DID BRENNAN COLLUDE WITH FOREIGN SPIES TO HELP HILLARY?

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

John Brennan defended his thesis that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win before the Hoiuse Intelligence Committee. He did nothing to disabuse Congressional Democrats or the mainstream media of the notion that Team Trump colluded with Moscow to change the results of the 2016 election.

Brennan  didn’t explain why he thought that the Russians didn’t want Hillary Clinton to win. Perhaps Clapper could explain why they didn’t prefer Hillary who was Secretary of State when President Obama let Russia violate the INF Missile Treaty and colluded with the Russians to kill missile defense in Europe, telling Then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev to tell Putin he would have more “flexibility” after his reelection.

Clapper didn’t explain why he the Russians didn’t prefer Hillary, Secretary of State for an administration that did nothing when Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine. Why wouldn’t the Russians want the Secretary of State who called murderous Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad a reformer and was there when President Obama drew the first of his “red lines” than did nothing to prevent the slaughter of 500,000 Syrians while giving Russia freerein in that country?

Why would Russia prefer Trump over Hillary after she and husband Bill brokered deals giving Russia and Putin 20 percent of our uranium supply to benefit  Clinton Foundation donors, including Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra.

As the New York Times reported, this mutual back-scratching gave Clinton donor Giustra control of a significant portion of the world’s uranium supply:

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton….

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges….

In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.

Now isn’t that special. Both the Clintons and their donor made off handsomely. Uranium One, which was gradually taken over by the Russians, would later be involved in a curious deal involving Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. As the New York Times reported:

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.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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….

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

So Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with husband Bill, in exchange for donations, gave nuclear power Russia and Putin control of 20 percent of the world’s uranium supply. Is that what Hillary Clinton meant by a “Russian reset”? Yet neither Congressional Democrats, who accuse Trump  of being too cozy with Moscow, nor their wholly owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, are eager to talk about the Clinton uranium deals with Russia.

Based on this assessment, Brennan is wrong that the Russians wanted Hillary to win. They may have hacked into the DNC emails, but they didn’t write them. They didn’t keep Hilary from campaigning in Wisconsin, or make her motivate Trump supporters by calling half of them “deplorable”, or cause ObamaCare premiums to spike weeks before the November election.

There is another scenario as equally plausible as the one saying Team Trump, and perhaps President Trump himself, colluded with the Russians. It is that John Brennan himself colluded with the Russians to help Hillary win to guarantee his continued tenure as CIA Director. It involves the infamous anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, used by Brenan and others as a pretext for a Trump investigation bonanza.  As the American Spectator reported:

An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people….

The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press. According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.

Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).

The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan “passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.” To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the “Gang of Eight” about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.

Could it be that Brennan himself is the leaker of classified information? There are reports suggesting he is and isn’t that what is going on in Washington these days – bogus investigations based on reports of collusion with the Russians and other shenanigans. Could that be any crazier than investigations triggered by the Steele dossier, a classic work of slanderous fiction? Two things we do know – that the only crime is the leaking of classified information to the newspapers to damage Donald Trump and that Brennan is wrong on ewho the Russians wanted to win.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

Hi Everyone, 

I could use some help here. Does the President still hope to get a full repeal of Obamacare during this Congressional session? Or, more likely, will he be satisfied just to get the revised AHCA (only) bill passed? 

Tonight, at the 100 day rally in Harrisburg, President Trump asked Pennsylvania Congressmen Mike Kelly and Tom Marino to help him get a healthcare bill passed very, very soon.  Presumably, he was referring to the revised AHCA bill.  The bill altered with Rand Paul's help for the approval of the Freedom Caucus. Paul Ryan says he wants to get AHCA passed as soon as he has the votes. 

But, Trump said "repeal & replace" at least three times at the rally.  So, I might presume that the President wants to eliminate Obamacare in large chunks.  Revised AHCA, being the biggest chunk, eliminating the five Obamacare Mandates up front.  Or, is it the case that the President still hopes to achieve a full repeal of Obamacare during this session?   

What do you make of this slight contradiction? What have you heard?

Thanks, Charlie Gaudin
(Jackson, Mississippi)

JVLV: DAVID PETRAEUS IS BEST CANDIDATE FOR NSA!

Dr. Jiri Valenta

Published Author, U.S. Nat'l Sec., Russia,Terrorism. CFR member. Consult. U.S. gvt., Contrib. FP TNI, NYT, Wash.Times

JUST PUBLISHED IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST! 

 http://nationalinterest.org/feature/who-michael-morell-19072

 Jiri Valenta  and Leni Friedman Valenta

January 15, 2017

TweetShareShare

Far from protecting American security, Morell has repeatedly undermined it.

“No doubt Putin is playing Trump!” Yes, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell is indeed at it again. During the presidential campaign he repeatedly attacked Donald Trump as an “unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” In the same vein, anonymous CIA officials have supposedly provided evidence of our new president’s nefarious dealings with the Kremlin and its agents.

Didn’t Trump’s own lawyer, Michael Cohen, meet in Prague with a Kremlin agent in August 2016? And isn’t this final proof of the ongoing secret liaisons between the tycoon and the tyrant? ‘​Fraid not. But it is déjà vu. Fifteen years ago, Morell vetted and took to the White House, a preliminary report that 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad Samir, Al-Ani at the Iraqi embassy in Prague on April 9, 2001. Both reports have turned out to be bogus.

On August 6, 2001, Morell served as the CIA debriefer for President Bush’s most critical ever Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB); the one that read, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.” It was essential that he impress upon Bush the importance of the memo. But he didn’t. Morell recollected in his memoir that NSC staffer Steve Biegun, who accompanied Morell to the Crawford Ranch where Bush was vacationing, apparently relayed to others that he, Morell, had indicated to the president, “there was no need to worry about an Al Qaida attack on the homeland...” Morrell himself directly observed that in retrospect, “I did not treat it as a ‘hair on fire’ or action-forcing piece and the president did not read it that way either.”

Surely Bush was not given the assessment that Morell’s colleague, counter-terrorism expert, Cofer Black, gave to Condoleezza Rice weeks earlier: “An attack is impending” and “this country needs to go on a war footing now.” On 9/11, close to 3,000 people perished in attacks on both New York and Washington.

The 2003 Iraq War provided an opportunity for Morell to advance his career. Leading a group of CIA analysts, he was assigned to help prepare Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 U.N. Security Council speech.

Justifying the forthcoming invasion of Iraq, a passage in the speech affirmed that Iraq possessed "biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.” False! We still don’t know who was directly responsible for leaving this passage in Powell’s speech. However, Morell was in charge of the CIA analysts who were vetting it. In 2015, Morell apologized to Powell.

The most egregious part of Morell's toadying, however, was the terrorist attack that took place on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on another September 11—this in 2012.

Morell, then CIA Deputy Director, quickly learned it was a well-planned terrorist attack. However he also discovered the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the 2012 November election in mind, were pushing a different interpretation—a “spontaneous demonstration” over an anti-Muslim video. Given his status as a high-ranking official, it would be surprising if he did not receive, or was unaware of, an email from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes: “The goal: To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of [our] policy.”

Then Morell was asked to review an important document—the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was to disseminate to the media explaining the attack. Morell complied. He altered the talking points. The doctored, scrubbed and bogus video story was presented by Rice to the U.S. public on TV stations, helping to save Obama's presidency. Yet, even after the elections, Morell, accompanied by Susan Rice, continued to defend his altered product with three GOP heavyweights, John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-NC).

Graham later reported Morell “did not accept responsibility for changing the talking points. He told me the FBI had done this. I called the FBI—They went ballistic. . . . Within 24 hours, this statement was changed where he [Morell] admitted the CIA had done it.”

Morell’s new excuses were his concern about compromising the FBI investigation and being “unprofessional” by exposing the State Department (understand Hillary). He also said he removed the word “Islamic” to describe the “extremists,” because he didn’t want to upset the Islamic world. Handsomely rewarded for his loyalty by Obama, he was asked to serve on the NSA Review Panel, the president’s advisory review board. He also became a television commentator and received a book deal, not to mention a cushy job at Beacon Global Strategies. Nor is this all. In August 2016, Morell proposed “killing Russians and Iranians” in Syria--a recommendation that might well have led to war with Russia. In a separate op-ed August 5 in the New York Times, he had declared that he believed Hillary “will deliver on the most important duty of a president: keeping our nation safe.” Hillary cheered his words in an August 7, 2017 tweet. Likely, he would have been a victorious Clinton’s CIA Director.

Now President-elect Trump is once again under attack by a loyal supporter of the former Clinton team. But as Morell’s record amply confirms, it is he who has, again and again, constituted the actual threat to our national security.

Jiri Valenta is President of the Institute of Post-Communist Studies and Terrorism. He is the recipient of numerous fellowship, including from Brookings, CFR, Woodrow Wilson Rockefeller, Peace Institute, and Fulbright. He is also the author of Soviet Intervention in Czechoslovakia, 1968, Anatomy of a Decision and other books.

Leni Friedman Valenta is the CEO of the Institute of POst-Communist Studies and Terrorism. She is co-writer and editor-in-chief of its Web site, jvlv.net. She has contributed to scholarly publications such as the National Interest, the Aspen Review, the Miami Herald, Kyiv Post, Georgian Messenger (Tbilisi) and the Tico Times, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Republican RINOS and Progressives tried To destroy Tea Party

                  with Obama government shutdown

 “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.” Soviet Premier of Russia Nikita Khrushchev, 1959.

The seeds of the war on America’s principles and founding values were planted 54 years ago by Russia’s leader Nikita Khrushchev, and have found a cherished home in the presidency of Barrack Obama. It was this notion that communism would have a welcome home in the very seat of American power that The Tea Party members across the nation rose in defiance of. Obamacare was the fuse and much like America’s founding fathers’ rebellion against an evil imperialist power, freedom from tyranny was the clarion call.

With the ascendency of the Tea Party and the neutralization of the RINO grip on legislative power in state houses and congress in 2010, the president was waiting as were the pundits to unleash its RINO hell hounds on Sarah Palin, and any other Tea Party favorites to follow.

What is clear to Tea Party patriots as well as conservatives and most Americans who were seriously examining Obama’s actions, was his belief that Americans are gullible as Khrushchev stressed. The president and his minions in congress moved quickly and precisely to disassemble American military power, American economic prominence, and American moral principles and religious Christian values.

The only future that awaited America’s children was one which was staked to the barbed wire ideology of a socialist leader who apologized to Muslim nations for America’s Christian heritage. This was an administration that mocked parents who supported traditional values.

That is why it was predictable that Obama would create this false crisis called a government shutdown. He and his fellow travelers in the mainstream media and the White House knew that by simply letting Republican establishment RINOs unleash their fury on Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and even Sarah Palin, the liberal pundits could sweep in and create a greater GOP chasm.

But this was a campaign that was doomed to fail from its very inception. Liberals continuously underestimate the power of what truth and freedom mean to those who cannot be bought for thirty pieces of silver, or bribed with favored status on Air Force One rides.

                                                           ( click to read more )

By Oscar Y. Harward

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell may now be spilling out one of his first confirmations to conceal his support of ObamaCare, President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid, and other ‘Liberal’ Capitol Hill Democrats for his guaranteed receipt of a $2 Billion Kentucky payoff in his support of his vote and leadership for many of his 26 other GOP Senate legislators for shredding our Constitutional freedoms.  How cheap can Sen. Mitch McConnell be bought? 

For Sen. McConnell, who included a $2 Billion payout of additional deficit spending for his State of Kentucky included in this new ‘Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014’ legislation, and his additional and similar voting 26 RINO Republican legislators who voted, how much is too much for deficit spending?  Sen. McConnell, is there any limit to spending that is too much?  Have you sold your principles and your own heart for a whole lot ($2 Billion) of taxpayers’ money?  Do you, Sen. Mitch McConnell have any ethics in principles left?  You must resign!

According to Newsmax, “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear on Thursday that repealing Obamacare would never be used by Republicans again to bring the federal government to a halt.”  

Rumors on Capitol Hill indicate Speaker of the House John Boehner is trying to accept President Obama’s ObamaCare ‘exemptions’ for Capitol Hill legislators.  Who, why, and when did it become so important for our Capitol Hill legislators to take care of yourself first, rather than to place the American electorate first?

The Capitol Hill Democrat Party and our own Capitol Hill Republican Party ‘leadership’ is selling out our freedoms and values and in return ascertaining more taxpayers’ deficit money and other favors that are left to be paid by our children, and their children, along with other ‘pet’ projects, and other Democrat Party favors.  Cheap!  Cheap!  Cheap!

Capitol Hill Democrats and RINO Republicans on Capitol Hill have lost or forgotten our Constitutional freedoms as based on Christian values.  Capitol Hill Democrats and RINO Republicans must be challenged, defeated, and/or removed in upcoming future elections.

The economy ‘problem’ is simple; excessive deficit spending is breaking our national economy, our individual freedoms, our families, and our Constitution.  The ‘solution’ for a rebuilding economy is simple; stop the spending to save our economy, our individual freedoms, our families, and our Constitution.

Capitol Hill legislators have already added $6.3 Trillion of additional deficit spending debt in less than 5 years under President Obama.  How much deficit spending is enough for President Obama, Capitol Hill Democrats, and/or RINO Republicans?  When will the deficit spending end that is leaving an unbearable debt to (y)our children, their children, etc.? 

A continuation of deficit spending by Democrats, Republicans, and/or Independents is a form of political corruption and this endless progression is destroying our Constitution, our fiscal and social values, as well as our national security.

Republican Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT), as well as other legislators and supporters who vote and aspire to ‘stop-the-spending’ to save America, our economy, our Constitution, and our families are ‘right on these issues’.   

Do not allow President Obama, Capitol Hill Democrats, and the Liberal ‘main-stream’ Medias destroy our American ‘HERO’ legislators who are trying to stop the out-of-control’ spending.  It is our American ‘HERO’ legislators who are trying to restore our nation and our US economy.

On Capitol Hill, so-called ‘negotiations’ are directed by President Obama, Capitol Hill Democrats, and the Liberal ‘main-stream’ Medias that demand Republican legislators to cross the aisle and join Democrats on ‘more deficit spending; a proven scheme to more quickly destroy our entire nation.

To save our Constitution and our nation, Conservatives must say ‘NO’ to more deficit spending; before it is too late.

God Bless America!

RINO Republican Gabriel Gomez lost to Democrat Ed Markey in the special election to fill the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat vacated by John Kerry. I say, “Thank God”. We can not allow Democrat-Lite RINO Republicans like Gomez to define the GOP.

However, I have little hope that the stuck on fear, panic and stupid GOP will “get it”. Despite wasting tons of money backing Gomez who agrees with 90% of the Democrat agenda, he still lost. And yet, I guarantee the GOP will interpret the loss as evidence that our party needs to move further to the left.

Why should liberal Massachusetts voters select a Democrat-Lite Gomez over a full-bodied Democrat, Ed Markey? Moderate Republicans thought six one, half dozen of the other and stayed home. Conservative Republicans, rightly so, could not bring themselves to vote for Gomez who promised not to oppose Obama's agenda.

Extremely low voter turnout confirmed that Massachusetts voters, for the most part, did not care. Had there been a true Conservative in the race like Mike Sullivan, at least voters would have had a clear choice, giving the race a little passion, interest and drama.

Folks, I fully realize that sometimes it is wise to hold you nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect human beings. Rarely, if ever, will a candidate embody all the qualities and stand for all the issues and values you hold dear.

Having said that, Gabriel Gomez was a horrible ideologically soulless candidate. Gomez just wanted to be elected; willing to play on either team necessary to land him in political office. Disgusting.

Gomez supported the Gang of Eight Bill, Gun Control, abortion and more. Gomez dis conservatives. To win the primary at any and all cost, Gomez attempted to smear Conservative Campaign Committee whose mission is to hoist conservative candidates to victory across America.

My heart aches for conservative candidates who paint as Reagan advised in bold colors rather than pale pastels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OznoFCZdS8

We need candidates who can articulate that conservatism equals true compassion and is beneficial to all Americans. Our candidates must not pander to Democratic party socialist/progressive ideas. Quite the opposite. Our candidates must sound the alarm educating voters to the folly of the Democrat's belief that government is god, can fix everything and can legislate equal outcomes. These foolish Democratic party utopian ideas are destroying lives, weakening, undermining and destroying the greatest nation on the planet.

We need conservative candidates with backbone who proudly stand up for what they believe; candidates who say what they mean and mean what they say. Wow, what a concept. Mr RINO Republican Gomez, I am elated and grateful that you lost.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee http://bit.ly/12kuAWU

LloydMarcus.com