Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 25, 2018
Major Wall Street Journal opinion piece today talking about the Russian Witch Hunt and the disgrace that it is. So many people hurt, so bad for our country – a total sham!https://t.co/bcpSGtoX6a
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2018
I’ve of course talked a lot about how there was a conspiracy within the FBI and other intelligence agencies to first clear Hillary, then stop Trump from being elected, then destroy his Presidency if he was elected.
Sean Hannity has talked about it a lot (more recently – I’ve been talking about it the longest). And recently, Trump himself has been going into it.
It’s all out there in the public now, and we are right on the verge of subpoenas and indictments.
The Jew Horowitz report is just the beginning, because he covered a bunch of stuff up and is basically trying to frame Comey and Strzok as fall goys. But it is still a damning report. Even as damage control, it is damning.
So WSJ has decided to just lay it all out in an op-ed by high level Washington lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley. It is damage control like the Horowitz report itself – but it contains more or less most of the story as it exists right now. Important bits glossed over to give the appearance of more innocence than any serious person could believe – but none the less, they show that the entire Mueller probe is a hoax and that FBI agents – at least probably, according to them – cleared Clinton and tried to stop Trump’s election.
Feels good, man.
Feels real good.
It’s 2000 words. Worth reading the whole thing. But I’ll snip the best bits and add my commentary where they are purposefully forgetting things.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias.The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communications, the report says, were “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” Although Mr. Horowitz could not definitively ascertain whether this bias “directly affected” specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.
Any bias is, in law, assumed to directly affect actions, which is why it is illegal. It is why recusal is a thing.
“Crossfire Hurricane” is a retarded name for a conspiracy.
If this had been my anti-Trump conspiracy, I’d have called it “Smashmouth Whirlwind.”
Crossfire was launched only months before the 2016 election. Its FBI progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton—deployed at least one informant to probe Trump campaign advisers, obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretap warrants, issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the identities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked investigative information.
This article and the Horowitz report both skip important things.
Like that the FISA warrants were issued based on the Steele Dossier (Pissgate), which the FBI requested while knowing it was funded by Clinton and fake.
Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”
“We’ll stop it” certainly implies intent to “directly affect” the election, doesn’t it Horowitz?
Intent by a person with the ability to do so.
The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”
Again – the entirety of Crossfire was based on Pissgate, which they knew was fake from the get go.
That is a very important part of all of this.
Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that then-FBI Director James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did make decisions based on political considerations.
Go ahead and read that sentence a few times.
See if it makes sense to you.
He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed presidency’s legitimacy.
The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok’s text messages “created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” The report adds, importantly, that “most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation.” Given how biases ineluctably shape behavior, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton investigation and building a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an insurance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitimacy.
BOOM.
DEFINITELY LOOKS THAT WAY, DOESN’T IT???
What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general concludes that the pervasive bias “cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.
Also – maybe worth mentioning here – a bunch of his staff was pulled directly from the FBI conspiracy – including Strzok himself!
Mueller as the head of the FBI under Obama also had ties to other Clinton conspiracies. And I’m sure all kinds of other stuff. Which is why he was appointed by the Jew Rod Rosenstein to this role – because he’s already got blood all over his hands.
The article’s authors then cite precedent for while the entire Mueller investigation is presumably illegal, entirely. We’ll skip that.
In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the inspector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including personnel, timing, methods and the absence of evidence—that Crossfire was initiated for political, not national-security, purposes.
It was initiated in defiance of a longstanding Justice Department presumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. And while impartiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is “particularly important in an election year,” and “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investigators regarding any investigations. . . . Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
Yeah.
He wrote that presumably when there was a chance that “Fast and Furious” was going to be at issue during the 2012 election cycle.
Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the case with the bureau’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation predicated on the notion that Russia could be colluding with the Trump campaign. There appears to have been no discernible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time Crossfire was launched, further reinforcing the notion that it was initiated “for the purpose” of affecting the presidential election.
That is them admitting that pissgate is not “discernible evidence” – but note that they haven’t mentioned it directly yet.
Even though it is the core and crux of this entire thing – a fake document, paid for by Hillary Clinton and sold to the government and media as real by John Brennan. Used to get FISA warrants on Trump, then used by Comey to force the appointment of Mueller.
A goofy fake thing about hookers pissing on a bed.
Instead they say (and this article is really just a summary of the Horowitz report) that it was based on Assange and Wikileaks…
The chief evidence of collusion is the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s servers. But nothing in the public record suggests the Trump campaign aided that effort.
There is also nothing – NOTHING – in the public record that suggests Assange was working with Russia.
Or that any state entity would be necessary to acquire these documents.
Seth Rich, anyone?
Furthermore, even without Seth Rich, it has been shown that the server was totally unsecured and could have been hacked by basically anyone.
The collusion narrative therefore hinges on the more generic assertion that Russia aimed to help Mr. Trump’s election, and that the Trump campaign reciprocated by embracing pro-Russian policies. Yet despite massive surveillance and investigation, there’s still no public evidence of any such exchange—only that Russia attempted to sow political discord by undermining Mrs. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump.
Note they don’t say what that sowing of political discord was.
It was shitty memes on Facebook.
Which have never been linked to the Russian government.
Furthermore, even if these memes were posted by Putin himself, that is not illegal.
These memes are the only “interference” that Russia is “proved” to have engaged in.
This could have been faked too – they haven’t produced solid evidence that these memes were actually posted from Russia – but the fact that Hillary was campaigning on starting WWIII with Russia by shooting down Russian jets over Syria to protect ISIS makes it not difficult to believe that there were Russian private citizens who preferred Trump and posted some memes in his favor.
Putin has suggested it was the Jews.
But whatever – it’s MEMES ON FACEBOOK!
Maybe look up the history of American intervention in foreign elections for comparison.
Eventually, the article does mention pissgate – but in the context of Clinton working with Russians!
Some members of the Trump team interacted with Russians and advocated dovish policies. But so did numerous American political and academic elites, including many Clinton advisers. Presidential campaigns routinely seek opposition research and interact with foreign powers. The Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, whose British author paid Russians to dish anti-Trump dirt. The Podesta Group, led by the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, received millions lobbying for Russia’s largest bank and the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, both with deep Kremlin ties. The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton took millions from Kremlin-connected businesses.
No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he’d heard about such dirt but never seen it.
Man, that Papdopoulos – getting drunk with a stranger in London.
Really not a good move.
Although it did turn out to be good for us.
These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime, they reek of entrapment. The source of this information, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, admits Mr. Papadopolous never mentioned emails, destroying any reasonable inference of a connection between the DNC hack and the Trump campaign.
…
Given the paucity of evidence, it’s staggering that the FBI would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically biased staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI sincerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the proper response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his campaign and the country.
Yeah.
You’d think that.
Mr. Trump’s critics argue that the claim of political bias is belied by the fact that Crossfire was not leaked before the election. In fact, there were vigorous, successful pre-election efforts to publicize the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Shortly after Crossfire’s launch, CIA Director John Brennan and Mr. Comey briefed Congress, triggering predictable leaking. Christopher Steele and his patrons embarked on a media roadshow, making their dossier something of an open secret in Washington.
See, we finally get that mentioned.
But that was the whole of the thing.
Again – the Horowitz report and this WSJ article are damage control.
And if this is what damage control looks like… these people are in a really, really bad place.
On Aug. 29, 2016, the New York Times published a letter to Mr. Comey from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, saying he’d learned of “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” which had “employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” On Aug. 30, the ranking Democratic members of four House committees wrote a public letter to Mr. Comey requesting “that the FBI assess whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests” may have contributed to the DNC hack so as “to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff reported the Hill briefings and the Steele dossier’s allegations regarding Carter Page. On Oct. 30, Harry Reid again publicly wrote Mr. Comey: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.”
All of that was pissgate.
The Jew Isikoff’s article, based on pissgate, was later used to try to validate pissgate.
This article has far, far too little pissgate.
Because pissgate is what turns this entire thing into a demented circus show.
That these leaking efforts failed to prevent Mr. Trump’s victory, or that Mr. Comey’s ham-fisted interventions might have also hurt Mrs. Clinton’s electoral prospects, does not diminish the legal significance of the anti-Trump bias shown by government officials.
You see that there.
This is them making Comey the fall goy.
The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed. The public will learn more once the inspector general finishes his investigation into Crossfire’s genesis. But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel’s activity be paused. Those affected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation could litigate such an argument in court. One would hope, however, that given the facts either Mr. Mueller himself or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would do it first.
And there it is.
They are going to have to shut it down.
Before the midterms.
Man.
I was warned that I would get tired of winning.
And I’ll tell you – I am starting to feel winning fatigue.
