The Mainstream Media Doesn’t Want To Talk About #ReleaseTheMemo, But This Could Be The Biggest Scandal In D.C. Since Watergate

Republican members of Congress are pushing for the release of a memo that reportedly shows that government surveillance powers were illegally used against Donald Trump during the presidential campaign, and that the Obama administration, the FBI and Hillary Clinton illegally colluded in a concerted effort to try to destroy Trump’s chances of winning the presidency.  If these allegations turn out to be true, this will be the biggest scandal in American political history, but so far the mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about it.  Other than Fox News, it is hard to find any coverage of this memo on any of the mainstream news networks.  But as you will see below, Republican members of Congress are making a tremendous amount of noise about it.

Only certain members of Congress have been able to read this memo so far.  In order to take a look at it, these members of Congress have had to go to a secure room in the depths of the Capitol, and they are not permitted to reveal the details of what they have read.

But some Republican members of Congress that have seen it are speaking out, and what they have revealed so far is extremely alarming…

“It’s troubling. It is shocking,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) told Fox News. “Part of me wishes that I didn’t read it because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.”

“The facts contained in this memo are jaw-dropping and demand full transparency. There is no higher priority than the release of this information to preserve our democracy,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which oversees the DOJ and the FBI.

Another Judiciary Committee member, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), called what he saw in the memo “sickening” and said it was “worse than Watergate.”

Actually, Representative King had a whole lot more to say about the memo than that.  Here is the full quote that he posted on Twitter…

I have read the memo. The sickening reality has set in. I no longer hold out hope there is an innocent explanation for the information the public has seen. I have long said it is worse than Watergate. It was #neverTrump & #alwaysHillary. #releasethememo

A sitting member of Congress says that this is “worse than Watergate” and the mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about it?

Once upon a time the mainstream media at least tried to be fair, but at this point they are extremely hesitant to publish anything that does not fit with the narrative that the Democrats are good and the Republicans are bad.

This memo could be the thing that causes all hell to break loose in Washington.  According to Representative Matt Gaetz, “people could lose their job” once this memo gets out…

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz said he believed people could lose their jobs after the memo is released.

“I believe the consequence of its release will be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice,” he said, referencing DOJ officials Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr.

“You think about, ‘is this happening in America or is this the KGB?’ That’s how alarming it is,” Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry said.

And not too long ago, U.S. Representative Jody Hice added his voice to those calling for the release of this memo…

Earlier this morning, I examined the classified, four-page memo from @HouseIntelComm regarding the FBI, DOJ, and the so-called #RussianCollusion. To put it simply, “WOW.” I joined the call to #ReleaseTheMemo. Americans deserve truth and transparency.

I know that most people have such short attention spans these days, but this is one scandal that we cannot let go.  Even though members of Congress are not supposed to reveal the contents of this memo, Representative Gaetz says that it reveals “horrific abuses” that were committed during the Obama administration that will “shock the conscience of this country”…

When asked about the contents of the memo, Rep. Gaetz replied, “There are 4 pages of a memorandum prepared by the Intelligence Committee that will shock the conscience of this country when it comes to the horrific abuses that occurred during the last admin. and that I believe continue to pose a threat to Donald Trump’s presidency.”

Later in the interview, Rep. Gaetz hinted the memo outlines how the U.S. government may have committed fraud by presenting the courts with “false information,” to obtain FISA warrants.

We need to make as much noise as possible until the American people are allowed to see this memo.

And if it is as bad as many people believe that it is, a whole lot of people from the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign need to go to prison.

Fortunately, there are already indications that we are going to get to see this memo soon.  According to Representative Dave Joyce, the process of getting this memo released to the public has already begun…

Great news! Our efforts to #ReleaseTheMemo have been effective and the HPSIC plans to begin the process to release the FBI/FISA/Russia memo. This may take up to 19+ Congressional work days but Americans deserve to know the truth.

As I have been stressing repeatedly in recent weeks, we must restore the rule of law in this nation if we want the American people to have faith in the system.

President Trump is fighting tirelessly to do the right thing, but there are dark forces inside the government that desperately want to keep the truth from being exposed.  I really like how Tom Luongo described this struggle in one of his recent pieces…

Trump’s continued needling of the establishment; playing the long game and demonizing the media which is the tip of the Shadow Government’s spear while strengthening the support of both the military (through his backing them at every turn) and his base by assisting them destroy the false narratives of globalism has been nothing short of amazing.

As a hard-core, jaded politico, I can tell you I never thought for a second he had the ability to what he’s already done.  But, as the past few months have pointed out, the real power in the world doesn’t rest with the few thousand who manipulate the levers of power but the billions who for years stood by and let them.

And those days of standing by are gone.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, we would have never learned about any of this corruption that is going on behind the scenes.

The Trump presidency is our golden opportunity to take our government back, and I plan to be a big part of the solution once I get to Congress.  Nobody is above the law, and I believe that this memo could be a tipping point.

It is time for Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and the rest of that crowd to go to prison, and the American people should accept nothing less.

The post The Mainstream Media Doesn’t Want To Talk About #ReleaseTheMemo, But This Could Be The Biggest Scandal In D.C. Since Watergate appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Obama Wiretapping Bombshell Drops; This is as Serious as it Gets (VIDEO)

By: The Voice of Reason |

What happens when Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, two of the most corrupt politicians in modern history, join forces with the goal of their unholy alliance being their party’s retention of the most powerful office on earth? You get the potential for what was once “unthinkable,” to become “ordinary.” Nowhere is that more evident, than the “TrumpGate” scandal currently unfolding.

Now, according to Douglas J. Hagmann, President Trump now has evidence of a paper trail leading to a FISA court that substantiates his assertions that Obama, obtained authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign under the pretense of a national security investigation. Douglas J. Hagmann is been a licensed investigator in the private sector for the last 30 years. He’s also an author, has four websites, and a talk radio show host.

As a private detective, Hagmann has worked well over 5,000 cases and is recognized as a surveillance specialist. He has also worked as an informational and operational asset for various federal and state law enforcement agencies.  So, if law enforcement can trust his investigative ability, you might want to do the same before putting your faith in the mainstream media’s investigative ability.

In the following video, Right Wing News reviews what is known about the Hagmann bombshell, and how it relates to a bizarre scenario that was predicted back in the mid 1990s by President Clinton’s Department of Injustice, and then recently explained in an article written by National Review’s Andrew McCarthy. Right Wing News also points out how everything Hagmann and McCarthy suggest, fits the known timeline of “TrumpGate” like a glove.

Do good things really come to those who wait?

Canada Free Press Reports:

There is a large storm brewing over Washington, DC right now – a storm that could dwarf anything ever seen in recent times. It is growing stronger by the hour as new information is being disclosed that strongly suggests that it is possible, even likely, that Obama and his Department of Justice maliciously and criminally misused the FISA process to collect intelligence on Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Additionally, Obama personally relaxed the limitations on how such information collected could be disseminated in the weeks before leaving office.

The political ramifications from this, if proved correct, could be unprecedented in scope. Once fully exposed, it would explain the curious actions of Obama as he prepared to vacate the White House. It would also explain, in context, the actions and statements of not only Barack Hussein Obama, but others in key positions of power including Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, and others within the media.

At issue is Obama’s insistence to secure a federal wiretap warrant of Donald J. Trump, the candidate, using the federal court system as the mechanism to do so. The ostensible probable cause was alleged ties between Donald J. Trump and/or his associates with Russia.

The first warrant application was made in June 2016, according to reports published by The New York Times and elsewhere, but was rejected due to the lack of probable cause of criminal activity.

When the request was denied in regular federal court, Obama and his Justice Department attempted an “end around” by citing the existence of a “foreign actor” and made a similar surveillance warrant application through the more specialized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in October of 2016. According to published reports, that warrant application was rejected as well, a rare occurrence in the FISA venue, which strengthens claims that no evidence of any foreign involvement ever existed. It has been reported that the initial warrant application to the FISA court specifically named Donald J. Trump.

It is also relevant to note here that this is the type of activity that led to the creation of the infamous “Wall” that was referenced after the 9/11 attacks. Its relevance to this specific instance is explained well by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in the article below…

Andrew McCarthy writes:

The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be.

Remember the great debate over “the Wall” following the 9/11 attacks? “The Wall” was a set of internal guidelines that had been issued by the Clinton Justice Department in the mid 1990s. In a nutshell, the Wall made it legally difficult and practically impossible for agents in the FBI’s Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division (essentially, our domestic-security service, now known as the National Security Division) to share intelligence with the criminal-investigation side of the FBI’s house. Those of us who were critics of the Wall — and I was a strenuous one, beginning in my days as a terrorism prosecutor who personally experienced its suicidal applications — made several arguments against it.

My favorite argument, which I have repeated countless times, centered on how preposterous were the underlying assumptions of the Wall. This was far easier for prosecutors than journalists, academics, and the public to grasp, because we dealt with the Justice Department’s different chains of command for criminal and national-security investigations.

Alas, after 20 years, I may have to revise my thinking.

The theory of the Clinton DOJ brass in imposing the Wall was the potential that a rogue criminal investigator, lacking sufficient evidence to obtain a traditional wiretap, would manufacture a national-security angle in order to get a wiretap under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.)

The reason the Wall theory was absurd was that a rogue agent would surely manufacture evidence of a crime before he’d manufacture a national-security angle. The process of getting a traditional wiretap is straightforward: FBI crim-div agents and a district assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) write the supporting affidavit; it gets approved by the AUSA’s supervisors; then it is submitted to the Justice Department’s electronic-surveillance unit; after that unit’s approval, the attorney general’s designee signs off; then the AUSA and the FBI present the application to a district judge. FISA wiretaps, by contrast, go through a completely different, more difficult and remote chain of command. In it, the district AUSA and FBI crim-div agents who started the investigation get cut out of the process, which is taken over by Main Justice’s National Security Division and the FBI’s national-security agents. In other words, if we assume an agent is inclined to be a rogue, it would be far easier (and less likely of detection) to trump up evidence of a crime in order to satisfy the probable-cause standard for a traditional wiretap than to manufacture a national-security threat in order to get a FISA wiretap. No rational rogue would do it.

But now, let’s consider the press reports — excerpted in David French’s Corner post— that claim that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought FISA warrants against Trump insiders, and potentially against Donald Trump himself, during the last months and weeks of the presidential campaign. It’s an interesting revelation, particularly in light of last fall’s media consternation over “banana republic” tactics against political adversaries, triggered by Trump’s vow to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate serious allegations of criminal misconduct against Hillary Clinton — consternation echoed by Senate Democrats during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for attorney-general nominee Jeff Sessions.

From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street, and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks. Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on “possible financial and banking offenses.” I italicize the word “offenses” because it denotes crimes. Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation.

According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that the Trump Tower server did not have “any nefarious purpose.” But then, Heat Street says, “the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server.”

Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.) FISA applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of being operatives of a (usually hostile) foreign power.

The Heat Street report continues:

The first [FISA] request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; [sic] SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

(A “US person” is a citizen or lawful permanent resident alien. Such people normally may not be subjected to searches or electronic eavesdropping absent probable cause of a crime; an exception is FISA, which — to repeat — allows such investigative tactics if there is probable cause that they are agents of a foreign power.)

Obviously, we haven’t seen the FBI affidavits (assuming they actually exist), and we do not know lots of other relevant facts. What we have, however, suggests that someone at the FBI initially had concerns that banking laws were being violated, but when the Bureau looked into it, investigators found no crimes were being committed. Rather than drop the matter for lack of evidence of criminal offenses, the Justice Department and FBI pursued it as a national-security investigation.

In June, an initial FISA affidavit (obviously prepared by the FBI and the Justice Department’s National Security Division) was submitted to the FISA court. It is said to have “named Trump” — but we don’t know whether that means (a) his name merely came up somewhere in the text of the affidavit or (b) he was an actual target whom the government wanted to investigate under FISA (meaning eavesdrop, read e-mail, and the like).

Even though the FISA standard is generally thought to be less demanding than the traditional wiretap standard (it is easier to show that someone may be colluding in some way with a foreign government than that he has committed a crime), the FISA court rejected the application that “named Trump.”

Five months later, the Justice Department and FBI submitted a second, more “narrowly” drawn affidavit to the FISA court. The way the Heat Street report is written intimates that Trump is not named in this October application for FISA surveillance. The tie to Trump also appears weak: Heat Street says the FISA court was presented with evidence of a server “possibly related” to the Trump campaign and its “alleged links” to two Russian banks.

To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).

That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

---

THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.

It’s Showtime. Trump vs. Obama (VIDEO)

By: The Voice of Reason |

The cards are down, and it’s only a matter of time before we see who has the better hand. After days of mentioning the wiretapping of his phones by the Obama administration on Twitter, President Trump has ordered a probe into whether Obama abused his executive powers in 2016. We hope that after that he’ll look at 2009 to 2015 as well, because that’s sure to uncover even more dirty laundry. To no one’s surprise, the dishonest media has been trying to marginalize President Trump over the wiretapping allegations by using the mantra of “fake news,” even though they themselves reported everything President Trump is saying.

In the following video, Right Wing News looks at how Obama and various insiders from within the “deep state” have been openly and seditiously sabotaging the Trump administration with the intent of forcing his resignation or impeachment, and how this time they may have pushed President Trump too far. Now President Trump has struck back and ordered an official probe, starting off a chain of events that may very well be the largest political scandal in US history. President Trump has laid his cards on the table, and in the open; the only question is – can Obama handle being forced into the light?

Breitbart reports:

The White House statement on “DeepStateGate” — President Donald Trump’s allegations that former President Barack Obama ordered surveillance on him during his 2016 presidential campaign — has the feel of cards and chips thumping down on the table:

The White House is placing a substantial bet on what Congress will uncover. Don’t expect those cards to be dealt swiftly because such investigations take time. The Obama administration was highly adept at stalling investigations until the Democratic media could pronounce them “old news” and ignore the outcome.

The Trump administration can distinguish itself by cooperating energetically with this one and helping it move forward quickly. Rest assured that no matter how long it takes, the media will never consider it “old news” as long as there remains any chance for anyone connected with the Trump 2016 campaign to get in trouble over contacts with the Russians.

It’s possible one reason Trump issued his explosive tweets on surveillance was to make everyone put up or shut up. That might already be working, as some of the more aggressive dealers in unsubstantiated innuendo are suddenly admitting they don’t have any actual evidence. There can’t be any hard evidence if Trump is super-duper wrong about Obama administration surveillance:

Until now, Democrats and their media have been pleased to create the impression that all kinds of wiretapping operations were conducted against the Trump campaign, uncovering many scandalous, possibly illegal connections. Only by reading those articles carefully does one discover the sources are highly speculative and the evidence is thin at best.

THIN AT BEST?

Here, via C-SPAN, is the transcript:

Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.

Franken: Very well.

The much-discussed New York Times piece from January 19 is a perfect example of this. It begins by matter-of-factly confirming the existence of the wiretaps everyone in Obamaworld is now swearing are a figment of Donald Trump’s imagination. Mountains of innuendo about connections between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence have been spun out of what these abruptly non-existent intercepts contained, according to the anonymous leakers who currently drive almost 100 percent of mainstream media coverage.

But if you read that New York Times article carefully, it admits the communications intercepts may not exist, and if they do, no one can confirm what they actually say (emphasis added):

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.

Whatever President Trump’s intentions were in using Twitter to touch off this firestorm, one of the immediate effects has been letting the gas out of all those speculative Trump stories. The Democratic media is now furiously working to prove all of its own previous coverage of the Trump-Russia allegations was little more than idle speculation, every bit as lacking in hard evidence as Trump’s accusation that Obama was tapping his phones.

After months of unfounded allegations and badly sourced speculation intended to cripple his administration, maybe Trump wanted to prove that only one side of the partisan divide is permitted to make “wild allegations.” Obama’s plants in the Deep State can leak whatever they please, law and truth be damned. They can get an avalanche of hostile coverage moving with a few phone calls or emails. The media feels no contrition when the story turns out to be exaggerated or completely false, eagerly turning to the same Obama holdovers as sources for the next big phony scoop.

No one on Trump’s team, including the president himself, is allowed to reciprocate in kind. We are meant to feel bottomless outrage that Trump would level unsubstantiated allegations against Obama, but apparently, Obama’s minions can launch a constant barrage of unsubstantiated allegations against Trump.

Intentionally or accidentally, Trump just forced the press to admit how weak the bulk of those allegations were. The wiretapping timeline that has drawn so much attention since Saturday night was largely based on mainstream media reporting. The media is effectively saying, “Hey, wait, we were just blowing smoke. We didn’t think anyone would take those reports seriously and build a case that Obama was wiretapping Trump. We just wanted to make Trump look bad by pumping up vague rumors that he and his campaign might have been under observation!”

Amazingly, the same media that just went through 48 hours of convulsions over a bogus “perjury” charge against Attorney General Jeff Sessions is happy to cite an actual, admitted perjurer, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as an unimpeachable source on the exact issue he lied about to Congress. They also expect the American people to trust former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes, who openly bragged of his ability to mislead credulous reporters and construct phony narratives to sell the Iran nuclear deal.

The Obama administration’s enthusiasm for surveillance and using government power against its political enemies is a matter of shameful record. The no-holds-barred “Resistance” mindset among Democrats is painfully obvious. If they are running a “silent coup” against Trump, it’s the loudest silent coup in history. You can scarcely sleep at night over the racket this silent coup makes.

Sorry, DNC Media, no sale. In the absence of hard evidence one way or the other, Team Obama is not going to win a credibility shootout with Team Trump.

One of the best and most even-handed observers of the wiretapping drama is Andy McCarthy, who writes for the decidedly non-Trumpian National Review. McCarthy’s Sunday post on the matter is well worth reading in full. His key point is that some highly unusual FISA requests for surveillance on the Trump campaign were made and were denied by the court, as very few such requests are. The Obama administration was persistent and eventually obtained the authorization it wanted, but there is reason to suspect it was not entirely candid with the FISA court on its final, successful request.

McCarthy points out that if Obama believed half of what the Democrats tout as sacred truth about the Russians working with Trump’s campaign, he would have been negligent not to authorize the kind of surveillance Trump is angry about, and there is “a less than zero chance” surveillance could have been imposed “without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House.”

Robert Barnes at LawNewz also explores the idea of the FISA court approving a warrant that was submitted without Trump’s name but “which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump.” He suggests the most serious legal jeopardy that might be facing the people involved in such an effort would be perjury for lying to the FISA court and the dissemination of collected intelligence that should have been kept tightly classified. Instead, he cites reports that Obama acted to reduce the restrictions on sharing this information and to preserve material that should have been destroyed.

What McCarthy and Barnes are describing is plausible and consistent with the behavior of the Obama administration over many years. That doesn’t mean it’s automatically true, but it should be investigated, every bit as thoroughly as Russian activity in the 2016 election cycle. Trump’s weekend tweets may have finally put an end to speculative reporting, strategic leaking, and innuendo. Perhaps the only way to end that game was for Trump to deal himself in.

---

THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.

Congress Urged To Investigate Obama’s Silent Coup Against Trump (VIDEO)

By: The Voice of Reason |

You’re probably well aware by now of the unprecedented actions of our former president, Barack Hussein Obama, in continuing to undermine and sabotage our current administration. What you may not know is that such seditious acts didn’t just begin after Obama left office. Oh no, that activity was alive and well even before Trump was elected! Evidence has recently surfaced that Obama and his team might have been targeting Trump as far back as June 2016.

In the following video, Right Wing News looks at the evidence that has been compiled documenting Obama’s borderline criminal (or perhaps downright criminal) actions against Trump. It starts with the Obama administration’s requesting that Trump’s communications be monitored (aka wiretapped), not once but twice!

Not being content being the first president in history to actively sabotage his successor, Obama is also the first one to actively sabotage and wiretap a presidential candidate if “TrumpGate” proves to be true!

State of the Nation writes:

Congress is being urged to criminally investigate Barack Obama for attempting a silent coup against the Trump administration.

According to Radio host Mark Levin, a mountain of evidence proves that the former President tried to undermine Trump’s presidential campaign in the final months of the US election last year, which then developed into “police state” tactics in order to sabotage Trump’s transition to the White House when he won.

---

THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.

Democrat Leaders Turn On Obama and His Secret Shadow Government (VIDEO)

By: The Voice of Reason |

The mainstream media narrative is all about the people versus Trump, the Democrats versus Trump, and even the Republicans versus Trump! But what is scarcely being reported is the Democrats versus the Democrats, or more specifically the Democrats versus Obama’s shadow government. You see, rather than retiring peacefully or giving corporate speeches for his corporate overlords a la Hillary, Obama is continuing to work behind the scenes to undermine the Trump administration; and even the Democrats are getting sick of it.

In the following video, Right Wing News looks at the OFA, the community-organizing machinery from the former president’s election campaigns that still exists today. This shadow organization answers directly to Obama and Democrats feel that it is costing them votes. What are the implications when a former president is secretly working to undermine the current, democratically-elected one?

WND reports: 

Barack sparks civil war within own party

First, the Democrats got clobbered in the election by the Republicans.

Now they’re squaring off against each other in a civil war.

This political Gettysburg pits the Democratic Party base against the Obama machine called Organizing for Action, or OFA, the community-organizing army left over from the former president’s election campaigns.

How bitter is the battle?

Two Democratic operatives recently called OFA “The Devil.”

When former President Obama issued a call to arms to his OFA troops in order to protect his legacy, particularly Obamacare, Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party, wrote in a private email to fellow party leaders, “This is some GRADE A Bulls–t right here.”

He added, “It also to me seems TONE DEAF—we have lost over 1,000 seats in the past 8 years … all because of this crap.”

The email was obtained and then published Friday by the Daily Beast, which reported: “It is difficult to overstate just how enraged state Democratic activists and leaders are with Organizing for Action.”

How powerful is OFA?

Just a week ago, WND’s former Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry portrayed OFA in the New York Post as an army “gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country” manned by 32,525 volunteers nationwide, run by old Obama aides and campaign workers armed with his 2012 campaign database.

Sperry called it Obama’s “army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.”

Sperry warned Obama would be “working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration,” and that “it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, Obamacare, race relations and climate change.”

Obama may have an army, but who will they follow?

“I love and adore everything about President Obama except for OFA,” said South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Jaime Harrison, according to the Washington Post.

He was just one of numerous Democratic Party leaders who have insisted their beef is with OFA, not Obama.

But OFA is Obama, the way Sperry describes it.

He is their supreme leader. And running OFA is his new job. The former president who would be shadow president.

“Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump,” wrote Sperry. “It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary.”

So, what happened? While Obama tools OFA to become a potent threat to Trump, why do Democratic leaders feel threatened by OFA? How did their common desire to go to war with the Trump administration turn into a fratricidal battle royale for control of the party?

It appears to have been a battle long brewing beneath the surface that is now emerging into public view.

“[With] all due respect to President Obama, OFA was created as a shadow party because Obama operatives had no faith in state parties. So I hope the OFA role is none. I hope OFA closes their doors and allows the country and state parties to get to the hard work of rebuilding the party at the local and grass-roots level,” Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb told Politico.

She further explained why it has not, on the whole, been a winning strategy: “OFA had no faith or confidence in the state parties so they created a whole separate organization, they took money away and centralized it in D.C. They gave us a great president for eight years, but we lost everywhere else.”

“If we were having a conversation about state parties, I would say OFA hurt state parties badly,” Handwerk told The Daily Beast, elaborating on his leaked email. “It certainly had an undercutting effort. And there is a lot of work state parties do that isn’t very sexy… and that becomes incredibly difficult when budgets are cut in half because people are trying to curry favor with the president and his allies.”

Compounding what Politico called “a period in which the party suffered tremendous losses at the state and local levels” since Obama won in 2008, was what it described as a “degree of mistrust — rooted in the idea that OFA was always primarily interested in advancing the president’s political interests, often at the expense of the party.”

And now that OFA wants to take the lead in rebuilding the party, the party is fighting back. Democratic leaders see it as a matter of self-preservation and survival.

“[OFA] created a shadow organization that was recruiting the same volunteers [as the Democratic National Committee], using resources from a very limited number of donors, and therefore, as a result it weakened the DNC and the impact that the DNC and state parties could have on politics during his tenure,” South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison told Politico.

He added, “You’ve got five organizations knocking on the same door with five different messages. That’s not conducive. In the age of Trump we need to be a lean, mean, strategic machine.”

Another key problem seemed to be the perception that OFA wasn’t about the party, it was all about Obama.

“We’ve seen over the last eight-plus years a deterioration of permanent state infrastructure,” a Democratic operative anonymously confided to the Daily Beast.

“And,” he explained, “OFA built an alternative infrastructure that was very top-down. OFA’s actions were wasteful, duplicative, and it made no sense… There were these tensions on the ground that we saw that all over the country. Local officials felt tossed aside. A lot of these red states were abandoned. The OFA model was never a 50-state strategy—it was about the president’s agenda.”

That revelation may be clear now to party leaders, but former Rep. Michele Bachmann mused, “I wonder if rank and file democrats understand Obama was about advancing his personal agenda through his OFA community organization?”

That Democratic operative’s reaction to seeing OFA trying to get back in the game?

“It’s like seeing an ex-girlfriend show up.”

On top of the explicit animosity toward OFA, and the implicit resentment of Obama, is a legacy the party must now face.

The former president doesn’t get Democrats elected, he gets them defeated.

Obama’s coattails were strongest before he became president, sweeping into office with majorities in the House and the Senate, allowing him to push through Obamacare without a single Republican vote.

Democrats have been losing power and elections at an astonishing rate, ever since.

Bachmann told WND, “Next to Jimmy Carter, Obama single handedly did more to destroy the Democratic Party than the GOP could have ever hoped or planned.”

Under Obama’s reign, Democrats lost a net total of 1,042 state and federal posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and, ultimately, the presidency.

By the time the 2014 midterm elections rolled around, as WND reported, Democrats were running away from Obama.

Only one Democratic senator running for reelection wanted Obama to appear with him on the campaign trail in 2014.

And even at that, candidate Gary Peters less-than-enthusiastically observed, “The president will come to Michigan to campaign, and I’m going to stand next to the president.

But, Democrats didn’t just shun Obama on the campaign trail. They actually campaigned against him.

That was illustrated by campaign quotes from desperate Democratic candidates in the key races that caused the party to lose control of the Senate.

Kentucky’s Democratic candidate for Senate, Alison Lundergan Grimes declared in an ad, “I’m not Barack Obama. I disagree with him on guns, coal and the EPA.”

The Democrat refused to say during an interview whether she even voted for Obama in 2012,calling it her “constitutional right” to stay mum.

“Let me tell you, the White House, when they look down the front lawn the last person they want to see coming is me,” warned Democrat Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado during a debate.

Sen. Mark Begich, the Democratic incumbent from Alaska insisted he “took on Obama” to fight for oil drilling in Alaska and would “bang him over the head a few times” on the need to drill.

Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas paused during his debate before making his closing statement to make sure everyone knew, “I voted against every budget that President Obama has offered.”

Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu made a point of emphasizing during her debate, “I do not agree with President Obama on his energy policies,” later adding, “I haven’t agreed with President Obama on everything.” She also damned the president with faint praise, giving his job performance a “6-to-7” out of 10.

When asked on MSNBC if she thought the president had “shown strong leadership,” Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina hedged a bit before conceding, “Certainly there are issues I think on … um, no.”

During her debate in New Hampshire, Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen was asked if she approved of Obama’s job performance, “Yes or no?” The incumbent evoked a wave of laughter from the audience when she responded instead, “In some things I approve and in some things I don’t approve.”

The former president’s campaign guru, David Axelrod, told NBC’s “Meet The Press” it was a “mistake” for Obama to claim his policies were on the ballot.

“I think Obama being so unpopular is the biggest factor in this election,” predicted Tom Jensen, a Democratic pollster with the firm Public Policy Polling. “And I think at the end of the day, it may be too much for a lot of the Democratic Senate candidates to overcome.”

He was right.

Now, in the disastrous aftermath, Obama is calling upon Democrats to regroup and unite behind OFA.

But, judging by the initial reaction of party leaders, he may be trying to lead an army of rebels.

---

THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.

Congress Moves to Stop Obama’s Coup Attempt Against Trump (VIDEO)

By: The Voice of Reason |

Back in June, Ted Nugent took to Facebook to go on an epic rant about Obama. In that rant he said the following:

“He’s been groomed to fool the dumbing-down victims, the self-inflicted, dumbing-down victims of America…”

“Nobody in their right mind, and I do mean correct-educated, conscientious, logical, self-evident-truth-grasping mind, will believe this punk. This guy does want an unarmed public. This guy does want to economically ruin America…”

“This guy hates America, he hates the Constitution and he hates the Bill of Rights. I believe, as so many Americans are learning more and more every day, that the president of the United States hates freedom. He’s the enemy of America.”

Nugent hardly stopped there. He went  on to say that President Obama and Hillary Clinton “should both be tried for treason & hung…” In light of all the damage the two have already done to this country, not to mention the level of damage they’re likely cause in the very near future, I for one would LOVE to see an investigation for treason opened…

For the time ever, it at least “appears” as if Congress is on to Obama’s antics, and I pray they don’t let him get away with much.  Obama “intent” to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump became abundantly clear from the moment Obama returned to Washington, and then chose to set up camp about two miles from the Trump White House.

Allegedly, Obma’s new D.C. compound is where Team Obama has been coordinating many of the the activities of their 30,000 loyal Sycophants that follow him around like clapping seals. One could even make the argument that Obama is far more dangerous as the Commander-in-Chief of his current army, than he ever was of the military, because the Army he heads now isn’t bound by any governmental rules or policies.

Once Obama assembled his his former national security team, and had them implement a telecommunication center to begin coordinating opposition to Trump’s presidency, that was when Obama really drew his line in the sand and went beyond being his typical @sshold self, into a sedition one. No former president has ever been so disrespectful his successor, the office of the Presidency, or the nation as a whole. Of course by now the country has come to expect Obama to show no class, and to act like a lowlife, but once he began taking what seem on the surface to be affirmative steps toward establishing what could be a coup, not he’s crossed over into a whole new realm.

Sadly enough, the same people that were apologists for Obama while he was in office, will most likely continue to justify his unlawful and unorthodox behavior during his post-presidency, all  while attempting to blame government dysfunction on President Trump of course. The following video conveys the numerous occasions that warranted a criminal investigation into the Treason of Barack Obama. While it is a good sign that the White House may be giving signs it plans to step up to Obama’s bullying, with the media on Team Obama, no efforts on the part of the White House may ever truly be enough to bring Obama to justice.

TheTrumpMedia Reports:

At long last, someone is asking about the one question that requires an instant response! May we get a truthful one, outlining a legal reason behind all the surveillance wrongdoings? (via Angry Patriot Movement)

Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), stated, “I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” via Washington Post.

Rep Nunes likewise said he was bothered by the leaking of the Flynn videos. He explained a complex process exists for the surveillance and recording of communications of United States citizens and the “unmasking” of this kind of conversations for intelligence agency usage.

Committee members assume the most important question raised by resigned General Michael Flynn’s retirement as national security advisor centers around why the eavesdropping on his phone calls by the NSA or FBI was even released– and then passed to the news media!

“The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?” twittered President Donald Trump.

Nunes was definitely correct when specifying the “big problem” with the whole problem, in which the media are attempting to turn into a scandal, is that a private U.S. citizen, that Flynn was at the time, should certainly never have had his phone calls observed and recorded by the federal government.

The California Republican called out the Democrats as impostors on the Flynn problem. All the liberals shouted over privacy concerns when Hillary Clinton’s emails were demanded by the FBI, but they are completely quiet now although Clinton was under investigation and Flynn was not!

President Trump appears upset. Throughout a press conference earlier on today, he called Flynn a “wonderful man” who didn’t need to have his career demolished by leaks. Rep Trey Gowdy likewise took note the illegality of revealing classified information.

Liberal television experts remained to run spectacular headlines regarding the entire Michael Flynn concern, even declaring conspiracy among the Trump administration and Russia. They do this with zero evidence, which many eventually and begrudgingly admit in their fake news articles.

If you didn’t in fact read the whole stories or only got your news from mainstream media , you would think the decorated veteran had actually promised to relieve Obama’s enforced sanctions on Russia after Trump took the vow of office. That was not the scenario regarding the actual evidence shows.

When Flynn talked with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he relayed his gratitude for the country not overreacting to the poke in the eye from the holdover president. When asked by Kislyak especially about lifting the sanctions in future, Flynn only said Donald Trump would very soon take office and would be examining the circumstance.

---

THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.

Sabotage: Obama Is Commanding An Army Of 30,000 Anti-Trump Activists From His Home 2 Miles From The White House

Throughout American history, most ex-presidents have chosen to move away from Washington D.C. once their terms have ended, and the vast majority of them have tried very hard not to interfere with their successors. Unfortunately, Barack Obama has opted for the exact opposite approach. His new home is less than two miles from the White House, and from this “command center” he will be directing the activities of an army of more than 30,000 anti-Trump activists. In fact, as you will see below, this army has already been heavily involved in many of the protests and riots that have been popping up around the nation in recent days. “Sabotage” is a very strong word, but it is becoming apparent that Obama intends to do all that he can to sabotage the Trump administration, and that is very bad news for the American people.

Last Saturday, the New York Post ran an excellent article by author Paul Sperry that was entitled “How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency”. In that piece, Sperry actually accuses Obama of setting up “a shadow government” to oppose Trump…

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

The “army of agitators” that Sperry is talking about is actually a nationwide network of “community organizers” known as “Organizing for Action”.

If you go to the official website of Organizing for Action, you will see that there is a big picture of Obama right in the background of the homepage. Organizing for Action “grew out of Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign”, and it claims to have 250 local chapters around the nation.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, Organizing for Action would almost certainly have faded from the spotlight, but now that Trump is in the White House they are rapidly raising money and gearing up for war.

And one of the first things the organization is trying to do is to save Obamacare. The following comes from NBC News…

To defend Obamacare, the group says it has planned 400 health care-focused events in 42 states this year with partners that include mainline liberal groups, like the Center for American Progress and Planned Parenthood, as well those from the progressive wing, like MoveOn.org.

OFA says 20,000 people have used their tool to call senators’ offices to urge them not to repeal Obamacare and says one million supporters have already taken action with OFA.

The goal is to further hinder the already stalling momentum around repeal the Affordable Care Act.

But Organizing for Action is not just about peaceful political action. In fact, according to Sperry some of the anti-Trump marches that Organizing for Action helped put together actually “turned into riots”…

Far from sulking, OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”

Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.

So many people have been pointing the finger at George Soros for funding and organizing anti-Trump activists, but the truth is that Organizing for Action is perhaps even more involved than Soros is.

And Barack Obama is guiding and directing Organizing for Action from his brand new compound less than two miles from the White House.

The ironic thing about all of this is that Obama is currently building a very tall brick wall around his compound while at the same time his army of activists is highly criticizing Trump for wanting to build a border wall to protect the United States from unwanted intruders.

If Obama doesn’t like walls, he should tear down his own wall first.

Another form of sabotage against the Trump administration is coming from Obama loyalists that are still embedded within various government agencies.

According to Trump, those loyalists are responsible for the very disturbing leaks that have been happening…

President Donald Trump pointed the finger at Obama administration holdovers at the White House and National Security Council for leaking information about private phone conversations he had with leaders of Australia and Mexico.

“It’s a disgrace that they leaked because it’s very much against our country,” Trump told Fox News Sunday, accusing “Obama people” in civil service positions for the leaks. “It’s a very dangerous thing for this country,” he added noting that these individuals were still being sought out and replaced.

Needless to say, after eight years under Obama many government agencies are absolutely crawling with people that are still very loyal to him. Trump needs to do a major housecleaning, and that is going to take some time.

What is going on between Obama and Trump is a microcosm of what is happening to society as a whole.

Obama and his loyalists have totally bought into the radical progressive agenda of the global elite, and Donald Trump and his followers are very much against it.

I don’t know that it is possible for there to be much compromise between the two sides, and so that means that more conflict is ahead.

The election of Donald Trump has fired up the radical left like never before, and I believe that the protests and riots that we have seen so far are only just the beginning.

And if things go really bad under Trump, it is very easy to imagine widespread civil unrest erupting all over the nation.

Unfortunately, throughout all of this we are going to be having an ex-president sitting less than two miles from the White House guiding and directing the anti-Trump forces every step of the way.

Human Rights Watch Praises Obama, Denigrates Trump, Putin and Assad

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch (image: AP Photo/Michael Sohn)

Human Rights Watch (HRW) and likeminded groups get Soros, Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and other dirty corporate money. It comes with strings to serve powerful Western interests.

HRW director Kenneth Roth is a former federal prosecutor. Former HRW head Aryeh Neier left to become Soros’ Open Society Institute president.

In his lengthy  introduction to HRW’s 2017 World Report, Roth addressed what he called a new generation of authoritarian populists, saying they pose “a profound threat to human rights.”

“Trump and various politicians in Europe seek power through appeals to racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and nativism. They all claim that the public accepts violations of human rights as supposedly necessary to secure jobs, avoid cultural change, or prevent terrorist attacks. In fact, disregard for human rights offers the likeliest route to tyranny.”

Maybe he’ll turn out a rogue leader. Until he assumes office, it’s unknown what he’ll do. Campaign rhetoric is one thing, governing another.

Obama’s despicable record is indisputable. Yet Roth praised him, ignoring his high crimes at home and abroad, disgracefully calling him a human right supporter.

He turned truth on its head, calling Putin an “authoritarian rule(r)…a strongman…pursu(ing) the toughest crackdown on critical voices in two decades,” providing no evidence supporting his baseless accusations.

He ignored his overwhelming popularity, lied about his “occupation of Crimea,” lied about “his military backing Assad’s slaughter of civilians, with Russian bombers joining in,” lied about Russia’s economy “deteriorat(ing) further,” lied about him having a hard time “sell(ing) (his) message to the Russian public.”

Aided by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, he claimed Assad has “little to fear” from the West. He ignored Obama’s war, the overwhelming popularity of Syria’s leader, his responsibility to combat terrorist invaders.

He repeated the long-ago discredited canard about Syrian forces “ruthlessly attack(ing) civilians in opposition-held parts of the country, including eastern Aleppo.”

Syria was raped and destroyed by US-led aggression, one of history’s great crimes. Roth disgracefully called the country “the deadliest threat to rights standards.”

He ignored US and so-called coalition warplanes terror-bombing government sites, vital infrastructure, civilian areas and Syrian forces on the phony pretext of combating ISIS Washington created and supports.

He lied about Syria using so-called “barrel bombs, cluster munitions…and chemical weapons.” He lied about its forces “la(ying) waste to vast stretches of Syria’s cities with the aim of depopulating them to make it harder for opposition (sic) forces to operate there.”

He lied about Assad imposing “deadly sieges designed to starve the civilian population into surrender.” Syrians when freed from bondage as human shields by US-supported terrorists thank him and government forces for liberating them.

Roth lied accusing Syria and Russia of war crimes. He lied claiming their operations are mainly responsible for displacing half the nation’s population.

He lied blaming “Assad’s forces and his allies…for…90 percent of Syrian civilian deaths.” He lied blaming Russia for failed peace talks, ignoring US obstructionism.

He’s disturbed at the prospect of Trump cooperating with Putin in combating terrorism. He lied claiming Russia has done practically nothing to combat ISIS.

He said almost nothing about ruthless atrocities committed by US-supported terrorists, including multiple instances of chemical weapons use.

Roth is a voice for wealth, power and privilege. HRW is paid to produce reports, largely blaming victims for Western high crimes committed against.

Save

Assange: Obama Seeking to Delegitimize Trump Presidency (VIDEO)

The efforts to shut up Assange have led all sorts of ugly places. If you can’t drone him (like Hillary Clinton suggested), then frame him and accuse him of pedophilia.

We have asked this questions here before: Why would the most powerful country in the world base its dwindling credibility on a report that possesses no warranties of any kind as far as the validity of its information, when it comes to blaming Russia for allegedly interfering in the last US election?

Why would Barack Obama accuse Russia of hacking anything without sufficient proof of it and go as far as to impose sanctions – toothless sanctions, but sanctions nonetheless – on diplomats if he had no proof of any hacking?

We ask such questions again in light of yesterday’s Julian Assange’s interview with Sean Hannity on FOX News.

During his interview, Assange took apart the narrative of Russia meddling in the recent US election. He cleared up the issue on whether Russia, Putin, Trump or any of their surrogates had been in contact with him previous or during the leaks that revealed corruption and collusion in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the illegal action carried out by that organization and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Assange explained that Russia had not been the source of the leaks and that Wikileaks would have undoubtedly published information of the same sort, had it been about Trump or the Republican National Committee (RNC).

Publishing anything about RNC collusion or corruption had not been necessary as the Republicans were open on their opposition to Donald Trump being the party’s candidate. Both the RNC and the mainstream media campaign strongly against Trump. However, it is comforting to know that Assange and Wikileaks would have had the same attitude towards the other party.

Why believe Assange, many ask? He could be lying about the whole thing! Sure, he could. The main reason is that Assange and Wikileaks have an impecable record when it comes to the veracity of the information the have put out over the last decade. Also, because the alternative would be to believe a deeply flawed intelligence community, or worse, to believe the politicians who have lied their way to power for decades. The validity of Wikileaks’ actions and revelations comes down to one question: Who do you believe?

Another fact that provides more validity to Wikileaks’ revelations is that no one in the DNC, the Clinton campaign or the White House has challenged the truthfulness of the content of the documents and information put out by Wikileaks.

There are, however, people on both parties who believe that the American people and the world do not have the right to know information such as the type revealed by Assange and his organization. That is why, when asked about whether they approve of the public having access to such information, they avoid answering directly and instead express their opposition to anyone leaking any information.

The narrative being used by the US president, the Clinton campaign and the DNC, after losing to Trump in November, has been that they will not let a ‘thug’ like Putin determine America’s destiny, yet the same White House, DNC and Clinton herself failed to address the hacking of millions of documents by the Chinese government and parties associated with it during Obama’s eight years in power.

Why the double standard? Why is Putin such a dangerous enemy for allegedly affecting the US election while China gets a free pass for doing worse things?

The answer is easy. The White House, the Clinton campaign and the DNC firmly believed that the election was in the bag for them. Raising the issue of Russia meddling in the election, had Clinton won it last November 8, would have delitimize her victory. Remember when Clinton herlsef warned about questioning the election results? Remember when she said that questioning the results was an assault on democracy?

The White House, the DNC and the Clinton campaign already knew of Russia’s alleged interference when Clinton made such a claim, yet they did not call for investigations or sanctions before the election because they thought every chip had fallen into place for them and that the victory was assured.

Trump is right on one thing: It is a very serious accussation to blame a nation or a political leader of influencing an election. There must be unequivocal assurance by the intelligence community that a person or a country were involved in hacking or meddling before an accussation of that sort is made. Up until now, neither the White House nor the intelligence community have presented any credible proof to support their claims. All that they have presented is their word and their word is woth nothing.

Do Obama, the White House, the intelligence community, the media and other Trump opponents seek to delegitimize his presidency even before he is sworn into office? It could be worse than that. They may want to avoid him getting to that moment. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan aid, has said publicly and openly that if they can’t stop him from becoming president they’ll kill Trump just as they did with John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield and William McKinley.

Roberts’ statement is not an unreasonable prediction since the US has been behind at least four assassinations of its own presidents as well as countless other leaders around the world.