1. Desperate Obfuscation
NY Times comes up with a long-winded piece of obfuscation to deflect attention from the Steele dossier being at the heart of a seditious attempt by a sitting president to spy on the political campaign of an opposition candidate.
nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/…
NY Times comes up with a long-winded piece of obfuscation to deflect attention from the Steele dossier being at the heart of a seditious attempt by a sitting president to spy on the political campaign of an opposition candidate.
nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/…
2. Play close attention to weasel words and phrases in the NY Times attempt to throw public off the scent, starting with the headline, "How the Russian Inquiry Began..." Who gives a damn how it began? What's most important now is what we know & need to know about what Obama did.
3. Pay close attention to what NY Times desperately wants people to think is the issue, i.e. how the Russia investigation began. NY Times' conjecture about the origin of the investigation notwithstanding, who the hell is telling them that this is the key issue. IT.IS.NOT. 
4. Now pay close attention to the "big reveal." All the surrounding subterfuge notwithstanding, this is the "crime," so to speak, that NY Times comes up with. Wow! I say we should impeach Trump right away. How much more treasonous can it get than to be an attentive listener. 
5. Now you might think, okay Trump dismissed Papadopoulos but behind the scenes Trump campaign must have bankrolled and encouraged Papadopoulos's feverish exploits. Well, you would be wrong. This appears in the same NYT article. 
6. I could go on and on with how ridiculous this NYT attempt to obfuscate the issue is. They have no reliable sources, just rumors, innuendo, tendentious interpretations, and editorial liberties with motives and behaviors for which there is no reliable corroboration.
7. And all this breathless speculation for what, you may ask? Let me crystallize what the real key issue is that NY Times is desperately trying to divert its readers' attention from. It matters little at this point how or why the Russia investigation started.
8. The most critical key issue is this:
On what basis did the Obama admin obtain a FISA court warrant to spy on the presidential campaign of a candidate of an opposing party? Period. No ifs, ands, and buts.
On what basis did the Obama admin obtain a FISA court warrant to spy on the presidential campaign of a candidate of an opposing party? Period. No ifs, ands, and buts.
9. Based on sworn testimony of Fusion GPS principals we know Steele dossier was a 100% Hillary & DNC funded opposition research document.
If it was misrepresented by Obama admin as a US Intelligence document to obtain a FISA court order to spy on Trump campaign, that is treason.
If it was misrepresented by Obama admin as a US Intelligence document to obtain a FISA court order to spy on Trump campaign, that is treason.
10/x. After a long and hard investigation by the full might and resources of the US federal govt, we have yet to see any scintilla of evidence for "Russia Collusion!" on the part of Trump campaign. Most critical issue yet to be resolved is whether Obama admin engaged in treason.
11. The above is not idle speculation. Here is a pointer that adds to suspicion of wrong-doing by Obama admin. US District Court for the District of Columbia judge Rudolph Contreras was appointed by Obama in 2012.
12. Judge Contreras was then appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in May 2016 for a term lasting through 2023. This is the FISA court which issues warrants that allow Justice Department officials to wiretap individuals.
13. Judge Contreras is also the one who presided over a December 1 hearing where Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia. On December 7, Judge Contreras was recused from Gen Flynn case.
14. No reason was given for Judge Contreras's recusal, and the case was randomly reassigned. Flynn's sentencing will now be overseen by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. Sullivan is an appointee of President Bill Clinton.
15. Please note Judge Contreras did not "recuse," he "was recused." A judge who sat on the FISA court which issued a court order to enable spying on Trump campaign "was recused" from overseeing Gen Flynn case. Why?
16. There may be an innocent explanation. However, in high visibility cases, and this one no doubt qualifies, it is unusual to withhold the reason for a judge's recusal. It fuels unnecessary suspicion of wrong-doing.
17. Allow me to fill in some additional background to this extraordinary case, borrowing extensively from articles that have previously appeared in the press. This is the detail NY Times article is trying hard to flush down a memory hole. Here goes... 
18. So in June, 2016, Obama's Justice Dept made a run at a FISA court order. 
19. FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Dept’s request, which is notable: FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance (although the claim by many that it is a rubber-stamp is overblown).
20. Not taking no for an answer, Obama Justice Dept returned to the FISA court in October 2016. This time, the Justice Dept submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates.
21. What changed between June and October in terms of OBAMA Justice Dept's application to the FISA court for surveilling Trump campaign? Presentation of the infamous Steele dossier as an intelligence report to the FISA court has been widely speculated.
22. It is vitally critical to reassure the public that such abuse of federal govt power did not take place, and if it did, it is equally critical to bring the wrong-doers to justice, rigorously and methodically, adhering strictly to due process.
23. Also noteworthy that at the same time Obama admin was seeking to surveil Trump or his associates on the pretext they were Russian agents, it was closing the criminal investigation of Hillary despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security.
24/x. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power. Congress must do everything possible to get to the bottom of this and fully air the truth -- incriminating or exculpatory. Both the public and Obama admin officials deserve nothing less.
I wrote the above thread three days ago. Yesterday, Wall St. Journal came through with an explanation of the exact timing of the NYT article. I knew exactly what NYT was up to, but didn't know what prompted NYT to publish this article when they did it.
WSJ explains:
WSJ explains:
Today is the deadline for DoJ to cough up records related to Obama admin's use of a Clinton-funded anti-Trump Steele dossier in its 2016 investigation of the party out of power.
The big and most critical question is whether Obama admin used fake news paid for by a Democratic political campaign to turn the surveillance apparatus of the U.S. federal government against a political rival.
But NYT would rather explore other questions.
But NYT would rather explore other questions.
This is progress of sorts.
