There have been so many lies told by the Obama administration and his intelligence bosses (FBI, CIA, NSA, ODNI, etc.) that it makes your head spin. To make sense of the obfuscations, disinformation, and outright lies, we decided to build a timeline to see if we could see a pattern of the “bigger picture.” What we found was a shocking indictment of Obama, Susan Rice, and the whole chain of command in the intelligence community. Lie after lie was told to hide the fact that principle intelligence bosses worked closely with Obama’s efforts to get Hillary Clinton elected, by hook or by crook – mostly by crook.
THESE NEOCONS, POLITICIANS, AND BUREAUCRATS IN WASHINGTON ARE LYING LIKE A PACK OF NO-LEGGED DOGS.
Starting in the summer of 2016, three elaborate “October Surprises” were planned to derail the Trump Train. The U.S. intelligence community now admits full knowledge of the Trump dossier, server, and the DNC hacking all the way back to the beginning of summer 2016. The political spin was timed to accuse Trump of nefarious Russian involvement close to the election date so that he would not have time to defend an onslaught of accusations. Obama was so sure that the political espionage would work that Hillary, once in office, would have no trouble hiding the evidence of their illegal activities.
The arrogance of Obama and Clinton, after eight years of waging continuous illegal wars on sovereign nations, went to their heads. They thought that Trump did not have a chance to win until the summer of 2016 when the campaign was growing strong. This is when the Obama administration started making mistakes, leaving many trails that show their unprecedented treasonous actions. In the end, their accusations of Trump reflected their own crimes.
For example, it wasn’t Trump “in bed” with Putin, it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was cozy with Russia and who used her political position to set up lucrative uranium deals with Russia. It wasn’t Trump committing disgusting sexual acts with prostitutes, it was the Clinton cadre that was being exposed for perversion and pedophilia, from Anthony Weiner’s sexting to the Podesta emails that revealed the dark side of how the elites control Washington politicians using sordid blackmail operations. Their lies about Trump told us more about themselves that they probably know.
The closer the election date came and the more apparent it was that Clinton was losing momentum, the louder she and Obama became about Russian hacking of the election, which still to date has not uncovered any evidence. Average citizens like us watch the news in disbelief that the mainstream media and Washington pundits and politicians think we believe their erroneous narratives and theatrical congressional hearings. We aren’t stupid. We see that U.S. “intelligence agencies” and their bosses are nothing more than Deep State players and entrenched bureaucrats trying to keep their corrupt government in power.
The elephant in the room, Susan Rice, has told so many lies she can’t come out in public anymore because her Pinocchio nose has grown too long and draws too much attention. Obama himself can’t remember what lies he has told, which is why his handlers probably sent him into Tahiti exile for 6 weeks to get him off the radar.
As you will read in the timeline below, Obama was getting more and more confused about the Russian narrative. His incongruent remarks about Russian hacking of the election and his lack of evidence needed to support the unprecedented sanctions on Russia due to the alleged hacking were getting out of control. Hence, Obama was cast out of the media limelight for a while so that the Deep State could figure out how to handle their political faux pas.
Have you wondered why James Comey can’t get his story straight about the Trump dossier which he presented as one page “executive summary” to Trump as an “intelligence report?” Seriously. The FBI produced a one-page intelligence report based on a fraudulent dossier to the President of the United States. Mr. President, you might start reading the American Intelligence Media intelligence reports to get better intel than what you are currently being given by the 17 Deep State spying and lying agencies.
Comey gave a one page summary of a 35-page dossier filled with allegations against Trump. Could it be that he was too embarrassed by the childishly fake intelligence report to let Trump see the whole thing? Yet later, Comey uses the Trump dossier as his excuse for making allegations about Trump/Russia ties. Why was this ridiculously fake October Surprise not openly and immediately denounced?
On October 31, one day after the fake news and CIA operative Franklin Foer (a Slate reporter) released the October surprise about the Trump Towers server and Russian banks being in communication with someone on the Trump team, Comey makes a public statement saying Foer’s allegations are untrue and have no substance. How could Comey investigate Foer’s allegations in one day?
Why didn’t Comey investigate and put the issue to rest instead of encouraging rebound in the echo-chamber of the mainstream news agencies?
Why don’t Comey and James Clapper agree on the nature of Russian hacking or its effects on the election?
Why was a Russian criminal, Dmitri Alperovitch and his private company CrowdStrike the only group permitted to examine the DNC server? Why was Alperovitch’s one-page report never admitted as evidence of the supposed “Russian hacking”? Why didn’t he notice that Guccifer 2.0 had hacked the DNC server and was already selling the contents online before Alperovitch did his investigation?
Frankly, why are taxpayers funding the FBI for intelligence services when they have to outsource their work to a private Russian-connected company?
Why would Comey and Clapper indicate that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian hacker when he known to be a free agent “hack for money” individual?
Why would Clapper say Wikileaks was part of the Russian hacking of the DNC when everyone knows that is not true and that Julian Assange said he received the DNC leaks from a disgruntled DNC staffer, who we all know was murdered?
Why has the Senate or House intelligence committees not called the Awan brothers to testified since they were arrested for installing a proxy server that connected the intelligence committees classified information to a remote location that has yet to be found?
Why wasn’t the continuous flow of “leaks” to the press investigated as coming from the Senate and House intelligence committees who had already caught four Pakistani nationals stealing passwords, computers, and tablets from numerous members of Congress?
Why, if there were a reason to spy on the Trump Team has no wrong-doing every come forward? Who was the intelligence chief who allowed the surveillance of the Trump Team? (See our recent article CIA Bullets Keep US Dollar Strong.)
Was the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis involved since the admitted targets of the surveillance involved business transactions with Russia? Who is Leslie Ireland and what role did she play in the surveillance of Trump team members and other private citizens?
These questions are just the obvious ones that arise as we witness the biggest political scandal in American history while the political clowns and elephants in Washington dance around the questions and the media is getting lost in its own propaganda.
After hearing doublespeak lies, and falsehood politics ad nauseam, the Anonymous Patriots decided to set the record straight. If you are a first-tier alternative media disseminator, please get this intel out to your listeners and readers. If you are in a real intelligence agency (domestic or foreign), you need to use our report as a foundation for a better one to be delivered to the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Department of Justice, and the President.
If the FBI can do a one-page executive summary on a bogus dossier published by a fake news agency, then we challenge it to do an executive report on what we have found below:
In Syria, Obama had armed one side of the Syrian civil war, through CIA arms shipments to the “rebels,” and then struck a deal with Russia that gave the appearance of having removed all the chemical weapons from the Syrian arsenal. The resulting civil war has cost 500,000 lives and chemical weapons are still there.
Obama was supposedly working with Putin to wipe out ISIS and had an informal alliance in Syria. Obama spoke about being on personal terms with Putin and, in fact, a true ally of Russia.
Concerning the Iran nuclear deal, Obama once again joined with the Russians in safeguarding a Russian client’s weapons arsenal through an agreement claiming to achieve the opposite by giving billions to Iran. In July 2015, Obama publicly thanked Putin for bringing about the Iran deal. Iran used a large part of the Obama bribe money to immediately buy weapons from Russia, to Putin’s advantage.
On September 4-5, 2016, Obama had an interview where he stated the following:
“Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin. This [hacking] happened at the highest levels of the Russian government.”
There is still, to this day, no proof that Russians hacked the DNC. As a matter of fact, the “Trump dossier” indicates Aleksej Gubarev was the Russian hacker, not Wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0, as the U.S. intelligence community finally decided, after changing its stories numerous times.
Obama said he personally confronted Putin about the hacking in September on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summits in China, telling Putin to “cut it out” and warned of “serious consequences if he didn’t.”
“In fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process,” Obama said of the aftermath of that conversation. “But the leaks through WikiLeaks had already occurred.”
This is not true because Wikileak’s DNC leaks didn’t start until October after Obama told his Putin to stop. This is ridiculous and shows that Obama was sure that his other “October Surprises” would derail the Trump Train.
“What we have simply said are the facts,” Obama said. “Based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC, and as a consequence, it is important for us to review all elements of that and make sure we are preventing that kind of interference through cyber attacks in the future.”
This time Obama says Russia hacked the DNA, but later, the entire U.S. intelligence community says Guccifer 2.0 hacked it. Guccifer tried to sell the DNC data and later the DCCC’s hacked data for profit – not for Putin.
“It requires us not to re-litigate the election, it requires us not to point fingers, it requires us to just say, here’s what happened, let’s be honest about it, and let’s not use it as a political football but let’s figure out how to prevent it from happening in the future.”
This is anything but true, as later Obama says the Russian’s did not hack the elections nor did the DNC leaks affect the elections. Obama said that Russia’s cyber meddling “was not some elaborate complicated espionage scheme,” arguing instead that a “hyper-partisan political environment led to an obsession with leaked emails” and is what interfered in the election. Obama says it was not “espionage” but “just obsessions with leaked emails.”
U.S. intelligence agencies in October 2016 identified the Russian government as the source of hacker attacks that breached the Democratic party organizations and leaked private email conversations.
But the truth was that CrowdStrike’s Dmitri Alperovitch was the sole person who examined the DNC server, not U.S. intelligence agencies. The Anonymous Patriots identified this in January 2017 in an article entitled Russian Hackers Found.
The White House, still occupied by the Obama administration, announced a severe series of measures aimed at punishing Russia’s state-sponsored political hackers to deter further meddling in U.S. elections. One element of the response, laid out in an executive order, includes sanctions against a handful of Russian organizations and individuals targeted by name. Obama had to expand his executive authority to make unprecedented “attacks” against Russia based upon false intelligence from a private, cyber company CrowdStrike.
The U.S. then expelled 35 Russian diplomats accused of being intelligence agents and banned Russian personnel from two Russian-government compounds that the White House says were used for Russian intelligence gathering from American soil. These allegations are baseless and no evidence has ever come forth concerning this supposed espionage. These false accusations were Obama’s attempt to leave Trump with a political mess.
The Obama White House expanded the scope of the president’s powers from an earlier executive order, giving the president the power to impose sanctions not only in response to cyber attacks that affect national security, but also against anyone “determined to be responsible for tampering, altering, or causing the misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.”
Under the tenants of Obama’s new executive order, even being “determined to interfere” in an election is a crime – even if you don’t commit an actual act. This executive order covered Obama’s actions because he had no evidence concerning the allegations that lead to the sanctions. The White House’s collection of retaliatory tactics represents arguably the strongest-ever response to state-sponsored hacking attacks in the history of the internet. Don’t forget that Obama also ordered a full-scale cyber warfare attack against Russia. The Russians reported that the cyber attacks were completely unsuccessfully.
In addition to the 35 “diplomats” asked to leave the U.S., the new sanctions blacklisted five Russian organizations and six individuals. It included not only Russia’s FSB and GRU intelligence agencies but also iSt. Petersburg-based intelligence agency known as the Special Technology Center, a security contractor known as Zor Security and an innocuously named agency in Moscow known as the Autonomous Non-Commercial Organization Professional Association of Designers of Data Processing Systems. Among the six named men, four are GRU senior officials. The other two are a Russian and a Latvian, who the White House described as “notorious cybercriminals” responsible for a series of financially motivated attacks against American companies.
These are false accusations since none of these “notorious cybercriminals” had ever been mentioned or indicted before now and are rolled-up into the sanctions as some type of justification for not having any evidence about the DNC hack.
On December 13, 2016, in an interview with Trevor Noah, Barack Obama downplayed the allegations of Russian hacking of the 2016 presidential election to sway the results toward Trump.
“We were frankly more concerned in the run-up to the election with the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of, and we’re confident that we stopped.”
Obama admits there was no Russian hacking of the election. Earlier, during the campaign, he couldn’t stop talking about Russian hacking of the election and the way this cost Clinton the election. He and Clinton said repeatedly that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree there was significant Russia hacking and manipulation of the election and that Russia had a dossier of blackmail on Trump and that Trump’s server was in communication with Russian Banks. All of which was said by Comey, even before the election, to be baseless. Obama said of these DNC leaks (horrible Russian hacking that affected the election):
“What’s happened to our political system where some emails that were hacked and released ended up being the overwhelming story, and the constant source of coverage — breathless coverage — that was depicted as somehow damning in all sorts of ways when the truth of the matter was it was fairly routine stuff?”
Read carefully again. Obama said that the DNC manipulation of the primaries was “routine stuff.” He says the press shouldn’t have focused on Hillary’s cheating and that that obsessive focus constituted the “Russian hacking” influence on the election in favor of Trump.
Obama continues, “What is it about the state of our democracy where the leaks of what were frankly not very interesting emails, that didn’t have any explosive information in them, ended up being an obsession? And the fact that the Russians were doing this was not an obsession?”
Notice now that Obama says the Russians “were doing this,” which is opposite of what he says above. John Podesta’s leaks led to Pizzagate and the revealing of pedophilia in Washington which includes Hillary’s complicit awareness of Anthony Weiner and Huma’s illegal activities of stealing classified State Department documents. Obama tries to downplay the DNC leaks when they should have led to indictments. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the head of the DNC, had to step down and now faces charges for election interference. These are standard Obama lies that are said without careful thinking or a prompter.
“When the DNC got hacked, we immediately assigned our intelligence community — our law enforcement — to investigate what had happened, and we determined — and announced — in October that it was the consensus of all the intelligence agencies in law enforcement that organizations affiliated with Russian intelligence were responsible for the hacking of the DNC materials that were being leaked. That was a month before the election. This was not a secret.”
This is a lie. CrowdStrike was assigned exclusively to investigate the supposed DNC hack, not the U.S. intelligence community. Comey only ordered an investigation in March 2017.
Speaking at a news conference in October 2016, Obama reacted negatively when he was asked about the possibility of a rigged presidential election. He suggested that such thinking undermined the country’s democratic traditions and then went on to say that anyone, namely Trump, who suggested such a thing wasn’t fit for the White House.
“If you start whining before the game’s even over, if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else, then you don’t have what it takes to be in this job because there are a lot of times when things don’t go our way or my way.”
“There is no evidence that that [election rigging] has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”
Obama added there was “no serious” person who would even go as far as to suggest it was possible to rig American elections, and yet he and his administration accuse Trump and Putin of doing exactly that. From that time on, Obama didn’t stop complaining about the Russian’s hacking and manipulating the election. Obama became the biggest spokesperson for the lies and propaganda about the Trump-Russia and Trump- Putin narratives.
On December 29, 2016, President Obama ordered the intelligence community to produce a complete review of its findings before Trump took office on January 20th. The White House said that it will make as much of the report public as it can. Even though Obama has asked the public to take the assessment of Russian interference largely on faith, suggesting that the American people already know everything they need to know to accept the conclusions of the CIA report.
“There is still a whole range of assessments taking place among the intelligence agencies. But that does not in any way, I think, detract from the basic point that everyone during the election perceived accurately — that in fact what the Russian hack had done was create more problems for the Clinton campaign than it had for the Trump campaign.”
As we can see from Obama’s own words quoted above, he is either a compulsive liar or he is so confused that he can’t remember what he said at different times and simply mixes them all together in a big soup of erroneous propaganda. There is ample evidence that Obama was well-aware of all the October surprises and Russian allegations and that he was the number one person leaking the information to the news through comments like the ones quoted above. He basically tells the American people bold-faced lies to throw the election to Hillary Clinton.
Can there be any doubt after seeing his false testimony, in his own words, that Obama himself lead the charge against Trump with bogus dossiers and cheap intelligence from foreign, corporate intelligence buffoons? Obama did everything he could to besmirch and falsely accuse Trump of every immoral deed he could imagine.
Obama was completely aware of the covert plans to use Fusion, Orbis, the Awans, and especially his favorite Russian criminal, Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike) as the corporate intelligence agents to produce the “fake evidence” against the Trump Team. Obama and Susan Rice were looking at every telephone call and communication that the NSA surveilled through “normal” intelligence surveillance. It is important to remember that absolutely nothing was found on anyone in the Trump Team, even General Flynn.
The FBI had already investigated Trump and his family completely and released a report to that effect on their website. That is why James Comey says that he did not order or conduct the surveillance. John Brennan also claims that he did not order or conduct the surveillance, but we know that the surveillance happened and was quite broad in scope.
The only answer to the question of “who ordered the FISA or the unmasking of NSA surveillance to target the Trump Team” is obvious. It is easy to surmise because the people who were surveilled were being “watched” because of their personal business dealings with Russia.
I have concluded that the U.S. Treasury Office of Intelligence and Analysis would have been responsible for the surveillance. S. Leslie Ireland, another Obama-Clinton loyalist, was in charge of that office and had the authority to order a FISA warrant and/or conduct the surveillance as part of her normal duties. Loretta Lynch, Michael Rogers, James Clapper, and Valerie Jarrett would also have been involved in the chain of command for surveilling the Trump Team. And, yes, Barack Obama would have been thoroughly aware of the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s activities.
The collection of “intelligence” by Leslie Ireland may not be a crime, but targeting the Trump Team during an election and providing the opposition with that information is, indeed, a crime that everyone in the chain of command would have been guilty of or complicit with. As they probably all gloated: It’s not treason if you win.
It is interesting to note that The New York Times states that the phony Trump dossier is always dragged in because the leaked NSA wiretaps show nothing that is incriminating or damaging to Trump, and only the Trump dossier can purportedly supply that. Keep in mind that the dossier was sent around to the entire intelligence community and the press even before Senator McCain dramatically released the information on national television.
In The New York Times on March 3, 2017, the day before President Trump tweeted about the Obama “wiretapping” him and when it was still accepted in the propaganda narrative to admit to leaking highly classified NSA intelligence to try to destroy Trump, reporters Scott Shane and Andrew E. Kramer wrote:
“Current and former American officials have said that phone records and [NSA-type] intercepted calls show that members of Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.”
“There have been courtesy calls, policy discussions and business contacts [in the intercepted phone calls of Trump campaign and associates], though nothing has emerged publicly indicating anything more sinister. A dossier of allegations on Trump-Russia contacts, compiled by a former British intelligence agent for Mr. Trump’s political opponents, includes unproven claims that his aides collaborated in Russia’s hacking of Democratic targets.”
It is perfectly clear from the continuous leaking of secretly-collected information from the NSA and CrowdStrike, Fusion, Orbis, the Awans, and British intelligence agencies that Barack Obama is the source of the bogus intelligence and the head “leaker” of bogus Trump propaganda. Obama’s own words are an indictment of himself. The case is clearly made by Obama’s own incriminating statements to the press.
Susan Rice is a despicable person who committed genocide against six million Sudanese without the slightest speck of guilt or shame. She lied openly, repeatedly, and proudly the untruths about Benghazi and has never changed her “fake story” to this day. She was complicit in Obama and Clinton’s bombing of eight sovereign nations and the resulting 2 million deaths, 46 million refugees, and civil wars that ensued. (See our article Susan Rice Unmasked: Washington War Monger)
If you imagined that Susan Rice might have a conscience, you are wrong. Her lies and propaganda about the Trump and his associates are an incidental falsehood that she thought would never come back to haunt her. She has now openly lied again and again about the “unmasking” on every news network that would air her lies.
Let’s look at Susan’s own words regarding surveillance which she personally had sent to the White House SCIF room where Steve Bannon found it in the course of his job when he became National Security Adviser to President Trump, the same job Susan Rice had for Obama.
On December 28, 2016, Susan Rice said the following:
“I do think that the fact that the press found it more interesting at the time to report on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails instead of President-elect Donald Trump’s, you know, videotaped comments about women, or a large number of other issues, is in retrospect probably a missed opportunity. The fact that they did not focus on this issue to the extent that we thought they would and they should, is something that I think the press needs to do some introspection about.”
“For the press not to give it [Trump/Russia ties] the sustained attention that it deserved, and meanwhile continue to give great attention to the product of these hackings, I think is something we all need to be concerned about and look back on and ask ourselves what we can learn from that.”
“What’s harder to measure is the extent to which it affected people’s perceptions and judgments. But it should not be a casual consideration that a foreign government, particularly a large adversarial government, attempted to have an influence.”
“We will respond in an appropriate manner at a time and place of our choosing. We’re going to respond appropriately, and just because something doesn’t go bang doesn’t mean that we haven’t done what needs to be done.”
These threats led to unprecedented and ridiculous sanctions on Russian diplomatic representatives in America and some Russian businesses, as well as the largest attempted cyberwarfare attack on Russian computer systems in history. These attacks were a complete failure and Russian diplomats publicly ridiculed Obama for his cyber attack that was ineffectual.
Susan Rice also shows her true hand by accidentally tipping her cards and showing that attempted propaganda smear campaigns against the Trump team were part of the Obama plan. Rice admits that she was disappointed with the mainstream media for not doing a better job pushing the narrative that bashed Trump and supported Clinton.
Senator Rand Paul says that what he calls the “smoking gun” revelations about Susan Rice unmasking Trump team names from NSA wiretap databases are “actually eerily similar to what President Trump accused them of” in tweets on March 4, 2017 (wiretapping). It is inconceivable that Rice did not inform Obama during the more than one year period of her “unmasking” Trump campaign and transition team names in NSA wiretap reports.
Susan Rice herself points to Obama in the middle of a long MSNBC interview on April 4, 2017, discussing Rice’s “unmasking” of names in reports of intercepted Trump team Russia communications. Rice was evasive about her part but kept dragging Obama into the mix. She never says, for example, that she did the unmasking on her own without ever informing Obama, or that she kept it all to herself. Instead, Rice kept implicating Obama whenever she could, while minimizing her own role as somehow a passive one.
Rice said that Obama ordered the compilation of intelligence reports on Russian hacking and election interference, which implied that the reports included the unmasked name of Trump adviser General Michael Flynn in wiretap intercept reports of phone calls with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
MSNBC kept pressing Rice about the NSA-intercepted Flynn conversations with the Russian ambassador in December 2016, which Rice kept trying to dodge until Andrea Mitchell brought up the intercepted Flynn/Russian ambassador conversations one last time, noting that it was after the Obama sanctions and expulsion of Russian spy-diplomats.
Rice finally replied by taking it back to August 2016, and confirming Obama knew about it and was “concerned,” saying:
“Well, Andrea, from basically August  through the end of the [Obama] administration [in January 2017] we were hearing more and more—getting more and more information about Russian interference in our electoral process. It was of grave concern to all of us in the national security team of President [Obama] and the President himself.”
“So yes there was a pace of reporting that accelerated as the Intelligence Community got more and more information on that and shared it with U.S. [Obama] officials. I can say that from when this first came to light in intelligence channels to when the administration ended we got more and more information.”
These were not wiretaps about Russia or “incidental collection” on legitimate foreign intelligence subjects, though they may have begun that way.
THE FISA WARRANT(S) WERE PROCURED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES TO SPY ON THE TRUMP TEAM USING THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S NSA SPYING APPARATUS.
According to Rep. Peter King (R-NY) of the House Intelligence Committee—who was briefed on the contents of the wiretap reports on the Trump Team and his associates obtained by Rice and other Obama officials— said they were like a private investigator’s file, with nothing on Russia-type intelligence.
“This [NSA wiretap] is information about their everyday lives. Who they were talking with, who they were meeting, where they were going to eat… just trying to lay out a dossier on somebody. Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired to just find out what a person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”
The former Obama defense official and Hillary campaign adviser, Evelyn Farkas, proudly admitted during an MSNBC interview on March 2, 2017 that she had urged her “former colleagues” to collect and spread the NSA wiretap intelligence on Russia and Trump and “that’s why you have the leaking.” In an article in Politico on December 12, 2016, Evelyn Farkas, a Russia expert, inadvertently tripped up the entire narrative on the Trump-Russia plot, and in effect admitted that Putin had no motive to hack DNC emails and help Trump get elected to be a Russian ally. Other observers have also noticed a complete lack of any evidence that Putin wanted to interfere in the U.S. election to help Trump win.
The Trump-Putin conspiracy theory was designed to cover or excuse the illegal surveillance of Trump and his associates by the Obama administration. One of the motives may have been that Obama was fearful that the deals he struck with Putin on Syria and Iran would come unraveled and the truth be brought to light. To brace for these developments, the idea was hatched to accuse Trump and his associates of being the Russian dupes, using their innocent contacts with Russian officials or businessmen as the excuse for surveillance. This made Trump look like the Russian dupe and Obama as the tough guy with Putin, which Obama never was before that time.
The conversations captured in NSA digital wiretaps have turned out to be the opposite of the Democrat/media narrative. The remarks between the Trump team and Russian officials make it clear that no real relationship existed, that no insidious conspiracy was in play, that public events such as the WikiLeaks email releases were only annoyances, and that the “Trump dossier” was known to be fake.
Intelligence agency officials have consistently denied finding any evidence for such Trump collusion with the Russians despite furious efforts to prove it in order to take down President Trump. The best anyone has come up with is the claim that some internet “IP addresses” of attempted hackings trace back to Russian IP domains. James Comey himself denied these “allegations” because he said that anyone with the slightest tech savvy knows that expert hackers cover their tracks to prevent such easy tracing, and even plant false trails such as those pointing to Russian IP internet addresses.
The continued misuse of the fake “Trump dossier” as an investigative roadmap by the FBI has been reported by The New York Times repeatedly. Instead, the Times should be investigating and exposing the “Trump dossier’s” glaringly obvious fraudulent nature and the political motives behind its compilation and release.
In December 2016, FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election, in part, to help Donald Trump win the White House. President Obama issued a public warning to Moscow that it could face retaliation.
“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI Director James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is a strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said.
In a statement from the head of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Devin Nunes said:
“We have not received any information from the U.S. Intelligence Community indicating that they have developed new assessments on this issue. I am alarmed that supposedly new information continues to leak to the media but has not been provided to Congress.”
In one of the last news conferences of his presidency, Obama defended his administration’s response to the Russian hacking and vowed to “send a clear message to Russia” that its meddling was unacceptable.
“I think we handled it the way it should have been handled,” Obama said of the hacking investigation and the lack of a formal accusation of blame until a month before the election. “We allowed law enforcement and the intelligence community to do their job.”
The Anonymous Patriots have already written a disclosure article about Herr Director Comey. See Detailing the Commission of Comey Crimes. When we call him out as a liar and fixer, we don’t do so flippantly. His nefarious history would make J. Edgar Hoover blush.
Well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7, 2016 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian hacking campaign during a meeting in the White House Situation Room in June or July, but the Obama administration vetoed it. Comey’s op-ed would have included much of the same information as the bombshell declassified intelligence report released January 6, 2017, which said Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to influence the presidential election.
For much of the 2016 summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to 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 dropped — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.
Intelligence officials have said that apparent connections between some of Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate. At least one part of the investigation has involved Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman for much of the presidential campaign. But the focus, in that case, was on Manafort’s ties with Ukraine and not necessarily on Russian influence over Trump’s campaign.
In classified sessions in August and September 2016, Comey briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Trump. He focused attention on what cyber-experts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia’s biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. FBI officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — the first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. The FBI ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.
The most serious part of the FBI’s investigation has focused on the computer hacks that the Obama administration formally blamed on Russia.
On CNSNews on March 5, 2017, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper denied knowledge of any wiretapping of President-elect Donald Trump. However, in an assertion receiving considerably less press attention, he also stated he had “no knowledge of evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign” and that, “to his knowledge no FISA court order for such surveillance was issued.”
“We did not include any evidence in our report – and I say ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI, and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence – that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence that included in our report.”
On March 20, 2017, James Clapper testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee “that although the Russian government did, in fact, wage a strong propaganda campaign during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, votes were not changed. Specifically, they were not changed in swing states Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump.” In January, Clapper said:
“They did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort. The Russians have a long history of interfering in elections, theirs and other people’s. I don’t think we’ve ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election than we’ve seen in this case.”
As anyone can notice, James Clapper simply makes up new lies as he goes along and doesn’t even try to cover his tracks. One minute the Russian’s “didn’t affect” the election and the next minute they conducted an unprecedented “aggressive” interference in the election. Surely, no one can possibly believe a single word that comes out of Clapper’s mouth anymore.
While Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed its assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. The position of Clapper does not agree with the FBI and the CIA’s official, “Obama sanctioned”, report. The Russian government is still calling for any evidence of its involvement to be brought to light so that they can address the allegations reasonably. Putin, of course, denies the claims made by the confused U.S. intelligence community.
“We are also very interested in understanding what they accused Russia off,” said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. “Many times the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Minister Lavrov have asked Americans to provide full information. But never had any response.”
Don’t forget that back in March 2013, James Clapper was testifying before a Senate committee, under oath, about the scope of the NSA’s monitoring of U.S. citizens. This is the exchange he had with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden:
Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Clapper: “No, sir.”
Wyden: “It does not?”
Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”
Unfortunately for Clapper, in June 2013, Edward Snowden’s leaked information was made public and it was revealed that James Clapper was not only Director of National Intelligence, he was also a shameless liar.
On January 5, 2017, James Clapper delivered a comprehensive review of Russia’s efforts to undermine this year’s U.S. presidential election to the White House, with congressional lawmakers to receive briefings on the classified report as soon as next week. The full report, which details the sources and methods in which Moscow interfered with the election process via a series of cyber attacks and hacks against the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, was handed over to President Obama.
From the report:
“This was a multifaceted campaign. The hacking was only one part of it. It also included classic propaganda… and fake news. An unclassified, redacted version of the White House report will also be released to the public. The U.S. intelligence community stands ready to defend their findings in the White House report, despite whatever rhetorical barrage may come from the Trump camp. There is an important distinction between healthy skepticism and discouragement of the analytical rigor that U.S. intelligence professionals put into assessments like the White House report. The intelligence community is not perfect but I do not think the intelligence community gets the credit it’s due for what it does day in, day out to thwart national security threats in the U.S. and elsewhere, he added.”
Trump likened the U.S. intelligence assessments on Russian interference to the false flag findings on Iraq’s supposed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that led the U.S. to war in the country in 2003. Trump also cited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s repeated denials that Russian operatives provided the hacked emails from Mr. Podesta and the DNC, which were posted on the site.
Donald Trump has publicly speculated that former CIA director John Brennan is one of the criminal leaders. In January, he tweeted out, “Was this the leaker of Fake News?” Trump has now charged the Justice Department with investigating “low-life leakers” in the government.
What we know is that intelligence agencies taped Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador, and we know that the contents of the call were leaked to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. We also know that Brennan has made no secret of his opposition to Trump and Flynn.
“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI Director James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is a strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan wrote in a memo. “The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI.”
“I don’t think he [Trump] has a full understanding of Russian capabilities and the actions they are taking on the world. Mr. Trump has to understand that absolving Russia is a road that he needs to be very, very careful about moving down.”
“Now that he’s going to have an opportunity to do something for our national security as opposed to talking and tweeting, he’s going to have a tremendous responsibility to make sure that U.S. and national security interests are protected. Spontaneity is not something that protects national security interests.”
“I do take great umbrage at that, and there is no basis for Mr. Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for leaking information [dossier] that was already available publicly.”
There are many allegations that Brennan is a convert to Islam based upon firsthand reports of those who served with him in Saudi Arabia. Those allegations include that Brennan was the target of a Saudi intelligence influence operation, one outcome of which was Brennan’s conversion to Islam. At that time, Brennan was Chief of Station in Saudi Arabia, a billet that is designed for an operationally trained officer with experience in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, which Brennan was not. Brennan’s background is that of an analyst, which may explain why he lacked the sophistication and experience to understand that he was being played by the Saudis in an influence operation. Brennan has also stated publicly that he visited Mecca, which is impossible for a non-Muslim to do unless he is a special guest of the Saudi King.
Not only was Brennan an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood, but Brennan’s Islamophilia dated to his days in college when he spent a year in Cairo learning Arabic and taking courses in Middle Eastern studies. He later got a graduate degree with an emphasis in Middle Eastern studies. In 1996, his ties to the Islamic world tightened after he became the CIA’s station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Brennan once said:
“During a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East — as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege — that pilgrimage.”
Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British 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 Clinton supporters, to spy on Trump and his people. Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Clinton campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump.
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 Neocons in the Senate (see our article Naming the Neocon Traitors that Have Sold-Out America), which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.
On December 15, 2016, Loretta Lynch said:
“Fortunately we didn’t see the sort of technical interference that I know people had concerns about, also, in terms of voting machines and the like. There’s a number of things we do, some of which we talk about publicly, some that we don’t talk about publicly. This [Trump/Russian ties] was a grave concern to us, so we began in the summer to look at what we could say publicly about this issue, and that is why you saw the intelligence community release its report in October, before the election. Letting the American people know that the intelligence community had determined that Russia was behind the hacks [of the DNC] itself. The investigation is ongoing, certainly, the review is continuing. We rarely do that kind of public attribution, but it was important in that instance because the election effects everyone.”
“It is not a matter of the results, it is peoples’ faith in the integrity of the system. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security was involved in reaching out to every state to make sure that they had access to every resource they needed to protect the state electoral system as well.”
On Thursday, November 17, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-elect Donald Trump. On Friday, November 18, The Washington Post reported on a recommendation that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:
“The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.”
On Saturday, November 19, 2016, Reuters reported in The Washington Post’s story that there was additional pressure by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and DNI James Clapper to fire Mike Rogers.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Russian interference was real but criticized the administration for being slow to react.
“Russia’s cyber-attacks are no surprise to the House Intelligence Committee. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, dedicated to delusions of ‘resetting’ relations with Russia, ignored pleas by numerous Intelligence Committee members to take more forceful action against the Kremlin’s aggression. It appears, however, that after eight years the administration has suddenly awoken to the threat.”
The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an “influence campaign” to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the 2016 election. The declassified report determined with “high confidence” that Russia’s interference — consisting of hacking Democratic groups and individuals and releasing that information via third-party websites, including WikiLeaks — helped President-elect Donald Trump win the election.
Here are some of the highlights from the report that demonstrate that it is a complete fabrication and a clear attempt to cover-up the Obama administration’s crimes in these matters. From the report:
“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”
“We assess that influence campaigns are approved at the highest levels of the Russian government – particularly those that would be politically sensitive.”
“Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012 and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.”
“Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation indirectness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”
“Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyberactivity — with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries and paid social media users or trolls.”
“Before the election, Russian diplomats had publicly denounced the US electoral process and were prepared to publicly call into question the validity of the results. Pro-Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory, judging from their social media activity.”
“Russian media hailed President-elect Trump’s victory as a vindication of Putin’s advocacy of global populist movements – the theme of Putin’s annual conference for Western academics in October 2016 — and the latest example of Western liberalism’s collapse.”
“Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.”
“We assess Russian intelligence services will continue to develop capabilities to provide Putin with options to use against the United States, judging from past practice and current efforts. Immediately after Election Day, we assess Russian intelligence began a spearphishing campaign targeting US government employees and individuals associated with U.S. think tanks and NGOs in national security, defense, and foreign policy fields.”
“In early September, Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to Wikileaks, calling the search for the source of the leaks a distraction and denying Russian ‘state-level’ involvement.”
Any unbiased, discerning reader can see that this entire report is bogus and the very people who made the report have stated publicly the exact opposite. In fact, all that the U.S. intelligence community did personally to influence the election was later blamed upon the Russians. There is no evidence presented in the report and the redacted versions of the report were made available to everyone to continue the harassment of the Trump Team. Again, the U.S. intelligence community has proven their intent to lie to the American people with this fake intelligence report.
Truth is always revealed in a timeline. A good timeline will have nodal points based on truth and enough time on the line so that truth becomes self-evident. We are beginning to see the picture–nice and clear.
June 16, 2015: Trump announces that he is running for president
September 2015: A FBI special agent contacted the Democratic National Committee to report that at least one DNC computer system had been hacked by an espionage team linked to the Russian government. The agent was transferred to a tech-support contractor at the help desk, who did a cursory check of DNC server logs and didn’t reply to follow-up calls from the FBI agent.
April 2016: The Democratic National Committee’s IT department noticed suspicious computer activity, contacted the FBI, and hired a private security firm, CrowdStrike, to investigate.
May 2016: CrowdStrike determined that highly sophisticated Russian-intelligence affiliated adversaries — denominated Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear — had been responsible for the DNC hack. Fancy Bear had indicators of affiliation with Russia’s Main Intelligence Department (GRU).
June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
June 15, 2016: A hacker with the online persona “Guccifer 2.0” claimed credit for the DNC hack and began posting internal DNC documents on the Guccifer 2.0 website. CrowdStrike reiterated its conclusion that the hack had been a Russian intelligence operation but did not acknowledge Guccifer 2.0’s successful hack and theft of documents.
July 2016: The FBI used the unverified dossier detailing President Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia to bolster its case for a warrant that would allow it to surveil Carter Page, an early foreign-policy adviser to Trump’s campaign. The FBI has been using the dossier as a roadmap for its investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election since last year.
The raw intelligence contained in the 35-page collection of memos — written by the former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, who spent 20 years spying for MI6 in Moscow — apparently helped the FBI convince the FISA court that Page could be acting as an agent of a foreign power. In 2013, a Russian spy was trying to recruit Carter Page who gave a Russia-friendly speech at a prestigious Moscow institute. That trip was a catalyst for the FBI investigation into connections between Russia and Trump’s campaign. From the Russian trip of the obscure Mr. Page grew a wide-ranging investigation, now accompanied by two congressional inquiries.
July 6, 2016: Another batch of hacked DNC documents appeared on the Guccifer 2.0 website.
July 14, 2016: Another batch of hacked DNC documents appeared on the Guccifer 2.0 website.
July 22, 2016: On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks released its first trove of e-mails stolen from the DNC which they later admitted came from a DNC staffer.
August 21, 2016: Ten weeks before the election, John Brennan, then the CIA director, was so concerned about increasing evidence of Russia’s election meddling that he began a series of urgent, individual briefings for eight top members of Congress, some of them on secure phone lines while they were on their summer break.
August 5, 2016: Trump surrogate Roger Stone wrote an article for Breitbart News. Stone argued that Guccifer 2.0 had nothing to do with Russia.
August 12, 2016: A batch of hacked Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) documents appeared on the Guccifer 2.0 website.
August 15, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 released hacked DCCC documents on primaries in Florida.
August 21, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 posted hacked DCCC documents on Pennsylvania’s congressional primaries.
August 31, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 posted documents hacked from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s personal computer.
September 15, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 posted hacked DCCC documents on New Hampshire, Ohio, Illinois, and North Carolina.
September 23, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 posted hacked DCCC documents on chairman Rep. Ben Ray Lujan.
October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons.
October 4, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 posted documents hacked from the Clinton Foundation.
October 7, 2016: In a joint statement, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence said, “The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
October 7, 2016: WikiLeaks began publishing stolen e-mails from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
October 31, 2016: Franklin Foer’s propaganda article in Slate is another October Surprise against Trump. Entitled, Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia, the article says: “This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.”
November 2, 2016: Follow up an article by Franklin Foer. Trump’s Server, Revisited. Sorting through the new evidence, and competing theories, about the Trump server that appeared to be communicating with a Russian bank.
November 8, 2016: Election Day.
December 2016: Officials in the Obama administration became concerned that the incoming administration would cover up or destroy previously gathered intelligence relating Russia’s interference with the election. To preserve that intelligence for future investigations, they spread it across the government.
December 29, 2016: On the same day that President Obama announced sanctions against Russian in retaliation for its interference in the 2016 election, national security adviser-designate Lt. Gen. Flynn placed phone calls to the Russian ambassador.
January 6, 2017: The CIA, FBI, and NSA released their unclassified report, concluding unanimously, “Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.”
The three intelligence agencies agreed that “the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible.” The report also stated that WikiLeaks had been Russia’s conduit for the effort, writing, “we assess with high confidence that Russian military used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.”
January 20, 2017: Trump is inaugurated.
January 23, 2017: At Sean Spicer’s first press briefing, Spicer said that none of Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador touched on the December 29 sanctions. That got the attention of FBI Director James Comey. According to The Wall Street Journal, Comey convinced acting Attorney General Sally Yates to delay informing the White House immediately about the discrepancy between Spicer’s characterization of Flynn’s calls and U.S. intelligence intercepts showing that the two had, in fact, discussed sanctions. Comey reportedly asked Yates to wait a bit longer so that the FBI could develop more information and speak with Flynn himself. The FBI interviewed Flynn shortly thereafter.
January 24, 2017: Per a subsequent article in The Washington Post, Flynn reportedly denied to FBI agents that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia in his December 2016 calls with the Russian ambassador.
January 26, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed White House counsel Don McGahn that Flynn had made misleading statements about his late December conversations with the Russian ambassador. Sean Spicer later said Trump and a small group of White House advisers were “immediately informed of the situation.”
February 13, 2017: The Washington Post reported that acting Attorney General Sally Yates had warned the White House in late January that Flynn had mischaracterized his December conversation with the Russian ambassador, and that it made him vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Later that evening, Flynn resigned.
February 15, 2017: Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz and other congressional Republicans formally asked the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate the leaks.
February 17, 2017: FBI Director Comey met privately with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to discuss the Russia investigation. Immediately thereafter, the Committee sent a letter asking more than a dozen agencies, organizations, and individuals — including the White House — to preserve all communications related to the Senate panel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
February 24, 2017: U.S. President Donald Trump criticized the FBI for failing to stop leaks of national security information to the media and directed the agency to find those who pass on classified information.
February 25, 2017: The FBI rejected a White House request to publicly deny media reports about communications between Donald Trump’s associates and Russians known to U.S. intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign.
March 2017: FBI Director James Comey publicly confirmed for the first time that his agency has been investigating possible ‘coordination’ between Russia and the Trump campaign and whether any crimes may have been committed as part of a wider probe into the hacking of Democratic servers and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
March 4, 2017: Trump tweeted that President Obama had wiretapped his phones during the presidential campaign.
March 5, 2017: FBI Director Comey asked the Justice Department to rebut publicly Trump’s assertion that President Obama had ordered the wiretapping of Trump’s phones. Meanwhile, Sean Spicer announced that neither Trump nor the White House would comment further on Trump/Russia matters until Congress completed an investigation into whether President Obama’s executive branch abused its powers during 2016 election.
March 9, 2017: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI’s investigation remains open and is in the hands of the FBI’s counterintelligence team — the same one considering Russia’s suspected interference in the 2016 election.
March 15, 2017: The House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said that “We don’t have any evidence that that took place and in fact I don’t believe — just in the last week of time, the people we’ve talked to — I don’t think there was an actual tap of Trump Tower.”
This statement was made before the investigation had even begun.
March 16, 2017: Senate Intelligence Committee leaders issued a joint statement rebutting Trump’s unfounded assertion that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower: “Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016.”
This was another statement made before the investigation had even begun.
March 20, 2017: FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress on his agency’s investigation into Russian election interference. Comey testified that the FBI was investigating Russian interference with the election, including “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
With respect to Trump’s wiretapping claims, Comey said, “I have no information that supports these tweets.” There was no investigation of Obama or Clinton Russian ties.
May 5, 2017: FBI Director James Comey refused to confirm under oath whether the bureau is investigating accusations related to whether the Obama administration spied on President Trump’s election campaign and transition team. The director said that he could not confirm that in public without authorization from the Justice Department, which would have initiated any such investigation.
May 2017: Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer and author of the fake “Trump Russian Dossier” alleging collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has conceded in court documents that part of his work still needed to be verified. The defamation case against Steele is playing out in the High Court in London. In the “dossier” Steele accused Aleksej Gubarev and his web-hosting companies of hacking the Democratic Party computer networks. Mr. Gubarev calls the charge fiction and filed a lawsuit in February. Steele said the dossier “needed to be analyzed and further investigated and verified.” Steele claims he failed to do “even the most basic attempt at verification.”
Steele’s Orbis Intelligence Ltd. was paid to do the work by Fusion GPS who was funded by both anti-Trump Republicans and anti-Trump Democrats. Steele says, “the dossier was never meant to be made public. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”
Information released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on May 3, 2017, shows that the Obama administration distributed thousands of intelligence reports with the un-redacted names of U.S. citizens during the 2016 election. During his final year in office, Obama’s team significantly expanded efforts to search National Security Agency intercepts for information about Americans, distributing thousands of intelligence reports across government with the un-redacted names of U.S. residents during the midst of a divisive 2016 presidential election.
Government officials conducted 30,355 searches in 2016 seeking information about Americans in NSA intercept metadata. The activity amounted to a 27.5 percent increase over the prior year and more than triple the 9,500 such searches that occurred in 2013. The government in 2016 scoured the contents of NSA intercepted calls and emails for 5,288 Americans, an increase of 13 percent over the prior year and a massive spike from the 198 names searched in 2013.
The data provides the clearest evidence to date of how information “accidentally” collected by the NSA about Americans overseas was subsequently searched and disseminated after Obama loosened privacy protections to make such sharing easier in 2011 in the name of national security. The revelations are particularly sensitive since the NSA is legally forbidden from directly spying on Americans and its authority to conduct warrantless searches on foreigners is up for renewal in Congress.
The searches ultimately resulted in 3,134 NSA intelligence reports with un-redacted U.S. names being distributed across government in 2016, and another 3,354 reports in 2015. About half the time, U.S. identities were un-redacted in the original reports while the other half was unmasked after the fact by special request of Obama administration officials. Among those whose names were unmasked in 2016 or early 2017 were a campaign or transition associates of President Donald Trump as well as members of Congress.
The data kept by ODNI is missing some information from one of the largest consumers of NSA intelligence, the FBI, and officials acknowledge the numbers are likely much higher when the FBI’s activity is added. Obama substantially eased the rules starting in 2011 allowing for government officials, including political appointees, to unmask and obtain information about Americans in NSA intercepts.
The easing allowed appointees like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice to request and review the unmasked names of Trump campaign or transition officials intercepted in foreign conversations late last year. The NSA can spy on foreign powers without a court warrant under Section 702 of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act but is forbidden from targeting Americans. Today, the power to unmask an American’s name — once considered a rare event in the intelligence and civil liberty communities — now reside with about 20 intelligence officials. The FBI also can unmask Americans’ names collected under FISA to other intelligence professionals and policymakers.
A federal judge in Washington has ruled in 2013 and again in 2015 that the NSA collection of data on Americans violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, but that ruling is winding its way through appeals. The FISA court, meanwhile, continues to support the intelligence community’s continued use of the data, as recently as in 2015.
It is clear by the lies above that Obama and his team knew exactly what they were doing when they surveilled the Trump Team and that, in fact, they had made it common policy to eavesdrop on their opponents. The data from James Clapper’s own office demonstrates the enormous scope of Obama’s espionage crimes and the lies that Obama, Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Rogers, and others have told to the public and Congress.
Lying became so common-place for Obama and his intelligence bosses that they didn’t even start to cover their tracks until after Trump was elected. Then, as we can see by the massive discrepancies in their own public statements and the incongruences found in the Timeline of Events above, their own words and deeds are their indictment for treasonous crimes and gross misuse of the power of their office.
THE TIME HAS COME TO MAKE OBAMA AND HIS PACK OF LIARS ANSWER FOR THEIR CRIMES THROUGH THE INDICTMENT OF THEIR OWN WORDS AND DEEDS.
Citizens of America, we ask that you print, mail, and/or email this citizens intelligence report to everyone you know, including your elected representatives, the White House, the Department of Justice. We the People are submitting our own intelligence report since 17 U.S. intelligence agencies can’t do diddly squat in investigating this matter. We the People will not tolerate the destruction of our country by this gang of lying, thieving, conniving thugs. And we are quite finished with your Orwellian political correctness speech.