Anti-American CLAPPER Stumbles, Stutters And LIES, Claims TRUMP NOT FIT For Office

Screen Shot 2017-08-23 at 2.48.41 PM

By Rick Wells

It’s only possible to understand that how pathological liar James Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence if one considers the caliber of individual squatting in our White House and the other America-haters that populated the government. It would be impossible for him to hold office in a legitimate administration like the one he is so offended by under President Trump,. He’s not even Obama holdover material.

That’s why he’s on CNN, badmouthing President Trump. It’s his new job, the only thing he’s done since he left the government, with ever-increasing vitriol and frequency. The Obama official who was busted lying on video to the US Senate about spying on American citizens is brought in by Don Lemon specifically to disparage the President.

Clapper starts by attempting to provide himself with credibility, telling the audience how he’s “toiled in one capacity or another for since and including John F. Kennedy through and including ‘president’ Obama.” Don’t get too overly dramatic, Clapper. You had a government job working forty hours a week inside an air conditioned building; that’s not toiling.

He says that he doesn’t know when he’s listened to or watched something from a President that he found more disturbing. That’s good, what Trump is saying it would mean the President is messing up or selling us out. Clapper says that, with his understanding of the levers of power available to a president if he chooses to exercise them, he found President Trump’s rally “downright scary and disturbing.” Of course no specifics are ever provided for his Trump doom and gloom and he didn’t start now.

Don Lemon, who earlier went on a rant that included citing enemies of President Trump within the CNN coup circle as questioning his fitness, now asks the same question of Clapper. It’s the replacement for Russia, and racist, when they run out of steam. Obviously, he knows what answer he’s going to receive. We all do, even before he says it.

Clapper replied, “Yes, I do,” just like Soros and Obama told him. Hecontinues with the setup narrative just as he did with the original “assessment” on the Russia, Russia, Russia. There was nothing there besides empty false accusations, and the lying “Dr Clapper” is now making his medical diagnosis of President Trump on television, appropriately from the studios of CNN Fake News.

Clapper stumbles a bit as if he’s trying to add some “sincere believability” effect or he can’t remember what his handlers told him to say. He says, “I, I, I, I, really ques, question, uh, his uh, ability to, uh, his fitness to be in this office and I also am beginning to wonder uh about, uh, his, his, motivation for, maybe, maybe he is looking for a way out. Uh, I do wonder as well about uh, uh, the people that uh, uh, attracted to, to this r to the, this rally as, as others. Uh, you know, what are they thinking, or why am I so far out off base. Cause I don’t understand.”

It’s because you’re a corrupt idiot, Clapper, who can barely formulate a sentence. What’s the hardest thing to believe about this whole interview is that Clapper ever had a supervisory position, let alone was the Director of National Intelligence. He couldn’t guarantee the fries were properly cooked if he worked at McDonalds but he’s making all of these important and supposedly qualified decisions and determinations?

Intelligence certainly doesn’t appear to be his strong suit or the reason he was placed in that position. His total lack of integrity and willingness to defy the law and attack our country for Obama is more likely what got him the job. And it’s what keeps him coming back to CNN for hit pieces like this one.


Thank you for reading and sharing my work

Welcome to Charlottesville – proof that political correctness is wrecking America

By Robert Bridge

The events that just rocked Charlottesville, Virginia are symptomatic of every ailment now infecting the US political body – extreme political correctness, intolerance of free speech, and a police presence that seems designed to promote violence rather than curb it.


If ever there was a lightning rod for attracting the disciples of Liberalism and political correctness, the new creed that is destroying honest debate and discourse in the ‘Land of the Free,’ you could do no worse than a bronze statue of Robert E. Lee in the town square. For those who never heard of the man, Lee was a very skilled general who led the South’s Confederate forces against Lincoln’s Union during the Civil War, the bloodiest US military conflict to date.

Lee also proved irresistible to the alternative right (‘alt-right’), an increasingly vocal group of predominantly frustrated white men who, in this latest convulsion to rattle the US, view the removal of the Southern general’s statue as an appropriate metaphor for the ‘endangered white male.’ The Anti-Defamation League defines the alt-right as individuals who “want to preserve the white majority in the US,” over fears that descendants of white Europeans are “losing their majority status,” which will eventually result in “white genocide.”

Although there is a big temptation to connect this latest bout of left-right strife with the rise of Donald Trump, and the epic fall of Hillary Clinton, that explanation falls wide of the mark. As witnessed by the Tea Party and other right-wing movements, such as Unite the Right, Oath Keepers and the 3 Percenters, these groups were itching for a fight long before the mogul of Manhattan crashed the political scene. But the left has been equally guilty of kicking up its share of dirt.

The great schism in American politics began shortly after the attacks of 9/11 when George W. Bush initiated an opportunistic crackdown on civil liberties through the Patriot Act, a veritable tome that few legislators had a chance to read, yet signed it into law anyways. This slide towards totalitarianism continued under Barack Obama, the first president to carry out extrajudicial killings of US citizens outside of war zones, oversee a vast surveillance network courtesy of the NSA, and speak openly about ‘updating’ the Second Amendment right to bear firearms. These constitutionally-challenged moves made a lot of conservative-minded folks, and certainly some Liberals, very nervous.

However, what seems to have really triggered the right was Obama’s raft of culturally explosive legislation, which turned traditional American values on their head. From the legalization of marijuana, to endorsing same-sex marriages, to opening the door, quite literally, to transgenders using the bathroom and changing facilities of their choice, it seems Obama punched every hot-button issue before leaving office.

At the same time, the left, well before Trump was considered hot political property, was also manning the trenches. On Sept. 17, 2011, a group called Occupy Wall Street took over Zuccotti Park in the heart of New York’s financial district, where they held protests against economic inequality. The protesters were forced to leave their site on November 15, 2011, but their message continues to resonate to this day.

Two years later, following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin, the ‘Black Lives Matter’ hashtag became a social media phenomenon. The tag went from the world of virtual reality to the streets, where thousands of protesters condemned a reported rise in police brutality against blacks.

Finally, and most disturbingly, a group called ‘Antifa’ arrived on the scene, espousing ‘anti-fascist’ rhetoric against far-right groups. This militant group, which has been declared a ‘domestic terrorist group’ by the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security, resorts to violent tactics that mirror the very ‘fascist’ ideology it purports to be challenging. At Berkeley, black-masked Antifa members reportedly left behind property damage and started fires, while the group is believed to have violently disrupted the “March 4 Trump” event. This thuggish tendency, which seems to be strangely prevalent on the left, to resort to outright violence every time somebody attempts to challenge an idea sets a disastrous precedent. It also leads directly to outbreaks of violence.

Now, with the arrival of Donald Trump on the scene, all of this accumulated political firewood, as it were, has paved the way for round one of a conflagration that won’t be resolved anytime soon.

PC insanity

In considering the violent events that shook Charlottesville, where actual fatalities and numerous injuries occurred, it is important to consider what sparked this event, and that was the decision to remove Robert E. Lee’s statue from the city center. It seems a reasonable case could be made for both sides of the debate, yet that is exactly what is missing in America these days – healthy debate.

First, it must be said the Confederate cause that Lee defended – that is, an agrarian system based on slavery – is obviously noxious and indefensible. Hundreds of thousands of Africans were physically removed from their homeland and delivered to American shores, forced to till the fields of their ‘masters’ from morning til night. Not until the emergence of Abraham Lincoln and the North’s hard-fought victory in the Civil War did African Americans secure their full-fledged membership in US society. Thus, many Americans find it distasteful that a statue of Lee, gallantly astride his horse, sits in a park that bears his namesake.


Yet the question remains. Will removing Lee’s statue eliminate the stain of slavery from American history books? No, it won’t. So what is it exactly that we wish to accomplish by its removal? Should Americans be expected to tear down every physical reminder of those historical figures whose ultimate legacy was being on the wrong side of history? Should we be prepared to close down Gettysburg Military Park in Pennsylvania, for example, the sprawling site of the Battle of Gettysburg, the Civil War’s bloodiest battle that precipitated the final defeat of Lee’s army? It was on the basis of that victory, after all, that lent inspiration to Lincoln’s famous ‘Gettysburg Address.’

“To forget history is to repeat it” is not some silly cliche, but sound advice that we ignore at our own peril.

The willingness to remove statues from our main squares is just one step away, I believe, from demanding history books be purged from any reference to such events for fear of offending somebody. In both cases, we wish to remove the physical content because we find it morally offensive. Thanks to the toxic atmosphere of political correctness that has sanitized all debate and discussion, we already see the first signs of such extremism. It’s a sad day in America when university campuses, the very fountain of free thought, resort to violence every time a controversial guest speaker is invited to address a group of students.

So deeply entrenched are the roots of political correctness that Americans, who can barely pronounce the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ these days without facing a lawsuit, are now willing to remove not only stone representations of dead historical figures who still have hard lessons to teach, but living, breathing individuals carrying messages that some may find unsettling, yet that have a right to be spoken nevertheless.

As a nation, we’ve traveled light years away from the sound advice given by the English writer, Beatrice Hall, who said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”


Where is the police protection?

Meanwhile, the right of assembly by all participants should have been protected by the authorities in Charlottesville since the idea of allowing these two groups, which exist at extreme ends on the political spectrum, to mingle in the proximity of tiny Emancipation Park (formerly called ‘Lee Park’) was simply insane.

It should be noted that Unite the Right (UtR) had secured the necessary permits to assemble to hear various speakers discuss the decision to remove the historical Lee statue. They also had the blessing of the American Civil Liberties Union (Yet this did not stop “Unite The Right” organizer Jason Kessler from being attacked by protesters while attempting to hold a news conference). This decision naturally led to counter groups, notably from Antifa, to also secure permits to hold counter rallies. Thus, this quaint Virginia town had collected together enough combustible material to have given the authorities enough incentive to ensure public safety, yet once again the police failed spectacularly on that point.

Reminiscent of the violence that left Berkeley campus resembling a war zone over a scheduled talk by Milo Yiannopoulos, a British commentator associated with the so-called alt-right, the Charlottesville police fueled the tension by driving the conflicting sides into something resembling a mosh pit. Indeed, by all outside appearances, it looked as if the police were willfully inciting violence between the leftist and rightist camps.


Are the local police forces really so inept as to force two opposing groups together during a protest? According to various accounts I have heard, that is exactly what happened. While I will leave the question of police measures to other commentators, it needs to be emphasized that if Americans are to retain their constitutionally protected freedom of speech and assembly, then the authorities must be expected to create the safe spaces for such events.

When Americans are being physically denied the right to express themselves due to an oppressive atmosphere of political correctness, then the authorities must take the necessary steps to protect them, otherwise the natural result will be more violence.

It’s sad that the national state of debate in America has reached the point when such measures are required, but without open debate and discussion on all issues, America will be stuck in a Civil War mindset.

Memos reveal new details of NSA & FBI illegal spying on Americans under Obama

The FBI and National Security Agency improperly searched, stored and distributed raw intelligence on Americans, according to recently declassified documents about the controversial Section 702 surveillance program.

The documents, released earlier this month in response to a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), reveal specific violations that the FBI and NSA disclosed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) or the Justice Department’s national security division during President Barack Obama’s time in office, between 2009 and 2016.

Reviewing the documents, The Hill found more than 90 incidents that specifically cited an impact on Americans, who are not supposed to be affected by 702 surveillance. Many of the incidents involved multiple people, multiple violations, or extended periods of time, the newspaper noted.

One analyst ran the same search on an American citizen “every work day” for a period of time in 2013 and 2014.

In 2015, the NSA issued a report that included the name of an American “whose identity was not foreign intelligence,”according to one incident report. The agency eventually discovered the error and “recalled” the information.

There were several other instances where names of Americans were improperly shared with other intelligence agencies without being redacted, violating minimization procedures. The information had to be recalled and purged after the fact, according to The Hill.

“CIA and FBI received unminimized data from many Section 702-tasked facilities and at times are thus required to conduct similar purges,” one report said.

The FBI disclosed three instances of “improper disseminations of US persons identities” between December 2013 and February 2014.

Though the law requires the NSA to notify other intelligence agencies within five days if and when it wrongly disseminates information about Americans, the documents showed that the average notification time was 19 days, and in some cases took as long as 131 business days.


The NSA says the mistakes amount to less than 1 percent of surveillance intercepts through the Section 702 program, which was established by Congress in late 2008.

“The National Security Agency has in place a strong compliance program that identifies incidents, reports them to external overseers, and then develops appropriate solutions to remedy any incidents,”NSA spokesman Michael Halbig told The Hill. “Quite simply, a compliance program that never finds an incident is not a robust compliance program.”

“We believe that, particularly when compared with the overall level of activity, the compliance incident rate is very low,” Alexander Joel, head of the Office of Civil Liberties, Privacy and Transparency for the director of national intelligence, told The Hill.

Oversight and compliance procedures intended to safeguard Americans are “robust and effective,” the FBI said in a statement. “Section 702 is vital to the safety and security of the American people. It is one of the most valuable tools the Intelligence Community has, and therefore, is used with the utmost care by the men and women of the FBI so as to not jeopardize future utility.”

The ACLU, which obtained the documents on July 11 after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, is not convinced.

“The NSA claims it has rules to protect our privacy, but it turns out those rules are weak, full of loopholes, and violated again and again,” said Patrick Toomey, an ACLU attorney in New York who was involved in the FOIA litigation.

“What we’re now seeing is a history of the NSA not being able to police itself,” Neema Guliani, ACLU chief legislative counsel, told The Hill. “All of this raises questions about whether the procedures the agencies have put forth are really being followed in all cases.”

Shortly before the end of his term in office, in January 2017, Obama “eviscerated” the previously existing limits on sharing of raw NSA intelligence with domestic law enforcement agencies. The full effect of that decision will not be known until the next NSA compliance report, due in April 2018.



Tyler Durden's picture
Screen Shot 2017-07-13 at 9.09.36 AM

Why Did Loretta Lynch Grant Trump Jr’s Russian Lawyer A Special Visa To Enter America?

With everyone now rummaging through every document, intercept, and memo for something, anything tying Trump to Russia, The Hill’s John Solomon and Jonathan Easley have unearthed details that show the Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by Loretta Lynch‘s Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” after she had initially been turned down.

Simply put, as The Hill notes, this revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.

The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York City.


During a court hearing in early January 2016 as Veselnitskaya’s permission to stay in the country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.


“In October the government bypassed the normal visa process and gave a type of extraordinary permission to enter the country called immigration parole,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing Jan. 6, 2016.


“That’s a discretionary act that the statute allows the Attorney General to do in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, we did that so that Mr. Katsyv could testify. And we made the further accommodation of allowing his Russian lawyer into the country to assist,” he added.


The prosecutor said Justice was willing to allow the Russian lawyer to enter the United States again as the trial in the case approached so she could help prepare and attend the proceedings.

But just five days after meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and then Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, it seems the Justice Department had lost track of her… (as The Hill details)

Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya showed up in Washington in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Russia policy, video footage of the hearing shows.

She also helped arrange an event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. where pro-Russian supporters showed a movie that challenged the underpinnings of the U.S. human rights law known as the Magnitysky Act, which Russian leader Vladimir Putin has reviled and tried to reverse. About 80 people, including congressional staffers and State Department employees attended the viewing at the Newseum.

At least five congressional staffers and State Department officials attended that movie showingaccording to a Foreign Agent Registration Act complaint filed with the Justice Department about Veselnitskaya’s efforts.

And Veselnitskaya also attended a dinner with the chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing Russia policy, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and roughly 20 other guests at a dinner club frequented by Republicans.

All of which was a far cry from the narrow reason the U.S. government initially gave for allowing Veselnitskaya into the U.S. in late 2015, according to federal court records.

“There’s zero doubt that she and her U.S. colleagues were lobbying to repeal Magnitsky or at least ensure his name was removed from the global law Congress was considering,” said U.S. businessman William Browder, who was the main proponent for the Magnitsky Act and who filed a FARA complaint against Veselnitskaya, Dellums and other U.S. officials claiming they should have registered as foreign agent lobbyists because of the work.

Furthermore, as The Hill notes, the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York confirmed Wednesday to The Hill that it let Veselnitskaya into the country on a grant of immigration parole from October 2015 to early January 2016.

Justice Department and State Department officials could not immediately explain how the Russian lawyer was still in the country in June for the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the events in Washington D.C.

Maybe Washington is a “sanctuary for Russian operatives” City?

We look forward to the hearing where Lynch has to explain how she gave this “russian operative” special access to America, then lost track of her, only to discover her again via NSA intercepts, trying to pitch Magnitsky Act repeal to Trump Jr.


Screen Shot 2017-06-08 at 11.05.31 AM

Trump’s “tapes” tweet prompted Comey to leak memos

By Alex Brandon

Fired FBI Director James Comey is now in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify about his interactions with President Trump as they relate to the federal government’s Russia probe.

A big thing: Comey refused to state whether he believed that President Trump’s request to shut down the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn amounted to obstruction of justice — saying it was a question for the investigation’s special counsel Bob Mueller — but he called it “a very disturbing thing, very concerning.”

Another big thing: After his firing and this Trump tweet, Comey asked a close friend of his — Columbia law professor Daniel Richman — to leak the content of his memos to the media with the hope of triggering the appointment of a special counsel.

Screen Shot 2017-06-08 at 11.07.34 AM

Comey’s reasoning for testifying — in his own words:

  • “The explanations, the shifting explanations [for his firing], confused me — and increasingly concerned me.”
  • “It confused me when I saw on television the president saying that he actually fired me because of the Russia investigation.”
  • “The administration then chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI.”

More from Comey:

  • Why he took notes on Trump meetings: “I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting and I thought it important to document.”
  • More on the memos: Comey wrote them in an unclassified manner to make them “easier to discuss” across government. He added, “I remember thinking, ‘This is a very disturbing development, very important to our work, I need to document it.'”
  • Why he thought Trump wanted to meet: “My common sense told me that he’s looking to get something in exchange for my request to stay in the job.”
  • On not shutting down Trump’s Flynn request: “Maybe if I were stronger I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took it in.”
  • Pushing back on Trump: “I never initiated a communication with the president.”
  • On AG Sessions: Comey stated that he believed Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia investigation eventually because the FBI was “aware of facts” that he “can’t disclose in an open setting.”
  • Under investigation? Comey confirmed that Trump himself was not under investigation while he was FBI director.
  • Why he didn’t state that publicly: “It creates a duty to correct — which I’ve lived before.”
  • Trump’s tapes: “I’ve seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes.”
  • Trump’s tapes take 2: “The president surely knows if he taped me. If he did, my feelings won’t be hurt. Release all the tapes. I’m good with it.”
  • The Steele dossier: Comey refused to state in the open session whether any aspects of the Steele dossier had been verified.
  • Trump and the dossier: “He had a strong and defensive reaction.”
  • What Comey thinks is most significant: When Trump requested the Flynn shutdown: “Why would you kick everyone out of the Oval Office?”
  • On former AG Loretta Lynch: Regarding the Department of Justice’s push to tone down the rhetoric surrounding the Clinton email investigation, Comey said, “The attorney general was looking to align campaign language with our language, which… gave me a queasy feeling.”
  • Comey’s message to his former colleagues at the FBI:I am so sorry that I didn’t get the opportunity to say goodbye to you properly.”


Citizens include Donald Trump and Alex Jones

| – JUNE 7, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The decision of a federal court to take the case of former contractor Dennis Montgomery advances the story reported in March that the National Security Agency illegally conducted surveillance of potentially millions of citizens for years, with a database that suggests both Donald J. Trump and Alex Jones were under unauthorized government monitoring.

On Tuesday, reported the federal district judge who has already ruled that some of the NSA’s data collection on American citizens violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, agreeing to hear the case of Montgomery, a contract officer turned whistleblower who gave to the FBI 47 hard drives of highly classified documents. further reported on Tuesday that FBI agents interviewed Montgomery on video tape for several hours and collected the hard drives.

On May 4, 2017, also reported that the Obama administration, in President Obama’s final year in office, “significantly expanded efforts to search NSA intercepts for information about Americans, distributing thousands of intelligence reports across government with the redacted names of U.S. residents during the midst of a divisive 2016 presidential election.”

As reported in March, Montgomery first turned over files from the 47 hard drives in 2013, to Sheriff Arpaio in Maricopa Co., Ariz., who at that time was conducting a cold case posse investigation into the authenticity of the computer birth certificate Barack Obama made public on April 11, 2011.

Michael Zullo, formerly the commander and chief investigator of the Cold Case Posse (CCP), a special investigative group created in 2006 in the office of Joseph M. Arpaio, formerly the sheriff in Maricopa Co., an Arizona State Certified Law Enforcement Agency, headquartered in Phoenix, Ariz., provided the database to

The electronic surveillance database, provided to Zullo by Montgomery in 2013, was apparently created by the NSA as part of the NSA’s illegal and unconstitutional Project Dragnet electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens, first revealed by news reports published in 2005, as further documented by the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013.

Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Investigator Zullo confirmed to that there were in the Montgomery NSA database dozens of entries at various addresses, that included Trump Tower in New York City and Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.

These records suggest Donald Trump was apparently under NSA electronic surveillance from 2004, during President George W. Bush’s term of office, through 2009, the first year of President Obama’s presidency.

After additional search of the Montgomery files, Zullo also confirmed that Alex Jones had been under NSA surveillance during the same years.

At issue is whether former FBI James Comey lied to Congress when he testified under oath to the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017, that after an exhaustive investigation, he could find no records to indicate the Obama administration had placed Donald Trump under NSA electronic surveillance.

While Montgomery’s credibility has been called into question, Zullo maintained to that the amount of information provided by Montgomery related to Operation Dragnet was extraordinarily voluminous and that Montgomery had shared information with investigators in 2013 that will be the subject of his forthcoming federal district court case.