and that they could evaluate whether they thought it was credible.

Glasser: Did you ever talk about it with anyone else higher up at the department? With Secretary Kerry or anybody else?

Nuland: Secretary Kerry was also aware. I think he’s on the record and he had the same advice.

Nuland stated that Kerry “was also aware” of the dossier, but she did not describe how he was made aware. She made clear that she told “those who were interfacing” with Steele to go to the FBI since any State Department involvement could violate the Hatch Act.

Nuland’s Politico podcast interview was not the only time she claimed that her reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.

On Face The Nation on February 4, Nuland engaged in the following exchange in which she stated her “immediate” reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI (emphasis added):


VICTORIA NULAND: The dossier, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, “This is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI, if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate.”

And that was our reaction when we saw this. It’s not our — we can’t evaluate this. And frankly, if every member of the campaign who the Russians tried to approach and tried to influence had gone to the FBI as well in real time, we might not be in the mess we’re in today.

Nuland gave the two interviews after her name started surfacing in news media reports involving Kerry’s State Department and the dossier. Her name also came up in relation to a criminal referral of Steele to the Justice Department in the form of a letter released last week and authored by Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The Grassley-Graham criminal referral contains redacted information that Steele received information from someone in the State Department, who in turn had been in contact with a “foreign sub-source” who was in touch with a redacted name described as a “friend of the Clintons.”

Numerous media reports have since stated that the source of information provided to the State Department that was in turn passed onto Steele was Cody Shearer, a controversial figure tied to the Clintons who is also an associate of longtime Clinton friend Sidney Blumenthal. According to sources who spoke to CNN, Shearer’s information was passed from Blumenthal to Jonathan Winer, who at the time was a special State Department envoy for Libya working under Kerry. Winer says that Kerry personally recruited him to work at the State Department.

It is Winer’s version of events that seems to conflict with Nuland.

In an oped last week published in the Washington Post, Winer identified Nuland as the State Department official with whom he shared Steele’s information. Winer writes that Nuland’s reaction was that “she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.” He does not relate any further reaction from Nuland.

Winer wrote at the Washington Post (emphasis added):

In the summer of 2016, Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. He did not provide details but made clear the information involved “active measures,” a Soviet intelligence term for propaganda and related activities to influence events in other countries.

In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the “dossier.” Steele’s sources suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.

I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.

That was the extent of Winer’s description of Nuland’s reaction upon being presented with Steele’s dossier claims. Nuland’s public claim that her “immediate” response was to refer Steele to the FBI since State involvement could violate the Hatch Act seems to conflict with the only reaction that Winer relates from Nuland – that she felt Kerry should be made aware of the dossier information.

In Winer’s Washington Post oped, he writes that Steele had a larger relationship with the State Department, passing over 100 reports relating to Russia to the U.S. government agency through Winer. Winer wrote that Nuland found Steele’s reports to be “useful” and asked Winer to “continue to send them.”

He wrote:

In 2013, I returned to the State Department at the request of Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whom I had previously served as Senate counsel. Over the years, Steele and I had discussed many matters relating to Russia. He asked me whether the State Department would like copies of new information as he developed it. I contacted Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who was then assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and shared with her several of Steele’s reports. She told me they were useful and asked me to continue to send them. Over the next two years, I shared more than 100 of Steele’s reports with the Russia experts at the State Department, who continued to find them useful. None of the reports related to U.S. politics or domestic U.S. matters, and the reports constituted a very small portion of the data set reviewed by State Department experts trying to make sense of events in Russia.

Last month, Nuland was appointed CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which describes itself as “an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit organization that develops strong, pragmatic, and principled national security and defense policies.”  “As CEO, Ambassador Nuland will lead CNAS’s efforts to develop bold, innovative, and bipartisan solutions to the most pressing national security and defense issues,” the Center said in a statement.

She previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Senators question Susan Rice about an odd email – and it was written on Trump’s inaugural

Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice is being questioned by Republican senators over an odd email she sent to herself on the day of President Donald Trump’s inauguration. (Image Source: YouTube screenshot)

By Carlos Garcia

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are questioning an odd email written by former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice — and it was composed on the day of President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Here’s what it said:

The email is an account of a meeting between herself and former President Barack Obama, his Vice President Joe Biden, then-FBI Director James Comey, and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. They were discussing the progress in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present,” the Rice email read.

“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective,” it continued.

“He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book,” she added. “From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia…”

“The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would,” the note concluded.

Odd details

Rice wrote the email about the meeting more than two weeks after the meeting occurred, on January 5, 2017. The email was written on the day of Trump’s inauguration, and was sent to Rice herself.

Grassley and Graham sent an email to Rice asking that she answer 12 questions about the email, one of which was the following: “Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email memorializing President Obama’ s meeting with Mr. Comey about the Trump/Russia investigation? If so, who and why?”

Another asks, “When and how did you first become aware that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded Mr. [Christopher] Steele’s efforts?” referring to the author of the controversial “Trump dossier.”

The last question asks, “Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr. Comey, Ms. Yates, or other government officials about the FBI’ s investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russia? If so, when did these occur, who participated, and what was discussed?”

A pattern of abuse?

Rice was the Obama administration official who was sent to Sunday talk shows in order to blame the Benghazi attack on a YouTube movie about the origins of Islam. Many accuse her of lying about the cause in order to shield the administration from criticism over security at the consulate.

Rice was later accused of illegally “unmasking” Trump officials, a charge which she vehemently denies.