Rep Mark Meadows said in an interview that "no documents were shown" in the meeting with DoJ last week. It was another "briefing" on 24 May 2018.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

an example of the media propaganda campaign

headline on article:



The article references an interview that Clapper did with Salon

Here is what Clapper actually said to Salon:

https://www.salon.com/2018/05/...nowability-of-truth/

"We did not use the dossier as a source for the intelligence community assessment, that’s point one. The dossier is not classified or an intelligence document. It’s actually a collection of 17 separate memos. Some of what was in the dossier was actually corroborated -- but separately -- in our intelligence community assessment, from other sources that we were confident in. The salacious parts, no. That’s never been corroborated. It would appear to me that as time has gone on more and more of it has been corroborated, but I can’t actually give you a percentage.

Some of it was valid, and those memos were analogous to something that we do do in the intelligence community, which is "first-instance reporting." Sometimes those reports are right on the money and other times they’re not. The collection of memos in the dossier are sort of like that."

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

"It would appear to me that as time has gone on more and more of it has been corroborated, but I can’t actually give you a percentage."

Always general hand waving. We have 35 pages of very specific claims in the dossier, but the former DNI not only can't give a percentage, he can't even address anything that has been collaborated

The ICA that Clapper points to had two big claims:

1. Putin tried to influence the 2016 election and he preferred Donald Trump

2. Russia used cyber activity, state-funded media, and paid social media trolls

no ICA claims of anything linking to the Trump campaign

Is Putin's state funded media any more powerful than the U.S. far left media propaganda machine ?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

Media Double Down After New York Times Gets Busted Peddling Fake News

Federalist
Mollie Hemingway

There may have been a real White House briefing with real White House officials, but The New York Times couldn't be trusted to accurately summarize what the White House official said. And it wasn't on a minor point.

On the path to the June 12 summit with North Korea, journalists claimed President Donald Trump would not be willing to walk away from the negotiating table because he was too desperate for a win.

The Washington Post’s David Nakamura wrote that “critics fear that a president determined to declare victory where his predecessors failed will allow his desire for a legacy-making deal to override the substance of the negotiations.” On the same day, the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman mocked Trump’s desire for a win, which he said was turning Trump into a fool who was getting played.

Then President Trump did what media outlets said he’d never do. He walked away from the negotiating table due to North Korea’s behavior. The media outlets didn’t acknowledge their previous analytical missteps so much as come up with new lines of attack on Trump.

Mark Landler and David Sanger of The New York Times wrote an article arguing there were deep divisions between Trump and his advisors. To support the claim, the Times argued that Trump said a June 12 summit was still possible, while his top aides said it was “impossible”:

As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.

On Friday, Mr. Trump said, ‘It could even be the 12th.’

President Trump responded by calling it fake news, tweeting:


Trump was incorrect when he said that The New York Times “quotes” the official. They actually characterized his remarks. But they definitely claimed a senior White House official said June 12 was impossible.

Media types rushed to The New York Times’ defense, claiming they heard a White House official say the “impossible” line in a background briefing they were privy to. Someone leaked audio of a background briefing that they said supported The New York Times’ “impossible” characterization.

Yashar Ali, who writes for New York magazine and HuffPo, then outed the name of someone who briefed reporters on background and provided audio that he erroneously claimed supported The New York Times’ characterization:


The audio says:

REPORTER: Can you clarify that…the President obviously announced in the letter and at the top of the bill signing that the summit is called off. But then, later, he said it’s possible the existing summit could take place, or a summit at a later date. Is he saying that it’s possible that June 12th could still happen?
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: That’s…
REPORTER: Or has that ship sailed, right?
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: I think that the main point, I suppose, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court right now. And there’s really not a lot of time. We’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need in order to, I mean, there’s been an enormous amount of preparation that’s gone on over the past few months at the White House, at State, and with other agencies and so forth. But there’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate, and hopefully make a deal. And June 12 is in 10 minutes, and it’s going to be, you know. But the President has said that he has — someday, that he looks forward to meeting with Kim.

You will note that at no time does the White House official say a June 12 meeting is “impossible,” and at no point does he agree that the “ship sailed” or that time has run out. He definitely says it would be difficult to prepare for the summit given the lack of time to do so. His main point, as he says, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court and they need to act quickly. Mount Everest is difficult to climb, but it would be inaccurate for The New York Times to say it is “impossible” to climb.

Clearly The New York Times peddled fake news. There may have been a real White House briefing with real White House officials, but The New York Times couldn’t be trusted to accurately summarize what the White House official said. And it wasn’t on a minor point.

Recall that the whole point of their characterization was to say this official was at odds with Trump and that Trump wasn’t listening to his advisors. The fact that Trump and his advisors were not disagreeing with each other undermines the entire point of The New York Times story.

But rather than admit that The New York Times was incorrect, and their reporters aren’t good at listening to Trump advisors or accurately conveying their remarks, the media claimed that Trump was the one lying, since, well, White House advisors who give briefings exist. See, Trump said no source existed who said the June 12 date was impossible — but a source exists who did not say that. Ergo: Trump lied.

I’m sure you see the logical failures here, even if President Trump could have or should have said that The New York Times attributed fake news to a real source.

The media, having been outed with benefit of audio tape at being failures at accurately conveying news, quickly moved the goalpost to argue that White House officials exist, as if that was in question. There are countless examples, but The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman is a perfect one:


No source exists who said what the Times claimed he said, so I imagine the background briefer probably feels a lot of anger at The New York Times for being utterly incompetent at its job. He probably is angry that The New York Times claimed he said something he didn’t say. Twitter editorialized as well:


Again, if you for some reason thought that Trump was saying White House officials who give background briefings don’t exist, then this would be a great point. If you expect The New York Times not to invent things that weren’t said and attribute them to these sources, then this is a not good point.

Trump is notoriously imprecise. His sentences — tweeted or spoken — are word salads that can be difficult to diagram. His word choices, run-on sentences, and inconsistent capitalization can be frustrating. It is reasonable to critique the president for his communication style, including that he should have condemned The New York Times for fake news attributed to a real source instead of fake news attributed to a fake source.

A media that desires to hold this president accountable simply must be accurate in its newswriting. It failed dramatically here, and failed to hold itself accountable when caught. This is why the media’s credibility is in tatters and why President Trump and others find it so easy to hold them up for ridicule.

Link

Kick Me’ No More

National Review
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.

From Day One, the Trump administration has gone about the business of dismantling Obama-era policy. It is one of the many reasons the American Left despises him so much — and has so rapidly gone into resistance mode.

The animosity is further fueled by Trump’s in-your-face modus operandi, both rhetorically and substantively. Despite his well-known reality-TV tagline of “You’re fired,” such aggressiveness was unexpected from a neophyte politician supposedly unequipped to handle the most important job on the planet.

An element of Mr. Trump’s appeal is his willingness to indulge Washington’s favorite game show, “Let’s Keep Score,” daily reminding friends and foes alike of campaign promises made and kept during his first 16 months in office. As counterintuitive as this record-keeping exercise may be for a politician, it is no more surprising than the president’s happy-warrior approach to challenging so many of Washington’s most deeply embedded assumptions.

Indeed, how many of these widely accepted (sometimes downright cherished) assumptions can one man challenge (disrupt) in such a brief period of time? The answer is plenty. He does it by questioning what often goes unquestioned in Washington, D.C. He simply asks “Why?” Why help fund a Shiite crescent in the Middle East? Why send tax dollars to a terrorist-friendly PLO? Why support anti-American programs at the U.N.? Why a “One China” policy? Why placate deadbeat NATO partners? Why pay premium prices for the F-35 and a new Air Force One? Why force nuns to provide birth-control coverage? Why tolerate sanctuary cities and a porous border?

Similarly, Mr. Trump asks, “Why not?” Why not support nascent democratic movements in Iran? Why not revisit aging trade deals? Why not activate the Congressional Review Act? Why not count everyone in the census? Why not energy independence? Why not move the embassy to Jerusalem? Why not say “Merry Christmas”?

I could go on, but you get the point. Serial challenges to the status quo set off alarm bells throughout official Washington. Establishments hate such behavior. They crave predictability, not disruption, and they especially resent disruptors with bad manners and a disdain for convention. To make matters worse, this disruptor relishes his label. A delicious irony results: The most powerful person in the world finds himself an outsider in his own town. All those deplorables attending sold-out, boisterous rallies in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have it no other way.

But there is another, less analyzed element to the disruptive persona, and it is the very antithesis of what so excited the American Left about Barack Obama and his administration.

Recall a lifetime ago (actually it was 2008), when a certified dove won the presidency in a landslide. One of his first official acts was to undertake a trip to a number of Muslim countries, wherein apologies were offered for America’s “imperialist” past. Assurances were also made: The cowboy Bush and his warmongering neocons were gone. Mr. Obama would now inform the world that America had learned its lesson. The U.S. would no longer manifest its arrogance on the world stage. We would henceforth strive to have the world like us — especially our charismatic but unthreatening young president, who was counterintuitive himself, seeming to act on the premise that if the United States was ostentatiously embarrassed about its dominance and power, we would be better liked. And we were better liked, but much more endangered and much less intimidating.

American withdrawal from world hot spots followed. Where we did show up, we made sure to provide the enemy with the date and time of our engagement. Where we did take action, only tentative commitment followed. Who can forget Secretary of State John Kerry promising a “unbelievably small, limited kind of [bombing] effect” against Bashar al Assad’s murderous regime, or a famously failed “red line” in that same country; or the description of deserter Bowe Bergdahl as having served with “honor and distinction”; or freezing defensive missiles in Poland to placate Vladimir Putin; or our feckless response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Crimea; or the specter of funding the Iranian ballistic-missile program and the mullahs’ terror activities throughout the Middle East?

Alas, too many voters within flyover America saw all this as a step too far — too much weakness — too many vacuums — too many “kick me” signs displayed for consumption by America’s bullies. With apologies to Austin Powers, American had lost, indeed given away, its “mojo.”

And then one day the unlikeliest of political leaders appeared. Many voters (including some who ended up voting for him) saw Mr. Trump as unprepared to tackle the world’s most intractable problems. Another subset of supporters maintained serious concerns about “policy by tweet” and the man’s propensity to engage in sideshow fights with antagonistic politicians, reporters, and celebrities.

But there was one aspect to the Trump phenomena that all of his supporters firmly believed: that the “kick me” sign that had hung around America’s neck for eight years would be gone. Good riddance.

Link

why we are free:

https://youtu.be/sDumrPmR2qs

My girl and I just watched the Memorial Day ceremony.

President Trump was magnificent.

"We did not use the dossier as a source for the intelligence community assessment, that’s point one.


-Yes, they did. It is the bulk of their information.

---------------------

Some of what was in the dossier was actually corroborated

-Only by a Yahoo article that used the dossier as its source.

Clapper seems incapable of telling the truth.



.

The Three Stooges of Spygate

Brennan, Comey, and Clapper have been caught in a big fat wringer.

American Spectator
George Neumayr

Bret Baier, in his April interview with Jim Comey on Fox News, asked him if he had seen John Brennan and Jim Clapper together since his firing. “No, no,” Comey replied at first, then said, “Actually, I had dinner with the two of them together with our spouses.” Baier asked him if they discussed “Trump cases” on the triple date. “No, we did not,” he answered.

Add that to Comey’s voluminous record of whoppers. The idea that the three stooges of Spygate, whose red-hot antipathy for Trump is nothing if not all-consuming, went out to dinner without discussing the investigation of him strains all credulity. No doubt one of their anxieties at the dinner was: When will the American public find out about the spy we sent to infiltrate the Trump campaign’s ranks?

Beneath all of their flailing attacks on Congressman Devin Nunes lay the fear that his oversight would kick loose scandalous nuggets buried within their probe: a FISA warrant cribbed from Hillary’s campaign smears, national security letters based on insanely thin justifications, an embarrassing reliance on sketchy foreign intelligence (which consisted largely of Russian disinformation and re-circulated nonsense from Hillary’s hired gun, Christopher Steele), and an infiltration plot involving a swampy old CIA asset.

The three stooges have yet to utter the name of Stefan Halper, the spy at the center of the Obama administration’s farcical plot. Rubbing his bald pate as usual, Clapper claimed total ignorance of Halper. He apparently was at the children’s table at Brennan’s interagency gatherings. “I didn’t know about this informant,” Clapper said.

Of course, his I-know-nothing routine didn’t stop him from serving as an authority on the knowledge levels of others: “No one in the White House knew. Certainly the president didn’t know.” But amidst all this defensiveness, Clapper worked up a sweat defending the spying as a “good thing,” which raises the obvious question: If it was all so normal and praiseworthy, why not tell Obama?

Just as Clapper’s denial of FISA warrants on the Trump campaign disintegrated, so too will that one. Sooner or later it will come out that Obama knew damn well that the Trump campaign was under surveillance and signed off on it. How could he not have? After all, we’ve been told repeatedly that spying on the Trump campaign was a national security matter of unspeakable gravity. How could such a matter be withheld from the person most responsible for national security?

So what did Obama know and when did he know it? Brennan could give the precise date; he was personally briefing Obama on “Russian interference,” Brennan’s euphemism for his paranoid hunch that Putin’s agents had recruited Trump campaign officials. All the hush-hush dynamics around Brennan’s “taskforce” make no sense if he and White House officials were just sitting around discussing Facebook ads. No, what made it an “exceptionally, exceptionally sensitive issue,” in Brennan’s words, was that they were spying on an opposing party’s presidential campaign.

The doublespeak around this spying has been comically pitiful. We’re told by the three stooges and their media propagandists that Halper — who tried to get a position in the campaign, spent over a year shadowing Carter Page, and tried to entrap George Papadopoulos — “wasn’t spying.” Halper was just “observing,” “assisting an FBI investigation” (as the Washington Post desperately put it), or, in the words of John Brennan, seeking “insight.”

George Orwell would have laughed at that one. “Political language,” Orwell said, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” In this case, it is an all-hands-on-deck propaganda effort to make spying on political opponents respectable — a ruination of reputations, careers, and bank accounts of Trump campaign officials undertaken “for their own good,” we’re told. Liberalism claims a monopoly on everything, particularly language, and liberals will let us know when we can and can’t use “spying” to describe obtaining information secretly.

Once a story starts cutting against the Democrats, reporters drop it. But if that becomes impossible, as in the case of Spygate, the next best thing they figure is to saturate the airwaves with semantic quibbles and hope the public abandons the story out of sheer confusion. And if that doesn’t work, if the unwashed want to keep watching the game, they just steadily move the goal posts back — they say Trump hasn’t “proven” the undesirable story or they give one of his tweets a literalist tsk-tsking, as if the seriousness of the story hangs exclusively on the precision of his tweets. It is hilarious to watch the “clarifications” of CNN, which always amount to distinctions without a difference, presented in the most ludicrously solemn tones by the likes of Jim Sciutto, who apparently went to anchorman school after his stint as an Obama political appointee. Halper, he intones gravely, was not a spy but a “confidential human source.”

If you are one of the three stooges, you preface such denials of reality with a ponderous platitude, such as “facts matter.” That was Comey’s tack in a tweet, before launching into one of his rank-pulling, jargony descriptions of FBI investigations, which was aimed at concealing the facts. The flimflammery of it all was reminiscent of Comey sending his aides out to deny Trump’s tweets about intercepted communications at Trump Tower while FISA warrants that allowed the FBI to reach into Trump Tower sat on Comey’s desk.

“As best as I can tell,” Comey said to Conan O’Brien in reference to Halper, “it is made up. I don’t know where [Trump] is getting that from.” He was getting it from Comey’s old subordinates, who had no choice but to confirm the infiltration attempt, albeit on their own self-serving terms, before Nunes uncovered it.

“I don’t do weasel moves,” Comey claims he said to Trump during their now-infamous private dinner. On their triple date, the three stooges and their spouses must have gotten a good chuckle out of that one. Weasel moves are the only ones they have got.

Link

Comey continues to show how someone so tall can be such a small man.

None of the stooges seem to measure up to the gravity of their offices. I would have expected stronger people in those leadership positions.

Maybe Sam Axe from Burn Notice was onto something, at least with these guys –
“You know spies: bunch of bitchy little girls.”

The massive hoax the FBI/DoJ/Intel Comm is trying to pull on the American people and the Trump administration is stunning.

Another little "coincidence":

Remember the 9 June 2016 meeting where Trump Jr met w the Russian lawyer because he had heard she had negative information on H Clinton ?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...m-campaign-staffers/

Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin was at that meeting. He was asked to attend by the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya.

background:

Evelyn Lieberman previously served as Clinton’s chief of staff when she was First Lady. Evelyn Lieberman also served as Bill Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and famously transferred Monica Lewinsky out of the White House to the Defense Department.

Akhmetshin related a personal connection to Clinton via attorney Ed Lieberman, whose late wife was Evelyn Lieberman

The New York Times previously reported that Lieberman in 1998 arranged for Akhmitshi’s position at “an organization pushing what he described as a pro-democracy agenda for Kazakhstan.”

Akhmetshin testified that he "may" have traveled w Ed Lieberman on the train to NY for the 9 June mtg.

After the meeting at Trump Tower, Akhmetshin says he went to dinner and a play with Lieberman, and the subject of the meeting that same day did not come up

how odd. Similar to how Veselnitskaya met w Glenn Simpson on 8 June, 9 June, and 10 June 2016. But likewise, the mtg w Trump Jr didn't come up

Later, Akhmetshin testifies:

"At some point I might have mentioned it to him, but not like right away."

"Not at dinner, not even like — I do not remember. At some point I might have. He also serves as a legal counsel to me so — on a number of issues. So, you know, I’m almost certain at some point he knew about it, but not immediately."

Akhmetshin detailed knowing Hillary Clinton since the late 1990s and last seeing her at Evelyn Lieberman’s 2015 funeral.

He also testified he knew people in Clinton's campaign and he met her in a social setting, not in a campaign capacity.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Meanwhile Robert Mueller is still trying to frame Donald Trump

Joey D 5-29-18

?? is this the much talked about DoJ IG report?

Title seems odd

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...il-report-looms.html

Both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee are preparing to have Horowitz appear before them in early June, according to a congressional source.

On Tuesday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said his committee would hold a hearing titled “Examining the Inspector General’s First Report on Justice Department Decisions Regarding the 2016 Presidential Election” on June 5

In June, House Republicans also plan to interview three FBI officials linked to the agency’s handling of the Clinton email probe, part of an ongoing joint investigation by the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees.

To be interviewed are: Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; Michael Steinbach, former head of the agency’s national security division; and Steinbach’s predecessor, John Giacalone.

Priestap, who oversaw both the Clinton email and Russia probes, is scheduled for a closed-door hearing on June 5. Priestap was the boss of FBI official Peter Strzok

Priestap's appearance comes as messages between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page are drawing fresh scrutiny because they indicate Priestap went to London two weeks before the FBI officially opened its investigation into Russia meddling in the election. A congressional source questioned to Fox News whether the trip was connected.

In a text on May 4, 2016, Strzok referenced how “Bill” is getting “back from London next week."

For more than a year, Horowitz has been reviewing FBI and DOJ actions related to the investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state under President Barack Obama.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I don't understand the comment that Priestap went to London 2 weeks before the FBI officially opened its investigation into Russia meddling. I thought that date was 31 July 2016.

The texts indicated that Priestap went to London the week of 9 May 2016.

I wonder if they meant to say "2 months" rather than "2 weeks"

That’s what it looks like, which implies the report will be made public this week.

Gowdy says FBI looking into Russian contacts in 2016 was entirely appropriate. Says Trump would agree if he saw the evidence. https://www.google.com/amp/the...uring-campaign%3famp
Judge Napolitano on Fox agrees and says Spygate is completely normal FBI action. Not directed at Trump but at the Russians. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fo...tter_impression=true

Yes the Gowdy interview is an interesting twist

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...ocrats-obama-not-fbi

but there are several odd aspects to it.

Gowdy several times says Donald Trump was never the target of the investigation.

BS. For almost 2 years an army of people have attacked Donald Trump about this. The dossier directly accuses Donald Trump himself. So why would an honest FBI / honest Mueller investigation let political enemies beat Donald Trump with this club for 22 months if he was never the target ?

Gowdy also advises Donald Trump to interview w Mueller. What a dangerous maneuver that would be. We have example upon example of the FBI and Mueller tricking people and framing them in these interviews.

If there is clear rational for the FBI to do whatever they did, why didn't they early on warn Donald Trump? Gowdy has no answer for that. He says the Comey FBI didn't do it and he doesn't know why.

Gowdy comes across that the president has nothing to worry about and never did.

Yet he also drops in "but that can all change depending on what a witness says"

Gowdy says Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein are stunned whenever people think Donald Trump is the target of the investigation.

Stop right there. Look what they put our country through and the resultant obstruction of the Trump agenda because they let the DEMs, the media, and the never-Trumpers whip this into a fire storm.

And why so many redactions that had no national security implications at all? (except that the FBI looked bad)

But an interview worth watching. Gowdy has been an FBI cheer leader throughout this. He does seem to be taking some shots at Comey here though.

Gowdy is a swamp creature, plain and simple.

Gowdy has the advantage of having actually seen the documents, other than the redacted memo they are bickering about. He has participated in the committee hearings as designee of the Chairman.

He is an experienced succesful prosecutor, apparently highly regarded. Of all the people talking about this, he is almost certainly the most informed and experienced.

Why is it that his observations are drawing criticism? We have no other way to evaluate the situation independently.

Because he's all hat and no cattle. Never seen so much grandstanding in my life than Gowdy and Chaffetz.

quote:

Why is it that his observations are drawing criticism?

Where do you start ? so much to choose from.

Gowdy says some things in the interview that are consistent w known facts. Such as the sources of President Trump’s frustration:

- Brennan says Trump should be in the dust bin of history
- Comey said impeachment is too good of a remedy
- Clapper doesn’t like him
- Loretta Lynch said call it a “matter” and not an “investigation”
- Schiff said he had evidence of collusion before we even began the investigation
- and 60 Democrats have voted to impeach him

“That’s what got him frustrated”

That all sounds logical and consistent w known facts

But then Gowdy says things that just don’t make sense. (no matter who he is)

“Donald Trump was never the target of the investigation”

What ?


- Strzok/Page texts
- Dossier claims
- Clapper said Donald Trump was a Putin puppet
- Brennan said Putin “may have something on him personally”
- Comey only briefed Donald Trump on the sex part of the dossier, nothing else
- FBI never told Donald Trump they thought Carter Page was a Russian foreign agent
- Mueller’s biased team
- targeting Donald Trump Jr
- multiple reports that Mueller was going for obstruction of justice (backed up by Comey’s claims)
- 5 Jan 2017 mtg w obama, rice, biden, comey etc
- Lies on the FISA warrant (per Grassley)

We could go on and on.

From my personal perspective there is a huge amount of evidence that the FBI/DoJ/intel agencies tried to frame Donald Trump and the DEMs are looking for anything to try to impeach him

So how can Gowdy say the president has nothing to worry about and never did?

Can you believe that ? I can’t.

President Trump has to worry that he is being framed by an extensive conspiracy worse than anything we have ever seen.

quote:

Gowdy says Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein are stunned whenever people think Donald Trump is the target of the investigation.

Let’s see:

Strzok/ Page emails.
Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.
Lynch’s tarmac meeting with BC.
Uranium One.
Steele / dossier.
Clapper lying repeatedly.
Brennon - all around POS.
Unmasking.
DNC and HC stealing the nomination from Bernie.
DOJ ignoring requests from Congress.
Etc etc.

They want people to believe what? RUFKM?

ETA. sdy beat me to it.

Just watched an interview w Hannity.

Hannity asked Carter Page if he helped the CIA and debriefed them. Carter Page said the CIA asked for his help and he did not say no.

https://youtu.be/IVgxSyvt_xM


(saw the link on CT)

interesting that Hannity (like others) will not say Stefan Halper's name on the air. Pretty clear they have been told not to.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

also seen on CT

http://blog.4president.org/200...john-mccain--11.html

2008 John McCain lists NY leadership team

on that list is

Carter Page -- Chief Operating Office, Energy & Power, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.