A few More Shared Facebook Post

     



         

                    

  
ABC exec that cancelled Rosanne same exec that cancels Last man Standing also married to Susan Rice. move along nothing to see here.....

The Three Stooges of Spygate

Brennan, Comey, and Clapper have been caught in a big fat wringer.

ret Baier, in his April interview with Jim Comey on Fox News, asked him if he had seen John Brennan and Jim Clapper together since his firing. “No, no,” Comey replied at first, then said, “Actually, I had dinner with the two of them together with our spouses.” Baier asked him if they discussed “Trump cases” on the triple date. “No, we did not,” he answered.

Add that to Comey’s voluminous record of whoppers. The idea that the three stooges of Spygate, whose red-hot antipathy for Trump is nothing if not all-consuming, went out to dinner without discussing the investigation of him strains all credulity. No doubt one of their anxieties at the dinner was: When will the American public find out about the spy we sent to infiltrate the Trump campaign’s ranks?

Beneath all of their flailing attacks on Congressman Devin Nunes lay the fear that his oversight would kick loose scandalous nuggets buried within their probe: a FISA warrant cribbed from Hillary’s campaign smears, national security letters based on insanely thin justifications, an embarrassing reliance on sketchy foreign intelligence (which consisted largely of Russian disinformation and re-circulated nonsense from Hillary’s hired gun, Christopher Steele), and an infiltration plot involving a swampy old CIA asset.

The three stooges have yet to utter the name of Stefan Halper, the spy at the center of the Obama administration’s farcical plot. Rubbing his bald pate as usual, Clapper claimed total ignorance of Halper. He apparently was at the children’s table at Brennan’s interagency gatherings. “I didn’t know about this informant,” Clapper said.

Of course, his I-know-nothing routine didn’t stop him from serving as an authority on the knowledge levels of others: “No one in the White House knew. Certainly the president didn’t know.” But amidst all this defensiveness, Clapper worked up a sweat defending the spying as a “good thing,” which raises the obvious question: If it was all so normal and praiseworthy, why not tell Obama?

Just as Clapper’s denial of FISA warrants on the Trump campaign disintegrated, so too will that one. Sooner or later it will come out that Obama knew damn well that the Trump campaign was under surveillance and signed off on it. How could he not have? After all, we’ve been told repeatedly that spying on the Trump campaign was a national security matter of unspeakable gravity. How could such a matter be withheld from the person most responsible for national security?

So what did Obama know and when did he know it? Brennan could give the precise date; he was personally briefing Obama on “Russian interference,” Brennan’s euphemism for his paranoid hunch that Putin’s agents had recruited Trump campaign officials. All the hush-hush dynamics around Brennan’s “taskforce” make no sense if he and White House officials were just sitting around discussing Facebook ads. No, what made it an “exceptionally, exceptionally sensitive issue,” in Brennan’s words, was that they were spying on an opposing party’s presidential campaign.

The doublespeak around this spying has been comically pitiful. We’re told by the three stooges and their media propagandists that Halper — who tried to get a position in the campaign, spent over a year shadowing Carter Page, and tried to entrap George Papadopoulos — “wasn’t spying.” Halper was just “observing,” “assisting an FBI investigation” (as the Washington Post desperately put it), or, in the words of John Brennan, seeking “insight.”

George Orwell would have laughed at that one. “Political language,” Orwell said, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” In this case, it is an all-hands-on-deck propaganda effort to make spying on political opponents respectable — a ruination of reputations, careers, and bank accounts of Trump campaign officials undertaken “for their own good,” we’re told. Liberalism claims a monopoly on everything, particularly language, and liberals will let us know when we can and can’t use “spying” to describe obtaining information secretly.

Once a story starts cutting against the Democrats, reporters drop it. But if that becomes impossible, as in the case of Spygate, the next best thing they figure is to saturate the airwaves with semantic quibbles and hope the public abandons the story out of sheer confusion. And if that doesn’t work, if the unwashed want to keep watching the game, they just steadily move the goal posts back — they say Trump hasn’t “proven” the undesirable story or they give one of his tweets a literalist tsk-tsking, as if the seriousness of the story hangs exclusively on the precision of his tweets. It is hilarious to watch the “clarifications” of CNN, which always amount to distinctions without a difference, presented in the most ludicrously solemn tones by the likes of Jim Sciutto, who apparently went to anchorman school after his stint as an Obama political appointee. Halper, he intones gravely, was not a spy but a “confidential human source.”

If you are one of the three stooges, you preface such denials of reality with a ponderous platitude, such as “facts matter.” That was Comey’s tack in a tweet, before launching into one of his rank-pulling, jargony descriptions of FBI investigations, which was aimed at concealing the facts. The flimflammery of it all was reminiscent of Comey sending his aides out to deny Trump’s tweets about intercepted communications at Trump Tower while FISA warrants that allowed the FBI to reach into Trump Tower sat on Comey’s desk.

“As best as I can tell,” Comey said to Conan O’Brien in reference to Halper, “it is made up. I don’t know where [Trump] is getting that from.” He was getting it from Comey’s old subordinates, who had no choice but to confirm the infiltration attempt, albeit on their own self-serving terms, before Nunes uncovered it.

“I don’t do weasel moves,” Comey claims he said to Trump during their now-infamous private dinner. On their triple date, the three stooges and their spouses must have gotten a good chuckle out of that one. Weasel moves are the only ones they have got.

https://spectator.org/the-three-stooges-of-spygate/

Trump and ‘The Truth’

Calling President Trump a liar is sapping what’s left of the media’s standing.

A once-upon-a-time voice for journalistic respectability — the Columbia Journalism Review — has consigned to the well-known hot place the notion that respectability entails letting voters rather than reporters decide whether a president is Abe Lincoln or a dirty lying rat. The Review rather leans to the latter conclusion.

The Review’s daily, always (to me) absorbing look at media goings-on raises the question of how to talk about, well, a lying rat of a president: a distinction most media institutions have awarded Donald Trump. The Review highlights the New York Times’ efforts to call Trump a liar without actually calling him one.

“Trump Falsely Says Times Made Up Source in Report on Korea Summit Meeting.” That would be just one example of journalistic efforts to downplay the President’s commitment, such as it is, to the Truth that Makes You Free. The Journalism Review quotes Times White House Reporter Maggie Haberman’s disparaging Tweet the other day: “Trump told two demonstrable falsehoods this AM.”

The Review says “the argument consumed political media conversations on Twitter for much of the weekend.” Some Twitterists thought Haberman’s charge a little mild. On May 28 came the Times’ charge that “He Uses Conspiracy Theories to Erode Trust.”

Here we go again, trying, as a society, as a culture, to make heads or tails of a president who defies efforts to categorize him. Over the uproar concerning his gift for veracity or falsehood, alarm bells should sound. The anti-Trump media are nuts if they think they’re improving their status in 21stcentury life. They’re undermining it further: deepening national disarray by abandoning standards more necessary than ever before in public life.

May it please the court, reporters and editors have neither right nor duty to show up the president as a liar. It’s lousy journalism to try. But oh, such modern journalism! Which is the problem.

Look: The media are our eyes and ears. Our brains they aren’t, though our media clearly suppose the opposite. Which supposition makes them try to lead mere viewers and readers by the nose: telling them what to think. Good luck with that! “Speaking truth to power” — an old Quaker ideal beloved of modern Thought Leaders — involves telling Trump voters they laid an egg. What a non-fruitful mode of argumentation and discussion.

The President’s grasp of facts is his own, certainly. But:

1) He’s not always wrong, even when being obnoxious; and

2) a statement out of line with the truth doesn’t suggest the need to go at him, as per the Times, with eyes bulging; rather, it demands bringing to view — without indignation or contempt — asseverations and facts that undermine the Trumpian account. Only you set such asseverations and facts side by side with his own: quoting responsible, preferably neutral, or neutral-ish, sources. You let the White House answer those sources. Then you stand back and let the people make up their own minds!

Strange conceit, that — trusting votes and consumers of news to make up their minds without pointed assistance from the media. For which, if it doesn’t work out, maybe we need to examine the U.S. education system with more alarm. And maybe also the lack of trust that previous media forays against previous presidents have engendered.

Media fury at one Donald Trump is sowing worrisome consequences for the future. The lying so-and-so, as most of the media view him, is going to be gone one day: possibly with the media’s invaluable assistance. And will there linger, save in progressive circles, any public inclination to believe, or even listen to, a word the anti-Trump press says about anything? Including the weather?

A certain… call it mutual trust, or sense of shared conviction, lies at the foundation of any free society. I cannot see the anti-Trump media adding to our depleted storehouse of trust. I see, indeed, the media’s angry judgmentalism — its love of crying “Liar!” — making things far angrier, far more divisive, than they are now. And what we have right now isn’t great. Just subscribe (as I do) to the Times. And judge.

https://spectator.org/trump-and-the-truth/

Thomas Friedman Begs People to Vote Democrat

RUSH: I asked Cookie to get these next two sound bites when I heard about this. You know, we don’t watch MSNBC here. Granted, Roseanne’s gone but Joy Reid’s still there. I mean, all these leftist wackos who say just as rotten things as Roseanne has said here about Trump and about conservatives, but they survive. And it’s understandable, the way the world works.

But yesterday on Morning Joe Thomas “Loopy” Friedman of the New York Times got desperate. They are panicking. If you want evidence that there is no blue wave coming, you just need to listen to these next two sound bites. This is Thomas L. Friedman, international foreign policy columnist for the New York Times, literally begging the handful of people that watch MSNBC to vote Democrat.

FRIEDMAN: I only have one piece of advice for people. You have to vote for a Democrat. And I say that as someone who is, you know, I have a lot of very conservative leanings on a lot of issues. I’m for free trade. I’m pro-globalization, pro-business. But the fact is the worst Democrat running for Congress or the Senate today is better than the best Republican because the best Republicans, except those who are tragically dying or retiring, simply will not stand up to this man.

RUSH: They just can’t stand it, they can’t get over it, they can’t take out Trump.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s the next Friedman bite. I love this. Again, on Morning Joe yesterday, desperately begging, pleading anybody, everybody, vote Democrat.

FRIEDMAN: If you see the norms that he is violating, the way he is trashing some of our most cherished institutions — things like the FBI, the Justice Department — the spreading of conspiracy theories from the bully pulpit of the White House, that is a threat to the very fabric of our society and the very fabric of our democracy. So I’m approaching this election coming up unlike any other election. It’s not about gun control, it’s not about abortion, it’s not about high taxes or low taxes. It’s about whether we can get a lever of power that can restrain this man for the next two years, ’cause the man sitting in the Oval Office today is the greatest threat to our democracy.

RUSH: Isn’t that…? I mean, these people are in the midst of literally losing it. And you’ll note here with Friedman… Now, Friedman’s in the establishment. He’s be a ranking member. So you don’t criticize the FBI. That’s beyond the pale. You don’t criticize the Justice Department. You don’t do that. That’s threatening our democracy. That’s threatening “the very fabric of our democracy.” Let me tell you what’s threatening our democracy.

What’s threatening our democracy is relentless, never ending line of BS that the Russians stole the election. These people — put ’em all in there, Thomas Friedman, the Drive-By Media people, the Democrat Party — are doing more to destroy the presumed integrity and honesty of federal elections than anything Vladimir Putin could have dreamed of doing. This relentless attempt to get rid of Donald Trump by suggesting he stole the election when there’s no evidence for it, and it couldn’t be done.

Even Obama admits this! They have themselves tampered with the electoral process, and they have polluted it, folks. They have corrupted it. All Trump did was win an election. All Trump does is stand up for America. These people cannot handle it. And so now they’re panicking about Trump representing a threat to our values, a threat to our democracy. Anybody see Trump’s rally in Nashville last night? Oh, man. He was on again.

And I will guarantee you people like Thomas “Loopy” Friedman and any of the left watching this would have to be just desperate. Their hearts sunk. They had been in the throes of depression because they keep waiting for Trump to implode; they keep waiting for Trump’s supporters to abandon him. In their corrupt minds, they keep waiting for everybody to wake up and realize what they realize, that Trump is a joke, he’s a danger and we’ve gotta get rid of him and it’s a nightmare and we’re all gonna wake up.

And it’s the exact opposite. Trump is more popular than ever. He has more of a bond with the people that show up at these rallies than ever before, and it was already strong. He has a deeper connection with them. They love him. And then when Trump introduced Bob Corker, some of the loudest boos in human history were heard. Corker — the camera zoomed in on him — looked a little fidgety, a little nervous out there. Trump had these people the palm of his hand and he was simply talking about American greatness, American exceptionalism and restoring it, maintaining it and so forth.

I guarantee you these people have all thought the first six months we’re gonna get rid of Trump and that Trump was gonna take himself out. People would wake up — and it’s not trending in their direction. I’ve been there. You know, I’ve been in their shoes. I keep waiting, or did, for cultural depravity to bottom out and recover. “At some point, people are gonna universally sick of this,” and instead it has continued to spiral down now below the gutter. Well, these people are having the same experience. They expect Trump to bottom out — or top out, in this case — and for his fans to have had enough. And there’s no end in sight to it. And they’re beside themselves because, in their minds, they have the power to stop this kind of thing, and they can’t, and they don’t know what to do.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/05/30/thomas-friedman-begs-people-to-vote-democrat/

---

Related Links

• RealClearPolitics: 'Morning Joe' Panel With Tom Friedman: The Worst Democrat Is Better Than The Best Republican

California’s Rationing Plan for Obamacare Patients

The state’s ACA network will boot your hospital for providing excess care.

California has found a novel way to save money on Obamacare patients — punish hospitals that provide too much care. How much is too much? That’s up to the bureaucrats. They have decreed, for example, that hospitals whose percentage of C-sections exceeds 23.9 percent for “low-risk” births will be purged from the provider network. WBUR quotes an official from the state’s Obamacare exchange as follows: “We’ve told health plans that by the end of 2019, we want networks to only include hospitals that have achieved that target.” Similarly arbitrary goals have been set for X-rays, MRIs, and CTs involving back pain.

The state official in question, Dr. Lance Lang, is the chief medical officer for the exchange. It goes without saying, of course, that the good doctor discusses the targets as if they are part of a quality initiative rather than a money-saving scheme. “It’s a quality improvement project… but with a deadline.” Dr. Lang, a former vice president and national director for clinical processes and computing for Kaiser Permanente, has evidently forgotten that he went out of his way to justify the 23.9 percent C-section target in terms of money last year in an interview with Chinyere Amobi of the Center for Health Care Journalism:

It’s the fact that payments are higher for C-sections than for vaginal deliveries.… You’ve got to align payment incentives with the quality goal that you’re seeking. It’s just that simple. If you’re paying more to just have episodic C-sections, then all the money is going there instead of where it needs to be — developing a system that supports the right kind of care.

Once upon a time, doctors and patients determined “the right kind of care” without the interference of government apparatchiks. That era ended with Obamacare. The Obama administration began pushing  C-section cutbacks for Medicaid patients six years ago, and the 23.9 percent target was established by Obama’s surgeon general in early 2016. But enthusiasm for such rigid goals was hardly universal in the medical community. Back then, the Los Angeles Times quoted Dr. Aaron Caughey, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, as follows:

I would hate it if Medicaid said, ‘Every hospital whose rate is above the median, we’re not going to pay you a chunk of money.’ That is a bad approach because then people squeeze it down without attention to what’s best for patients.

As it happens, that is precisely what is being done. The state’s “quality improvement project” won’t be limited to the captives of Obamacare. Medi-Cal (California Medicaid) patients will also be targeted. Dr. Lang gives predictable lip service to the minor health risks associated with C-sections, but medical complications are frequently the reason doctors perform this procedure. They include abnormal positioning, fetal distress, cord prolapse, etc. And the very populations that will be most affected by the arbitrary C-section targets consist of those patients most likely to contract or even die from such complications.

Much of the “research” upon which the initiative is based was provided by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), an allegedly independent organization initially endowed with proceeds realized when Blue Cross of California went for profit. CHCF is essentially a think tank that does a lot of… well… thinking for bureaucrats like Dr. Lang. It is the primary source for his talking points on C-sections as well as the cutbacks on diagnostic tests for back pain. The latter has long been the goal of CHCF, which deems such tests unnecessary. Here’s an excerpt from a report on one of its many health care workgroups:

Overuse of MRIs: This scenario elicited less emotional engagement… in part because the harms of overuse are more obscure. Focusing on reducing wasteful spending, most supported stricter rules for coverage of MRIs for the first few weeks of acute low back pain. Since other treatments (e.g., physical therapy) can help patients, these stricter rules seemed reasonable.

In other words, when asked about the “harms of overuse,” the members of the workgroup couldn’t think of any, so they were encouraged to focus on the real issue — the noble cause of saving a few bucks. Blissfully unaware that rationing legitimate treatment will never make government health care solvent, the group decided that it was wise to let the patient suffer for “the first few weeks of acute low back pain” before using readily available technology to diagnose the malady. This, remember, is in a state with more MRI machines than Canada. It is rationing where there is no shortage of equipment.

And if you’re thinking, “But surely these patients can survive for a few weeks by taking some kind of pain killer,” you need to know that a sharp reduction in prescription pain medications is yet another target of California’s “quality improvement project.” Never mind that the opioid “epidemic” isn’t driven by facility-based physicians prescribing analgesics. Dr. Lang and his CHCF brain trust insist that hospitals become more parsimonious with prescriptions. And, as with C-sections, X-Rays, MRIs, and CT scans, any facility that fails to comply will be summarily extirpated from the state’s provider network.

Such is life in the Golden State, owned and operated by the Democrats. It’s a nice state to live in if you’re successful in show biz or government. Not so much if you’ve been herded into the health care cul-de-sacs of Obamacare and Medicaid. If you are thus “insured” and have a pregnancy-related complication like CPD, pray your hospital isn’t above its 23.9 percent C-section limit. If you feel like you have an ice pick stuck in your back, come back in three weeks for an MRI. What about the pain? Suck it up. On the other hand, if you would like a hassle-free abortion or some medicinal weed, the state is here to help.

https://spectator.org/california-to-ration-treatment-to-obamacare-patients/

The first hot weekend brings violent mobs to Chicago streets as media turn a blind eye

"Wilding" is the term for mobs of violent young people taking over upscale neighborhoods and wreaking havoc, looting, mugging, and attacking innocent people just for the fun of it.  A "good" neighborhood is no guarantee of safety anymore in Chicago.  The breakdown of civil order, in other words, is well underway in the Windy City.  Bit by bit, civilization is slipping away in Chicago.

If you want to know how bad things have gotten there, the major media outlets are no help.  The last thing they want is for people to stay away from The Mag Mile – the stretch of Michigan Avenue just north of the Chicago River – full of glittering shopping, towering condo buildings and hotels, and the iconic Water Tower that is Chicago's rival to Fifth Avenue around Trump Tower.  You have to go to Second City Cop and CWB Chicago, two grassroots websites that are not afraid of alienating big advertisers or of a phone call from City Hall.

The arrival of 90-plus-degree weather over the Memorial Day weekend unleashed the urban youth.  Today, CWB Chicago lists the "highlights" of emergency radio traffic, and it is a horrifying compilation of chaos unleashed.  For example, an hour and half or so of Saturday night:

8:22PM – "Mayhem," says the downtown police dispatcher, taking a few brief seconds to summarize what she and Chicago cops are dealing with.

8:26PM – Lakeview: Officers call for backup. Fifteen to 20 people are beating up a boy who tried to prevent them from stealing a bike at the Lane Tech High School Memorial Day carnival. Story here.

8:39PM – 70 or 80 teens coming off the Chicago Red Line. "Tell Water Tower to close their doors; otherwise, they gotta let 'em in."

8:42PM – Fights behind the historic Water Tower. Crowd: 200 people, per dispatcher.

8:45PM – "Water Tower is closed. There's one door open so people can exit."

8:46PM – Cop: "Got a large fight on Pearson just east of Michigan." "Have Water Tower lock their doors." "They are, they are."

8:55PM – Rush & Chicago Avenue: A group ran into Nordstrom Rack, saying someone has a gun outside. Issue appears to be fireworks set off near the historic Water Tower. Also: More cars needed outside the location for a fight.

8:56PM – Millennium Park: "Caller says a Hispanic male has a baseball bat in his pants."

9:11PM – Sergeant: "We have a Cubs game letting out. Send teams down to the platform at Chicago and State to make sure order is being kept" as the arriving Cubs fans mix with teens waiting to leave via the same station.

9:21PM – Big fight outside the Park Hyatt, says an officer.

9:39PM – "We need everybody we have to try to get rid of these people" at Chicago and State. "Push 'em to the Red Line." "Maintain the perimeter, do not let anyone out." At least four arrests for resisting police.

10:05PM – "Hundreds" running wild in the streets near Roosevelt Red Line station. The train from Chicago and State – which was supposed to run express to 47th Street – stopped at Roosevelt by mistake, an officer says.

Screen grabs from videos of weekend violence on and near the Magnificent Mile (credit: CWB Chicago).

There is much, much more.  The early hours of Sunday morning were not an improvement.

At Second City Cop, they note the absence of major media coverage of the chaos and suggest (tongue in cheek, I hope) that the Fraternal Order of Police (the cops' union) declare "no go zones."

Many many reports of CPD merely "escorting" the ne'er-do-wells to the Red Line out of downtown – that's some deterrent.

Better advise everyone you know who might be coming downtown to come loaded for bear.

Second City Cop also reports – and is the sole outlet to say so – that cops are so overwhelmed that the Chicago Fire Department is being asked to have its trucks patrol the streets for three hours per shift.  It would be nice if the major media in Chicago would ask the CFD about this report.

One incident that did make it to the Chicago Tribune:

A 19-year-old woman was charged in connection with an attack on two Chicago Fire Department paramedics in the back of an ambulance that was also struck by a bullet during the episode in Englewood early Sunday, police said.

Latorya Thigpen, of the Parkway Gardens neighborhood, is accused of hitting, punching, kicking, scratching and spitting at two uniformed paramedics as they tried to treat her in the 2700 block of West 68th Street in the South Side's Marquette Park neighborhood about 4 a.m, police said.

The paramedics suffered scratches, abrasions, bruising, and loss of consciousness, police said.

During the incident, a bullet lodged itself in the passenger side door of the ambulance as medics were treating a patient whose family became irate when they weren't allowed in the ambulance.

Civil order is precious, and far more fragile than the progressives that run Chicago (and most big cities) understand.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/the_first_hot_weekend_brings_violent_mobs_to_chicago_streets_as_media_turn_a_blind_eye.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/chicago_tribune_acknowledges_mayhem_downtown_over_memorial_day_weekend_then_changes_headline_to_peace_downtown.html

America 2018: Bifurcation

U.S. intelligence services (under the leadership of the Obama administration) considered themselves the true rulers of the country.  They noted with satisfaction that they had achieved impressive successes ever since the origin of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover.  In fact, in 2016, for the first time in American history, the election had not one, but both presidential candidates under investigation by intelligence services.  The FBI conducted a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton as well as a case of counter-espionage against Donald Trump.

To date, the criminal case of Hillary Clinton is closed.  But most of America understands perfectly well that Special Prosecutor Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign is not a means to an end, but a well conceived cover-up operation aimed at shielding Obama, Clinton, and their closest associates.

So far, there is not a bit of proof of collusion between Trump and Vladimir Putin.  Instead, everything points to cover up the criminal collusion between Obama and his intelligence services, which began in London.  In addition to American and British intelligence services, Australian, Estonian, Russian, and Ukrainian intelligence services participated in the American elections in 2016.

The efforts of all these intelligence services pressed against Trump, but only Russian intelligence services worked simultaneously against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (see details in the article "Protocols of the Elders of Spydom").

The flow of information on Obamagate has now turned into an avalanche.  Just a few weeks ago, we knew that there were five Trump employees under the surveillance of the FBI, and there was one of Obama's spies inside Trump campaign.  But now this information is outdated.  Now we know about the seven employees of Trump under the surveillance, and four spies embedded by the Obama administration into Trump's campaign.  Perhaps this information will become obsolete by the time of this publication.

Two spies are well known – Stefan Halper and Joseph Mifsud.  Moreover, Halper, as it turned out, after the penetration into Trump campaign, tried to infiltrate Trump's administration after his inauguration.  The third is an unknown person, referred to as "NSA agent."  Suspicion of espionage is falling on Anatoly Samochornov as a fourth, the "interpreter" of the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya, who was, in fact, the FBI agent who accompanied her at the meeting with Trump's son, Manafort, and Kushner.

Of course, the FBI kept Veselnitskaya in the dark.  Her saga with the U.S. visa is a story by itself.  Her visa was overdue.  However, someone high enough from Obama's Department of Justice made several calls.  Veselnitskaya not only received a visa, but also had the opportunity to defend her client in an American court, even though she does not have a license to practice law in America.  By the way, 97% of political donations by employees of the Department of Justice in 2016 were for the campaign of Hillary Clinton!

Now we know that the surveillance of General Flynn was conducted at least six months before his ill fated telephone conversation with the Russian ambassador in December 2016.  That is, the entire house of cards is falling apart, based on the fact that Flynn allegedly discussed with Kislyak the secret communication channel between Trump and Putin.  This phone call (or rather, the scandal associated with it) was used by the Obama administration and served as yet another smokescreen to cover up the administration's criminal activities.

Now we know what "national security letters" are.  They are tricks of the U.S. intelligence services to track down Trump, which allowed them to organize surveillance without FISA court authorization.  These "national security letters" are a legitimate method of espionage business – a method that has never been used before to track domestic political opponents.

Finally, now we know (from the text message of FBI agent Strzok) that President Obama was behind this covert operation against Trump.  The propaganda has already convinced practically everyone that these ill fated text messages were sent by Strzok to his mistress.  But something tells me that the "mistress," Lisa Page, is yet another smokescreen, skillfully created by the FBI.

The active phase of the operation of U.S. intelligence agencies against Trump and his campaign took place from approximately March 2016 to September 2017.  That was about eight months before the elections, plus three months before the inauguration, plus about eight months after Trump took office as president.  U.S. intelligence services have all the documents of the Trump campaign (all emails, all phone calls, all texts) and, finally, reports of numerous "confidential human sources."

There is enough material to answer this question unequivocally – "was there a criminal conspiracy between Trump and Putin or not?"  A quick answer to this question contradicts the primary task of Mueller's investigation – the protection of Obama and his accomplices.

It was not the first time Obama's intelligence services performed political espionage.  As we now know, the Obama administration conducted surveillance, including spies, during the elections in France in 2011 and 2012.  Obama's spies infiltrated the campaign of the Socialist Party of France, the National Front, and the Union for a Popular Movement.

In other words, Obama's agents were inside the campaign of Hollande (who won the election), former French President Sarkozy, and Marine Le Pen – that is, in the campaigns of candidates who took the first three places in the first round of voting.  As in the case of Trump, the infiltration of agents began about eight months before the election.  It seems that Obama's CIA had a unique political spy protocol tied to the election calendar, which it followed scrupulously.

In the socialist Soviet Union, as is known, there was not only an external intelligence service (First Main Directorate of KGB), but also domestic (that is, political) intelligence service (Fifth Main Directorate of KGB).  The same services existed in the national-socialist Third Reich – external intelligence (V.I. Department of the RSHA) and domestic intelligence (I.V. Department of the RSHA), also known as the Gestapo.

There had never been anything like this before Obama.  All 17 U.S. intelligence organizations have always focused on working mainly outside the country.  Obama has every reason to add one more to his impressive list of leftist titles – the founder of American domestic political intelligence.

Thanks to Obama, America came to the point of political bifurcation.

In physics, a bifurcation is a point after which motion can occur along one of two incompatible but almost equiprobable trajectories.  In other words, this is a fork in the road.

What road will America choose?

America can turn to the right, and then our federal republic will return to the ideas of the U.S. founding fathers enshrined in the Constitution.

America can turn to the left and then, using the state apparatus for spying on the political opposition, will become a de facto norm.  Then we will quickly degenerate into one of the totalitarian one-party countries of the Third World.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/america_2018_bifurcation.html