The truth about Buzzfeed and Trump

Let’s look at President-elect Donald Trump’s first press conference. Then let’s discuss the circumstances.

During President-elect Donald Trump’s press conference today, Trump took aim at “fake news” regarding the release of an unverified dossier by Buzzfeed, calling them a “failing piece of garbage.”

Following that, he ended up getting into an argument with a CNN reporter, who he also called out during the presser over their report on a two-page synopsis they claim was presented to Trump. With Trump looking to call on other reporters, Jim Acosta yelled out, “Since you are attacking us, can you give us a question?” “Not you,” Trump said. “Your organization is terrible!” Acosta pressed on, “You are attacking our news organization, can you give us a chance to ask a question, sir?” Trump countered by telling him “don’t be rude.” “I’m not going to give you a question,” Trump responded. “I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news.”

It would appear there is no love lost between CNN and Trump. Let’s begin to explain, from BuzzFeed.com:

These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia

A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.

by Ken Bensinger, Miriam Elder and Mark Schoofs

A dossier making explosive — but unverified — allegations that the Russian government has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting” President-elect Donald Trump for years and gained compromising information about him has been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.

Translation: we don’t much care that anything is verified or corroborated; we’re going to throw it onto the wall in any event because the information can do nothing but assail Donald Trump. CNN, equally despising Trump but perhaps even more clearly craven than Buzzfeed justifies publishing the story and promoting it (yes, I watched CNN do just that) under the guise of “news about news is news.” Damn the facts or corroboration.

In a nutshell, backed by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, this is what occurred.

A still-unidentified wealthy GOP donor — clearly not a good pal of Donald Trump — hired a firm in 2015 called Fusion GPS to assemble opposition research on Donald Trump. Fusion ended up hiring a former British MI-6 operative named Christopher Steele, in the spring of 2016, who wrote the 35-page report on Trump. Please let me point out that the DC firm Fusion GPS is the same one hired by Planned Parenthood to put a positive spin on videos showing the sale of baby parts. This is “good to know” information.

Because the meme was “in the air,” Steele was to dig up smegma on Trump’s “obvious” ties to Russia. Steele talked to some Russians and the gossip was included in the report later compiled.

The information somehow “found its way” to the FBI. That was not magic, of course. It was purposeful, by way of Arizona Senator John McCain.

Yes, John McCain — clearly not a good pal of Donald Trump — got this hot mess started. He sent one of his own operatives across the Atlantic in order to acquire Trump’s dossier from Steele. McCain discovered the dossier’s existence when he was at a Canadian meeting with Sir Andrew Wood, a former associate of UK’s Tony Blair who is, also, not a good pal of Donald Trump, and subsequently sent an aide to acquire the report, in August of 2016.

An interesting aside. Very few persons have dared to mention the direct involvement of Senator John McCain, even that stalwart “the spin stops here” Fox News guy, Bill O’Reilly, who purposely avoided mentioning the involvement of McCain in his Thursday, January 12th Talking Points Commentary broadcast.

John McCain turned the dossier over to the FBI, saying he did “what any citizen would do.”

The report contained this:

Lurid sex claims

The report states that in 2013 Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed of the Presidential Suite at the Moscow Ritz Carlton, where he knew Barack and Michelle Obama had previously stayed.

It says: ‘Trump’s unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years had provided the authorities there with enough embarrassing material on the now Republican presidential candidate to be able to blackmail him if they so wished.’

Trump ridiculed the idea, pointing out that Russian hotel rooms are known to be rigged with cameras and describing himself as a ‘germophobe’. 

Property ‘sweeteners’

The document states that Trump had declined ‘sweetener’ real estate deals in Russia that the Kremlin lined up in order to cultivate him.

The business proposals were said to be ‘in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament’.

Russia ‘cultivated’ Trump for five years

The dossier claimed that the Russian regime had been ‘cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years’.

According to the document, one source even claimed that ‘the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin’ with the aim being to ‘sow discord’. 

A dossier on Hillary Clinton

At one point the memo suggests Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov ‘controlled’ another dossier containing compromising material on Hillary Clinton compiled over ‘many years’.

Elsewhere in the document, it is claimed that Putin was ‘motivated by fear and hatred of Hillary Clinton.’

Peskov poured scorn on the claims today and said they were ‘pulp fiction’. 

Clandestine meetings

At one point the memo says there were reports of ‘clandestine meetings’ between Donald Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and Kremlin representatives in August last year in Prague.

However, Trump’s counsel Michael Cohen today spoke out against allegations that he secretly met with Kremlin officials – saying that he had never been to Prague.

It has now emerged that the dossier was referring to a different person of the same name.

On Halloween, October 31st of last year, Mother Jones magazine — Leftist Paper Central — ran the David Corn story. No one else covered it at that point; not Fox, not NBC, not CBS or ABC.

On January 5th, Obama was briefed on intelligence and in that briefing the dossier was revealed. Even Obama asked why the dossier information, unsubstantiated and unconfirmed, was included in the briefing. On January 6th, Donald Trump received the same intelligence information from four quite senior US intelligence chiefs.

Simultaneously, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Little Chuckie Schumer, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Richard Burr and Mark Warner received the same information. CNN then was the recipient of information from a leaker that Obama and Trump had been briefed on the contents.

That’s where Buzzfeed stepped in it, literally and figuratively, with their story. Please click and then read the article.

Many of the allegations have been completely and utterly discredited whilst none have been confirmed in any fashion whatsoever.

Perhaps now you’re beginning to understand the reason behind Donald Trump’s unhappiness at the press conference.

The bottom line is this: the information — uncorroborated, unconfirmed, unsubstantiated — was released with the sole purpose of smearing Trump even before taking office.

This is markedly different from the Wikileaks information about Hillary Clinton, the DNC, John Podesta and the American Media Maggots, insofar as none of that information has been challenged or refuted. The evidence is as plain as day. Those things occurred. The players are simply pissed because they were caught.

The gloves are off. It’s bare-knuckled brawling now. The American Media Maggots aren’t even making the slightest pretense of being unbiased or even semi-truthful. Any journalistic forms of standards or ethics are predominantly gone. It’s all about innuendo and allegations unsubstantiated.

Even journalist Bob Woodward is angry with the media and US intelligence agencies. From the NYPost.com:

Bob Woodward calls Trump dossier ‘garbage’

by Marisa Schultz

WASHINGTON — Legendary journalist Bob Woodward on Sunday clashed with his former “Watergate” reporting partner over the intelligence briefing of President-elect Donald Trump on the salacious allegations contained in an unverified dossier of opposition research.

“I’ve lived in this world for 45 years where you get things and people make allegations,” Woodward told FOX News Sunday.

“That is a garbage document. It never should have been presented in–- as part of an intelligence briefing.”

Further, Bob Woodward had serious words about US intelligence.

Woodward also said that “Trump’s point of view” was being “under-reported,” noting that outgoing White House Counsel Neil Eggleston could have given the briefing to incoming Counsel Don McGahn.

“So Trump’s right to be upset about that,” Woodward said. “And I think if you look at the real chronology and the nature of the battle here, those intelligence chiefs who were the best we’ve had, who were terrific and have done great work made a mistake here. And when people make mistakes, they should apologize.”

Glenn Greenwald at TheIntercept.com also wrote:

The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”

Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss, as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry, and damaging those behaviors might be.

Mr Greenwald is not a lover of Donald Trump, but he realizes the danger that is occurring in the US now.

But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts, and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.

The gloves are indeed off, ladies and gentlemen. It’s a bare-knuckled battle from here on out.

Because, after all, what do we have here? We have baseless allegations gathered by well-paid mercenaries for political assassins — on both sides of the aisle, make no mistake — to use against Conservatives, Republicans and Donald Trump.

That is what really occurred between Buzzfeed and Donald Trump.

BZ

 

CIA to Trump: we have you in our gunsights

As with many things in politics, you have to possess the ability to read between the lines. A new story from the WaPo made me conduct such an examination.

First, the story from the WashingtonPost.com:

Intelligence chiefs briefed Trump and Obama on unconfirmed claims Russia has compromising information on president-elect

by Greg Miller

A classified report delivered to President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump last week included a section summarizing allegations that Russian intelligence services have compromising material and information on Trump’s personal life and finances, U.S. officials said.

The officials said that U.S. intelligence agencies have not corroborated those allegations, but believed that the sources involved in the reporting were credible enough to warrant inclusion of their claims in the highly classified report on Russian interference in the presidential campaign.

If true, the information suggests that Moscow has assembled damaging information — known in espionage circles by the Russian term “kompromat” — that conceivably could be used to coerce the next occupant of the White House. The claims were presented in a two-page summary attached to the full report, an addendum that also included allegations of ongoing contact between members of Trump’s inner circle and representatives of Moscow.

I recommend you read the rest of the article. The information being revealed between the lines of the story indicates, to me, a rocky road coming for President-elect Trump.

Some history, then a conclusion.

It’s no surprise that I remain skeptical concerning the “Russian hacking” of the American election, resulting in the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Demorats tried throwing every excuse imaginable onto the political wall in order to see what would stick, to include recounts for Hillary Clinton under the pretext of their being for Jill Stein, talk radio and Fox News, the Electoral College, FBI Director James Comey, misogyny on the part of females (of all things), and fake news — to encompass the Drudge Report, which is nothing more than an aggregator of news and frequently features sites such as CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, LA Times and more. If Drudge is “fake” then most certainly those other outlets are as well. They have also been saying “Russia Russia Russia” every day since November 8th.

The corollary glory of it all is that, particularly with regard to fake news, much of it has blossomed in the other direction. Time and again the true purveyors of fake news have been proven to be the American Media Maggots and not alternative news sources. The AMM have lost their “gatekeeper” status and desperately seek to lock it back up. They are quaking and frightened to their very core because they are losing control and cash.

That said, the theme that somehow Russia hacked the election and not only favored but enabled Donald Trump to win has its proponents and its detractors. Proponents would obviously include Hillary Clinton, Demorats and the American Media Maggots because, in their minds, it certainly had nothing to do with the quality of the candidate herself or the way the campaign was managed.

Detractors or skeptics would include myself and, well, a few other tens of thousands of persons.

First, I developed information from one source (corroborated by a similar intelligence source on the opposite coast) that the NSA was responsible (read here please) for the hacks, and this was supported by Judge Andrew Napolitano — from HRC’s mishandling of GAMMA class intelligence. Read this.

Then Julian Assange (he of Wikileaks creation) came out and straight-up stated that Russia was not connected to the hacking of the DNC and Podesta’s emails at all. Assange, being the recipient of the trove of materials should, one may conclude, know. The release of the information appealed to Assange because, after all, Hillary Rodham Clinton stated she would like to have had him killed with a drone strike. That would certainly seem sufficient to take HRC off Assange’s Christmas card list.

The FBI said the Russians were not responsible. Then Obama said the Russians were not responsible. A UK diplomat said it wasn’t the Russians. Who to believe?

Now they are responsible. The party line is that “17 intelligence agencies say Russia was the source.” With, again, little or no clear evidence to back up the claims.

There was another person along the way with a healthy skepticism about the Russians being involved in the DNC hack and the hacking of the US presidential election. Donald Trump.

The meme is that the CIA, the DNI and the rest of the US Intelligence Community would not politicize intelligence except that, well, yes they would. And have. All the time. This is not finger-pointing at the line-level agents, processors or analysts. This is finger-pointing at the upper echelons of the Intelligence Community. As in: they decide what information to release to those who base policy and decisions upon intelligence take.

It’s no secret that Donald Trump has angered the lofty halls of the US Intelligence Community. They don’t care to have their character or their veracity questioned or second-guessed.

So Tuesday’s WaPo article — which contained, they admit, much speculation and little fact, could be a cautionary tale, a little sub-frequency IC message to President-elect Donald Trump: you’re in our gunsights.

One has to think that the source of whatever information “Russia may possess” about Trump personally could be the USIC itself.

Charles Krauthammer said on Tuesday:

“When you get these spy-vs-spy leaks, you can’t believe anybody because they’re all lying and that’s what they do for a living, so you never know which side is lying. But I think that the very fact this story has surfaced, is a way for the CIA to be telling Trump: you mess with us, we have a lot of information we can mess with you.”

Then, for God’s sake, there is this.

The bottom line is: there are so many political machinations on so many levels for so many mixed and cross-purposed reasons that it is all very clear.

As clear as mud.

Still and all: Donald Trump, beware.

BZ

 

Bill introduced to defund “sanctuary cities”

US mayors and governors don’t have the power to defy the federal government. Or do they? Are there legal teeth in Donald Trump’s words to “defund sanctuary cities”?

Representative Lou Barletta (PA, 11th) introduced a bill on Thursday that would grow a nice set of chompers and provide consequences for defiance of federal law. From Barletta.house.gov:

BARLETTA’S 1ST BILL OF 115TH CONGRESS: DEFUND SANCTUARY CITIES

Stops Federal Funding for Cities Failing to Cooperate with Immigration Officials

WASHINGTON – Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) today introduced the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 83, which will stop all federal funds from flowing to states or localities which resist or ban enforcement of federal immigration laws, or flatly refuse to cooperate with immigration officials.  The bill is the first piece of legislation introduced by Barletta in the 115th Congress and represents the third time the congressman has introduced the measure.  In 2011, the bill was the first piece of legislation he ever introduced as a member of Congress.  He introduced it a second time in the 114th Congress in 2015.

“One of the principal duties of the government is to protect its citizens, and the idea of sanctuary cities runs completely counter to that responsibility,” Barletta said.  “Too many mayors and local governments think that they are above federal law and place their own ideology ahead of the safety of their residents.  This bill will stop that practice by saying to these sanctuary cities, ‘If you refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, you will lose your federal funding.’”

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act prohibits any federal funding for a minimum period of one year to any state or local government which has a policy or law that prevents them from assisting immigration authorities in enforcing federal immigration law.  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) lists about 300 such localities in the United States.  Barletta’s bill directs the attorney general to compile an annual list of such cities and issue a report on any particular state or locality upon request from a member of Congress.  A state or local government would only regain federal funding eligibility after the attorney general certifies that its laws and policies are in compliance with federal immigration statutes.

The issue is this: 300 cities already refuse to cooperate with federal authorities over detainer requests from ICE officials, making illegals shielded from deportation — even those accused or convicted of felonies — as there is nothing in existing law obligating a city, county or state to cooperate, with no legal consequences when those entities fail to work with ICE.

Does anyone recall when then-Arizona Governor Jan Brewer passed a bill mandating state illegal immigrant enforcement that was tougher than the federal standard? Obama stated the US “cannot have fifty different immigration policies,” which the US Supreme Court affirmed. However, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that ruling may lend precedent, credence and authority to Barletta’s bill.

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act would cease federal funding to sanctuary regions or entities for one year. As Barletta said, “they would not get one federal cent.” We’re talking potentially billions of federal dollars of highway, education and medicaid cash.

The map above, provided by the Center for Immigration Studies, shows the location of US sanctuary cities, counties and one Leftist state, Fornicalia.

Then there is this point from CIS.org:

Tackling Sanctuaries

By Dan Cadman, Jessica Vaughan December 2016

Key Findings

This report examines the justifications given by sanctuary jurisdictions for their policies, and finds them to be largely unfounded:

  • Cooperation with immigration enforcement has not been shown to undermine community trust nor cause immigrants to refrain from reporting crimes; there are better ways to address issues of access to police assistance without obstructing enforcement;

  • Simply cooperating with federal immigration agencies does not turn local officers into de facto immigration officers, because federal officers make the decisions on which aliens are targeted for deportation;

  • Such cooperation is not very costly for local jurisdictions because the removal of criminal aliens spares future victims and saves future supervision, incarceration, and social services costs to criminal aliens. In addition, cooperative localities can receive partial reimbursement for their incarceration costs.

  • Claims by some local law enforcement agencies that they need a warrant in order to hold aliens for ICE are dubious but can be accommodated by the issuance of ICE administrative warrants.

The Trump administration has a number of tools available at its disposal and within the confines of executive authority to address the problem of sanctuaries and the public safety problems they create.

Here’s how to do so:

  • Rescind the Obama administration actions and policies that encourage and enable sanctuaries, including clarifying that local agencies are expected to comply with detainers;

  • Cut federal funding to sanctuaries;

  • Initiate civil litigation to enjoin state or local laws and policies that egregiously obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations;

  • Selectively initiate prosecution under the alien harboring-and-shielding statute, which is a federal felony; and

  • When requested, issue administrative warrants to accompany detainers as a reasonable accommodation to state or local concerns. Negotiating over which aliens will be subject to detainers, as is current policy, is not a reasonable accommodation.

  • Direct ICE to begin publishing a weekly report providing the public with information on all criminal aliens released by the sanctuaries.

Please read the excellent but somewhat lengthy article here.

Representative Barletta’s H.R. 83 is an important bill submitted at the proper time. Barletta is correct; we’re either a nation of laws or we are not. We either obey the rule of law or we do not. If we do not — by allowing sanctuary cities, counties and states to stand, in direct contradiction of federal law — then we undermine ourselves.

If we have no rule of law, then most any city, county or state may arbitrarily decide which laws they wish to obey or disregard. Therefore, if that stands, it logically follows that the individual likewise has the freedom to obey or disregard the laws that he or she chooses, when he or she chooses.

It is the path to chaos.

The time is now to stop the chaos, and establish and reaffirm discipline and sovereignty.

BZ

Obama defecates on America before leaving

Mr Obama, like a spoiled child who has been told he can’t do or have something, is moving in a unilateral fashion to ensure the presidential transition is as troublesome as possible for President-Elect Donald Trump, to the point where the US could actually be under escalated threat. Cyber warfare, now, can be every bit as disastrous as kinetic warfare.

The most accurate summary of what’s happening was made by Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, when he said:

“Obama is like a tenant who has been evicted from a property, and he’s going to trash the place on the way out.”

When Obama’s Doctrine has historically been to “lead from behind,” he now feels it’s time to blow up his chest and posture. Dove turns suddenly to hawk. Why here, why now? Easy: it serves Obama’s and the Demorats’ narrative because this focus deflects from the facts that Demorats, the DNC and Hillary Clinton cheated, lied, colluded, embraced corruption and committed actual yet-unindicted crimes

Let’s not forget it’s Mr Obama who said during the 2012 debate with Mitt Romney:

Let us not forget that the Obama Doctrine itself called for a “Russian reset” in 2009, to the point where Hillary Clinton delivered as a gift, literally, a red button to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in a press conference. The “reset” was to shift from the ways of the Evil & Judgmental George Bush. As perhaps a portent of things to come, the Russian-language label had the wrong word, and read ‘overcharged’ instead of ‘reset.’

Let us not forget it was Mr Obama who leaned over to Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and was caught, sotto voce, on a active microphone asking Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for “space.” Obama said “this is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Our relationship with Russia is the worst it’s been since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Obama stated he wanted, specifically, sanctions and retaliation for Russia’s “hacking of our election” and the DNC, though Obama offers no evidence or facts to support the allegation — in fact, having said the Russians were not involved — therefore escalating tensions between the two countries. Obama has stated there are “covert actions” coming next. Covert actions? Of what variety? And why — if covert actions are in fact looming — would you be sufficiently daft to announce same?

Further, the sanctions and expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from various locations and shutting down two Russian compounds in Maryland and New York is stuff of the old Cold War. “Covert actions” are not. Russia may conclude these proposed actions are true existential threats to their security, to include hacking their military and nuclear facilities, their banks, the electrical grid. While the American Media Maggots egg Mr Obama on — in itself one of the strangest things recently, the AMM now being hawks instead of doves — simultaneously Russia leaves Obama out of cease-fire talks with Syria.

In response — no shock — Putin in Moscow says that Russia is considering “retaliation” for Obama’s “retaliation.” Putin’s “retaliation” is of the unknown variety at this point.

Mr Obama does this with twenty-one days left in his lame duck administration.

Even the New York Times seemed to “get it” when it wrote on Thursday that Obama’s actions appear designed to “box in President-elect Donald Trump.” That includes the UN and Israel as well. Obama has had eight years to focus on cyber espionage and cyber warfare, yet somehow waits until the last 21 days of his presidency to make any kind of stand whatsoever? Somehow we knew not of those 35 spy/diplomats and two spy hubs prior?

Particularly with regard to Barack Hussein Obama, I don’t believe in coincidences. Up to this point Obama has had the grim determination of an asthmatic chihuahua regarding foreign hacking.

What’s conveniently forgotten, however, is that Mr Obama — using our taxpayer dollars — tried to purposely interfere in Israel’s 2015 elections in an attempt to specifically keep Benjamin Netanyahu out of office.

Here’s the point. Yes, the Russians and the Chinese are likely hacking the shite out of US government, corporate and intelligence interests perhaps on a daily basis. But we only become upset over it when Leftists, the Demorats, the DNC, John Podesta and Hillary Rodham Clinton are involved? Seriously? Ox? Gored?

Look, Barack Hussein Obama already said the Russians were not involved. The FBI said the Russians were not involved. Yet the CIA intimated with no evidence the Russians were involved and the AMM, Obama, Leftists and Demorats all line up? You expect me to believe you simply on faith? Faith is the very last thing you deserve, Barack Hussein Obama.

This is the same CIA whose DNI, James Clapper, said this in public and LIED directly to each and every American by doing so.

The CIA would never politicize its findings or lean in any particular direction for White House purposes. Would it?

Again, why is Obama doing these things? As Spite House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said recently: in essence, because he can.

It would appear the US under Mr Obama is conducting retaliatory measures on the Drudge Report, a focus of Obama, due to its publishing a wide array of articles dealing on and critical of Mr Obama himself. Matt Drudge Tweeted: “Is the US government attacking DRUDGE REPORT? Biggest DDoS since site’s inception. VERY suspicious routing [and timing],”

DDoS is shorthand for a Distributed Denial of Service. DDoS is a type of DOS (Distribution of Service) attack where multiple compromised systems, which are often infected with a Trojan, are used to target a single system causing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Let’s not lose sight of the truth. Mr Obama has had eight years to deal or even attempt to address cyber attacks by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. He has done nothing. The Chinese hacked into millions of OPM personnel records. Obama’s response? Meh. Your intimate federal personal records meant nothing to Obama because he was not personally politically affected. It held no sway over the election.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not that brilliant. I can find all of these things on the internet. The caveat is: if I want to.

Obama focuses only at the last second on these issues and concurrently decides it’s a wonderful time to do the things he’s had two terms to consider. To wit;

With regard to that last issue, 1.6 million acres, a greater area than the state of Delaware, have been converted to federal control and minimal public use. One man can, by the stroke of a pen, take state land without even one Congressional vote under the Antiquities Act of 1906, something Mr Obama has done on 29 prior occasions, more than any president other than FDR, in order to circumvent Congress on behalf of various environmental groups and interests. This is truly a land seizure by the federal government.

Obama is acting anti-democratically, unilaterally, via edicts from his personal Mount Olympus, despite the disagreements by members of his own party. He believes his decisions are untouchable and, in fact, some of them may actually be irreversible.

In his last moments: all because he can.

If Mr Obama is actually concerned about his so-called “legacy,” he is ill-prepared mentally to recognize the facts. His legacy is that of division on every political and social level imaginable. Sam Stein, for God’s sake, Senior Political Editor for the Huffington Post, said that Obama leaves the party “in a much worse position,” the “states are decimated,” he “lost control of the House and Senate,” the “governorships are decimated.” All factually correct.

Under Obama, the American voter has consistently rejected the stance of the Demorats (including Mr Obama) for the past eight years (2008 to 2016) as they lost 63 seats in the House and 10 seats in the Senate. Republicans (from 2008 to 2016) gained 900+ seats in state legislatures, along with 12 governorships across the US — meaning that 2/3rds of the governors in the nation are now Republicans.

As the Divider-In-Chief, Obama’s entire agenda revolved around striating people by class, sex, race, religion, earnings, region, state, city, county, clothing, music, laws, wages, healthcare, culture, employment, family, mode of transport, energy consumption, food, cable channels watched, media consumed, social settings, the way you view America, even your writings, statements and thoughts.

Then we have Mr Obama’s actions in his final presidential days. In my opinion, he is moving to isolate and denigrate Donald Trump, not Vladimir Putin.

The only conclusion one can draw is that of Sheriff Clarke’s reference above, Mr Obama is purposely defecating in the national punchbowl and Mr Trump’s coming punchbowl because he is shockingly immature, self-centered and, well, because he can.

BZ

 

Russian election influence & hacking: EVIDENCE?

As the grandmother once said on the commercial, “where’s the beef?” I ask: where’s the evidence?

I have seen nothing concrete. Nor do I see any agreement. It’s simplicity itself to constantly bleat “the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming” if you’re a Leftist, Demorat or the American Media Maggots. But are they really?

Let’s first hearken back to what Barack Hussein Obama said to Mitt Romney in 2012 concerning the Russians, thanks to Patrick Dollard.

Since that time much has happened. The GOP winnowed itself from sixteen candidates down to one, Donald Trump. The Demorats from three serious candidates to one, Hillary Clinton.

On November 8th, Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States, taking 306 electors to Clinton’s 232. This was confirmed on Monday, December 19, by taking all 270 electors required. Only six electors (instead of the “minimum of 37” promised) jumped electoral ship. But here’s the rub: four Democratic electors voted for someone other than Clinton, while two Republicans voted for someone other than Trump. Bottom line: the “elector revolt” hurt Clinton more than it hurt Trump.

In the roughly six weeks since the election, electors themselves have been threatened with death, injury, pressured, intimidated, had their personal information and addresses posted on the internet in order to sway a decision that was made over a month prior.

Now it would appear people want electors can be “lobbied” if you will, their votes influenced and — thanks to Michael Moore — purchased. Hillary Clinton actually lost more electors than Trump. Still, this sets a grim precedent. Leftists now insist that a small section of “very wise” or “very moral” persons should make the decisions.

I always ask: do the reverse. What would be happening now if Hillary had won the election and Trump supporters were acting in the same precise fashion as Clinton backers? There would be never-ending declarations of Brown Shirts and fascism.

More Leftists acted out regards the electors.

Then, as I said, let the Leftist cheating, hatred, violence and riots commence. I was not disappointed. As opposed to what the “fake news” said on the Left, 95% of the violence, burning and riots occurred at the veritable hands of the Left. The American Media Maggots did their level best to ignore or minimize this blatant fact.

Then came the demand for recounts, the declaration of “fake news,” the threat of electors turning and, of course, the Russians hacking the crap out of and influencing the election itself.

Let us go back in time, shall we, as evidenced and corroborated by the Mark I, Model I BZ Brain Housing Group (aided and abetted by Mr Gore’s internet) and examine the article that started it all, the December 9th story by the WashingtonPost.com:

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

by Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima & Greg Miller

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

This is the same consensus view mandating “global warming” to be real though, in truth, there is in fact no consensus.

Let me please state the obvious regarding the above WaPo story. This is a second-hand report from people whose identities are being shielded, describing what the CIA supposedly concluded and “laundering” it, if you will, through the WaPo. There is no evidence whatsoever provided or linked to these assertions and allegations. We know the CIA has no claim to having cornered the candor market, their duties in the past have been to disseminate disinformation.

What of the statement given by James Clapper on video where he was proven to have baldly lied to Congress and the American public?

James Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence and the boss of CIA Director John Brennan. This bespeaks volumes to me about the status of our intelligence community.

Leftists are saying that people who don’t believe the account of an account, unverified and with no evidence, are unpatriotic stooges for Russia and Vladimir Putin.

We apparently forget the much-vaunted “Russian Reset” promoted by Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Taylor Armerding writes:

President Obama declared early in his first term that he could have a productive relationship with Russia.

In March 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — you remember her, she was the most recent Democratic nominee for president — famously presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a “reset button.”

She said it “represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is, ‘We want to reset our relationship.’ And so we will do it together.”

A few months later, the liberal news blog ThinkProgress declared that “the turnaround in US-Russian relations is a huge foreign policy accomplishment for the president.” Apparently it was unseemly to mention the Russian invasion of Georgia just a year earlier.

So don’t hand me the standard Leftist “occurs in a vacuum” shite about Obama and his sycophants. Let’s also remember this contact between Obama and Russian President Medvedev in 2012:

Armerding also wrote:

Then, in 2012, Obama was overheard telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate on things like missile defense after he was re-elected. Interesting that he was telling a Russian leader that he would win the election.

Medvedev assured Obama that he would pass this information along to the incoming president, Vladimir Putin.

Indeed, Obama in particular and Democrats in general haven’t had any qualms about “working with” the most brutal dictators in the world.

That was Obama being conciliatory and amenable to working with the Russians.

Was it not also, then, Hillary Rodham Clinton who allowed Russia to acquire a controlling share of US uranium for the betterment of the Clinton Foundation? Even the NYTimes wrote:

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Call me wacky, but that sounds like not only a tad bit of corruption but Russia favoritism as well. As per normal, I could be horribly wrong.

GOOD then and somehow magically bad NOW? Perfectly fine to work with and praise Castro? Venezuela’s Chavez and Maduro? What about the smoochies slathered upon Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani? Pallet upon pallet, literally billions of dollars of cash delivered from the back of a US cargo plane in the dead of night to the Iranian leaders — something right out of a Tom Clancy novel? Obama’s all good with that. Now only Vladimir Putin is a “bad actor”?

Tucker Carson had a wonderful tete-a-tete with a professor over evidence of Russian hacking of the election who, essentially sums up his evidence solely as “I have said it, now it must be true.” As in: he had no evidence whatsoever. Please listen:

Is it impossible that Russia tried to hack the US? Of course not. Nations hack each other, these days, all the time. But where is the innate curiosity of the American Media Maggots who simply took the CIA at their word (as they seldom did in the past) and ran downfield with the ball? Did any of the American Media Maggot brands ask or, better yet, demand an accounting of the CIA for the report? Demand citations, evidence, names, sources, dates? No. I repeat: no. It fit their narrative about Donald Trump. So it stood.

“The 1980s want their foreign policy back” as documented in the video above? Really, Mr Obama? Leftists? That’s all you’ve got? This, remember, is the Obama who purposely did not arm anti-Russian factions in Ukraine, cooperated with Putin in Syria, ad nauseum.

Why has Putin emerged as the existential threat against the United States, that he is our arch-enemy now? Aren’t Obama and Demorats the same people who have been dovish and not hawkish on war and conflict in the past? Why Russia, why now?

What happened to “common ground” with Russia? What happened to embracing “glasnost”? What happened to America under Obama saying we will become the most respected nation on the planet?

Who may have been responsible for the Wikileaks emails acquired from HRC, Podesta and the DNC? Are we absolutely certain it’s “the Russians”?

Barack Obama said, in October, that the Russians are not involved.

Obama Crushes Conspiracy: No Evidence that Russia Tampered with Votes in Election

by Charlie Spiering

President Barack Obama emphatically denounced the conspiracy theory saying Russians successfully tampered with the American voting process.

I suggested it may have been the NSA. They had excellent reasons for doing so: dead personnel. I’m not the only one suggesting this; so did Judge Andrew Napolitano and other persons I’ve spoken to with intelligence contacts.

Further, didn’t the FBI itself say the Russians were not involved, as I wrote here — courtesy of the NY Times on October 31st?

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

by Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers

WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

A British diplomat, former ambassador to Uzbekistan, also says the Russians are not responsible. From TruthFeed.com:

British Diplomat “I’ve Met The Wikileaks Informant and They’re NOT Russian”

by Amy Moreno

Craig Murry is a former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and an associate of Assange.

From CraigMurry.org.uk:

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

What of Julian Assange himself? What has he said about the “leaks”? From the UKDailyMail.com:

Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange goes on the offensive over claims Russia was behind Clinton email hack, saying Kremlin is NOT its source

by Alana Goodman

  • Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has flatly rejected U.S. intelligence claims that his organization received leaked Clinton emails from the Russian government
  • He says the allegations are part of a ‘foolish’ and ‘dangerous’ effort by Democrats to overturn Donald Trump’s election victory
  • Said group has a strict policy against commenting on sources, but he wanted to dispute allegations Wikileaks was involved in a Russian-orchestrated campaign

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange flatly rejected U.S. intelligence claims that his organization received leaked Clinton emails from the Russian government, saying the allegations are part of a ‘foolish’ and ‘dangerous’ effort by Democrats to overturn Donald Trump’s election victory.

‘Our source is not the Russian government,’ Assange told Sean Hannity on his radio show on Thursday, in his first U.S. interview since the election. ‘We have U.S. intelligence saying that say they know how we got our stuff and when we got it, and us saying we didn’t get it from a state.’

Assange said his group has a strict policy against commenting on its sources, but he wanted to dispute allegations that Wikileaks was involved in a Russian-orchestrated campaign to swing the election for Donald Trump.

Then there is this, a little-referenced article from TheNation.com:

Amazon, ‘The Washington Post’ and That $600 MIllion CIA Contract

by Greg Mitchell

It has been a tough few weeks for The Washington Post. 

It’s been a rough couple days for The Washington Post. Word emerged that hackers invaded its internal system—for a few days, no less—all of its staffers had to change their passwords as the company tried to figure out how much data had been compromised.

Meanwhile, a petition campaign was launched related to news that Amazon, under the Post’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA.

Read that over again: the Washington Post, publisher of the article that gave the “Russian hack” meme legs for the Demorats, is in financial league with the CIA by way of the WaPo’s owner, Jeff Bezos.

Jeff Bezos is also a “good little Leftist” whose job it is to support by any means necessary the Demorats and Leftists of all stripes, to carry their water and their messages.

That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a “private cloud” for the CIA to use for its data needs.

Critics charge that, at a minimum, the Post needs to disclose its CIA link whenever it reports on the agency. Over 15,000 have signed the petition this week hosted by RootsAction.

Well now. It didn’t. Nor was there any mention of this fact in their original article. That wasn’t an “oopsie” or a “mistake;” it was purposeful.

In a statement released by the Institute for Public Accuracy, media writer/author Robert McChesney observes:

When the main shareholder in one of the very largest corporations in the world benefits from a massive contract with the CIA on the one hand, and that same billionaire owns the Washington Post on the other hand, there are serious problems. The Post is unquestionably the political paper of record in the United States, and how it covers governance sets the agenda for the balance of the news media. Citizens need to know about this conflict of interest in the columns of the Post itself.

If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation—say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government—the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.”

What do you think? Is that not sufficient motivation to have the CIA do your bidding?

Let’s not lose sight of the bottom line. None of this would have occurred or been an issue had the Demorats, DNC and Hillary Rotten Clinton not been corrupt and rotten to the core.

Russia hacking the election — Russia influencing the election? Provide the clear evidence and the proof.

Proof. Evidence.

BZ