Former President Barack Obama “personally asked” the FBI to investigate someone at the request of billionaire progressive George Soros, according to Harvard Law School professor emeritus, Alan Dershowitz.
“President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his,” said Dershowitz.
“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department,” he added. “The difference is this president is much more overt about it. He tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it.”
Q: Wow, well, we look forward to hearing more about that new.
Dershowitz: That’s not unusual. That is not unusual. People whisper to presidents all the time. Presidents whisper to [the] Justice Department all the time. It’s very common. It’s wrong, whoever does it, but it’s common, and we shouldn’t think that it’s unique to any particular president. I have in my possession the actual 302 form [an FBI record of an interview], which documents this issue, and it will, at the right time, come out. But I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed. -Breitbart News
Dershowitz also opined on the impeachment trial of President Trump – of which he was part of Trump’s defense – reiterating that his arguments had been so distorted by CNN that he could sue the network if he wanted to.
CNN — and House impeachment managers — claimed Dershowitz said that the president can do whatever he wants to do, as long as he claims to have believed he was acting in the public interest. Dershowitz had specifically said that criminal-like behavior was indeed impeachable.
Dershowitz also said that former Trump associate Roger Stone deserved a new trial, given new revelations about the extreme political bias of the jury foreperson, who opposed both Trump and Stone. -Breitbart
Just weeks after President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate of bogus partisan impeachment charges by the House of Representatives, a group of federal judges will hold an ’emergency meeting’ on Tuesday.
The judges will meet to discuss the intervention by Attorney General William Barr against the abusive proposed sentence for Roger Stone and the criticism by President Trump of the proposed sentence and the federal judge overseeing the case, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, as well as other actions by Barr and Trump regarding ‘politically sensitive’ cases before the judiciary.
The emergency meeting will be held via conference call with officers and members of the executive committee of the 1,100 member Federal Judges Association because, association president Judge Cynthia Rufe (a Bush 43 appointee) said, “We just could not wait until April to discuss matters of this importance.” The judges’ annual meeting is set for April 18-19 in Denver.
The meeting comes on the heels of a letter signed by over 1,000 former Justice Department Deep State operatives calling on Barr to resign for overruling the punitive sentence of 7-9 years in prison proposed by federal prosecutors for Stone. The four prosecutors in the case resigned in protest over Barr’s intervention.
Judge Jackson will preside over a phone hearing in the Stone case on Tuesday. Stone has asked for a new trial after it was reported last week the foreman of the jury that convicted him is a virulent anti-Trump Democrat who posted about Stone’s case.
A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.
Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.
“There are plenty of issues that we are concerned about,” Rufe told USA TODAY. “We’ll talk all of this through.”
…Rufe said the judges’ association is “not inclined to get involved with an ongoing case,” but she voiced strong support for Jackson.
“I am not concerned with how a particular judge will rule,” Rufe said, praising Jackson’s reputation. “We are supportive of any federal judge who does what is required.”
Rufe said the group has not decided how it will report the result of its meeting, if at all. “We just could not …wait until April to discuss matters of this importance,”she said.
After Trump took Jackson to task on Twitter last week, another jurist – District of Columbia Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell – appeared to rally to Jackson’s side.
“The Judges of this Court base their sentencing decisions on careful consideration of the actual record in the case before them; the applicable sentencing guidelines and statutory factors; the submissions of the parties, the Probation Office and victims; and their own judgment and experience,” Howell said in a written statement. “Public criticism or pressure is not a factor.”
The Federal Judges Association (FJA) is a national voluntary organization of United States federal judges, appointed pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, whose mission is to support and enhance the role of its members within a fair, impartial and independent judiciary; to actively build a community of interest among its members; and to sustain our system of justice through civics education and public outreach.
The independence of Article III judges is assured under the Constitution by their appointment for life without diminution in pay. Nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate, Article III judges are thus protected from intimidation, undue influence, coercion, or domination so that they may judge fairly and independently in every case, as the law and facts require.
Inevitably, from time to time, some judicial decisions are unpopular. The FJA, as an independent organization, can speak in one voice to protect the independence of the judiciary and to explain its significance to a free society. The Association expresses the collective view of Article III judges to other branches of government and the public on issues related to fair and impartial courts.
A former NYPD detective who was celebrating his 50th birthday in Nashville, Tennessee was sucker-punched by a woman who thought his red cap was a MAGA hat.
Staten Island resident Daniel Sprague was talking with his wife and friends at a bar called The Stage in downtown Nashville when a stranger spun him around and hit him in the face, shouting, “How dare you?”
“I was outside with my friends when some grabbed me from behind, spun me around and punched me in the face,”Sprague said.
On Facebook, Sprague wrote, “A misguided soul possibly not alone, who I’m assuming was not very literate, spun me around, punch (sic) me in the face and grabbing (sic) my hat while she was yelling ‘how dare you’ leading me to think she thought it was a MAGA hat.”
However, the hat actually read, “Make Fifty Great Again,” to commemorate Daniel’s birthday.
He was also wearing a t-shirt that said, “Making America Great Since 1970.”
When the woman hit Sprague, she may have been wearing a ring or holding a key because it left a gash in his cheek that was “pretty deep and goes to the bone.”
“She has issues, I feel bad for her,” he told WSMV.
Sprague and the assailant were escorted out of the bar by bouncers before he could call the police, but he did file a report the following day.
The former NYPD cop did say The Stage is a “great bar with great security and very professional.”
Touching on the political climate that likely led to the attack, Sprague told WSMV, “This is wrong,” and said people can’t just go around assaulting others “because somebody has a political opinion that doesn’t match theirs.”
“I love Trump, but I wouldn’t hit someone who had a Bernie hat on,”he added.
The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department confirmed they received Sprague’s report and he’s currently waiting to hear back from detectives.
Jessie K. Liu should not be practicing law. She should be disbarred, impeached and indicted. She is the US Attorney involved in three Deep State Mueller related cases where the government is withholding or withheld evidence from the defense. And she is involved in other corrupt cases.
Jessie K. Liu was an up and coming star in the Department of Justice. However her actions of late prove that she never should have been elevated to her position in the first place.
Ms. Liu is involved in three cases where pertinent documents were withheld from the defense –
Via Rosie Memos.
Liu was involved in the Maria Butina case where a young woman sat in prison, due to the fact that she was set up by the Deep State FBI. The information related to theFBI’s set up was never providedto her or her attorneys in spite of numerous requests from the defense for this information which was the government’s duty to provide to her.
Liu also is involved in the Concord Management case. This case has been a mess since day one. The government alleged numerous lies about the company in order to tie the Mueller sham to Russia. Mueller’s team stated Concord and its sister company Concord Catering were involved in spreading news on Facebook that impacted the US election. The problem is Concord Catering wasn’t even in existence at the time they were indictedby Mueller and the Mueller team was never able to tie Russians to Concord Mangement which spent only $3,000 on Facebook ads that supposedly impacted the 2016 election.
Mueller insinuated that Concord was led by Russians who didn’t want Hillary to win. But Mueller and Liu have never been able to prove this while making up crimes along the way. Concord Management’s attorneys are toying with the corrupt Deep State, even saying their logic is similar to Tweety bird saying, “I did, I did, I taw a puddy tat.”
In addition, Liu is involved in the Deep State’s sham indictment of the courageous General Mike Flynn. Since the 2016 election and before, General Flynn was targeted by Obama’s Deep State. Flynn committed the crime of disagreeing with Obama’s insane policies in the Middle East. Since that time, Flynn was a target.
Today Flynn’s case is still ongoing and it is costing Flynn a mint. This past week his attorney requested documents from the government pertinent to his case. The Deep State government won’t provide the documents nor will they provide Flynn’s attorney the classified status to see them. Ms. Liu is involved in this case as well.
Ms. Liu also was involved in the James Wolfe case where he was indicted for leaking a FISA application to the New York Times –
TheWolfe casewas a sham as he was sentenced to only two months for his crimes with the US Senate stepping in to request leniency for Mr. Wolfe.
Now it looks like Liu is involved in the McCabe case and will determine whether to bring charges against former corrupt FBI Director Andy McCabe.
If Liu is involved it is doubtful that McCabe will be indicted for any of his many crimes!
A number of individuals have been labeled and identified on the Internet as the anti-Trump Deep State ‘whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella. Below we identify a few of the individuals who were misidentified as Eric Ciaramella.
But in Sperry’s post, he notes the exact pronunciation for Ciaramella’s name – (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) –
Bongino suspected that Sperry was trying to hint at something as the pronunciation of a name is not usually included in posts like Sperry’s. What Bongino suggested was that there is a connection between Sperry’s article and the Grassley and Johnson letter – Char-a-MEL-ah is the same ‘Charlie’ in the Strzok and Page communications.
This is why Schiff wanted to keep his identity hidden. Not only because Ciaramella is a clearly a leaker and is culpable for crimes due to his leaking but because he was spying on President Trump in the White House and was involved in the Russia collusion scam as well.
As we reported on October 11th, in a hit piece on conservatives in July, 2017, Yahoo reported that Mike Cernovich targeted an individual who worked for former National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, claiming the individual wanted to ‘sabotage’ President Trump. The article also said the individual claimed he is ‘pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia’.
Cernovich reported in June, 2017, that McMaster promoted Ciaramella in spite of his connections to Susan Rice in Obama’s White House:
West Wing officials confirmed to Cernovich Media that Eric Ciaramella, who worked closely with Susan Rice while at NSC, was recently promoted to be H.R. McMaster’s personal aide. Ciaramella will have unfettered access to McMaster’s conversations with foreign leaders.
Others noted Ciaramella was Obama’s NSC Director for the Ukraine. This connects him and his team at the NSC to Joe Biden. Biden was Obama’s lead in the Ukraine so it’s implausible that Ciararmella and his team were not connected to Biden. Schiff’s leakers are connected to Biden also.
Fool Nelson on Twitter was one of the first to out Ciaramella –
Another Internet sleuth, Greg Rubini, may have been the first to identify Ciaramella. Rubini however noted that Ciaramella was in the White House at an event and was seated directly behind Melania Trump –
This turned out to be incorrect as the individual in the picture above with Melania Trump was not Ciaramella. The individual identified as Eric Ciaramella is Hugo Verges, he is French President Emanuel Macron’s advisor for Latin America. This image was taken prior to the state diner on April 24, 2018.
The Democrats declared war this week. Not on President Donald Trump but on the United States and the Constitution.
What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran-feces) presided over the passage of a bill which creates a clear Constitutional Crisis.
And that means we have multiple factions vying for control of our government, the definition of a Civil War.
In passing these articles of impeachment against President Trump Congress has arrogated to itself powers it does not have.
The first article asserts a motive to Trump’s actions to invalidate his role as chief law enforcement officer for the country. It doesn’t matter if you like him or any President having this power, he does have it.
Read that first article and then apply it to a country other than Ukraine where Trump didn’t have ‘probable cause’ for investigation into corruption and malfeasance there.
That could be Abuse of Power.
But this happened in Ukraine where Trump clearly has probable cause.
The following is the scenario the first impeachment article is asserting as the basis for abuse of power, through ascribing political motives to the President:
One day President Trump wakes up and says, “Shit! Joe Biden’s leading me in the polls. I need to do something about this.”
So, Trump twirls his orange comb-over and calls up the Prime Minister of Armenia, a Russian ally, to whom we’ve pledged aid. Since it’s a Russian ally and Trump may have colluded with the Russians, they would be a good candidate to help him.
But Joe Biden has no history of diplomacy or oversight in Armenia as Vice-President. There’s no record of any contact of any kind with Biden in Armenia, for argument’s sake.
Trump then, during the phone call, shakes down the Armenian PM for that aid, explicitly saying he must create dirt on Joe Biden or he would withhold appropriated aid funds to the country.
Then, after getting caught, Trump tries to hide the record of the phone call by hiding behind Executive Privilege.
That would be Abuse of Power and an impeachable offense. It would be regrettable but indefensible that the odious jackals in Congress were right to impeach him. They would, actually, be defending the Constitution and fully within their rights.
But, that’s not what happened.
Biden was put in charge of Ukraine by President Obama. He had full discretion on policy towards Ukraine and was caught on tape bragging about doing exactly what the impeachment article is accusing Trump of doing. Shaking Ukraine down for favors in order to get $1 billion in aid.
Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired was investigating corruption into his son Hunter’s involvement with Ukrainian gas company Burisma, this admission is pretty damning, showing clear personal motive to use his office to stop investigation into his family.
This is Abuse of Power.This is subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the whims of an elected official, squelching an investigation into his personal family, using the office for personal gain.
So, when viewed through this lens the first impeachment article is a complete lie. Trump didn’t do the things asserted. The transcript of the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky proves that.
Trump made the phone call public immediately.
The phone call and Trump’s order to review the foreign aid were contemporaneous but not conditional. If you have a non-charitable view of the President it may raise some questions, but there was probable cause here.
Your opinions on Trump do not add up to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The implications of this impeachment article are, however, staggering.
It says explicitly that the U.S. president cannot discharge his duties as a law enforcement official if the person of interest is someone of the opposite party or a potential electoral opponent.
It says that probable cause is not a standard for investigation only political considerations.
That’s a clear violation of Congress’ role. Congress writes laws. The President executes them. If the Congress wants to assume law enforcement powers it should work to amend the Constitution.
This is a clear example of why impeachment is a political process not a legal one.But, if they are going to act this politically, at least they should put the veneer of legality on it. Even the equally odious Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton did that.
But in asserting this as an offence Congress seeks to place the Legislative Branch as superior to the Executive in matters of law enforcement and implementation.
That’s a clear violation of the separation of powers. It may suck that the guy holding the Office of the Presidency is someone you don’t like or not willing to turn a blind eye to corruption, but doing his job is not a ‘high crime or misdemeanor.’
The second article is even worse. Because asserts the power to subpoena members of the Executive branch under the impeachment inquiry into the first article. And since Congress has sole authority over impeachment, no judicial review of its subpoena power can be made.
This is fully unconstitutional since it subverts the power of the Judicial branch to settle disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches as established by the Constitution.
Pelosi and company are broadening the definition of ‘the sole power of impeachment’ to say that whatever Congress deems as worthy of an impeachment inquiry is therefore law and the other branches have no say in the matter.
This is patent nonsense and wholly tyrannical.
Rod Rosenstein and Andrew Weismann tried to use an equally broad interpretation of ‘obstruction of justice’ to include future harm to continue the special council’s investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.OB
Moreover it renders the concept of judicial review as laid down in Marbury vs. Madison null and void. Congress cannot just make up laws and crimes out of whole cloth and then unilaterally declare them constitutional under the rubric of impeachment.
The Supreme Court has the right to strike down bills Congress passes as unconstitutional.
This drives a massive wedge through the separation of powers in a blatant power grab by Pelosi and the Democratic House majority to protect themselves from Trump’s investigations into their crimes surrounding events in Ukraine.
When viewed dispassionately, Obstruction of Congress is not a crime but rather a function of each of the other two branches of government. It’s no better when the President hides behind Executive Orders to legislate unconstitutionally.
And it’s even worse when the Supreme Court makes up laws from the bench rather than kick the ball back to Congress and start the process all over again.
That’s what the whole three co-equal branches of government is supposed to mean.
Now, in practice I don’t believe the three branches are equal, as the Judicial branch routinely oversteps its authority. But in this case if it does not step in immediately and defend itself from this Congress then the basic fabric of our government unravels overnight.
That the second impeachment article is directly dependent on the flawed (or non-existent) logic of the first impeachment article renders the whole thing simply laughable on the face of it.
I’m no legal scholar so when I can see how ridiculous these articles are then you know this has nothing to do with the law but everything to do with power.
And the reality is, as I discussed in my latest podcast, what this impeachment is really about is distracting and covering up the multiple layers of corruption in U.S. foreign and domestic policy stretching back decades. Many of the tendrils emanating from the events surrounding the FISA warrants improperly granted connect directly to the Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, William Browderand the rape of Russia in the post-Soviet 90’s.
We’re talking an entire generation or more of U.S. officials and politicians implicated in some of the worst crimes of the past thirty years.
The stakes for these people are existential. This is why they are willing to risk a full-blown constitutional crisis and civil war to remove Trump from office.
They know he’s angry at them now. This is personal as well as philosophical. Trump is a patriot, a narcissist and a gangster. That’s a powerful combination of traits.
The polls are shifting his way on this as the average person knows this impeachment is pathetic. They are tired of the Democrats’ games the same way British voters are over the arguments against Brexit.
So the old adage about killing the king come to mind. If Pelosi et.al. miss here, the retribution from Trump will be biblical.
The damage to the society is too great to argue irrelevancies. No one outside of the Beltway Bubble and the Crazies of the Resistance cares about what Trump did here. It’s too arcane and most people are against giving a shithole like Ukraine taxpayer money in the first place.
The whole thing is a giant pile of loser turds steaming up the room and impeding getting any work done.
In the end We’ll know if Trump has his ducks in a row in how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plays his cards versus Pelosi. If McConnell pussy-foots around and gives Pelosi anything on how the trial in the Senate is conducted then the fix is in and Trump is done.
But, if McConnell shuts this down then what comes next will be a righteous smackdown of Trump’s political opponents that will make the phone call with Zelensky look like a routine call to Dominos’ for a double pepperoni.
Either way, this coup attempt by Pelosi is now open warfare. There will be casualties.
* * *
Join My Patreon if you want help navigating what’s the next stop on the short bus to Crazytown. Install the Brave Browser to suck the money away from Google and protect your privacy.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia’s military intelligence organization, the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie.
Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Brennan’s CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation. Let me explain why.
Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA–the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following explanation about methodology:
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as “we assess” or “we judge,” they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment
To be clear, the phrase,“We assess”, is intel community jargon for “opinion”. If there was actual evidence or source material for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, “According to a reliable source” or “knowledgeable source” or “documentary evidence.”
Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared onDCLeaks.comstarting in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.
Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU–Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com.
Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan.
Here’s Mueller’s take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):
DCLeaks
“The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter. Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and later made unrestricted to the public.
Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts (in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence related to the“Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140
GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141 The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142
GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account dcleaksproject@gmail.com to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144
The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017.”
Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents. In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as “Fancy Bear”) were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including “some hundred sheets,” “illuminati,” and “worldwide known.” Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146
That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.
The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering to provide “exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton’s staff.”148 The GRU later sent the reporter a password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 “That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150
The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate’s opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement.153”
Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.
US President Donald Trump has demanded that House Dems hand over impeachment to the Senate “immediately” so he can have a proper trial, while accusing them of stalling the proceedings.
Trump launched a fresh broadside at Democrats after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to say when she would turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate, implying it might take a while.
Explaining her decision, Pelosi said that the documents would remain in the House until Democrats are satisfied with how the Republican-majority Senate will handle the trial. Trump argued that Democrats who have been rallying behind the impeachment cause since the beginning of his presidency should have no say in how the trial is managed by the GOP, since they themselves failed to ensure a fair process in the House.
“So after the Democrats gave me no Due Process in the House, no lawyers, no witnesses, no nothing, they now want to tell the Senate how to run their trial,” Trump tweeted, adding that he wants the trial to kick off as soon as possible.
Actually, they have zero proof of anything, they will never even show up. They want out. I want an immediate trial!
The House voted largely along party lines to pass two articles of impeachment on Wednesday evening, but while zero Republicans voted in favor of either article – “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”– two Democrats voted against the first article and three against the second.
Trump argued that the lack of defectors among the GOP shows that “the Republicans have never been so united” while the lack of consensus among Democrats is yet another indicator that their case “is so bad that they don’t even want to go to trial!”
While Pelosi insists that her foot-dragging is all about ensuring the Republicans do not hijack the proceedings, speculation is rife that Democrats are hesitant to move forward with impeachment because its popularity sank among key groups of independent swing voters who can sway the outcome of the presidential election next year.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story
Tom's Blog 