Where’s the Smoking Gun?

Representative Devin Nunes is now going to have a closed door session with FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers, as the House Intelligence Committee looks into “topics” that include whether the Obama administration used the guise of “legally authorized top-secret surveillance of foreign targets” to spy on the Trump transition team and spread throughout the government, far and wide, “unmasked” information concerning what the Trump team was doing and to whom they were talking between the November election and Trump’s inauguration.

At least, we must hope this is the purpose of the session. Nunes simply must ask Comey and Rogers to restate their allegation that Trump was wrong about being spied on by the Obama administration and explain how what Nunes has learned comports with their prior statements. Then Nunes needs to inform the American people asap.

Democrats are upset that an open hearing with (former Director of National Intelligence) James Clapper, (former CIA Director) John Brennan, and (former Deputy Attorney General) Sally Yates has been canceled (or delayed). That they’re upset is puzzling, given that it doesn’t seem likely that those three would relish being under oath while having to explain how and why the unmasking took place.

Surely Nunes suspects that the results of legal surveillance of foreign individuals (Mr. Nigel Farage, perhaps?) talking to or about Trump and/or his associates was mined for information that could be used for political purposes by Trump’s opponents (namely, the incoming Obama “shadow government” and the Democrat Party, not to mention the mainstream media).

Nunes discovered that names of U.S. citizens were “unmasked” in analyses and reports and that information about these citizens, especially members of Trump’s transition team, was then deliberately disseminated throughout the government at as low a level of classification as possible.

The information, according to Nunes and Representative Peter King, was not necessary to the reports. Rather, instead of having intelligence or national security value, the documents helpfully supplied who, what, when, where, and why details about the Trump transition to as many people as possible who were then working in the Obama administration (and who perhaps are still employed under Trump).

These reports, when seen by Nunes, apparently alarmed him, perhaps because, as a member of the transition team himself, he was also named in them. But that’s just speculation. Time will tell, if We the People are ever allowed to learn the truth about what Nunes saw.

Anonymous sources sent these reports to Nunes, who shared what he read with President Trump because he felt that the President has a right to know.

How is it that Trump was not given all of these intelligence reports as part of his transition to the presidency? The very transition that Trump’s predecessor, Obama, had promised to facilitate! One might easily expect an incoming president to be brought up to speed by having him review the most recent set of intelligence reports that had been “disseminated” far and wide.

Remember that astounding story claiming that intelligence agencies were keeping information from President Trump, supposedly from their fear of leaks? Perhaps these reports about spying ON Trump are exactly the information being kept FROM Trump!

Consider this:

Nunes said he did not have that material in hand. He noted he had “viewed” the documents this week. And he said that he hoped to receive copies of the material “from the NSA and other agencies” on Friday, over the weekend, or early next week. He also indicated that there were more documents related to this matter than he had seen. Nunes added that he had been aware of the “unmasking” prior to reviewing the documents he saw. [emphasis added to quotes]

Yes. “More documents.” We shouldn’t be surprised about that, nor should anyone doubt that these documents exist. After all, the New York Times told us all about these many reports before Trump’s inauguration. They also hinted at the Obama administration’s haste to throw them out there:

At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies.

All designed to do what? Ensure leaks to the media? Preserve information that could be later used politically by the “shadow government?” Archive data from a source that would, at least in theory, no longer be accessible to Obama and his outgoing people? Provide ammunition to Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans to use to keep these Russian conspiracy theories going, to give Comey continued “justification” to prolong his “counterintelligence investigation” as a never-ending fishing expedition designed to sully President Trump and hamstring his administration?

As Patrick Buchanan wrote,

For what benign purpose would U.S. intelligence agents spread secrets damaging to their own president — to foreign regimes? Is this not disloyalty? Is this not sedition?

On Jan. 12, writes [The Wall Street Journal’s Dan] Henninger, the Times “reported that Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed rules that let the National Security Agency disseminate ‘raw signals intelligence information’ to 16 other intelligence agencies.”

Astounding. The Obamaites seeded the U.S. and allied intel communities with IEDs to be detonated on Trump’s arrival. This is the scandal, not Trump telling Vlad to go find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails.

Former CIA officer Col. Tony Shaffer explained:

Shaffer said that due to the simplicity required to “mask” an American’s name during an incidental wiretap, … the leak of Gen. Michael Flynn’s name was “accidental on purpose.”

“Clearly they were after gossip because it was political,” Shaffer said, maintaining that the alleged wiretap had nothing to do with Russia.

The “political appointees” in the intelligence community knew exactly what they were surveilling for, Shaffer said, adding that the case is “much worse than Watergate by an order of magnitude.”

He said that even if the surveillance was done legally, the “unmasking” of Americans’ names and the leaking of the information are felonies.

We the People need to see the “smoking gun” that was reported to exist before Nunes decided to take the issue into closed session. This scandal cannot be hidden behind closed doors, kept from the People under the guise of “national security” or to protect the legacy of our “first African-American president.”

President Trump needs to drain the swamp and he must start with these agencies that have allowed themselves to be used against us.

Yes, against the American people. We the People elected President Trump. He’s our president. He’s their president, whether they like it or not. The truth must come out. Felonies must be prosecuted and punished.

We the People must know whether or not our intelligence agencies were corrupted and politicized under Barack Obama.

We must be assured that this can never happen again in our country.


149 responses to “Where’s the Smoking Gun?

  1. Justice Scalia, new evidence shows “foxglove” present in body fluids !!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w6Uvae8kns

    • What? Digitalis? Was it prescribed? Here’s a text article. As usual with a lot of these types of stories, they make claims but really give no data about their sources. (Not that it matters. They say an anonymous source–just like the NEW YORK TIMES and the WASHINGTON POST. Tell us why we’re supposed to trust lamestream anonymous sources more than alt-media anonymous sources? Or even Napolitano’s sources?) That same site claims Sessions is having the body exhumed as a result of these findings from an independent research lab. The question is–how would they have access to his “body fluids?”

  2. Talkin’ about stuff like that, this might be relevant:

    By Jack Marshall
    March 30, 2017 6:30 a.m. ET

    What if your telecom company tracked the websites you visit, the apps you use, the TV shows you watch, the stores you shop at and the restaurants you eat at, and then sold that information to advertisers?

    In theory, it’s possible, given the stance Washington is taking on online privacy.

    Lawmakers on Tuesday voted to overturn privacy rules that required telecom companies to get customers’ permission before sharing their web-browsing and app usage history with third parties. The White House said Wednesday President Donald Trump intends to sign the measure into law.
    from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-washingtons-blessing-telecom-giants-can-mine-your-web-history-1490869801

    I changed from British Telecomm to a dedicated ISP specializing only in broadband to avoid this.
    It’s taken for granted – I hate it.
    You might have a magzine called something like Which ISP, that’s
    how I found a non-coporate ISP supplier.
    Then you have to drop Internet EXplorer – Firefox is potentially better,
    but you still have to drop your search engine.
    Google has done this for ages, so I am reliably told. I use Ixquick.com,
    a Danish search engine. It’s almost as fast as google and for 99% of searches you won’t know the difference. They have an EU award for privacy. They also don’t “bubble” your searches.
    I use their email service called Startmail. You could encrypt everything but I don’t encrypt nothing. I am not a criminal nor a terrorist but I hate all of the stuff that “Big Data” wants to do. I pay Startmail about a hundred bucks a year.

    The sayin’ is: If an internet service is free, then You are the product.
    Trump shouldn’t IMHO, sign this into law, but I guess he will.

    • The way I understand this (which I don’t really understand much) is that the Republicans are against Obama’s order because it treats the “telecoms” differently from Facebook and Google. And why not? Facebook and Google support DemoncRATS. If they’re going to disallow it, it should be disallowed across the board. Supposedly the reason for the difference is because different government agencies (supposedly) regulate the social media versus telecommunications companies. It seems to me that a person’s private information is that person’s PROPERTY. IF companies are going to sell it behind people’s backs, then they are stealing. The proceeds of the sale should go to the person who’s data it is. Of course, they can always say you don’t have to do business with them, but that’s unrealistic given that there’s really not a lot of competition and all the companies play the same game. Realistically, how can a person exist without using the Web these days?

      • Above:
        Dog n pony Show

        Can you survive without the net?
        I survive well without facebook, tweeter, and the rest of that junk.
        I don’t wake in the middle of the night and grab for my phone, because I dont have one. I don’t care what little tweeters tweet about me.

        Can you survive without going online?
        Of course you can. But whatever electronic stuff you do choose, don’t buy
        Siri or Alexa or smart TVs or smart meters or anyone one of a thousand so called smart devices that are only being offered to you to permanently ensnare you into big data.

        Especially don’t buy a self driving car.

        I remember ten or or so years ago, I used to watch the Xfiles and in this one epsidoe Muldaur got his mobile out to call for help because he was trapped in a railroad boxcar with a whole bunch of dead aliens – of course the bad guys were on him in a flash.

        Today, you don’t have to even turn your phone on, it’s never off, unless
        you store it in a solid metal box whenever you don’t want it, or
        you just don’t bother to get one in the first place.

        The answer to google ripping off everbody’s privacy for profit is NOT saying everybody else can do it too. The answer is to pass a law that says any internet company operating in the USA cannot harvest data
        from anyone, and if google leaves, then sofwhat?

        Big disappointment!

        • This changes my opinion about Freedom Watch, the 30 strong voting block that stopped Trump from getting obammacare 2.
          I’m thinking now they did exactly the right thing.

          My wife sometimes asks me why I voted for Donald Trump.
          I reply because Hillary represnts an evil abomination – but in my mind Mr. Trump has not proven himself, he was just worth a chance.

          • I can find no fault with this analysis:
            So without the help of the Freedom Caucus, where is Trump going to get the votes that he needs to avoid a shutdown?

            Is Trump going to team up with the Democrats?

            I don’t think so.

            Without some friends in Congress, there will be no spending bill, the debt ceiling will not get raised, there will be no border wall, there will be no tax cuts, there will be no enhanced border security, there will be no trillion dollar infrastructure plan, there will be no new military spending and nothing else that Trump wants to do will get done either.

            Trump is going to learn a very hard lesson that many other prominent leaders in the past have also learned.

            You do not go to war with your own people.

          • Agreed. My problem with that bill is that it was too much like the way we were tricked on “amnesty” several times. Amnesty now; we’ll close the border in phase two. Here, it was, pass this bill and in phase two we’ll deal with the free markets, selling across state lines, etc. BS. They would NEVER have gotten around to phase two and for sure the DemoncRATS would have stopped them, anyway, if they even tried. Why is Trump going to war with the conservatives when his stupid bill would have passed if ONLY A FEW of the DemoncRATS had supported it? Pelosi and the rest KNOW and have admitted the problems in Obamacare, but they put a “win” for their party above what’s best for the People. That’s why DemoncRATS must all be defeated because it’s the ONLY WAY to take America back from the Fascists who vote in LOCK STEP always. IF they cannot confirm a fine person like Judge Gorsuch, then there’s NEVER ANY HOPE that they’ll ever confirm ANY nominee Trump puts up. When will the Republicans play hard ball? When will ANY DEMONCRAT ever again act like a normal representative of the people–ALL THE PEOPLE, not just those who voted for them? Any state has a mixed population. Those who voted for the Congressperson and those who didn’t. NEVERTHELESS, once the person takes the oath, that person represents EVERYONE in the district, not just everyone in their party.

        • Any clue how to create a virtual private network? I mean, we can use blockers, always clear cookies, and try to use the “private browsing” features, but does all that really do the trick?

          One big win today: A court ruled that cops have to have probable cause and a warrant to download data from your car’s black box.

          The kids today seem so blase about handing over all kinds of information about themselves. When you think about it, they scoff at their own privacy and put nearly everything about their lives on the Web. I could probably survive without going online, but then I’d be dependent upon the lamestream media and FOX News for information. Well, there’s always Rush.

  3. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/report-obama-admin-blocked-comey-writing-op-ed-russian-meddling-last-summer/

    This is really an interesting theory. Hillary KNEW Obama’s administration was spying on Trump. She blackmailed Comey to help her by threatening to reveal it AND possibly to blackmail him into exonerating her on the email thing. Wow. Great thought.

  4. go to about 4:10 into the vid and get some good info on this Russian Hacking theory. Hmmmm….makes sense to me.

    • I heard that last night on TV that CrowdStrike retracted their claim. This was big news when they claimed it but apparently a secret that they retracted it. All I can think is that they KNOW this is going to be looked at now and examined by experts and they KNOW they were “mistaken.” The big takeaway is that the DNC would NOT LET the FBI see the server. Could take from that several thoughts: (1) they didn’t want to let anybody else see what was on the server, especially when Hillary was under investigation; (2) FBI wanted to remain unassociated with the conclusion that was supposed to be presented (that Russia did it) because FBI knew Russia DIDN’T do it or would easily be able to see they didn’t, if they could see the server; and (3) DNC wanted to blame Trump and not themselves, because they knew, as Wikileaks claimed, that it was a DNC insider who took the info and gave it to Wikileaks. Wait! What? This CrowdStrike also claimed that the Russians hacked the Congressional Committee AND Podesta? We know that ordinary old hackers used one of those typical email-embedded tricky links that whoever opened Podesta’s email clicked on–and all because, the story goes, he asked his security people whether it was safe and they apparently made a “typo” and said it was safe instead of unsafe! So exonerate the “Russians” on that one. Is the other hack, of some Congresspersons, the one where Feinstein said the Obama administration hacked her? No, guess not. I don’t even remember hearing about this “hack” but here’s a story about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html?_r=0 It was a hack of some DemoncRAT Congressional CAMPAIGNS. But who believes this CrowdStrike, anyway, considering they’re CONNECTED TO HILLARY AND FARKAS IS CONNECTED TO THEM? Apparently only the FBI and all 17 “intelligence” groups in our government accept THEIR analysis. It’s like letting the fox investigate who broke into the hen house.

      • http://washingtonfeed.com/proof-released-russia-scandal-bogus-evidence-planted-by.html


        I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they’re backtracking, when they now may have to testify under oath, OR that Wikileaks decided to release the proof that the CIA (or anybody else with the software) can easily SPOOF (iow, leave “tracks” blaming someone else) IP#’s as well as software languages, spoken languages, etc. They’re going to be grilled for the truth and they can’t provide it because there is NONE first of all. IF the “Russians” didn’t do it, then there’s nothing for Trump’s associates to have colluded or coordinated ON! The collusion and coordination appears to have been there, all right, and right within the DNC, the campaign, these “American officials” either in the administration or out or it, the DemoncRATS in Congress, the media, and anybody else in on this false narrative that’s a transparent attempt to subvert democracy and undermine the elected president.

        Short hand take on the Breitbart article: CrowdStrike and the Clinton campaign et al WANTED to blame the hack on Trump, for her loss, AND on the RUSSIANS. So CrowdStrike said the Russians did it and wouldn’t let the FBI see the evidence (or server). THEN, when to make people BELIEVE them, they decided to create a story “proving” the connection of these hackers to the Kremlin. They did it by claiming that some app created or hacked by these same hackers was placed on artillery targeting software and that caused the Ukrainians to lose 80% of their weapons either because they were visible, via the app, to their enemies or because the malware infection caused them to scrap the weapons. This was ALL UNTRUE. But it was put out there to create the illusion of a connection between this hacker group and the Russian government. There was push back by, among others, the Ukrainians themselves and the guy who wrote the targeting software, and now CrowdStrike had to retract their bogus analysis.

      • https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/31/tucker-carlson-interviews-dr-stephen-cohen-re-the-vast-russian-conspiracy/

        Good video here. That’s what I heard last night about how bogus it is for all 17 intelligence agencies to “say” it was the Russians. 1. It was only CrowdStrike, hired by the Clintons, associated with them and 2. CLAPPER is the one who headed all agencies and if HE says it, then they supposedly ALL say it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s