"The Bombs Are Still Falling" - MSNBC Urges Government Censorship Of Social Media "To Protect Democracy"

Authored by Chris Reeves via NewsBusters.org,

On Friday’s Morning Joe, Willie Geist hosted a panel to discuss the latest news on the Russian hacking narrative regarding Facebook ads that were purportedly used by Russian intelligence to stoke "racial tensions" during the 2016 presidential election.

The panel’s primary reaction, with only one dissenting voice, was to call for increased government "regulation" and financial “penalties in the hundreds of millions” to shut down alleged Russian influencers.

The segment started off with Geist introducing the latest reporting on the topic:

GEIST: Twitter says it has shut down more than two-hundred accounts that were tied to the same Russian operatives who bought political ads on Facebook. Of the 450 accounts released by Facebook as part of its investigation, Twitter was able to match 22 of them to its own site. The disclosure by Twitter followed a briefing by company officials to staffers of the Senate and House Intel committees yesterday. Following that meeting, the top Democrat on the Senate committee, Mark Warner, slammed Twitter for its presentation.

SEN. MARK WARNER [D-VA]: [playing clip] The presentation that the Twitter team made to the Senate Intel staff today was deeply disappointing. The notion that their work was basically derivative based upon accounts that Facebook had identified showed enormous lack of understanding from the Twitter team of how serious this issue is, the threat it poses to democratic institutions, and, again, begs many more questions than they offered.

(...)

GEIST: The top Democrat on the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, also weighed in on Twitter’s briefing to his committee, releasing a statement that read, in part: "... it is clear that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian activity during the campaign. This additional analysis will require far more robust investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures campaign..."

Without any perceptible degree of skepticism about the Democratic Congressmen"s claims, Geist then teed up Nicolle Wallace, host of the MSNBC afternoon show Deadline: White House, to talk about social media and the 2016 election more generally:

GEIST: You do get the sense, Nicolle, that Facebook, Twitter, social media was totally clueless about what was happening on their sites during the 2016 campaign.

WALLACE: It"s worse than that [...]. The social media companies are sort of like the worst stereotype of a Republican political organization. They"re reactive, they’re opaque, they"re defensive, they are very slow to understand the value of transparency. They"re totally lawyered up, lobbied up. And they are as a culture, the hubris of thinking that they"re all about the public good, when if you take a low-tech analogy, it’s basically like someone got mugged in your backyard and their position is: well, it"s not our problem, I mean, we just bought the lot on which the house was built, not our problem.

Donny Deutsch chimed in his agreement with Wallace’s analysis, mainly to suggest that perhaps internet news sites and social media sites need government regulation to make sure that what they post or allow up is accurate:

DEUTSCH: [T]here’s a tremendous irony with these guys, because, the tech guys, these young-, are, are the ones who are revolutionizing the world for betterment, yet the irony is, if I wanna take an ad out on NBC or anyplace else for a laundry detergent, the things I have to go through-

WALLACE: [interrupting] It has to work, it has to be real, you have to be real. Right!

DEUTSCH: [continues talking over Wallace] -[...] to prove that it’s got 5% more blue crystals in it, yet there is no regulati[on]. There is nothing more important for us, for people watching this show over the next ten and twenty years as the regulation of these companies. They control the flow of communication. [...] [W]hat"s happening here, as far as our power versus what"s happening over here [points to his smart phone], multiply it a thousand-fold and there is no regulation.

Ah, so here we see one of the real reasons for wanting to regulate internet-based news content: it’s out-competing (supposedly) respectable news outlets like MSNBC!

After Deutsch floated the idea of government censorship to get the internet under control, Wallace decided to try her hand at stand-up comedy, declaring:

“One difference though is that we have quality controls, we have standards. [...] [A]nd they [internet/social media] should be held to the same standards.”

Well, if we all only had to adhere to MSNBC’s standard for truth, that would make our jobs here much easier!

But on a more serious note, Geist subsequently moved the segment forward to allow New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor to summarize her latest findings on “racially divisive Russian ads on Facebook.” Alcindor said:

Facebook admitted to members of the Congressional Black Caucus as well as the subcommittee on the House Oversight Committee that there were ads that were targeting Black Lives Matter and targeting, specifically, ethnic groups [...] and allowing people to target, not only for Russian influence, but also target housing ads, employment ads.

[...]

[A] lot of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are fuming because they"re saying that Russia actually exploited a lot of the racial divisions that already exist in America and used both Facebook and Twitter [...] in this way to essentially make people hate each other more.

So, Alcindor and the Congressional Black Caucus think that decades of the Democratic Party and the far left exploiting racial divisions for political gain was totally normal and fine, but now, they demand aggressive government action to stop it when it is being used by the Russians?

Without addressing this glaringly obvious point, the segment then moved in a much more interesting direction as Geist turned to Noah Rothman, associate editor of Commentary Magazine, for his opinion on the whole Russia matter. Although Rothman acceded to the larger narrative about Russians hacking the DNC and weaponizing social media, he did offer some true background to the current story:

First, you probably have to know that Russian intelligence is going to exploit anything they possibly can to do precisely what she was talking about. This isn"t new, this is the Kremlin playbook. They have been exacerbating racial tensions in the United States since there [has been] a Russian intelligence organization. As recently as 2014, you had RT talking about police tyranny and an Afro-Maidan, referring to the Ukrainian revolution that ousted the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. This is what Russia does. So if you"re a media institution and you know that Moscow is going to target your audience, you have to be proactive and aware of that. And, as you say, you have, you had gatekeepers in most institutions. Institutions that are not, you know, aware that they"re going to be targeted are the most irresponsible, I would say. But I"m not sure that regulation is something that you can even entertain. This is about responsibility.

Rothman’s point about past Soviet infiltration of the United States was correct, if lacking somewhat in details. Rothman would have done well to point out, in contrast to his characterization of Russian government-owned or funded media, that they actually frequently take stances in support of left-wing causes if those causes serve to diminish America’s international moral authority, particularly as regards anti-war narratives or movements like Black Lives Matter.

It was also refreshing to see someone push back against Wallace and Deutsch’s calls for government censorship and control over the Internet, but that didn’t last. Mark Halperin ultimately decided to make the most straightforward case for the federal government to crack down on "Russian operatives" and fake news with the support of both Wallace and Deutsch:

HALPERIN: [T]here’s some interesting intellectual debates to be had around all this stuff to be sure. But these companies are American companies making a lot of money, dominating our lives, hiding behind a lot of intellectual arguments. And, as the Congressional members of both parties are saying publicly and privately, they are using lobbyists and PR executives and their own platforms to try to limit the disclosure that they make to be accountable. American democracy is under siege and they are hiding behind intellectual arguments.

[Deutsch tries to speak at same time as Wallace, then stops]

WALLACE: And it"s ongoing. I mean, they were involved, some of these Russian-linked Twitter accounts were involved last weekend in helping to sow-

EDDIE GLAUDE JR.: [interjecting] Exactly.

GEIST: [mumbles agreement] Right.

WALLACE: -hatred around the debate about the NFL. This isn’t, we"re not at a forensic stage where we"re gonna look back at what they did in 2016, we"re not even there yet. This is still-

HALPERIN: [interrupting] The bombs are still falling.

WALLACE: Right.

ROTHMAN: [tries to speak, hard to hear] Wait, to what extent is there even a recourse?

DEUTSCH: [interrupting] By the way, we can regulate, I’m gonna give you, we can regulate, we can regulate this. We start-, instead of the FCC, it’s the FDC. The Federal Digital Communications company. And there is a body, a governing body there, regulatory body, that when something like this happens, the, the economic consequence, the penalties in the hundreds of millions, you hit ‘em in the pocketbook, they"ll figure it out.

There are a lot of amazing comments here, particularly from Halperin and Deutsch.

It’s not completely clear what Deutsch means by using a "FDC" "regulatory body" to financially cripple people (or who precisely those people/organizations would be, although based on his following comments it might be Facebook and Twitter that would suffer fines in his mind). However, Halperin’s characterization of protecting people’s right to freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, as “hiding behind intellectual arguments” was most chilling.

Thankfully, Rothman stepped in to voice some cogent defense of arguably this country’s most important founding principle: “I suppose there"s any number of ways in which the federal government could target an institution that is a media institution that provides a platform for the exercise of the First Amendment. What is the limiting principle there? At what point are we targeting speech that we simply don"t like?”

After a brief pause and Deutsch simply interjecting “um,” Wallace tried her Ministry of Truth argument out again:

WALLACE: Well you can"t yell [...] fire in a movie theater if it"s not true. I mean-

ROTHMAN: [interrupting] You can if it"s on fire.

WALLACE: Well, I think the point on Twitter is that some of these things are not true, and-

ROTHMAN: [interrupting] That’s, incitement to violence is one thing-

WALLACE: -Twitter, Twitter and Facebook have done nothing. I mean money,-

ROTHMAN: -and it’s extremely difficult to prove incitement to violence.

WALLACE: -mon-, money has a seal to, so that we know when a dollar is real, when a dollar is counterfeit. There are groups that are trying to get the social media companies to have some sort of water seal or to verify the content, the veracity of it.

It was fun to see Rothman trying, ever so subtly, to point out the basic problem with Wallace’s argument, namely: who determines what is and is not true?

But then Halperin, skirting by having to address Rothman’s concerns, decided to seal the deal and make his position extremely clear: “[T]he government shouldn"t be the recourse at first, it should be the boards of these companies.” That is, if Facebook and Twitter don’t start censoring in the right way or to the right extent, then Big Brother should do it himself.

It’s nice to know that the media’s support for the free speech rights of NFL football players extends to all of us rubes too!

The panel closed out the lengthy segment by chuckling at the prospect of quick action to "figure out" this "problem" and never addressed the more fundamental question about whether or not what they were proposing was anathema to the U.S. Constitution, either in law or spirit.

We strongly suggest putting down all sharp objects before watching the following...

Chaffetz Blasts DOJ: No More Press Conferences On Leakers "Until You Have Some People In Handcuffs"

Since election day, the Trump administration has been hit with an unprecedented number of intelligence leaks as classified information seems to be flowing quite freely from Obama holdovers occupying various government agencies and members of the intelligence community directly to various mainstream media outlets.  At this point, one has to wonder why the Washington Post and the New York Times shouldn"t just have an office setup inside the NSA with server access and the highest security clearance...taxpayers might actually some money if we didn"t have to pay for our spies to sneak around Washington passing info to journalists.

But, some hope was offered last week by AG Jeff Sessions and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats who, after months of doing basically nothing, finally announced a plan to crackdown on leakers.  Meanwhile, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein took to the Sunday talk show circuit this past weekend for some more "tough talk" saying the DOJ will prosecute any "case that warrants prosecution no matter what their position is."

“We"re after the leakers. We’re not after
journalists we’re after people who are committing crimes.  We"re going to devote the resources we need to identify who is responsible for those leaks and who has violated the law and hold them accountable." 

"If we identify anybody, no matter what their position is, if they violated the law and that case warrants prosecution, we"ll prosecute it."

But former House Oversight Committee Chair, and now Fox News political analyst, Jason Chaffetz is calling the bluff of the suddenly eager Deputy Attorney General saying that he "comes with absolutely zero credibility on this" issue after repeatedly refusing to investigate, much less prosecute, Hillary Clinton for lying under oath and/or her litany of other federal crimes. 

"[Rod Rosenstein] comes with absolutely zero credibility on this."

"Remember last year when we had Director Comey come before the Oversight Committee, I was the Chair, I asked him if he looked at Hillary Clinton, whether or not she told the truth under oath.  He said he needed a request from Congress so myself and Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent that request to the Department of Justice and it"s never been answered."

"So, if they want to start, lets start with Hillary Clinton and whether or not she lied under oath.  And lets also go back to the State Department who had an open investigation.  They reopened it July 7th of 2016.  They"ve never closed it.  Nearly 300 people who are dealing in classified information in a nonsecure setting, why didn’t they ever close that investigation? They need to answer those questions. Start with that. They come with zero credibility on this issue."

"There becomes a point where you actually have to answer these things.  Don"t do another press conference until you have some people in handcuffs.  This is classified information.  It"s against the law to just leak it out and give it to whoever you want."

So what say you on Rosenstein?  Dedicated public servant intent upon tracking down and prosecuting leakers or just another political hack who will say whatever is most politically expedient at any given time to maintain his power base?  Time will tell.

The Demonization of Martin Shkreli

Remember the terrorist bombing at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia?  If you"ll recall (or follow the link and read), Richard Jewell, the security guard who discovered the backpack containing the bomb, heroically warned people away and prevented it from creating a larger tragedy than the two lives it claimed.  His hero status was short-lived, however, as he became the prime suspect.  With only an accusation, his name was gleefully dragged through the mud by every mainstream news outlet at the time until he was eventually cleared by the FBI.  Though ultimately vindicated,  Jewell"s life was just about ruined.

The US media is always casting heroes and villains in their contrived narratives, packaged and delivered for the consumption of the common American nitwit, many of whom swallow it whole and then follow the lead by piling on in social media forums, twittering and facebooking and generally being the good hapless dupes that they are.   The latest Bad Guy of the week is Martin Shkreli, former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals.  As anyone reading this probably already knows, Shkreli has been demonized for buying the rights to an outdated drug, Daraprim, that treats a rare condition called Toxoplasmosis and jacking the price up 5000%.  On the face of it, it sounds absolutely awful.  Martin was excoriated in the public sphere as the worst kind of greedy exploitative capitalist scumbag, accused of holding a captive audience virtually hostage and making them pay a hefty ransom if they wanted to live (Toxoplasmosis is fatal if left untreated).  And Martin did his image no favors, happily donning the costume of the evil caricature that was custom-tailored for him by the American press, a nice bespoke suit of fine villainy.

However, as with every story, there"s much more nuance here than is fathomed by the short-attention-spanned and feeble-minded MSM lapdogs reporting it.  Thanks to the internet--and in this case, Martin"s proclivity to make himself accessible to anyone in the world by way of a series of YouTube livestreams--we can actually get his side of the story.  Let"s investigate.

Martin claims his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, purchased Daraprim and jacked up its price in order to finance the development of a much more effective modern drug to treat Toxoplasmosis.  The problems with Daraprim, as Martin explains, is that it"s very old (invented in the 1940s), it doesn"t work that well, and it"s toxic to bone marrow and can be as deadly to the patient as to the disease itself.  There was no incentive to create a better drug because the disease was so rare, and there was already a cheap (if problematic) drug on the market to treat it, so it has mostly gone unnoticed in the pharmaceutical industry.  Martin wants to replace Daraprim with a new drug that targets the enzyme that causes the disease without the bone marrow toxicity.  To accomplish this, his plan is to raise the drug"s price from $13.50 to $750 per pill.  At $750 per pill for an 84 pill course, the total cost is now $63,000 to cure the disease, which as Martin points is both rare and fatal.  There are similar drugs on the marketplace (i.e. for other fatal ailments) that cost anywhere from $80,000-$130,000 per course, so Daraprim is still relatively cheap for a what is a life-saving medication.  Martin explains that, while the price hike is indeed extreme, his company has made it easier for patients to get the drug by lowering the co-payment to "almost nothing", with the insurance companies picking up the tab and, furthermore, that Turing gives away 60% of their Daraprim to patients who can"t afford it, leaving the company with a 40% gross margin.  He says that nets out overall to $25,000 in profits for Turing per treatment course, virtually all of which goes back into R&D for a Daraprim replacement.

So, as the plan goes, by buying Daraprim and ramping up the price, Turing Pharmaceuticals will be able to use the profits to invent a new, more effective drug, while in the meantime being compassionate to Toxoplasmosis sufferers by making sure they can still get Daraprim affordably.  He claims no one is dying as a result of the price hike and emphasized those who need it can still get it.  Martin"s full explanation is nicely encapsulated in the following video:

FBI Withholds Russia Probe Docs Requested By House Intel Committee

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said today that the FBI had decided to withhold documents, including memos, notes, summaries, and recordings, requested by his committee in regards to the ongoing Russia probe. This was revealed in a letter sent by Chaffetz to the FBI responding to the agency’s decision to withhold documents requested by the Committee on May 16, 2017.

The FBI"s denial to cooperate is presented below:

According to a statement by the Oversight Committee, "Chaffetz requested memos, notes, summaries, and recordings to assist in the Committee’s investigation of the FBI’s independence, and which are outside the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation."

The documents are due June 8, 2017, but that may not happen as it appears the FBI is suddenly unwilling to cooperate.  

As Chaffetz elaborates, after a New York Times report that former Federal Bureau of  Investigation Director James Corney memorialized the content of phone calls and meetings with the President in a series of memoranda, he requested those memoranda and any related notes, summaries, and recordings. The FBI is withholding those documents, citing to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor. According to a letter from your staff: "In light of this development and other considerations [the Bureau] is undertaking appropriate consultation to ensure all relevant interest implicated by your request are properly evaluated.

The letter states:

“The Committee has its own, Constitutionally-based prerogative to conduct investigations. But the Committee in no way wants to impede or interfere with the Special Counsel’s ability to conduct his investigation.  In fact, the Committee’s investigation will complement the work of the Special Counsel. Whereas the Special Counsel is conducting a criminal or counterintelligence investigation that will occur largely behind closed doors, the Committee’s work will shed light on matters of high public interest, regardless of whether there is evidence of criminal conduct.

“The focus of the Committee’s investigation is the independence of the FBI, including conversations between the President and Comey and the process by which Comey was removed from his role as director.  The records being withheld are central to those questions, even more so in light of Comey’s decision not to testify before the Committee at this time.”

“I am seeking to better understand Comey’s communications with the White House and Attorney General in such a way that does not implicate the Special Counsel’s work.”

As Chaffetz concludes, "Congress and the American public have a right and a duty to examine this issue independently of the Special Counsel"s investigation. I trust and hope you understand this and make the right decision-to produce these documents to the Committee immediately and on a voluntary basis."

The American public is certainly looking forward to the FBI"s release of the full content of the Comey"s memos, not only those relating to his meetings with Trump, but just as importantly, with Loretta Lynch, as well as Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton.

Full text of Chairman Chaffetz letter can be viewed here.
Full text of FBI letter can be viewed here.

Chaffetz Demands FBI Hand Over All Comey's Notes, Memos, & Recordings Related To Trump

Update: Jason Chaffetz office just released the letter sent to the FBI"s Andrew McCabe demanding all Comey-Trump related memos...

Trump and/or Comey are getting increasingly boxed in here - one or other is going to be proved a liar soon enough.

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, following the New York Times latest Trump bombshell (see "Comey"s Revenge: Leaks Memo To NYT Saying Trump Asked Him To End Flynn Investigation"), the impeachment word seems to be getting tossed around a little more loosely this evening.  And, given the serious accusations levied by former FBI Director James Comey, the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz, has  just promised that he will "get the Comey memo, if it exists," which was backed up by the not so thinly veiled threat: "I have my subpoena pen ready."

.@GOPoversight is going to get the Comey memo, if it exists. I need to see it sooner rather than later. I have my subpoena pen ready.

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) May 16, 2017

Meanwhile, in the following Q&A with NBC, Chaffetz says his committee has already started "drafting the necessary paperwork" to get Comey"s memo to the extent it is not handed over voluntarily.

"If the memo exists, I need to see it and I need to see it right away.  We are drafting the necessary paperwork to get the mom so we will find out in a hurry if its out there."

"I want to read the memo first but on the surface that seems like an extraordinary use of influence to try to shutdown an investigation being done by the FBI.  I don"t know if it"s true yet but I want to find out if that"s actually out there."

????Chaffetz to NBC:"If the memo exists, I need to see it and I need to see it right away. We are drafting the necessary paperwork to get [it]" pic.twitter.com/rF2g8qWm7v

— Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) May 16, 2017

Michael Flynn Subpoeanad By Senate Intel Committee

Less than 24 hours after Trump fired James Comey, the tables have turned and Senate Intel Committee leaders announced on Wednesday afternoon they have issued a subpoena to Trump"s former national security adviser Michael Flynn for documents related to its probe into Russian interference of the presidential election. In a joint statement from Commttee chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-Va.) the committee disclosed that it had first requested the documents in an April 28 letter to Flynn, but he "declined" to cooperate with the request.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today issued a subpoena for former National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. The subpoena requests documents relevant to the Committee"s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. The Committee first requested these documents in an April 28, 2017 letter to Lieutenant General Flynn, but he declined, through counsel, to cooperate with the Committee"s request.

Last night, CNN reported that the FBI had also issued subpoenas relating to Flynn"s business records, so the ousted National Security Adviser is now at at the center of both investigations, although as disclosed today, he did not comply with the committee"s earlier request.

The committee had sent a series of request for records from Trump associates on any dealings with Russians in April, the Hill first reported but as of the deadline Tuesday afternoon, Burr told reporters that he had received only two responses, and suggested that he was willing to issue subpoenas to compel the rest. One of those responses, from former Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page, is publicly known. Burr declined to disclose the second.

Aside from Page and Flynn, Trump"s "informal" adviser Roger Stone and former foreign policy adviser Paul Manafort were also reportedly sent letters. The letters ask for the men to list any meetings they might have had with Russian officials between June 16, 2015 — the day Trump formally launched his campaign — and Trump"s inauguration on Jan. 20, as well as records of any communications during the period.

At the end of March we reported that Flynn had told the FBI he was willing to testify before the Senate and House intelligence committees in their ongoing Russian interference probes, in exchange for immunity, but it neither committee has accepted the offer. As a reminder, Flynn was fired in February for misleading Vice President Pence about the contents of a December phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn has also been under scrutiny for accepting payments from Russia and Turkey and allegedly misleading the government about them.

The senators have also requested details on any financial assets or real estate holding tied to Russia, and a broader list of meetings between any Trump campaign aides and Russians.

In December 2015, Flynn was paid $45,000 to speak at an event hosted in Moscow by the Kremlin-backed network RT, during which he was seated with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He also received payments for additional speeches to Russian firms Kaspersky and Volga Dnepr.

As a retired military officer, Flynn is prohibited under the emoluments clause of the Constitution from accepting payment from a foreign government without advance permission from both the secretary of State and the secretary of the Army.

According to documents released by House Oversight Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Flynn did not disclose the RT payment when he applied to renew his security clearance in January 2016, just a month after he traveled to Moscow.

Today"s letter is confirmation that the Senate Intel panel is moving forward with its Russia probe despite the termination of Comey.

House Oversight Committee Confirms Flynn Likely Broke Law On Overseas Payments

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn likely broke the law by failing to disclose foreign income he earned from Russia and Turkey, the heads of the House Oversight Committee said Tuesday.

As The Washington Post reports, committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said they believe Flynn neither received permission nor fully disclosed income he earned for a speaking engagement in Russia and lobbying activities on behalf of Turkey when he applied to reinstate his security clearance, after viewing two classified memos and Flynn"s disclosure form in a private briefing Tuesday morning.

"Personally I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied with the law," Chaffetz told reporters following the briefing.

"He was supposed to get permission, he was supposed to report it, and he didn"t," Cummings said.

Chaffetz confirmed that Flynn had failed to reveal the more than $45,000 he was paid to speak at a 2015 gala for RT, the Kremlin-run TV network, as well as the money he was paid by an air freight company and a cybersecurity firm with direct connections to Russia. Chaffetz added that the White House had refused to provide his committee with information and documents related to Flynn"s security clearance and payments from organizations tied to the Russian and Turkish governments. The committee made six requests, and the White House cited reasons it could not comply with each of them, Cummings said.

One has to wonder about the Trump team"s vetting process and perhaps more notable is that now that Cheffetz is not running for re-election, he has nothing to fear from political fallout from the White House or GOP in general.

GOP Chair Of House Oversight Committee Declines Calls To Investigate Flynn Situation

Earlier today, and to our complete surprise, no less, Nancy Pelosi joined in the chorus of angry liberals calling for further investigations into Trump"s ties to the Kremlin.  The House Minority Leader expressed her faux outrage via a statement posted to twitter calling for, among other things, "a bipartisan, independent, outside commission to fully investigate Russia"s influence on the Administration and the election."  Ironically, we "do not recall" Pelosi asking for an "independent commission" when actual, tangible evidence emerged proving that Hillary and her team intentionally ignored a Congressional subpoena calling for the preservation of email records...we assume she just forgot.

Despite the outrage, Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Chair of the House Oversight Committee, confirmed earlier today that his panel won"t investigate the circumstances that led to Michael Flynn stepping down Monday as President Trump"s national security adviser.  Instead, Chaffetz deferred to the House Intelligence Committee, which is already investigating Russia"s attempt to influence the presidential elections, a scope that includes campaign communications with the Russian government.  Per The Hill:

"I think that situation has taken care of itself. I know that the Intel committee is looking into the hacking issue."

"I think he did the right thing stepping down."

"It really is the purview of the Intel Committee. They really are the only ones that can look at that type of information, particularly when you’re talking about interactions with a nation state like that. It’s not something the Oversight Committee can actually look at because sources and methods are the exclusive purview of the Intel Committee."

Of course the "Swarm Of Angry Protesters" that took over a Chaffetz town hall meeting last week in Utah, amid chants of "Do Your Job", will likely not be very happy with his decision.

Meanwhile, Chaffetz"s assertion that the "situation had taken care of itself" didn"t stop the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Elijah Cummings, from demanding a "full classified briefing" to determine "who else within the White House is a current and ongoing risk to our national secruity."

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, called for a full classified briefing about the circumstances leading to Flynn"s departure from all the relevant agencies.

"Now, we in Congress need to know who authorized his actions, permitted them, and continued to let him have access to our most sensitive national security information despite knowing these risks. We need to know who else within the White House is a current and ongoing risk to our national security," Cummings said in a joint statement with Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Of course, there"s only one logical conclusion to be drawn from all of this, namely that Jason Chaffetz is most likely a Russian spy and should be thoroughly investigated immediately...

An Alleged Muslim Spy Ring - Is This Why Rex Tillerson Cleaned House?

Submitted by Duan via Free Market Shooter blog,

Shortly after Trump took office, and before Rex Tillerson was even confirmed as Secretary of State, a slew of State Department officials were removed from their positions (or were forced to resign) as part of an effort to “clean house” at the State Department.  The whole affair was haphazardly covered by the media, especially by Jeff Bezos’s blog, which insinuated that the departures were “an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.”

Further analysis revealed that the officials were actually removed from their positions shortly after Tillerson visited the State Department office in Foggy Bottom prior to his confirmation:

“Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong,” one senior State Department official said. “These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house.”

And, just a few weeks after the fact, it appears we know why Tillerson was so quick to purge existing staffers: he just didn’t trust them.  It also appears his mistrust was more than justified.

On January 29th, United States Special Forces executed an operation inside Yemen, against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), with the aim of gathering intelligence and killing leaders of the group.  The raid was planned under the Obama administration, but the decision to execute the raid was “punted” to Trump, using the pretext of waiting for a “low loom” (moonless) night to execute the raid with maximum secrecy:

While the operation had been proposed, it was never green-lighted. Kahl said Obama felt going the mission would mark a “significant escalation” in Yemen and should be left to the next administration to decide.

“Obama … believed this represented a significant escalation of U.S. involvement in Yemen, and therefore … thought the next administration should take a careful look and run a careful process,” he told the WSJ.

In addition, defense officials expected the Trump administration to be more willing to approve dangerous missions, something that was almost certainly known by any remaining personnel who stayed on after Obama left office:

While seemingly indicative of a more aggressive stance by Trump, one official described the raid and new proposal as an outgrowth of earlier Obama-era operations that have pushed al-Qaida militants from their sanctuaries into areas and provided more opportunities for U.S. strikes.

“We expect an easier approval cycle [for operations] under this administration,” another defense official said.

Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens

Though the Trump administration attempted to push the raid as a success, at very best, the mission was anything but, resulting in the death of Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens, as well as injuries to three other servicemen. While the commandos did everything necessary to maintain the element of surprise, it appears as though AQAP adversaries on the ground had advance warning of the attack:

“Initial reports are always wrong, but it doesn’t appear to be a failure of planning or intelligence,” said the former special forces officer.

Almost immediately, the raiding force on the ground took intense fire, according to the briefing paper and a senior military official. Occupants of the targeted house and its compound, along with their guard force, moved to a separate cluster of houses nearby where families, including women and children, were staying. Armed women fired on the U.S. and Emirati forces.

“There were a lot of female combatants who were part of this,” said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, on Monday. “We saw during this operation, as it was taking place, that female fighters ran to pre-established positions — as though they had trained to be ready, and trained to be combatants — and engaged with us.”

While most know about the Yemen raid, most do not know about the dismissal of the three Aman brothers, Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan.  On February 2nd, they were abruptly removed from their positions of managing information technology for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  Though they were initially suspected merely of stealing equipment, a connection with the previously-hacked computers of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) revealed something far more sinister:

Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

As Mad World News reported, the Aman brothers were hired by the Obama administration, and access to top secret information regarding military operations.  The committees they allegedly worked for had access to “the most sensitive and secretive government intelligence, including covert anti-terrorism activity… including the Yemen operation”:

The House Oversight Committee

The brothers were assigned access to three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs along with dozens of congressmen who employed the suspects on a shared basis.  This gave them direct access to our military secrets, like missions carried out by Navy SEAL Team Six.

They retained their jobs after Obama left, which is not unheard of since their positions were not seen as political appointments.  However, they were fired by Trump’s administration within hours after Navy SEAL William Ryan Owens was killed in Yemen during the top secret raid on Al-Qaeda operatives. 

So, in case you’ve gotten lost, here’s a recap of the timeline of events:

• Jan 20 – Trump takes office, and DoD officials are expecting him to be more willing to approve dangerous missions


• Jan 26 – Rex Tillerson visits State Department headquarters prior to his confirmation, and either terminates or forces the resignation of many existing State Department personnel


• Jan 29 – The botched Yemen raid is executed, resulting in the death of Navy SEAL Owens


• Feb 1 – Rex Tillerson is confirmed by President Trump as Secretary of State


• Feb 2 – The Awan brothers are terminated on suspicion that they accessed congressional computers without permission

As Mad World News previously stated,

“…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.  The firing of the Awan brothers is linked to the Yemen raid where al-Qaeda knew we were coming, and it tragically ended with Navy SEAL Owens being killed in action.” 

The mainstream media seemed far more interested in obfuscating the details regarding the Tillerson terminations than they were in covering what could be one of the most dangerous intelligence leaks in years, of which there has been but a peep out of any major news outlet.  Captain Joseph R. John (Navy-Ret.) has stated that he believes the Muslim Brotherhood “fifth column” has “infiltrated U.S. Government,” and if he is correct, the Awan brothers could very well be a part of this infiltration.

Yet, there as been but a peep of information about the Awan brothers from nearly all major news outlets.  Are they in jail?  What are they accused of?  Does the Trump administration suspect them of leaking details about military operations to terrorist organizations?  And most importantly, if so, did these three men directly or indirectly contribute to the death of Owens during the Yemen raid?

One thing is for certain – as Politico seemed to take delight in stating, “Trying to nail down who the leakers are is like trying to count the cockroaches under the couch.”  However, it seems most of the “leaks” are coming from Obama holdovers.  Which makes Tillerson’s “cleaning house” look like not just the correct move, it leaves you wondering if he did enough cleaning house.

Just don’t expect to hear that from the mainstream media anytime soon.

Lawmakers Allege "Quid Pro Quo" Between FBI And State Over Altered 'Classified' Clinton Emails

About a week ago we wrote about newly released FBI interviews with numerous references to State Department officials, including Patrick Kennedy, applying pressure to subordinates to change classified email codes so they would be shielded from Congress and the public (see "Two Boxes Of Hillary Emails Mysteriously Disappear").  Here is the relevant section from the FBI"s interview notes:

Now, according to a report from Fox News, new FBI files reviewed by Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Chair of the House Oversight Committee, potentially point toward a "quid pro quo" arrangement between the State Department and the FBI whereby Patrick Kennedy, a senior executive at the State Department, offered "additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas" in return of "altering the classification" of certain Hillary Clinton emails.  If true, of course, this new evidence could serve to discredit the entire FBI investigation as the notes are a "flashing red light of potential criminality."

FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a "quid pro quo" between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News.

"This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who has been briefed on the FBI interviews, told Fox News.

He said "there was an alleged quid pro quo” involving Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and the FBI “over at least one classified email.”

"In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,” Chaffetz said.

"Both myself and Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are infuriated by what we have heard," he added.

"Left to their own devices the FBI would never have provided these [records] to Congress and waited until the last minute. This is the third batch because [the FBI] didn’t think they were relevant," Chaffetz said.

Of course, the FBI told Fox News there was absolutely no impropriety in the interactions between the FBI and the State Department.  Apparently an FBI agent just happened to raise the issue of additional slots for agents overseas during a call with Patrick Kennedy about changing email classifications due to a previous unfortunate bout of phone tag between the FBI and State.  Here is the full statement from the FBI to Fox News:

"Prior to the initiation of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server, the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA. The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level. The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email. The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today. Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review."

The response from the State Department was much more terse:

“This allegation is inaccurate and does not align with the facts,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner said. “To be clear: the State Department did upgrade the document at the request of the FBI when we released it back in May 2015.”

What are the odds that so many completely "harmless" coincidences occurred during the investigation of Hillary"s private email server to her explicit benefit...with that kind of luck we suspect she should have won the PowerBall about 2 or 3 times by now.