Brennan threatens GOPs

Yesterday President Trump sent a tweet stating the intention of ask DOJ to investigate the spy in his campaign.
DAG Rosenstein answered suspiciously promptly that an investigation is going to happen.

Today, John Brennan spewed his regular doom and gloom:

‘Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan: If Mr. Trump continues along this disastrous path, you will bear major responsibility for the harm done to our democracy. You do a great disservice to our Nation and the Republican Party if you continue to enable Mr. Trump’s self-serving actions.’

Question is: what is he scared for?

First of all, it is ‘President’ Trump, not ‘Mr.’ Trump. Funny how the old guard of the previous administration refers to Obama as President Obama, while President Trump is only Mr. Trump.
Moving on from this, Brennan failed to explain how President’s Trump actions are self-serving?
Is it because he is fighting back the witch hunt?
It is pretty much accepted and recognized by the leftist media NYT and WaPO, that there WAS a spy (probably more then one) in his campaign.
Is it no normal then that under such circumstances an investigator must be involved to clarify the wrong doing? Is it not his right to know if and who was the spy?

Occam’s Rezor would tell that chances are that the previous administration (including Brennan and Clapper) are very much involved and they are doing damage control right now.

Only an imbecile would think that P44 was not implicated directly in what happened.
Either that or he was entirely stupid and oblivious to what was happening around him.
That he was oblivious is almost impossible taking into account the President Daily Breafing he was presented with.

On Monday morning, President Trump took to Twitter to respond:

“ ‘John Brennan is panicking. He has disgraced himself, he has disgraced the Country, he has disgraced the entire Intelligence Community. He is the one man who is largely responsible for the destruction of American’s faith in the Intelligence Community and in some people at the… top of the FBI. Brennan started this entire debacle about President Trump. We now know that Brennan had detailed knowledge of the (phony) Dossier… he knows about the Dossier, he denies knowledge of the Dossier, he briefs the Gang of 8 on the Hill about the Dossier, which…. …they then used to start an investigation about Trump. It is that simple. This guy is the genesis of this whole Debacle. This was a Political hit job, this was not an Intelligence Investigation. Brennan has disgraced himself, he’s worried about staying out of Jail.”’ Dan Bongino.”

Was Stefan Halper the spy in Trump’s campaign?

Who was the real spy on Trump’s campaign? Or how many of them? The name of Stefan Halper has been thrown around by publications like New York Times, which makes it at least suspicious. Likewise Carter Page or Papadopoulos who seem to be more like patsies then real players.

It looks more and more like a coup set in motion by the previous administration, with P44’s blessing. His FBI/CIA and DOJ used the anti-Brexit British Elite including British Intelligence( MI6) to infiltrate an opposition candidate’s campaign, name-dropped Russia with the implication of collusion, used this as evidence to fabricate a Russian-based Steele Dossier (MI6 probably) and the rest is history.

Following is an interesting summary of tweets from Rising Serpent:

Iran and the bribing of Western officials

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran ‘deal’ triggered a furious response from the Iranian officials.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari warned Western officials this week that if they do not put pressure on the Trump administration the Iranian regime will leak the names of all Western officials who were bribed to pass the weak deal.

We could only speculate who are the European officials considering that Europe has the most to gain from an Iran deal.
However, we know who are the USA Democratic senators who voted ‘Yes’ to the deal.
This is the list, according to the Wall Stree Journal:

Stabenow, Debbie Democrat MI Yes
Baldwin, Tammy Democrat WI Yes
Bennet, Michael Democrat CO Yes
Blumenthal, Richard Democrat CT Yes
Booker, Cory Democrat NJ Yes
Boxer, Barbara Democrat CA Yes
Brown, Sherrod Democrat OH Yes
Cantwell, Maria Democrat WA Yes
Carper, Tom Democrat DE Yes
Casey, Robert Democrat PA Yes
Coons, Chris Democrat DE Yes
Donnelly, Joe Democrat IN Yes
Durbin, Richard Democrat IL Yes
Feinstein, Dianne Democrat CA Yes
Franken, Al Democrat MN Yes
Gillibrand, Kirsten Democrat NY Yes
Heinrich, Martin Democrat NM Yes
Heitkamp, Heidi Democrat ND Yes
Hirono, Mazie Democrat HI Yes
Kaine, Tim Democrat VA Yes
King, Angus Independent ME Yes
Klobuchar, Amy Democrat MN Yes
Leahy, Patrick Democrat VT Yes
Markey, Ed Democrat MA Yes
McCaskill, Claire Democrat MO Yes
Merkley, Jeff Democrat OR Yes
Mikulski, Barbara Democrat MD Yes
Murphy, Chris Democrat CT Yes
Murray, Patty Democrat WA Yes
Nelson, Bill Democrat FL Yes
Peters, Gary Democrat MI Yes
Reed, Jack Democrat RI Yes
Reid, Harry Democrat NV Yes
Sanders, Bernie Independent VT Yes
Schatz, Brian Democrat HI Yes
Shaheen, Jeanne Democrat NH Yes
Tester, Jon Democrat MT Yes
Udall, Tom Democrat NM Yes
Warner, Mark Democrat VA Yes
Warren, Elizabeth Democrat MA Yes
Whitehouse, Sheldon Democrat RI Yes
Wyden, Ron Democrat OR Yes

A quick look at the list, and you are going to find the names of the obnoxious Democratic senators giving lots of headaches to the current administration of President Trump.

Unfortunately for the current admnistration, P44 knew how to surround himself with loyal minions.

Look no further than Jon Tester, the idiot who had no problems spreading rumours with the end results of Dr. Ronny Jackson losing nomination for secretary of Veterans Affairs, or commie Bernie Sanders, who keeps his dirty fingers in every pie.
Along comes the perv Al Franken, the weasel Richard Blumenthal (HR Clinton’s close friend), the horrible two faced idiot Cory Booker, the senile duo Feinstein – McCaskill and the fake Indian Elizabeth Warren.
What a gang of disgusting human beings!

USA v. Manafort in front of Judge Ellis

May 4 transcript from the USA v. Manafort hearing in front of Judge Ellis.

Source: TechnoFog

?

Judge Ellis immediately lays out his understanding of the Manafort case: The criminal indictment relates back to 2005, 2007, etc., that the DOJ investigation of Manafort had been going on for years.

The Special Counsel (SC) concedes that fact.

Judge: When SC was appointed, did DOJ turn over their Manafort file to you?

Special Counsel: [Evades]

Judge: “I’m sorry. Answer my question.”

Judge Ellis:

“If I look at the indictment, none of that information has anything to do with links or coordination between the Russian gov’t and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.”

Judge Ellis recognizes what this is: an attempt by Mueller to squeeze Manafort. He likens the whole thing to a small-time drug dealer getting pinched.

“I think we out to be very clear about these facts and what is happening.”

The Judge lays out his correct observation that this case is all about leverage
against Manafort.

He asks the Special Counsel if that assessment is wrong.

The Special Counsel refuses to answer the question. Twice.

Judge: How does the 2005/2007 bank fraud have anything to do with coordination b/w the Russians and the Trump campaign?

Special Counse: [More evasion]

Judge: “You’re running away from my question again.”

Important exchange here.

SC explains to the Judge that the indictments are w/in the scope of the SC appointment: leads from the prior DOJ case eventually contributed to and led to the indictment.

The Judge isn’t convinced.

SC: If the investigation is valid, the crimes that arose from that investigation are w/in the SC’s authority to prosecute.

Judge: “Even though it didn’t arise from your investigation. It arose from a preexisting investigation.”

lol.

An amazingly arrogant sequence here by team Mueller.

The SC is basically telling the Judge that grants of authority to the Special Counsel cannot be challenged through the courts.

Not “judicially enforceable.”

That is what elicited Judge Ellis’s response that we don’t want “unfettered power.”

Judge Ellis continues, saying he’s not going to be persuaded that Mueller has “unlimited powers to do anything” Mueller wants.

Here, Judge Ellis is requesting the full August 2 Rosenstein memo.

Important Q: What if the memo proves right Judge Ellis’s suspicions about the SC being a means to impeachment?

Eventually the SC sits down and it’s Manafort’s lawyer’s turn.

Judge Ellis to Manafort’s lawyer: Does the 8/2 memo remedy any issue with Mueller’s jurisdiction?

Manafort’s lawyer: No. It can’t retroactively be remedied.

Judge: Isn’t the right result to give the case back to the EDVA USAO?

Manafort lawyer: No – Mueller had no authority to conduct a grand jury investigation, to get search warrants, to get the indictment.

[Personal note: I just don’t see the judge going that far.]

It’s time to start punching back: Manafort’s lawyer almost accuses the SC of lying to the court about whether the indictment “arose from” the SC investigation.

The SC’s arguments are “absolutely erroneous.”

This statement by the SC proves that Rosenstein has hid the true scope of the Mueller probe – and how it has expanded/shifted – from the public.

And here we go: Judge Ellis gets after the SC for trying to have it both ways.

The result – “Come on, man”

Important. Judge Ellis explains the Mueller’s end game:

“You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That’s what you’re really interested in.”

After going through all that, they get back to the real issue: Are the Rosenstein memos from May 2017 and August 2017 sufficient to confer jurisdiction to the Special Counsel?

Judge Ellis contemplating why the Manafort case couldn’t be sent to the EDVA USAO office by referencing the Michael Cohen case:

“Wasn’t there a matter in NY recently that the special counsel returned to the Southern District of New York?”

Judge Ellis poses a question (a Q to which he will later provided an answer), asking why the Cohen was referred to the SDNY.

Special Counsel “not at liberty” to answer that question….

However, the Judge has his own theory:

Did the SC farm out the Cohen case because it wasn’t within the SC’s jurisidction, or….

Did it have SDNY handle the Cohen case because they “can’t use this to further [the Special Counsel’s] core effort, which is to get to Trump”

The SC’s explanation as to why the Cohen case is different from the Manafort case isn’t convincing.

Judge Ellis then tells the SC that the indictment does not mention:

(1) Russian individuals
(2) Russian banks
(3) Russian money
(4) Russian payments to Manafort

The SC concedes that fact.

The hearing closed with a request from Manafort’s lawyer that internal DOJ memos regarding the appointment and scope of the Special Counsel’s authority/jurisdiction be produced.

Apparently, rat-faced Rosenstein loves memos.

The judge took that under advisement.

FBI raided the office and home of Michael Cohen

President Trump is angry and for good reasons.
Following is his response to FBI raids on the office and home of his personal attorney Michael Cohen. As well, he expressed again disappointment in Attorney General Jeff Session for authorizing the ongoing action.

TRANSCRIPT via Citizen Free Press
So I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys — a good man. And it’s a disgraceful situation. It’s a total witch hunt. I’ve been saying it for a long time. I’ve wanted to keep it down. We’ve given, I believe, over a million pages’ worth of documents to the Special Counsel.

They continue to just go forward. And here we are talking about Syria and we’re talking about a lot of serious things. We’re the greatest fighting force ever. And I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now — and actually, much more than that. You could say it was right after I won the nomination, it started.

And it’s a disgrace. It’s, frankly, a real disgrace. It’s an attack on our country, in a true sense. It’s an attack on what we all stand for.
So when I saw this and when I heard it — I heard it like you did — I said, that is really now on a whole new level of unfairness.

So this has been going on — I saw one of the reporters, who is not necessarily a fan of mine, not necessarily very good to me. He said, in effect, that this is ridiculous; this is now getting ridiculous. They found no collusion whatsoever with Russia. The reason they found it is there was no collusion at all. No collusion. This is the most biased group of people. These people have the biggest conflicts of interest I’ve ever seen.

Democrats all — or just about all — either Democrats or a couple of Republicans that worked for President Obama, they’re not looking at the other side; they’re not looking at the Hillary Clinton — the horrible things that she did and all of the crimes that were committed. They’re not looking at all of the things that happened that everybody is very angry about, I can tell you, from the Republican side, and I think even the independent side. They only keep looking at us.

So they find no collusion, and then they go from there and they say, “Well, let’s keep going.” And they raid an office of a personal attorney early in the morning. And I think it’s a disgrace.

So we’ll be talking about it more. But this is the most conflicted group of people I’ve ever seen. The Attorney General made a terrible mistake when he did this, and when he recused himself. Or he should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself, and we would have used a — put a different Attorney General in. So he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country. But you’ll figure that out.

All I can say is, after looking for a long period of time — and even before the Special Counsel — because it really started just about from the time I won the nomination. And you look at what took place and what happened, and it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace.

I’ve been President now for what seems like a lengthy period of time. We’ve done a fantastic job. We’ve beaten ISIS. We have just about 100 percent of the caliphate or the land. Our economy is incredible. The stock market dropped a lot today as soon as they heard the noise of this nonsense that’s going on. It dropped a lot. It was up — way up, and then it dropped quite a bit at the end. A lot.

But that we have to go through that — we’ve had that hanging over us now from the very, very beginning. And yet the other side, they don’t even bother looking. And the other side is where there are crimes, and those crimes are obvious. Lies, under oath, all over the place. Emails that are knocked out, that are acid-washed and deleted. Nobody has ever seen — 33,000 emails are deleted after getting a subpoena for Congress, and nobody bothers looking at that. And many, many other things.

So I just think it’s a disgrace that a thing like this can happen. With all of that being said, we are here to discuss Syria tonight. We’re the greatest fighting force anywhere in the world. These gentlemen and ladies are incredible people, incredible talent, and we’re making a decision as to what we do with respect to the horrible attack that was made near Damascus. And it will be met, and it will be met forcefully. And when, I will not say, because I don’t like talking about the timing.

But we are developing the greatest force that we’ve ever had. We had $700 billion just approved, which was the reason I went along with that budget because we had to fix our military. General Mattis would tell you that above anybody. We had to fix our military. And right now, we’re in a big process of doing that. Seven-hundred billion and then $716 billion next year.
So we’re going to make a decision tonight, or very shortly thereafter. And you’ll be hearing the decision. But we can’t let atrocities like we all witnessed — and you can see that and it’s horrible — we can’t let that happen. In our world, we can’t let that happen, especially when we’re able to — because of the power of the United States, because of the power of our country — we’re able to stop it.

I want to thank Ambassador John Bolton for joining us. I think he’s going to be a fantastic representative of our team. He’s highly respected by everybody in this room. And, John, I want to thank you very much. This is going to be a lot of work. Interesting day. He picked today as his first day. So, Generals, I think he picked the right day. But certainly, you’re going to find it very exciting. But you are going to do a fantastic job and I appreciate you joining.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Thank you. It’s an honor to be here.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you all very much.
Q Are you concerned about what the FBI might find, Mr. President? Do you have any concern?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I’m not.
Q Why don’t you just fire Mueller?
THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t I just fire Mueller?
Q Yeah, just fire the guy.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it’s a disgrace what’s going on. We’ll see what happens. But I think it’s really a sad situation when you look at what happened. And many people have said, “You should fire him.” Again, they found nothing. And in finding nothing, that’s a big statement. If you know the person who’s in charge of the investigation, you know about that. Deputy Rosenstein — Rod Rosenstein — he wrote the letter, very critical, of Comey.
One of the things they said: “I fired Comey.” Well, I turned out to do the right thing, because if you look at all of the things that he’s done and the lies, and you look at what’s gone on at the FBI with the insurance policy and all of the things that happened — turned out I did the right thing.
But he signed — as you know, he also signed the FISA warrant. So Rod Rosenstein, who’s in charge of this, signed a FISA warrant, and he also signed a letter that was essentially saying to fire James Comey. And he was right about that. He was absolutely right.
So we’ll see what happens. I think it’s disgraceful, and so does a lot of other people. This is a pure and simple witch hunt.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank all very much.

Q Any more clarity on who was responsible, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q Any more clarity on who was responsible for the chemical weapons attack?
THE PRESIDENT: We are getting clarity on that — who was responsible for the weapons attack. We are getting some very good clarity, actually. We have some pretty good answers.
Q What are your options?
THE PRESIDENT: We have a lot of options, militarily. And we’ll be letting you know pretty soon. Probably after the fact.
Thank you all very much.