Did FBI Deputy Director McCabe cancel with House Intel Committee over Conflicts with Bruce and Nellie Ohr? – DECEMBER 13, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Nellie Ohr, the wife of demoted FBI official Bruce Ohr, not only worked for Fusion GPS, she is Russia-speaker with ties to the CIA who holds advanced academic degrees in Russian literature and history. has speculated that the reason FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe abruptly canceled his closed-door testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee was that he feared being asked about Bruce and Nellie Ohr, with specific reference to Nellie Ohr’s work for Fusion GPS.

Nellie Ohr is the holder of an amateur ham radio license, granted by the Federal Communications Commission on May 23, 2016, that she might have obtained to communicate “outside the normal risk of communication intercepts” with Christopher Steele, the British intelligence agent responsible for producing the Fusion GPS opposition research dossier on Donald Trump.

As reported by CNN on Tuesday, Nellie Ohr speaks fluent Russian and holds a B.A. in Russian history and literature from Harvard and a Ph.D. in Russian history from Stanford; she has been a Russia scholar at the Wilson Center and taught at Vassar College.”

Fox News has also reported that Glenn Simpson, a co-founder of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS hired Nellie Ohr as a subcontractor in 2016 to investigate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump that resulted in a dossier containing highly inflammatory but unsubstantiated allegations designed to be detrimental to Trump’s campaign.

The Gateway Pundit reported that Nellie and Bruce Ohr are both listedas working in a June 2010 National Institute of Justice Expert Working Group on International Organized Crime, with Bruce Ohr organized as the chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, and Nellie Ohr identified as a researcher with the CIA’s Open Source Works in Washington, D.C.,

The Wilson Center identifies Ohr as an assistant professor at Vassar College, who from Aug. 1, 1997, through Oct. 1, 1997, had a short-term grant with the Kennan Institute short-term grant to study “collective farmers of Russia’s Western Region after collectivization and under German occupation.”

A résumé for Nellie Ohr posted on the Internet shows she was a former review editor for H-Russia, a member of H-Net Humanities and Social Sciences Online.

The résumé notes Ohr received her Bachelor’s Degree at Harvard-Radcliffe Colleges, with a major in Russian history and literature; and her Masters Degree and Ph.D. in history at Stanford.

Listed as her major published work to date was a research paper entitled, “After Collectivization: Social Capital and Local Politics in Rural Western Russia, 1933-1937,” an article that was translated into Russian.

Nellie Ohr’s maiden name was Nellie Hauke, the daughter of Dr. Kathleen Armstrong Hauke, a resident of Arlington, Virginia, who was a writer known for popularizing the works of African-American journalist Ted Poston, who traveled to the Soviet Union with poet Langston Hughes in 1932.

A book titled Adventures in Russian Historical Research documents that Ohr was in Moscow doing research, supposedly for her doctoral dissertation, at the Lenin Library in Moscow, during 1989


“We can’t take that risk”

 | – DECEMBER 13, 2017

Amidst the 10,000 text messages sent between anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page is a bizarre exchange revealing how the two, almost certainly with Deputy FBI Director Andy McCabe, discussed an “insurance policy” in case Donald Trump won the presidential election.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok wrote to his mistress, adding, “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

The message was dated August 15, 2016 and the “Andy” referred to in the message could only have been Deputy FBI Director Andy McCabe, who was almost certainly party to the conversation given that it took place in his office.

What kind of “insurance policy” were high level members of the FBI discussing to prevent Trump from winning the election less than three months before it took place?

As the Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markay, hardly a Trump cheerleader, notes, “This looks very bad.”

“Like, talking shit about Trump privately, whatever, his own staff does that. But an “insurance policy” in case Trump is elected? That seems way more problematic,” he adds.


“The real question is, if McCabe was present with both Strzok and Page on the day the ‘insurance policy,’ conservation took place in his office, what thoughts did he convey?” asks Joshua Caplan.

“We deserve to know what the insurance policy to subvert democracy was,” comments Robby Starbuck.


Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel remarked, “Press is focusing (deliberately) on Strzok texts expressing hostility to Trump, and noting it is OK for agents to have political opinions. Press needs to to focus on the messages suggesting he’d act on that hostility (“insurance policy”)–which is not OK.”


While it remains unknown what exactly the “insurance policy” is a reference to, rumors that Trump would be targeted for assassination were running rampant for more than six months before the election took place.

Fox News contributor Mary Kissel‏ mused that the “insurance policy” may have been the infamous Christopher Steele dossier.


Given the gravity of the “insurance policy” remark, its exact nature should be investigated immediately.


Senator has taken at least six political donations from Harvey Weinstein

 | – DECEMBER 12, 2017

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is at war with Donald Trump over accusations of sexual assault yet failed to disavow Bill Clinton over his far more substantial acts of sexual predation and has taken at least six political donations in the past from Harvey Weinstein.

Gillibrand told CNN on Monday that Trump “should be fully investigated and he should resign” over accusations that he assaulted women, adding, “President Trump has committed assault, according to these women, and those are very credible allegations of misconduct and criminal activity.”

Trump hit back this morning with a tweet in which he said Gillibrand was “someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them).”

The claims against Trump were already aired last year, and in one case directly disputed by an eyewitness, but are now being regurgitated in light of the #MeToo scandal.

Three women who appeared on the Today Show with Megyn Kelly yesterday re-told their stories but with seemingly inane new claims, including that Trump asked for one of their phone numbers and, in another case, Trump called one of them a rude word.

However, Democrats seem intent on sweeping up Trump in the outrage over the sexual assault scandal that has ensnared top names in both politics and Hollywood.

Ironic therefore that Gillibrand herself has been pictured with and politically aligned with several actual sexual predators during her career, including Harvey Weinstein.

The Senator’s ties with Weinstein run deeper than the occasional photo. Records show that the disgraced film producer donated money to Gillibrand’s political campaigns on at least six separate occasions.

While Weinstein only admitted to some of the claims against him this year, his notorious behavior with women was an open secret in Hollywood for decades.

Here’s Gillibrand appearing alongside Anthony Weiner, a convicted sex offender who transferred obscene material to a minor and is currently serving a 21 month prison sentence.

Gillibrand was also seemingly unperturbed by the innumerable accusations of sexual assault and rape against Bill Clinton. She did say Clinton should have resigned over his affair with Monica Lewinsky (20 years later), although that was a consensual relationship.

When Clinton campaigned for her in 2006, long after the rape and sexual assault accusations against him came to light, Gillibrand was happy to appear alongside Clinton.

While Gillibrand is demanding Trump resign over the relatively flimsy accusations against him, it’s unlikely she’ll be disavowing Clinton any time soon despite the claims against him being far more substantial.

This once again underscores how claims of sexual assault, on both sides of the political spectrum, are either immediately believed or completely ignored depending on whether political points can be scored, and not whether the accusations are actually proven to be true.

Fake News Firehose: Science Proves ‘Impartial’ Journos Are Not Making ‘Honest Mistakes’ About Trump

by JOHN NOLTE12 Dec 2017

The settled science informs us that the more often you flip a coin, the more likely it is that there will be a 50/50  split of heads to tails. In other words, if you flip a coin 20 times, the probability of achieving a ratio of 8 heads and 12 tails diminishes greatly if you flip it 40 or 60 times. The closer you get to 100 coin flips, the closer you will get to a perfect 50/50 split of heads to tails.

Naturally, in order to achieve this perfect split, in order to conduct the experiment accurately, good faith must be involved. The person flipping the coin must show no bias and no personal investment towards the outcome. The coin-flipper must be interested in only one thing — an outcome that reveals objective truth.

Therefore, through the use of dispassionate science and math, the only conclusion one can come to when observing the national media’s relentless fire-hosing of fake news is that these are not “honest mistakes,” but instead deliberate lies — attempts from a biased and partisan media to destroy President Trump through a propagandistic crusade of calculated disinformation.

What allows us to safely come to this conclusion?

Well, what would you think of a scientist who came to you with a coin-flipping experiment that resulted in 0 heads and 100 tails?

That is easy, you would know the experiment had been rigged, that he is lying. And you would know this because a 0/100 outcome is impossible without a corrupting influence, without a conscious act of bias. Moreover, you would know that an insistence that the experiment was ethical was an attempt to make a fool of you.

And that is what the media believe we are — fools, which is why proven liars, chief among them CNN’s Chris CillizzaBrian Stelter, David Frum, and Jim Acosta, continue to make the audaciously anti-science argument that, all of the fake news we have seen over the last two years, is the result only of “honest mistakes” from reporters who “work hard to get it right.”

Well, everyone knows that honest mistakes are like coin flips. The more honest mistakes one makes, the more the ratio of those mistakes will end up 50/50.

So, if 100 honest mistakes are made in reports about Trump, we should see something very close to a 50/50 split in these reports. Half of these honest mistakes will get it wrong to Trump’s benefit; the other half will be damaging to Trump. Meaning…

For every piece of MSM fake news that is unfair to Trump, we should see a piece of MSM fake news that is too soft on Trump, that gives him too much benefit of the doubt, that clears him of wrongdoing prematurely, soft-pedal his mistakes, or overestimates his popularity, crowd size, and political victories.

Just as an honest and unbiased scientist interested only in an outcome of objective truth will achieve a 50/50 split, so too would honest and unbiased journalists interested only in an outcome of objective truth.

But that is not what we are seeing from our national media, and already we are waywayway beyond 100 coin flips. In just the last 10 days, the national media have been caught red-handed telling no fewer than 11 consequential lies. And…

Every honest mistake comes up tails for Trump.




It is just a fact that coin flips and honest mistakes do not fall like this — and anyone who argues otherwise is either a liar or a science denier.

Furthermore, recent history is achingly clear in informing us that these are not “honest mistakes,” because this never happened to Barack Obama. We never saw anything even close to this unrelenting assumption of the worst when it came to Bill Ayers’s pal.

Whether it was the IRS abuses against conservatives, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Veterans Administration death list, the Solyndra subsidies, the DOJ refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers, the wiretapping of Trump’s campaign, Hillary’s secret email account, spying on journalists, Bowe Bergdahl, or the EPA polluting the Colorado River — the media did everything in their power to make it comes up heads for their Precious Barry.

Everything the media could do to downplay Barry’s scandals, to give him the widest benefit of the doubt, to dismiss and move on, was done, even by a CNN staffer during a consequential presidential debate.

For Obama the media always made it come up heads.

For Trump, it is always tails.

If you believe in science, math, and history, the only conclusion you can come to is that these not honest mistakes; rather, these are deliberate and calculated lies told by deliberate and calculating liars.