Category Archives: Russia and the 2016 election

Why not? Stephen Colbert Says He’s Considering 2020 Run for President

stephen colbert

Run on that Trump Derangement Syndrome platform Colbert!

Stephen’s got a potty mouth just like other demorat supporters/leaders. And we know how well that’s worked for them

From Hollywood Reporter: Stephen Colbert may have just announced a desire to run for president while appearing on a Russian late-night show Friday during his highly publicized trip to Russia.

The Late Show host, who is in Russia on assignment for his show, appeared on Evening Urgant, a popular Russian late-night program hosted by Ivan Urgant, on Friday.

In a clip posted on the show’s website, Colbert, after taking a few shots of vodka, asks Urgant if he can make an announcement. “OK. I am here to announce that I am considering a run for president in 2020, and I thought it would be better to cut out the middle man and just tell the Russians myself,” Colbert said as the crowd applauded. The American host added: “If anyone would like to work on my campaign, in an unofficial capacity, please just let me know.”

Taking one last shot of vodka, Colbert toasted, “A strong America, a strong Russia!”

Urgant also made a toast, saying, “I’d like to make a toast to the beautiful country of the USA, which invented the Internet. Thanks to it, we can meddle with US elections.” He went on to support Colbert’s potential presidential run: “To you, Stephen! Good luck! We’ll do everything possible to make sure you get elected.”

Colbert took a brief hiatus from The Late Show on Thursday and Friday to travel to Russia, but will return with a new episode on Monday night.

He tweeted a photo of himself in Russia Thursday in response to President Donald Trump’s tweet stating he did not in fact have any tapes on former FBI director James Comey, despite previously suggesting otherwise.

This is not the first time the late-night host has announced a run for president. In October 2007, Colbert announced his candidacy following public pressure. While many at the time thought his comments were made in jest, he insisted his candidacy was serious — though that was in line with his “Stephen Colbert” alter ego on Comedy Central’s Colbert Report.

He paid the $2,500 fee necessary to be included on the Democratic ballot in South Carolina, but his request was denied. Colbert ultimately dropped his bid on Nov. 5, 2007.

DCG

Advertisements

Michael Flynn cleared by FBI of illicit ties to Russia

This news is from January 2017, but I don’t remember seeing or hearing about this. Do you?

Grr . . . .

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Michael Flynn

On January 24, 2017, Joe Tacopino reports for the New York Post:

The FBI has reviewed intercepted phone calls between national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the US and has found no evidence of wrongdoing, it was revealed Monday.

The calls were made in late December and picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials. They did not reveal any illicit ties between Flynn and Russia, according to the Washington Post.

The review of the calls was part of a wider probe into Russia’s interference in the presidential election and hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

See also:

~Eowyn

Patrick Buchanan: Civil war and the deep-state coup of President Trump

Are We Nearing Civil War?

By Patrick J. Buchanan – June 13, 2017

President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.

Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.

Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

Comey’s deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey’s friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: “Look at who Mueller’s starting to hire. … (T)hese are people that … look to me like they’re … setting up to go after Trump … including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. …

“This is going to be a witch hunt.”

Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War.

The State Department was tasked with working out the details.

Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received “panicky” calls of “Please, my God, can you stop this?”

Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

“It would have been a win-win for Moscow,” said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

Note: Tom Malinowski, 51, was Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2014 to January 20, 2017.


Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal “collusion” in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

Yet another example is the unfolding “unmasking” scandal.

While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked.

Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president.

The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

Trump has had many accomplishments since his election. Yet his enemies in the media and their deep state allies have often made a purgatory of his presidency.

What he and his White House need to understand is that this is not going to end, that this is a fight to the finish, that his enemies will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace.

To prevail, Trump will have to campaign across this country and wage guerrilla war in this capital, using the legal and political weapons at his disposal to ferret out the enemies within his own government.

Not only is this battle essential, if Trump hopes to realize his agenda, it is winnable. For the people sense that the Beltway elites are cynically engaged in preserving their own privileges, positions and power.

If the president cannot rewrite Obamacare or achieve tax reform, he should not go around the country in 2018 wailing about Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. They are not the real adversaries. They are but interchangeable parts.

He should campaign against the real enemies of America First by promising to purge the deep state and flog its media collaborators.

Time to burn down the Bastille.

See also “The Left are trying to start a civil war“.

Pray for President Trump.

Pray for America.

~Eowyn

James Comey: ‘I’ve had a lot of conversations with humans’

Yesterday, during his appearance before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, former FBI Director James Comey was grilled by a very confusing-sounding Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on what McCain called Comey’s “double standard” — in the FBI ending its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private unsecure email server vs. the agency’s ongoing investigation of Donald Trump’s connections, if any, with Russia.

Beginning at the 6:04 mark of the video clip above, McCain and Comey had a rather incoherent exchange:

McCain: “Then when the President said to you you talked about the April 11th phone call and he said, ‘Because I’ve been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know.’ Did that arouse your curiosity as to what ‘that thing’ was?”

Comey: “Yes.”

McCain: “Why didn’t you ask him.”

Comey: “It didn’t seem to me to be important for the conversation we were having to understand it. I took it to some, um, effort to, to, erh, communicate to me that there is a relationship between us, where I’ve been good to you, you should be good to me.”

McCain: “Yea, but I think it would intensely arouse my curiosity if the President of the United States said we had that thing, you know. I’d like to know what the hell that thing is, particularly if I’m the director of the FBI.”

Comey: “Yeah, I get that, senator. Honestly, I’ll tell you what, this is speculation, but what I concluded at the time is in his [Trump’s] memory, he was searching back to our encounter at the dinner and was preparing himself to say ‘I offer loyalty to you, you promise loyalty to me,’ and all of a sudden, his memory showed him that did not happen, and I think he pulled up short. That’s just a guess. But I, I’ve had a lot of conversations with humans over the years.

Now why would Comey say that?

“I’ve had a lot of conversations with humans over the years” implies that Comey also had conversations with non-humans.

Like this?

A reptilian Secret Service agent at the 2012 AIPAC conference

Or McCain? LOL

I took the above 2 screenshots from a video of an interview McCain did with Larry King some time during the Obama administration.

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s bongiornoc

~Eowyn

No ‘gotcha Trump’ bombshells in former FBI director Comey’s statement to Senate Committee

This afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey released his prepared statement ahead of his much-anticipated appearance tomorrow before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

His 7-page “Statement for the Record – Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – June 8, 2017” can be read here.

Comey’s statement is sure to disappoint those on the Left who have been salivating, having convinced themselves that the statement would be a “gotcha” on President Trump.

As summarized by ZeroHedge, the key highlights of Comey’s statement include:

(1) As President Trump has said, Comey had assured him he is not personally under investigation by the FBI:

“…prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”

In fact, Comey cautioned Trump not to request the FBI to investigate the totally untrue “Russian hooker dossier” that former British spy Chris Steele had concocted on Trump, for the express reason that such an investigation would “create a narrative” that the FBI was investigating Trump personally:

“The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House…. During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.”

(2) Comey documented his conversations with Trump in memos, which he did not do with Obama:

“I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past…. As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the senior leadership team of the FBI….

I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.”

(3) On Mike Flynn:

“On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counter- terrorism briefing of the President.

When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, ‘I want to talk about Mike Flynn.’ Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, ”He is a good guy and has been through a lot.’ He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would ‘let this go.’

The President then returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.

I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with senior FBI leadership.”

(4) On loyalty:

“The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House…. I added that I was not ‘reliable’ in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

A few moments later, the President said, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.’ I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have
decided that because ‘problems’ come from [Department of] Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.
Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, ‘I need loyalty.’ I replied, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ He paused and then said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ I paused, and then said, ‘You will get that from me.’ As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase ‘honest loyalty’  differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.”

(5) The “cloud” and the last conversation:

“On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as ‘a cloud’ that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to ‘lift the cloud.’ I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him….

On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I ‘get out’ that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that ‘the cloud’ was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

He said he would do that and added, ‘Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.’ I did not reply or ask him what he meant by ‘that thing.’ I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.”

From the above, President Trump clearly was disturbed that Comey and the FBI had not made clear to the media that Trump is not being personally investigated for Russia or hookers or anything — which he isn’t. That might have impressed Trump as Comey’s lack of “loyalty”.

In the last analysis, it is the President who appoints and nominates the FBI Director, and it is the President who has the prerogative to fire his FBI Director.

~Eowyn

‘I beat both of them’: Hillary Clinton defiantly claims she defeated Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders

enhanced-video-of-hillary-clintons-9-11-collapse

The most qualified womyn…

Reality is tough for some people.

From Daily Mail: Hillary Clinton has claimed she defeated Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election. Clinton, who received almost three million more votes than her reality television host opponent, was denied lost the presidency because she lost the electoral college count 304 to 227.

But the 69-year-old made the claim in a New York Magazine piece in which she discussed everything from sexism and voter suppression to James Comey costing her the White House, the country ‘stalling’ under Trump, and Russia’s ‘attack’ on American democracy.

Clinton started by dismissing the notion the election was won because of anger, which both Trump and Bernie Sanders, her opponent in the Democratic primary, tapped into. ‘I beat both of them,’ Clinton said, after saying anger is not ‘a good strategy for most people’.

‘You can’t be angry for yourself. You just can’t. You can be indignant, you can be annoyed, you can be frustrated, but you can’t be angry… I don’t think anger’s a strategy,’ she told the magazine.

The former Secretary of State then turned her attention to Comey’s ousting from the FBI by Trump. ‘I am less surprised than I am worried,’ she said.

‘Not that he shouldn’t have been disciplined. And certainly the Trump campaign relished everything that was done to me in July and then particularly in October. Having said that, I think what’s going on now is an effort to derail and bury the Russia inquiry, and I think that’s terrible for our country.’

Clinton then said the response from elected officials in Washington to Russia’s efforts to impact the election and sway it in Trump’s favor will be remembered for a long time. 

‘(History) will judge whoever’s in Congress now as to how they respond to what was an attack on our country,’ she told New York Magazine.

It wasn’t the kind of horrible, physical attack we saw on 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, but it was an attack by an aggressive adversary who had been probing for many years to figure out how to undermine our democracy, influence our politics, even our elections.

‘Left unchecked… this will not just bite Democrats, or me; this will undermine our electoral system.’

The 69-year-old also described to the magazine how she knew on November 8 the race with Trump was close, but she thought she would ‘gut it out’ and win. ‘I was as surprised as anybody when I started getting returns, she said. ‘Because that’s not what anybody – with a couple of outliers – saw in the data. And the feel was good!

We had good crowds, we had lots of energy and enthusiasm, and I thought we were going to pull it off. And so did the other side, by the way. They did not believe they were going to win.’

When the issue of sexism was brought up by the magazine, Clinton explained how she hoped ‘the rawness of being a woman competing for the presidency would have dissipated’ would have gone away since she was defeated by President Obama eight years earlier.

But she found that while it had ‘somewhat diminished’, there was ‘a lot of implicit bias was just raging below the surface‘.

‘There were still very deep, raw feelings about gender that had not been resolved,’ she said. ‘There is a stark difference between men and women when it comes to success and likability.  So the more successful a man is, the more likable he is. The more successful a woman is, the less likable she is. And it’s across every sector of society.’

Clinton was then asked about those in the wake of her defeat who were attempting to pin the blame for the loss entirely on her. ‘There’s always, what’s that word… Schadenfreude – “cut her down to size”, “too big for her own britches” – I get all that,’ she said.

‘I take responsibility, I admit that I’m not a perfect candidate – and don’t know anybody who was – but at the end of the day we did a lot of things right and we weathered enormous headwinds and we were on our way to winning.  ‘So that is never going to satisfy my detractors. And you know, that’s their problem.

DCG

CNN attacks GOP Congressman for calling for a federal investigation of Seth Rich’s murder

On May 24, 2017, speaking on CNN, Congressman Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) refuted the charge that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump’s campaign.

Farenthold drew attention instead to Seth Rich, a 27-year-old Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer, as the likely whistleblower who leaked thousands of DNC emails to WikiLeaks. In the early morning hours of Sunday, July 10, 2016, Rich was shot in the residential Columbia Heights section of Washington, DC. Still alive and conscious when responding police arrived at the crime scene, Rich was declared dead after he was brought to a local hospital.

See:

Farenthold told CNN:

“My fear is our constant focusing on the Russians is deflecting away for some other things that we need to be investigating. There’s still some question as to whether the intrusion of the DNC server was an insider job or whether or not it was the Russians.”

For calling for an investigation into the murder of a DNC staffer which remains unsolved more than 10 months later, Farenthold was pounced on and cut off by CNN news anchor John Berman.

As recounted by Alicia Powe for WND:

“I’m sorry, I’m sorry, the ‘insider job’ – what are you referring to here?” asked CNN’s John Berman.

“There’s stuff circulating on the Internet. My question is, why …” the congressman continued, but he was again cut off by Berman.

“What’s circulating on the Internet that you think is worthy of a congressional investigation? Because the D.C. police are investigating this, and so far they haven’t said there’s anything there” to suggest any DNC-link to Rich’s murder, Berman demanded.

The fourth-term congressman noted that the DNC denied the FBI’s “multiple requests” to examine the hacked computers. Instead, the DNC hired a third party organization, CrowdStrike, to perform an analysis.

“We’re relying only on the report of somebody that the DNC contracted to examine their computer rather than having federal officials [examine them],” Farenthold told CNN. “To me, we need to let the feds look at it.” […]

One private investigator told WND he has reason to believe the Metropolitan Police Department is hiding key evidence from the public and acting in collusion with the Washington, D.C., mayor to make the investigation go away. Another private investigator probing the case claimed former DNC interim chairwoman Donna Brazile contacted police and Rich’s family, demanding to know why the detective was “snooping” into Rich’s death.

Hey, CNN and John Berman.

Your prickly defensiveness is most noteworthy. What are you afraid a federal investigation would uncover? The truth?

See also:

~Eowyn