CNN’s Phil Mud Declares Deep State Will Kill Trump | ‘Govt’s Gonna Kill this Guy’
|| dc Whispers
“Good Lord. Imagine the collective outcry if anything remotely similar had been said on air by a news organization against the former president. Add to this the heightened state of unhinged anti-Trumpism from the far left and what we have here is CNN actively participating in creating an environment that already contributed to Republican members of Congress getting shot by Democrat activists. (Congressman Steve Scalise is still fighting hard to recover from his wounds.)
Is this wishful thinking? Marching orders? Irresponsible hyperbole?
POTUS Trump Rips Obama Over Report He Knew of Russian Threat in 2014
“Yesterday, The Gateway Pundit reported that the Obama administration knew Russia attempted to meddle in the ‘U.S. political system,’ but refused to act over retaliation fears. On Tuesday, President Trump ripped his predecessor’s timidness in dealing with the alleged threat.
President Trump sought to turn the tables on the Obama administration Tuesday morning on the heels of a report saying they received “multiple warnings” as far back as 2014 about the Moscow meddling threat, suggesting his predecessor kept it under wraps because “he didn’t want to anger Russia.”
“According to report just out, President Obama knew about Russian interference 3 years ago but he didn’t want to anger Russia!” Trump tweeted.
The previous administration drew various ‘red lines’ and issued strongly worded threats – yet still, our enemies moved onward. A new report by POLITICO says the Obama administration refused to respond to alleged Russian interference because it feared retaliation.
Hillary says she will accept the outcome of the election 2016 debate:
U.S. intelligence officials were frustrated with the Obama administration’s response to Russia’s cyber espionage and disinformation campaigns to disrupt Western democracies, arguing the administration’s reluctance to respond more forcefully stemmed from fear of Russian retaliation.
More than a dozen current and former national security officials from across the government told Politico how ineffective the White House and key agencies were in authorizing counter measures against Russian interference. Those officials said that responses such as shutting down suspected Russian intelligence sites or taking counter-intelligence action never went anywhere due to administrative roadblocks.
“[Intelligence officials] had a list of things they could never get the signoffs on,” one official said. “The truth is, nobody wanted to piss off the Russians.”
Wanting to counter suspected Russian interference in American politics, these officials said that the Obama administration was aware of Russia’s activities but did not want to retaliate forcefully. As it became clear that Russia was meddling in the 2016 election, officials recommended expelling diplomats or striking back through cyber measures but were denied.
Some outside the White House blamed the National Security Council’s micromanagement, but NSC officials pointed the finger at the State and Defense Departments. Those agencies were reportedly afraid of Russian retaliation.
“The frustrations [about lack of forceful action] are justified and, frankly, were shared by the White House,” a former official told Politico. “The options were being discussed. They weren’t being implemented.”
Americans do agree that President Trump was concerned about voter fraud and he even stated this in one of the debates.
The President was put on the spot by FOX News’ Chris Wallace and asked if he would support the results of the election. He said that the results were rigged, the press was piling on him unfairly and millions of people are on voter registration rolls that are not eligible to vote. (Trump was right.)
Then-candidate Trump said this about his opponent Hillary Clinton:
“She should not be allowed to run and just in that respect I say the election is rigged. Because, Chris, she should never have been allowed to run for the Presidency based on what she did with emails and so many other things.”
Hillary responded by claiming her innocence in the various scandals surrounding her campaign and shamed then-candidate Trump for not respecting the Constitution. The Hillary-supporting media piled on Donald Trump over his remarks.
Since the election we know that over 7 million cases have been identified of voter registrations being duplicated in multiple states.
And we still have no evidence of Russia hacking the election and impacting a single vote.”
“Sunday morning marked the official opening of the Holocaust Museum and Education Center in Skokie, Illinois. This striking new institution is dedicated to “preserving the legacy of the Holocaust by honoring the memories of those who were lost and by teaching universal lessons that combat hatred, prejudice and indifference.”
The seeds of the Skokie Holocaust Museum were sown more than thirty years ago, when roughly thirty members of the Nazi Party of America sought to march in Skokie. The plan was for the marchers to wear uniforms reminiscent of those worn by the members of Hitler’s Nazi Party, including swastika armbands, and to carry a party banner bearing a large swastika.
At the time of the proposed march in 1977, Skokie, a northern Chicago suburb, had a population of about 70,000 persons, 40,000 of whom were Jewish. Approximately 5,000 of the Jewish residents were survivors of the Holocaust. The residents of Skokie responded with shock and outrage. They sought a court order enjoining the march on the grounds that it would “incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry,” that is was a “deliberate and willful attempt” to inflict severe emotional harm on the Jewish population in Skokie (and especially on the survivors of the Holocaust), and that it would incite an “uncontrollably” violent response and lead to serious “bloodshed.”
The Skokie controversy triggered one of those rare but remarkable moments in American history when citizens throughout the nation vigorously debated the meaning of the United States Constitution. The arguments were often fierce, heartfelt and painful. The American Civil Liberties Union, despite severe criticism and withdrawal of support by many its strongest supporters, represented the First Amendment rights of the Nazis.
The outcome of the Skokie controversy was one of the truly great victories for the First Amendment in American history. It proved that the rule of law must and can prevail. Because of our profound commitment to the principle of free expression even in the excruciatingly painful circumstances of Skokie more than thirty years ago, we remain today the international symbol of free speech. (Ultimately, a deal was worked out and the Nazis agreed to march in Chicago rather than in Skokie.)
As Justice Louis Brandeis once explained, the Framers of our First Amendment knew “that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.” The opening today of the Holocaust Museum and Education Center proves the profound wisdom of the principle that “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”
Study Finds 3.5 Million Ghost Voters in US – More Than the Entire Population of 21 States
“A new study by Judicial Watch found that there are at least 3.5 million more people registered to vote than are alive among the US voting age adults.
Deroy Murdock atNational Review reported:
Some 3.5 million more people are registered to vote in the U.S. than are alive among America’s adult citizens. Such staggering inaccuracy is an engraved invitation to voter fraud.
The Election Integrity Project of Judicial Watch — a Washington-based legal-watchdog group — analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011–2015 American Community Survey and last month’s statistics from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The latter included figures provided by 38 states. According to Judicial Watch, eleven states gave the EAC insufficient or questionable information. Pennsylvania’s legitimate numbers place it just below the over-registration threshold.
My tabulation of Judicial Watch’s state-by-state results yielded 462 counties where the registration rate exceeded 100 percent. There were 3,551,760 more people registered to vote than adult U.S. citizens who inhabit these counties.
There are 21 states that don’t have a population of 3.5 million.”
Bloomberg: Manafort Alerted Authorities About Russian Meeting
“Buried in a new article out of Bloomberg is an understated but potentially significant statement: “In fact, Manafort had alerted authorities to a controversial meeting on June 9, 2016, involving Trump’s son Donald Jr., other campaign representatives and a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton, according to people familiar with the matter.” That would be a huge development in this controversy if true, particularly if the notice occurred before the Russian meeting occurred.
Much of the criticism directed at Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort has been that only chumps would have gone to this meeting or, at a minimum, alerted authorities. Now Bloomberg is saying that it has sources saying that Manafort did indeed alert authorities. That would go a long way to defusing the conspiracy theories surrounding the meeting and shatter the narrative put forward by critics.
What is also concerning is that, if true, this fact is one of the only facts not leaked out of Congress. It seems that closed sessions have been mere precludes to media leaks. Yet, members have been saying as a mantra that the FBI or some other agency should have been notified. Ironically, this is the most significant part of the Bloomberg story but is buried without further comment. Why? There is no indication of who was informed or when. This would seem one of the most important developments in the controversy but we are left in the dark on the details. Hopefully we will see in the coming days whether this account is confirmed and, if so, what details can be shared.”
U.S. PAPERS TELL OF IKE’S ’53 POLICY TO USE A-BOMB IN KOREA
|| New York Times
By BERNARD GWERTZMAN
Published: June 8, 1984
WASHINGTON, June 7— Documents released today give details on a decision by President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Administration in 1953 to use atomic bombs in North Korea and Communist China, if necessary, to end the Korean War.
Once the armistice was achieved, on July 27, 1953, the Eisenhower Administration continued to define plans to use nuclear weapons if the Communists renewed the war, which the North Koreans started in 1950.
President Eisenhower took office in January 1953 after talks for a cease-fire had dragged on for two years and the war had settled into a standoff, with casualties being incurred but with no change in the front line, which today still separates North and South Korea.
The fact that the Eisenhower Administration was ready to use nuclear weapons is not new. President Eisenhower, in his memoirs, said he came into office prepared to use them, if necessary, to break the deadlock. What is new in the 2,000 pages of documents now made public is the high level of planning and the detail of discussion on possible use of these weapons, and Mr. Eisenhower’s interest in overcoming reluctance to use them.”
“Democrats and Republicans have been quick to use North Korea’s apparent nuclear test to benefit their own party in these final weeks of the congressional campaign, but a review of history shows that both sides have contributed to the current situation.
There is more than 50 years of history to Pyongyang’s attempt to gain a nuclear weapon, triggered in part by threats from Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower to end the Korean War.
In 1950, when a reporter asked Truman whether he would use atomic bombs at a time when the war was going badly, the president said, “That includes every weapon we have.”
Three years later, Eisenhower made a veiled threat, saying he would “remove all restraints in our use of weapons” if the North Korean government did not negotiate in good faith an ending to that bloody war.
In 1957, the United States placed nuclear-tipped Matador missiles in South Korea, to be followed in later years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, by nuclear artillery, most of which was placed within miles of the demilitarized zone.
It was not until President Jimmy Carter’s administration, in the late 1970s, that the first steps were taken to remove some of the hundreds of nuclear weapons that the United States maintained in South Korea, a process that was not completed until 1991, under the first Bush administration.
It is against that background that the North Korean nuclear program developed.
North Korea has its own uranium mines and in 1965 obtained a small research reactor from the Soviet Union, which it located at Yongbyon. By the mid-1970s, North Korean technicians had increased the capability of that reactor and constructed a second one. Pyongyang agreed in 1977 to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the first reactor.
It was in the 1980s that the North Korean weapons program began its clandestine growth with the building of a facility for reprocessing fuel into weapons-grade material and the testing of chemical high explosives. In 1985, around the time U.S. intelligence discovered a third, once-secret reactor, North Korea agreed to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Five years later, U.S. intelligence discovered through satellite photos that a structure had been built that appeared to be capable of separating plutonium from nuclear fuel rods. Under pressure, North Korea signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA in 1992, and inspections of facilities began. But in January 1993, IAEA inspectors were prevented from going to two previously unreported facilities. In the resulting crisis, North Korea attempted to withdraw from the NPT.
The Clinton administration responded in 1994 that if North Korea reprocessed plutonium from fuel rods, it would be crossing a “red line” that could trigger military action. The North Koreans “suspended” their withdrawal from the NPT, and bilateral talks with the Clinton administration got underway. When negotiations deadlocked, North Korea removed fuel rods from one of its reactors, a step that brought Carter back into the picture as a negotiator.
The resulting talks led to the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which North Korea would freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program. In return, it would be supplied with conventional fuel and ultimately with two light-water reactors that could not produce potential weapons-grade fuel.
However, a subsequent IAEA inspection determined that North Korea had clandestinely extracted about 24 kilograms of plutonium from its fuel rods, and U.S. intelligence reported that was enough material for two or three 20-kiloton plutonium bombs.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a threat to national security
|| New York Post
Clinton because they thought she couldn’t be trusted with national secrets after her reckless handling of sensitive State Department emails. Florida voters ought to dispatch Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz for the same reason.
When it comes to security matters, the incumbent Democrat and former DNC chair makes Hillary look like a diligent TSA agent. And the news about her staffer trying to flee to Pakistan to avoid data-fraud charges is only the latest proof.
Computer security at the DNC was so lax on Wasserman Schultz’s watch that hackers burrowed deep into the network, leading to a massive data breach. They were thwarted, in contrast, when they tried to infiltrate Schultz’s Republican counterparts.
When the FBI tried to investigate the cyber-crime, Wasserman Schultz refused to fully cooperate. She wouldn’t let forensic experts at the FBI’s lab in Quantico examine the targeted server and collect the digital fingerprints needed to nail the intruders.
Now we discover that Wasserman Schultz couldn’t really give a rip about cyber-security in Congress, either.
After the Capitol Police this year began investigating her trusted staffer, Imran Awan, for theft of congressional data and procurement fraud, Politico reported, every Democrat who had contracted with him eventually fired him. Everyone, that is, except Wasserman Schultz.
It wasn’t until last month, when the FBI arrested Awan for bank fraud, that the Democratic leader finally sacked him. The FBI says Awan bilked the Congressional Federal Credit Union out of $165,000, which he immediately wrapped into a $283,000 wire transfer to Pakistan. Agents collared him as he was boarding a flight for Pakistan.
In an interview with her local paper, Wasserman Schultz revealed she kept Awan around to do other IT work even after authorities suspended his access to the Capitol computer network. Worse, she said she continued to employ him to work on printers, websites and software despite learning he transferred sensitive congressional data outside the secure network to an unauthorized offsite storage location.
Police told her Awan was “transferring data outside the secure network, which I think amounted to use of apps that the House didn’t find compliant with our security requirements,” Wasserman Schultz shrugged, insisting she “did the right thing” keeping him on payroll. “I would do it again.”
She claims he didn’t have access to classified information, though investigators still probing Awan haven’t confirmed that. And even if true, he had access to emails to and from members of the House Intelligence Committee, as well as the calendars, travel schedules and notes of other members — sensitive information that, as one Republican legislator pointed out, “our enemies that would like to bring down the US would love to have.”
Awan is reported to have smashed hard drives before agents raided his home. If he copied valuable data to off-site servers, it would set off bigger alarms. Such information could be used to blackmail members of Congress — namely Wasserman Schultz, who has gone to unusual lengths to protect her rogue IT guy.
She admitted she knew Awan was planning to travel to Pakistan, but that he had discussed return dates with her chief of staff. And when investigators seized a laptop from her office, one she says belonged to Awan, she went into high dudgeon, chewing out the Capitol Police chief in May when he refused to return it and even threatening him with “consequences.”
As it turns out, Awan had access to Wasserman Schultz’s emails at both Congress and the DNC. He had been given the password to her iPad, which might also explain why she refused to turn over the server to the FBI.
Wasserman Schultz claims she defended Awan to the bitter end, because he’s Muslim and she didn’t want to see him demonized in an Islamophobic witch hunt. But that excuse doesn’t cut ice. Awan exhibited a pattern of shady behavior over the course of his employment. Yet instead of questioning him, she covered for him — and endangered the security of Congress’ computer networks in the process.
Such negligence should not be rewarded with another term in office.”
Susan Rice Urges Donald Trump to ‘Tolerate Nuclear Weapons in North Korea’
“Despite playing a key role in an administration responsible for one of the weakest foreign policies since the Carter White House, ex-Obama official Susan Rice believes her opinions still hold weight – particularly on the issue of North Korea. Rice is urging President Trump to ‘tolerate’ North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
“History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” she wrote in a New York Times op-ed, criticizing the president’s “fire and fury” rhetoric in response to the escalating tensions between the two countries.
Rice urged Gen. John Kelly, White House chief of staff, to stop Trump, and she pointedly attacked Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the deputy assistant to the president.
“John Kelly, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, must assert control over the White House, including his boss, and curb the Trump surrogates whipping up Cuban missile crisis fears,” she wrote.
Rice complained that Trump’s rhetoric was “unprecedented and especially dangerous” and that America would have to be cautious about its response to Pyongyang.
She defended Obama’s actions in response to North Korea, insisting that his administration put them “on edge” by conducting joint military exercises with South Korea and introducing more economic sanctions.
President Trump is faced with one of the most challenging foreign policy questions in a generation: Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea? Such a decision may not have been necessary had the previous administration taken the Hermit Kingdom more seriously. A FOX News report reveals the Obama White House downplayed North Korea’s nuclear missile program back in 2013. Was this done to avoid taking on North Korean issue?”
Federal Judge Orders State Dept To Search Hillary Aides’ Accounts For Benghazi Records
|| Daily Caller
“The search for State Department emails regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks received a boost this week when a federal judge ordered the agency to search the government email accounts of several Hillary Clinton aides.
Washington D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, ordered State to search the accounts of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s top aides at the State Department, in response to a lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Mehta said that the State Department did not do enough to search for all emails it has on its computer systems regarding the Benghazi attacks, which left four Americans dead.
The State Department reviewed the 30,000-plus emails that Clinton returned to the agency in Dec. 2014. It has also searched emails that Abedin, Mills and Sullivan sent and received on personal accounts.
“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as Secretary of State,” Mehta said.
“[State] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov email server.”
Mehta said that the State Department “has offered no assurance” that the records it has received so far from Clinton and the trio of aides “constitute the entirely of Secretary Clinton’s emails during the time period relevant to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.”
Judicial Watch, which has pursued several lawsuits related to Clinton emails despite her election loss, celebrated Mehta’s order.
“This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal — and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it — as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement.
“It is remarkable that we had to battle both the Obama and Trump administrations to break through the State Department’s Benghazi stonewall. Why are Secretary Tillerson and Attorney General Sessions wasting taxpayer dollars protecting Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration?”