Tag: trump derangement syndrome

“Collusion against Trump” Timeline — New Evidence has Emerged

It’s easy to find timelines that detail Trump-Russia collusion developments. Here are links to two of them I recommend:

Politifact Russia-Trump timeline

Washington Post Russia-Trump timeline

On the other side, evidence has emerged that makes it clear there were organized efforts to collude against candidate Donald Trump–and then President Trump. For example:

  • Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
  • A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material–in part–to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
  • There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press, including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
  • The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and politially-motivated “unmaskings” of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
  • Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump’s alleged Russia ties.

But it’s not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these events.

Keep reading

NY Times reporter admits a “ton” of federal informants were in the crowd during Jan. 6 Capitol “riot,” says “ridiculous pee tape” of Trump does not exist

A veteran reporter for The New York Times has made several stunning admissions and statements that were captured on undercover video by Project Veritas, including verification that the FBI had scores of informants in the crowd during the Jan. 6 false flag incident at the U.S. Capitol Building.

In a two-part series, the investigative journalism organization recorded statements by Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg, who at one point was talking about his sources including one for “that ridiculous, like pee tape” — a false claim made in a fake ‘dossier’ assembled ahead of the 2016 election by former British spy Christopher Steele on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign that also accused then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump of being a dupe for Vladimir Putin.

Specifically, the claim was that Trump hired hookers to pee on a bed in a Moscow hotel where President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama reportedly stayed.

Rosenberg also talked about what happens in the newsroom at The New York Times, explaining that there is “a real internal tug of war between, like, the reasonable people and some of the crazier leftist sh*t that’s worked it’s way in there.”

“They’re not the majority, but they’re very vocal, loud minority that dominate social media and, therefore, has just hugely outsized influence,” he continued, adding that he believes it is “alienating” Times subscribers whom he describes as “prosperous.”

The 11-year veteran reporter also said that many of his colleagues at the paper are “bullies” and “not the clearest thinkers, some of them,” before going on to describe those who end up at the Times as “very neurotic people.”

Keep reading

The War From TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome)

Hear us out here. The Donald himself is the approximate casus belli of the World War III prelude now raging in Ukraine, reminding us once again that sometimes history morphs in the strangest ways.

But the truth is, Trump single-handed generated such a deep, intense and irrational wave of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) in the Imperial City that Washington – berserk with anti-Putin hysteria – essentially shoved Cool Hand Vlad right over the brink.

To to be sure, before Trump came down the escalator in June 2015 Washington was already rife with Russophobia. But that emanated chiefly from the war-loving neocons of the GOP and the porkers and bag carriers for the military industrial complex, including the vast array of think-tanks and NGOs whose livelihoods depend on military threats, real or imagined, to America’s security.

But what turned the Washington of these failed proponents of the Afghan, Iraq, Syria and Libya invasions into an implacable and aggressive foe of Russia’s legitimate security interest in its own backyard was the utter, absolute and unremitting demonization of Vlad Putin himself by the Dems and incumbent Washington political class, which bought hook, line and sinker the hoary RussiaGate story.

That is to say, America was allegedly besmirched and defiled by the election of Donald Trump in November 2016 to such a ghastly degree that the man who single-handedly made it possible–Vlad Putin – deserves a place in the pantheon of historical evil-doers right up there with Adolf Hitler and Attila the Hun.

That’s right. The everlasting blot of the Trump presidency never, ever could have happened, according to the RussiaGate narrative, save for Vlad Putin’s nefarious and sweeping interference in the 2016 election. So this evil needs be avenged and the most effective avenue now consists of raining smack right in Putin’s face on the Ukrainian frontier.

As a result of the Dem establishment’s raging, unquenchable quest for revenge, however, the normal balance of power within the Imperial City and the national security Deep State has been upended.

Keep reading

OBAMA’S CIA SPIED ON PRESIDENT TRUMP – Was Fed President Trump’s Transition Material by Hillary Operatives

This is very serious.  The CIA was spying on the President of the United States.  Trump’s Transition files were provided to the CIA by Hillary Clinton operatives.  This is the real sedition. 

Brilliant attorney and investigative journalist Techno Fog released this bombshell yesterday.

Last week, we documented Special Counsel John Durham’s motion discussing the potential conflicts of interest of Michael Sussmann’s attorneys. That filing was important for a number of reasons, mainly because Durham stated that Sussmann’s client, Rodney Joffe (a federal contractor with access to “sensitive” data) “exploited” internet traffic data (domain name system, or DNS) pertaining to “the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”).”

…After Sussmann’s attorney responded to the Durham filing, stating that Sussmann provided the CIA with Executive Office of the President data from “when Barack Obama was president,” we theorized that this data was from the transition period because that’s when there would be access to Trump’s team:

If Sussmann’s attorney is telling the truth (never a given), then we suspect the Executive Office of the President data included that from the 74 day the Trump transition period (between the November 8, 2016 election and the January 20, 2017 inauguration) – which would still be spying on the incoming Trump Administration.

Techno Fog then mentions that according to Margot Cleveland, a Durham filing in October of 2021 declared that an individual (who can we say) stole sensitive data from President Trump’s transition team then shared it with the CIA.

That would confirm the data Sussmann and Joffe passed to the CIA was from the Trump transition period. While Washington and the press focus on January 6, the more dangerous and anti-democratic acts occurred in the shadows in 2016 and 2017. They didn’t seize the Capitol because they didn’t have to. The FBI and the CIA were willing to do their bidding, operating in secret to spy on and undermine the President.

This news of the CIA spying on candidate and President Trump is no real surprise.  As we reported years ago, the Obama team was so excited about their efforts in harassing President Trump that they bragged about it to the Washington Post.  They must have thought that they were going to get away with it and have President Trump removed from office for the outrageous lies that he was Putin’s puppet.

Keep reading

Democrats Framed And Spied On Trump While He Was President

Enemies of Donald Trump surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge.

A tangential filing on Friday in the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann revealed these new details uncovered by Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation. The revelation came in the middle of a 13-page motion Durham’s prosecutors filed in the criminal case against Sussmann. The special counsel’s office charged Sussmann in September 2021, in a one-count indictment of lying to James Baker during a meeting Sussmann had with the then-FBI general counsel in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election.

During Sussmann’s September 19, 2016 meeting with Baker, Sussmann allegedly provided the FBI general counsel information that purported to show the existence of a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and the Russian Alfa Bank. The indictment charged that Sussmann told Baker during that meeting that he was not working on behalf of any client, when, according to the indictment, Sussmann was actually acting on behalf of “a U.S. technology industry executive at a U.S. Internet company”—later identified as Rodney Joffe—and “the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign.”

While the special counsel’s indictment of the Clinton campaign lawyer was, by itself, huge news, the details Durham sprinkled throughout the 27 pages of the talking indictment suggest even more bombshells are to come. Those allegations suggested “a scandal much deeper than merely Sussmann’s role in a second Russian hoax — a scandal that entangles the Clinton campaign, multiple internet companies, two federally-funded university researchers, and a complicit media.”

Keep reading

Eyes turn to Hillary Clinton, not Trump in the Russiagate scandal

So there you have it. 

Russiagate, the collective delusion that Donald Trump was secretly a Russian agent aided and abetted by the Kremlin, the topic of uncountable inches of Washington Post and New York Times copy and the entire primetime lineup of MSNBC, was a dirty trick by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Not just part of it. All of it. One of the most diabolical, successful misinformation campaigns ever concocted. 

We already knew that the Steele dossier was garbage. Christopher Steele was paid indirectly by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt, which he did by turning to other Clinton operatives, laundering every outlandish rumor about Trump he could find into an “investigative” document. 

He shopped it to the FBI, which couldn’t verify his sources or any of his stories, but the agency dragged out the investigation to cast maximum suspicion on the new president. In the meantime, Steele found willing accomplices in the media to push his propaganda. The dupes at BuzzFeed even decided to print the whole pack of lies, with the flimsy rationale of “Well, why not?” 

Keep reading

Congress’s 1/6 Committee Claims Absolute Power as it Investigates Citizens With No Judicial Limits

In its ongoing attempt to investigate and gather information about private U.S. citizens, the Congressional 1/6 Committee is claiming virtually absolute powers that not even the FBI or other law enforcement agencies enjoy. Indeed, lawyers for the committee have been explicitly arguing that nothing proscribes or limits their authority to obtain data regarding whichever citizens they target and, even more radically, that the checks imposed on the FBI (such as the requirement to obtain judicial authorization for secret subpoenas) do not apply to the committee.

As we have previously reported and as civil liberties groups have warned, there are serious constitutional doubts about the existence of the committee itself. Under the Constitution and McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases interpreting it, the power to investigate crimes lies with the executive branch, supervised by the judiciary, and not with Congress. Congress does have the power to conduct investigations, but that power is limited to two narrow categories: 1) when doing so is designed to assist in its law-making duties (e.g., directing executives of oil companies to testify when considering new environmental laws) and 2) in order to exert oversight over the executive branch.

What Congress is barred from doing, as two McCarthy-era Supreme Court cases ruled, is exactly what the 1/6 committee is now doing: conducting a separate, parallel criminal investigation in order to uncover political crimes committed by private citizens. Such powers are dangerous precisely because Congress’s investigative powers are not subject to the same safeguards as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. And just as was true of the 1950s House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that prompted those Supreme Court rulings, the 1/6 committee is not confining its invasive investigative activities to executive branch officials or even citizens who engaged in violence or other illegality on January 6, but instead is investigating anyone and everyone who exercised their Constitutional rights to express views about and organize protests over their belief that the 2020 presidential election contained fraud. Indeed, the committee’s initial targets appear to be taken from the list of those who applied for protest permits in Washington: a perfectly legal, indeed constitutionally protected, act.

This abuse of power is not merely abstract. The Congressional 1/6 Committee has been secretly obtaining private information about American citizens en masse: telephone records, email logs, internet and browsing history, and banking transactions. And it has done so without any limitations or safeguards: no judicial oversight, no need for warrants, no legal limitations of any kind.

Keep reading

Smollett just one in a string of false accusations by Trump opponents

The sad case of actor Jussie Smollett and his now-proven-false claims that he was viciously attacked by racist Trump supporters is not an isolated case.

But the media holds a great deal of blame for reporting initial instances and claims without using normal journalistic practices and standards that would have protected against misreporting.

Lessons should have been taken from numerous cases of high-profile wrongly-accused, whether it’s Richard Jewell falsely blamed (and later cleared) in the Atlanta Olympic bombings, Officer Darren Wilson falsely blamed (and later cleared by the Obama Justice Dept.) in the shooting of Michael Brown (the Justice Dept. concluded the “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” claims were fabricated), Wen Ho Lee accused (but never charged and then prevailing in libel lawsuits against media) in the Chinese theft of our most sensitive nuclear secrets, Kyle Rittenhouse accused (but later cleared) of wrongful shootings of his attackers during a riot, the Covington Catholic kids falsely portrayed as being aggressive against a Native American protester, the University of Virginia frat brothers falsely accused of sexual abuse in a Rolling Stone article, Steven Hatfill falsely accused by the FBI in anthrax attacks, Trump and campaign associate Carter Page as supposed Russian spies, well– the list goes on. You can think of others.

If only the media were to follow normal standards and practices when these cases arise (reporting fairly, attributing claims, reporting both sides of a story), then we wouldn’t ultimately shoulder so much of the blame for the out-of-control false narratives that derive from the news reports.

When it. are to Smollett’s accusations, some media outlets responsibly reported and properly attributed allegations. But others did not. Some unskeptically furthered the narrative that Smollett, who is black, was attacked by Trump-supporting racists who put a noose around Smollett’s neck, shouted racial slurs, told him it’s “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) country, and poured bleach on him. The New York Times deserves special mention here for adding a biased non sequitur in its early reporting that treated skepticism of Smollett’s story as if it were unfounded, and fit in a dig at President Trump’s son.


But the lack of progress in the investigation has fueled speculation about whether the report was exaggerated. The president?s son Donald Trump Jr., who is known to disseminate conspiracy theories on his Twitter feed, retweeted an article this week about Smollett declining to turn over his cellphone to the police.

New York Times reporting on the Smollett claims

Here are but a few of the other cases whereby Trump opponents staged fake attacks or made false claims. The initial accusations were widely reported; the follow ups were not so widely reported.

Keep reading