Clapper – Skunk Politics

June 14, 2018July 3, 2018

Journalist Laughs Off Spygate as Evidence Mounts

Spygate will never be proven, never ever, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The perpetrators of the greatest American abuse of power since J. Edgar Hoover were not aware of how far off the rails they went and many are honestly still unaware today. How is this possible? Although Spygate is real we must understand that there was no secret meeting in a hidden cave where Comey and Clapper and Brennan concocted a plan to take down Trump. Instead we had people with critically impaired judgement believing they were running a legitimate operation.

There are no specific laws governing when the FBI can send informants into a campaign, or when they can initiate sting operations, or when they can levy surveillance on Americans. A law can’t cover every possible situation. Instead we have various criteria and checks that are always a version of determining what is “probable cause.” In other words, it is always a judgement call.

Professionals in the department of Justice surely have unparalleled judgement. Surely.

Maybe you believe that what has become known as ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ (TDS) is a silly thing that Trump loyalists ascribe to people they disagree with. It isn’t, and it clouds the judgment to the tenth degree. Let’s talk about the syndrome.

A Nobel winning economist, named Paul Krugamn, said the economy would collapse and never recover once Trump was elected. A ridiculous statement for even a first year undergrad. Thousands of psychiatrists have publicly pronounced Trump mentally incapacitated without examining their virtual patient, which violates a major tenant of their profession. They literally diagnosed a paitent based on MSNBC coverage. Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates felt that General Flynn was a blackmail risk to the White House because he lied, as if he was the first person to lie in Washington D.C.

It is clear to many that TDS can affect anyone, educated or not. But why would anyone assume that the heralded heads of our intelligence community suffer from this malady? Glad you asked, before ever meeting the POTUS, the FBI director, James Comey, expressed his concern about Trump, “I feel great pressure to stay to try and protect the institution I lead.” And James Clapper, former DNI, told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he thought Trump was a threat to democracy, this was affirmed by General Hayden the very next day. Below is a newly released excerpt of a high level FBI agent’s opinion of Trump supporters.

It is clear the people running our country’s intelligence agencies were either extremely biased or clinically deranged against Trump. Sadly, this bias was solely based on what they saw on television. This is our elite intelligence community.

Next we must accept the fact that the FBI was investigating Trump and his campaign. This is not contested. Anytime a presidential candidate is under investigation by an FBI subordinate to the opposition party, there is reason for skepticism in even the most pristine circumstance. This is true from 1789 until the republic ends.

So we have clear evidence that the leaders of our intelligence community, who have un-tethered power, didn’t like candidate Trump. (Read all their newly released books for corroboration) We also know that many educated people carrying extreme bias towards Trump have deluded judgement. And we also know that some of these people have initiated or ok’d investigations into Trump. The next step is to examine the investigation while giving the professional law enforcement people the benefit of the doubt.

The intelligence community’s judgement was that Carter Page was suspicious enough to have his fourth amendment rights surrendered and a Fisa Warrant issued yet he was not charged.

The same is true of George Papadopolous, the subject of a FISA warrant because he was approached by a Russian. No charge relating to the reason for the Warant.

What did three star General Michael Flynn do to permit surveillance? No one really knows. No charges of working with Russians here either.

Why were informants placed in or around the campaign? Um

Why did the FBI allegedly send an informant to entice Roger Stone and Michael Caputo to pay for dirt on Hillary?

What was the impetus to investigate the president?

Why were Manafort and Michael Cohen investigated and (will be) indicted on unrelated crimes for the sole purpose of trying to coerce them to flip on the POTUS. Was there any reason to treat Trump like Pablo Escobar?

Each one of these steps should have required a preponderance of evidence before getting the go-ahead. How could all of them been granted and all of them turn up empty? Bad judgement. In all of these instances the intelligence community felt there was enough there to violate the fourth amendment of US citizens and in every case there was no crime. This behavior is common in Uganda not America.

February 6, 2018February 14, 2018

CNN Hiring Practices Called Into Question?

During the week of February 4th, many proponents of fairness in the media felt shock after seeing the most recent hire at CNN. Who was this new recruit? Josh Campbell, the FBI agent who publicly authored a NY Times opinion piece against Trump. In response to the personnel move, Donald Trump Jr tweeted, “You would think their stable is full in the hate on Trump department. Ahh, who am I kidding? It’s CNN of course there’s more room.”

What did Trump Jr mean?

One might think that Don Jr was referring to the hosts. Perhaps Jake Tapper, a former writer for a far left publication? Maybe Chris Cuomo, the son and brother of pillars of the democratic party? Or could it be Jim Sciutto, a former Obama official, who comes with former Obama officials as sources? These three are just a taste of the issue with hosts but this is not the travesty Don was referencing.

Another theory would be Don Jr was referring to the stable of pundits who appear on panels. It is quite common to find entire panels of anti-Trump perspectives. Many of the experts at CNN are direct hires from the Clinton/Obama machine. ‘HIres,’ such as regulars, Gloria Borger and David Axelrod or even the contributors like Neera Tanden, John Podesta and Robby Mook or even the countless guests who easily outnumber supporters of Trump 5-1. (With the ‘1’ being self-hating republican Anna Navarro)

The true problem Don Jr saw was that CNN is boldly and irreverently hiring symbols of the resistance. The pattern is too much to ignore.

Trump Hater Unemployment At All-Time Low

After mounting a campaign to be President in the state of Utah, with the sole purpose of thwarting the Trump presidency, Evan McMullin was hired as consultant at CNN.
When reporter April Ryan engaged in a public fight with the President and became a hero of the resistance she found herself working at CNN a day later.
After the media pretended Preet Bahara was a hero for getting replaced by the Trump administration, Preet got a paycheck from CNN.
Once James Clapper broke tradition and called Trump a threat to democracy he found that he earned a part-time gig at CNN.

The amount of time between the acts of #resistance and the hiring is troubling. One might ask if Josh Campbell was promised a job in return for his op-ed.

The bias at CNN is quantifiable if anyone cared to look. The only remaining question is why Sally Yates did not cash in, did she have a better offer at MSNBC?

May 18, 2017May 29, 2017

The Deep State Playbook

The combination of a compromised press and our corrupted intelligence bureaus is ominous. Most folks accept the premise that most of our news media hates the current president, to the core. It likewise becomes clearer each day (see video) how the intelligence community feels about the president. Trump-hysteria infects the heart which clouds the mind leaving no one immune.

The Washington Post and CNN will eagerly accept and publish anything that demeans Trump, provided it comes from a ‘reliable source.’ They are not going to investigate the other side of the story and they damn sure don’t fully question their prized sources to obtain a complete narrative. But they do require a legitimate source, they don’t make shit up. This lone criteria in our current climate created a perfect game plan for the deep state (our intelligentsia) who are themselves per se an unending fountain of reliable sources. Here is an imagined example of how it works;

After high level meetings with adversaries, like Russia, our CIA reviews every detail of the meeting for any data to glean. CIA agents and technology detect countless nuggets of information to examine. We can assume presidential meetings receive more than a once-over. We can also assume defensive reviews take place to ensure our side did not give something away to the adversary. If there is a suspicion that something passed from either side, there is further review. This is where the chicanery comes in.

Let us pretend there is a routine call for a review of something Trump said that is potentially sensitive data. Regardless of the outcome of said review, a corrupt source tells a CNN stooge that they can confirm “there is concern Trump may have disclosed sensitive data to the Russians.” This is not a lie, it’s a little exaggeration and cherry picking of facts, but when CNN finishes the evening news, there are calls for impeachment. CNN has mastered the art of laundering innuendo into facts to make it suitable for endless repetition. The best part, no one can dispute classified information.

The basic cycle of intelligence agents illegally leaking half-truths to the gung-ho corrupt press repeats until the president falls.

May 8, 2017May 22, 2017

Really, 17 Intelligence Agencies Linked the Hack to Russia?

CNN, Hillary, the DNC and the entire band of usual suspects loved that fact. And how could anyone with any sense argue the fact? CNN laughed off Trump supporters who disputed the fact.

Uncovering a politician telling a lie is no great feat. So if the esteemed seventeen agencies were actually just the big three, so what. I mean, this was just an exaggeration and not an earth-shattering lie. Anyway, it wasn’t like Trump said it, so no biggie.

But how is it that not one reporter investigating this all-important Russia story noticed that fourteen of the seventeen agencies that concluded their investigation had absolutely zero information, comments or statements on the subject. The claim could have been dis-proven by asking one question of the hundreds (or thousands) of people at the fourteen “other” agencies. You would think there’d be a question, maybe even two for those agencies, especially considering how often this fact was quoted on CNN and MSNBC.