Day: May 24, 2018

EXPOSED: FBI’s Secret ‘Spy Program’ Has a Very Dark and Sinister Past

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
source: https://goo.gl/oNF6vH
The FBI “spy program” that disgraced former FI Director James Comey is defending, and what was used to spy on the Trump campaign, is not so “happy and awesome” as Comey or Obama’s other Deep State cronies say.

The FBI “spy program” has a long and sorted past of protecting killers and jailing innocent people.
This is the same program that Obama’s former spy chief James Clapper said President Trump should be “happy” about.

Following reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) used at least one spy to secretly surveil members of the Trump campaign, fired former FBI director James Comey lashed out at critics of his agency’s activities during the 2016 election.

“Facts matter. The FBI’s use of Confidential Human Sources (the actual term) is tightly regulated and essential to protecting the country,” Comey tweeted on May 23. “Attacks on the FBI and lying about its work will do lasting damage to our country.”

While Comey’s record on truth-telling is decidedly mixed, he is correct that facts matter and that the FBI’s use of informants is governed by strict guidelines. How and why many of those guidelines came to be are important facts that the American public deserves to know as it considers revelations that the FBI used wiretaps and spies to surveil Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, his transition, and perhaps even his presidential administration.

Those guidelines, many of which the Government Accountability Office found were not being followed as recently as 2015, were put in place after rogue FBI agents working in the Boston field office routinely worked to cover up murders committed by their informants. You might say they were the direct result of justifiable attacks on the FBI for unconscionable violations of the public trust.

In fact, years-long violations of the rules about the FBI’s use of secret spies have led to massive investigations across every branch of government, including a multi-volume, 3,528-page congressional investigative report in 2003, a scathing 314-page report from the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general in 2005, and even a scathing 228-page, $102 million ruling against the government in 2007 after a federal judge ruled that the FBI deliberately withheld evidence, leading to the wrongful convictions of four men, in order to protect a mob informant. (Three of the men were originally sentenced to death; two died in prison awaiting justice for a crime they didn’t commit.)

The 2007 ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Gertner, which the federal government chose not to appeal, reads more like a John Grisham novel than it does a legal dictum. In her introduction, Gertner made clear that the horrific miscarriage of justice perpetrated under the guise of the FBI’s confidential spy program wasn’t the result of innocent missteps by a few bad apples, but was instead a coordinated conspiracy involving the rogue agents, their supervisors, and even the FBI director himself.

Former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer Drops Brutal Spygate Truth Bomb On Obama

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
source: https://goo.gl/sKPnDA
Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who served under former President George w. Bush, just dropped a major truth bomb on Barack Obama for his role in the Spygate scandal. This will make your blood boil.

On the same day that members of the House Intelligence Committee joined President Donald Trump and members of the White House staff to discuss the Spygate scandal, in which the FBI is alleged to have placed spies in or around Trump’s presidential campaign, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer dropped a major truth bomb on Barack Obama for his likely role in the criminal political surveillance operations. According to Breitbart, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was also in on the meeting which took place on Thursday, May 23, 2018.

During an interview on Fox News‘ Outnumbered, Fleischer broke into the conversation after host Harris Faulkner expressed her disbelief that political spying could actually have taken place in the United States of America.
“I think there’s a ‘bottom-er’ line,” Fleischer began. “Russia interfered with our election, and we know that the DNC and John Podesta’s emails were hacked. And, if any American cooperated in that, that should be investigated. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, an attack on one party is an attack on all parties,” Fleischer continued.

“So, I’m all for this investigation because we should get to the bottom of what Russia did. But, to do that, sometimes you use, in a criminal investigation, informants. The issue here that makes it so extraordinary is when you put informants into the opposing presidential campaign and you’re the Obama administration deciding, we will authorize the FBI to put informants into the Trump campaign. Why and when did you do it?” Fleischer quipped.

“And, we don’t know the answers to that. We have not yet heard, and that’s why it’s so important for us to get these documents and for both parties see them, to know. The decision made in the Trump years, I mean in the Obama years to take this step has put themselves at risk. It is fraught with risk when you put informants into an opposing political campaign because we don’t want to set precedents that that’s how we conduct justice and elections,” Fleischer exclaimed.
When the issue of whether or not Democrats were invited to the meeting between President Trump and the House Intelligence Committee was brought up, Fleischer nailed it.

“The most important thing to me is not who’s in the room, but what is the information that’s brought into the room. That’s what this is about, and here’s my theory. When the Obama administration realized that the Trump campaign may have had contacts with Russia, they had two choices. One, do we tell the Trump campaign, do we warn Donald Trump that you may be infiltrated by Russians and you have a problem? They chose not to do that for some odd reason. Maybe because they thought there’s no one safe to tell,” Fleischer said.

“I think then, they got themselves spun up into such a nefarious theory. Why else wouldn’t they tell them? They thought Paul Manaf0rt can’t be trusted, Carter Page can’t be trusted, none of them can be trusted, we should not warn them. So, if you don’t warn them, then you create an environment for informants to find out what it is the Trump campaign is doing. Once they took that step, then it all started to spiral out of control, and that’s why we need to know why did it begin and who authorized it. What role did Barack Obama have? Did he know that the FBI was going to put informants there? I’ll guarantee you the answer’s ‘yes,’” Fleisher continued.
“No FBI would put informants in another presidential campaign without permission from the White House, including the President,” Fleischer concluded.

I agree one hundred percent with Fleischer in regard to Obama’s knowledge of the FBI’s placement of spies in or around the Trump campaign. However, I do believe that Fleischer is giving a little too much benefit of the doubt to the Obama administration when it comes to why they initially decided to spy on the Trump campaign. This was purely a political surveillance operation to benefit Hillary Clinton, who lost despite her side cheating.
Furthermore, Spygate was motivated by the god-complex of Barack Obama and others, such as former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former CIA Director John Brennan, and many more. They couldn’t cope with the fact that power would be handed over to Donald Trump and his conservative base. They thought themselves to be above our democratic process, and because of their inability to cede power, they planned Trump’s demise. Now, it’s there turn to fry.

Pelosi Squirms At CNN Town Hall As Santa Fe Survivor Hits Her With Hard Question

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
source: https://goo.gl/CVCuoh
CNN doesn’t usually allow attendees of their televised town hall meetings to ask Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi any real or hard questions. So, the network and their liberal viewers surely weren’t happy when a teen girl, who had survived the mass shooting in Santa Fe, hit the congresswoman with a tough one.

When CNN holds a town hall, you can be sure of two things. First, an inordinate amount of Trump-bashing will occur, and secondly, the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens will come under attack. Add Nancy Pelosi into the mix, and the chances that the meeting will devolve into little more than an echo chamber of liberal talking points increase exponentially.

However, Pelosi was shocked to find that she was actually put on the spot during CNN’s town hall event on Wednesday, when a survivor of the Santa Fe shooting and host Chris Cuomo both challenged her regarding the hypocrisy of her stance that teachers should not be armed, but she and her colleagues on Capitol Hill should be protected by armed guards.
According to Mediaite, at CNN’s town hall event on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was challenged on her position against funding armed guards at schools. Pelosi was faced with a question by a teen survivor of the recent Santa Fe High School shooting and was further pressed by CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who noted that Pelosi herself is protected by armed guards.

“Where does the government stand on arming and training our teachers, much in the way we use air marshals on airplanes?” asked Santa Fe senior Alexis Wilson, according to The Daily Wire.

Pelosi offered sympathies to Wilson over the shooting but concluded that she and her Democratic colleagues “do not think that is the solution.” She said, “Following a tragedy like this, all we want to do is pray for the families, but I do not support arming teachers and the rest.”
However, Cuomo, who was moderating the town hall event for CNN, pressed Pelosi over her glaring hypocrisy on the issue. “There’s a little bit of an either-or problem with how we’re trying to approach solutions. … The building we’re in now, the building you work in, the point of entry there is secure,” he said. “You don’t walk in with a trench coat with a shotgun underneath your jacket, and get in. It doesn’t happen, you know this.”

The CNN cameras panned to Wilson in the audience, who was clapping to show support for Cuomo’s pushback. “Why can’t that be part of the equation?” Cuomo asked. “Talk about universal background checks, fine. Talk about mental health, how to identify them, money for treatment. But why either-or? Why not make the schools safer?”

“The children should not have to be worried about going to school as a place that violence can occur,” Pelosi responded, pointing to background checks and mental health as the solution again. “You have to get to systemically stop people from having guns who shouldn’t have guns in the first place.”
Nancy Pelosi is either dangerously stupid or willfully ignorant on this issue because background checks failed the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, just three months ago when 19-year-old gunman Nikolas Cruz shot up the school, killing seventeen people.

Cruz was able to purchase a firearm because he had been part of the controversial “PROMISE Program” which allowed him to commit crimes as a teenager without ever being arrested or the offenses making it to his criminal record. Without a rap sheet, thanks to the Obama-era PROMISE Program, Cruz was free and clear to purchase all the guns he wanted.
Clearly, background checks are not the answer to the school shooting problem when the Democrats are only going to introduce programs that stop potential shooters from having arrest records. Gunmen will find their way into schools one way or another. It is time to ensure that when they do, the innocent students and staff inside are more than sitting ducks.

Meghan’s PR Stunt With Dog ‘Guy’ Backfires As Sad Ending For Dog ‘Bogart’ Exposed

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
source: https://goo.gl/khV5B2
Now that the royal wedding is thankfully over, many animal lovers are wondering whatever happened to Meghan Markle’s two rescue dogs? She called them the “light of her life” and her “two best friends” with a viral article saying one dog was spotted driving with the Queen to the royal wedding. Well, people are now outraged after learning the truth about what really happened to her two dogs.

From all accounts, Meghan Markle doesn’t have close friends. The only relative invited to her wedding was her mother, and the only other people “sitting on the bride’s side” were her co-workers.

Her one longtime childhood friend Nikki Priddy was her maid of honor at her wedding to Trevor Engleson, but after the new Duchess of Sussex made it as a TV actress, she dumped everyone she knew back in her hometown of Los Angeles, which included divorcing Engleson.

While living in Canada and filming the TV show Suits, she rescued two dogs from a shelter. First, she adopted Bogart, a Labrador-shepherd mix. Then, she got him a companion, a beagle she named Guy. Meghan featured the dogs heavily all over her social media accounts. The two dogs bonded and became completely inseparable.

Animal lovers have been greatly concerned about what happened to the two dogs. The bad press surrounding Meghan’s dogs, with stories saying one died and one she left behind, got to a fever pitch right before the royal wedding.

Then, miraculously, on the royal wedding day, an article accompanied by a picture claimed to show Meghan’s dog Guy in the Queen’s Range Rover, driving to the royal wedding. Now, we can tell you, it wasn’t true, and it was probably a PR stunt done by Meghan’s people. Here’s the video of the Queen arriving at the royal wedding, with no dog and a different outfit than the image above:

In fact, the Queen, who is a dog lover, has three dogs, one corgi and two dorgis. People Magazine reported, “Whisper [a corgi] was brought into the family following the death of one of the gamekeepers at the royal family’s Sandringham estate in Norfolk. She [the Queen] also still has two dorgis (corgi-dachshund mixes), Vulcan and Candy.”

So, it’s highly unlikely that the dog pictured in that Range Rover, if it is even the Queen in the car, is Meghan Markle’s dog. Which brings us to the burning question so many animal lovers are asking, “What happened to Guy and Bogart?”

In a BBC interview with Prince Harry upon their engagement, Meghan said, “Well I have two dogs that I’ve had for quite a long time, both my rescue pups,” adding, “And one is now staying with very close friends and my other little guy is – yes he’s in the UK, he’s been here for a while.”
That sparked outrage with people wanting to know why her dog Bogart had to stay behind. It was speculated that he was “too old” to make it to the UK, although no one ever knew just how old he was. The new Duchess only spoke of Bogart once more, saying, “I think he is doing just fine.”

When Meghan comments, “I think he is doing just fine,” this says she really has not stayed in touch with whomever she left him with to know for certain if he is fine.
One royal watcher wrote, “Supposedly it’s believed that he [Bogart] was ‘too old’ to make the flight in the cargo hold over to London, so he was left behind, while Meg’s other pooch, Guy, went across the pond to the UK, and presumably will wind up living with her and Harry at their cottage. Wait. Too old? He was too old? Then don’t make him ride in cargo! Couldn’t Prince Harry charter a private jet with a vet on board, or something? Um, he probably has a few connections.”

So, Bogart’s sad ending is that he was separated from his best friend Guy and separated from Meghan. To those who are dog owners, I bet you know when one dog dies or goes away, the other companion dog actually gets very depressed.

Some go downhill and refuse to eat. Since we have no idea why Meghan didn’t use some of the thousands of dollars she was spending to bring Bogart to the UK, it reminds us of how she just dumped her husband and friends back in Los Angeles.
Now, you can see why the PR stunt with the planted photo with the Queen and a dog on her wedding day redeemed Meghan in many people’s eyes. The story was so widespread, even the liberal fact-checking outlet Snopes got involved. While we have our issues with Snopes, as it tends to lean heavily leftist, it seems it got this investigation right, saying the story was “completely false.”

In December, Guy broke two legs, but the entire incident was kept “hush-hush.” The beagle, who probably doesn’t see Meghan that much, and Bogart, who was left behind, both got raw deals. The former actress turned Duchess should have kept them together. It was such a selfish move to bring one and not the other. They should be together. Meghan’s mothering instincts aren’t too keen at all.