Jew World Order

Confused Liberals Plan Mobilization to Defend Mueller

Note: The article below makes excellent points about the broken FISA court process which is essentially a rubber-stamp of requests from the FBI and intelligence agencies. They also make good points about the history of the FBI and Independent Counsel Mueller, neither of which deserve a defense based on their history.

In many cases this article should substitute the word “liberals” for “Democrats” because the organizations involved in organizing these protests to defend Mueller are Democratic Party aligned organizations and taking these actions in support of the partian cause of the Democratic Party.

Where I have some disagreement with the authors is about the warrant to gather intelligence on Carter Page. We have not written much on the Nunes memo because it is one-sided partisan version of the story and is a cherry-picked memo of four pages from what was more than a 30 page FISA warrant request. We just do not know enough to comment on it sensibly.

A key issue is the credibility of Christopher Steele. The authors below do not describe the reasons why a court would find Christopher Steele credible completely. Steele had been a British intelligence agent with M16 since he graduated from Cambridge. He worked in Russia from 1990 to 1992 for the agency and became the head of the Russia desk for M16 in 2006. He set up a private investigation firm with another form M16 agent in 2009.  Between 2014 and 2016 Steele created over 100 reports on Russian and Ukrainian issues that were shared with the US Department of State. As a result Steele would definitely be seen by the FBI and by the FISA court as credible especially when it comes to information about Russia. While the infamous Steele memo has become the butt of jokes, much of it has been confirmed in addition some inaccuracies have been found. Much is made out of the Steele memo being opposition research funded first by anti-Trump Republicans and then by supporters of Hillary Clinton. I’m not sure why that would matter to the court as Steele was a credible source and he provided enough information to satisfy the probably cause standard for a warrant.

After the article below was written Trump decided not to release the Democratic memorandum at this time due to concerns about exposing intelligence methods. As a result we will only know the partisan Republiclican version of events for the time being. Also reported after this article was a letter from Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham to the Department of Justice. Their letter deals with the same warrant request for Carter Page. It argues that the warrant request did disclose the Steele memo was funded by opposition research. In fact, a few days after the Nunes memo was released Rep. Nunes was forced to admit the warrant request included that the Steele memo was originally funded for opposition research purposes. The Grassley-Graham memo does raise doubts about whether the evidence was sufficient to approve a FISA warrant but this raises more doubts about the FISA process than anything else, with which I am also concerned. It also questions whether the FBI took adequate steps to confirm the Steele memo. While that would have been good, it does not seem to be necessary because of the credibility of Steele due to his history with M16.

Key issues we want to know are was more than the Steele memo and an article about Carter Page by Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News the basis for the warrant (Steele was a source for the Isikoff article). The FBI and intelligence agencies were aware of Carter Page’s relationships with Russia for years before this warrant as he had a history of Kremlin contacts before he joined Trump’s campaign. He had been investigated for his Russian work so they had a lot more information than what the Nunes memo reported. We do not know what they shared with the FISA court.

Trump’s refusal to release the Democratic memo raises more doubts about the Nunes memo. Is Trump trying to hide the full story? As a result some in Congress are calling for the release of the full warrant application. House Intelligence Committee members Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) urged its release, with appropriate redactions on “State of the Union” earlier this month.  Huff Post reported that Himes said people would see “dozens and dozens of pages citing all sorts of facts. You would see a very comprehensive project that gets put together by 10, 12 people at the FBI, then presented to a federal judge.”

My view is that now that this warrant has turned into a partisan political tool the only way people will be able to judge it’s legitimacy is for the entire application to be released.   KZ

‘This is Nuts’: Liberals Launch ‘Largest Mobilization in History’ in Defense of Russiagate Probe

Hundreds of thousands have pledged to take to the streets if Special Counsel Robert Mueller is removed, reflecting misplaced priorities and some fundamental misunderstandings.

With Democrats and self-styled #Resistance activists placing their hopes for taking down Donald Trump’s presidency in the investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, online groups such as MoveOn and Avaaz are launching campaigns to come to the Special Counsel’s defense in the event of him being removed by the president.

Avaaz claims that hundreds of thousands of supporters have signed up for actions protesting Mueller’s possible removal, and that more than 25 national organizations support the protests. The group calls it potentially “the largest national mobilization in history.”In an action alert to supporters on Wednesday, Avaaz announced plans to hold some 600 events around the country to defend Mueller in case Trump tries to fire him. “This is nuts,” Avaaz writes. “Trump is clearly gearing up to fire the independent official investigating Russia’s influence over the election — if he does, he’ll have delivered a death blow to one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy.”

Considering all of the threats to democracy posed by unconstitutional overreach, unfair elections, corruption, and voter suppression – not to mention environmental challenges, economic inequality, an out-of-control U.S. foreign policy, numerous foreign conflicts that the U.S. is engaged in, and the ever-present threat of nuclear war – it is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue.

Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the intelligence community as “perception management,” and have been refined since the 1980s “to keep the American people compliant and confused,” as the late Robert Parry has reported. We saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of Americans came to falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite – Saddam was actually an enemy of the Al Qaeda perpetrators.

Such emotional manipulation is the likely explanation for the fact that so many people are now gearing up to defend someone like Mueller, while largely ignoring other important topics of far greater consequence. With no demonstrations being organized to stop a possible war with North Korea – or an escalation in Syria – hundreds of thousands of Americans are apparently all too eager to go to the mat in defense of an investigation into the president’s possible “collusion” with Russia in its alleged meddling in election 2016.

Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and defender of democracy? Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn’t have to be privy to his inner circle to recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should still shock liberal consciences.

Although Mueller and his “joined at the hip” cohort James Comey are now hailed for their impeccable character by much of Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited stunning levels of incompetence.

Ironically, recent declassifications of House Intelligence Committee’s and Senate Judiciary Committee Leaders letters (here and here) reveal strong parallels between the way the public so quickly forgot Mueller’s spotty track record with the way the FBI and (the Obama administration’s) Department of Justice rushed, during the summer of 2016, to put a former fellow spy, Christopher Steele up on a pedestal. Steele was declared to be a “reliable source” without apparently vetting or corroborating any of the “opposition research” allegations that he had been hired (and paid $160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

There are typically at least two major prongs of establishing the “reliability” of any given source in an affidavit, the first – and the one mostly pointed to – being the source’s track record for having furnished accurate and reliable information in the past. Even if it is conceded that Steele would have initially satisfied this part of the test for determining probable cause, based on his having reportedly furnished some important information to FBI agents investigating the FIFA soccer fraud years before, his track record for truthfulness would go right up in smoke only a month or so later, when it was discovered that he had lied to the FBI about his having previously leaked the investigation to the media.  (Moreover, this lie had led the FBI to mislead the FISA court in its first application to surveil Carter Page.)

The second main factor in establishing the reliability of any source’s information would be even more key in this case.  It’s the basis of the particular informant’s knowledge, i.e. was the informant an eye witness or merely reporting double-triple hearsay or just regurgitating the “word on the street?”

If the actual basis of the information is uncertain, the next step for law enforcement would normally be to seek facts that either corroborate or refute the source’s information. It’s been reported that FBI agents did inquire into the basis for Steele’s allegations, but it is not known what Steele told the FBI – other than indications that his info came from secondary sources making it, at best, second- or third-hand. What if anything did the FBI do to establish the reliability of the indirect sources that Steele claimed to be getting his info from? Before vouching for his credibility, did the FBI even consider polygraphing Steele after he (falsely) denied having leaked his info since the FBI was aware of significant similarities of a news article to the info he had supplied them?

Obviously, more questions than answers exist at the present time. But even if the FBI was duped by Steele – whether as the result of their naivete in trusting a fellow former spy, their own sloppiness or recklessness, or political bias – it should be hoped by everyone that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get to the bottom of how the FISA court was ultimately misled.

As they prepare for the “largest mobilization in history” in defense of Mueller and his probe into Russiagate, liberals have tried to sweep all this under the rug as a “nothing burger.” Yet, how can liberals, who in the past have pointed to so many abusive past practices by the FBI, ignore the reality that these sorts of abuses of the FISA process more than likely take place on a daily basis – with the FISA court earning a well-deserved reputation as little more than a rubberstamp?

Other, more run-of-the-mill FISA applications – if they were to be scrutinized as thoroughly as the Carter Page one – would reveal similar sloppiness and lack of factual verification of source information used to secure surveillance orders, especially after FISA surveillances skyrocketed after 9/11 in the “war on terror.” Rather than dismissing the Nunes Memo as a nothing burger, liberals might be better served by taking a closer look at this FISA process which could easily be turned against them instead of Trump.

It must be recognized that FBI agents who go before the secret FISA court and who are virtually assured that whatever they present will be kept secret in perpetuity, have very little reason to be careful in verifying what they present as factual. FISA court judges are responsible for knowing the law but have no way of ascertaining the “facts” presented to them.

Unlike a criminal surveillance authorized by a federal district court, no FBI affidavit justifying the surveillance will ever end up under the microscope of defense attorneys and defendants to be pored over to ensure every asserted detail was correct and if not, to challenge any incorrect factual assertions in pre-trial motions to suppress evidence.

It is therefore shocking to watch how this political manipulation seems to make people who claim to care about the rule of law now want to bury this case of surveillance targeting Carter Page based on the ostensibly specious Steele dossier. This is the one case unique in coming to light among tens of thousands of FISA surveillances cloaked forever in secrecy, given that the FISA system lacks the checks on abusive authority that inherently exist in the criminal justice process, and so the Page case is instructive to learn how the sausage really gets made.

Neither the liberal adulation of Mueller nor the unquestioned credibility accorded Steele by the FBI seem warranted by the facts. It is fair for Americans to ask whether Mueller’s investigation would have ever happened if not for his FBI successor James Comey having signed off on the investigation triggered by the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on her opponent.

In any event, please spare us the solicitations of these political NGOs’ “national mobilization” to protect Mueller. There are at least a million attorneys in this country who do not suffer from the significant conflicts of interest that Robert Mueller has with key witnesses like his close, long-term colleague James Comey and other public officials involved in the investigation.

And, at the end of the day, there are far more important issues to be concerned about than the “integrity” of the Mueller investigation – one being the need to fix FISA court abuses and restoring constitutional rights.

Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI’s pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine’s “Persons of the Year” in 2002. 

Nat Parry is co-author of Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.