GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Trump’s thing with Sessions is weird

by

President Trump continues to take pot shots at his own appointee, Attorney General Sessions. First, we have to admit where Trump is right. Here’s one example:

Why didn’t A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got big dollars ($700,000) for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!

It’s true.

  • The FBI and DOJ leaderships are indeed politically corrupted. Trump probably hired Sessions to clean them up.
  • Andrew McCabe is indeed a raging Democrat whose wife takes money from Hillary.
  • Special Counsel Mueller does hire only strict Hillary partisans, and looks to be going out of control. (He was supposed to deliver a timely report on 2016 election interference. It looks like that won’t be happening.)
  • Former FBI Director, James “Leaker” Comey, probably was a “fixer” for the Clintons as I explained at length, awhile back.
  • Sessions should indeed be focused on these matters, and on the government leaks (which are probably related to these matters or a good entrance into them) – NOT marijuana.

But, given all that…Why doesn’t Trump just fire him? And don’t say “loyalty”.

The only answer I have thought of yet, is if Trump is afraid that he won’t be able to get a decent replacement for Sessions through the Senate. And it has been a joy, sort of, to see Senate Democrats suddenly rush to Sessions’ defense – after having painted him as a racist during his confirmation hearings.

Having said that: Trump’s public humiliation of his own Attorney General is unseemly and unhelpful. He should either fire Sessions already, or straighten him out – in private.

Insane asylum updates

by

First, a few items on the “Trump dossier” (which I previously backgrounded here).

  • The Washington Post has further discredited one of the dossier’s most salacious claims.
  • Did John “Landslide” McCain have anything to do with the dossier? A British defamation lawsuit shows that, at the least, McCain had exceptionally early access to it.

    According to a new court document in the British lawsuit, counsel for defendants Steele and Orbis repeatedly point to McCain, R-Ariz., a vocal Trump critic, and a former State Department official as two in a handful of people known to have had copies of the full document before it circulated among journalists and was published by BuzzFeed…Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow and a Russia adviser to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, discussed the 35-page dossier with McCain…

    The British court document also confirmed that Washington research firm Fusion GPS, co-founded by former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson, had been hired to conduct opposition research by one of Trump’s GOP primary opponents. Later, Democrats paid for the same research on Trump’s past and alleged Russian ties.

    It’s funny how Fusion GPS keeps popping up. But I didn’t know that Fusion GPS also had GOP (probably #NeverTrumper) connections, as well as Democrat.

  • Natalia Veselnitskaya drips with Democrat sympathies and ties to Fusion GPS / the “Trump dossier”.

    Apart from her social media posts, photos of her sitting with Democrats at a Senate hearing, and so forth, the Obama administration explicitly gave her a special pass into the U.S. in 2015. Why?

    That makes it all the more possible that her intent in getting a fake meeting with the Trump campaign was to set them up for the FISA warrants that enabled the Obama administration to spy on them.

    Either Congress or a Special Counsel should now investigate those FISA warrants and the Obama administration’s spying on its domestic political opponents.

  • Are TrumpRussia and #NothingGate really Hillarygate? The connection between Hillary/DNC, Fusion GPS and the “Trump dossier” needs investigating because:

    This connection has raised the question of whether Kremlin prepared the dossier as part of a disinformation campaign to sow chaos in the US political system. If ordered and paid for by Hillary Clinton associates, Russia Gate is turned on its head as collusion between Clinton operatives (not Trump’s) and Russian intelligence…

    Former FBI director, James Comey, refused to answer questions about Fusion and the Steele dossier in his May 3 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey responded to Lindsey Graham’s questions about Fusion GPS’s involvement “in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?” with “I don’t want to say.”…

    The dossier was not, as the press reports, written by Steele…In Stalin’s day, some of the most valued KGB (NKVD) agents were called “novelists,” for their ability to conjure up fictional plots and improbable tales to use against their enemies…

Related news:

Death of the “17 intelligence agencies” canard

by

It’s worth noting officially. NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard.

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting…

…on Thursday, the Times…noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies…The assessment was not approved by all 17…

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts…

Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts…were “hand-picked” from [3 agencies,] the CIA, FBI and NSA. [ed: and DNI would count as four]

Emphasis added. Translation: It was politicized “intelligence”. Deep State wanted a pre-determined answer that would help them to dominate President Trump; as opposed to the real answer.

As to what those “hand-picked” analysts worked from: It’s worth remembering that, whereas Watergate began with a real burglary and police reports, Trumprussia began with the DNC actually blocking FBI investigators from the alleged crime scene and forcing everyone to operate off of a shoddy report from CrowdStrike. James “Leaker” Comey didn’t quite admit that in his testimony, but he came close:

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RICHARD BURR: Did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?

COMEY: In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC [i.e. the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], but I’m sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party…

Via ZH; the article goes on to explain in detail why CrowdStrike’s report was bogus.

Per Breitbart, the Associated Press joined the NYT in withdrawing the fake “17 intelligence agencies” claim.

Oliver Stone making sense?

by

Color me shocked.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO2wq_1z5C4[/youtube]

His new series, _The Putin Interviews_, is controversial – meaning that the Left hates it, because it doesn’t tell them exactly what they want to hear. A couple of articles on it:

  • Rolling Stone, 10 Most WTF Things We Learned From Oliver Stone’s Putin Interviews.

    Pans the series – splutters with outrage over Stone lobbing too many softball questions and bad-mouthing Hillary Clinton as a war-mongering neo-con – but covers some interesting tidbits along the way.

  • Forbes’ take. Along the way, they go into some of the hacking / cybercrime issues, and the fact that the U.S. has interfered in Ukraine elections in a manner FAR beyond anything the American Left fantasizes with TrumpRussia.

Left and Right, we should be willing to watch these Putin interviews, if only on the principle of “Know your enemy”.

President Trump should fire Special Counsel Mueller

by

In the Watergate scandal of 4 decades ago, there were actual crimes at the heart of it.

  1. Five men, working for President Nixon’s campaign, broke into the other side’s headquarters to steal files and set up wiretaps.
  2. They were exposed and suffered consequences; but the consequences needed to reach up to Nixon as well, because he had known/approved their actions on some level, and lied to the nation (in denying his knowledge).
  3. In addition, the Nixon administration had spied on (and/or harassed) domestic opponents through the FBI, CIA and IRS.

In Bill Clinton’s impeachment 2 decades ago, there were actual crimes at the heart of it.

  • His conducting an affair with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, while disgraceful, was not a crime.
  • But then Clinton and Lewinsky committed perjury – Lying while under oath, in sworn depositions in another matter (Paula Jones’ lawsuit). Also, they asked others to commit the crime of perjury. That’s what “obstruction of justice” looks like.

In both cases, there was something real to investigate and punish. In President Trump’s present situation, there isn’t. Trump’s only “crime” is that he won the election.

We already know because the Obama administration (like the Nixon administration) used the intelligence agencies against its domestic opponents. The Obama administration surveilled the living daylights out of the Trump campaign – using any excuse they could they could think of, “oh this is just incidental to surveilling someone else” – then carefully “unmasked” and circulated the data. That’s precisely why we have been treated to so many leaks to the media, these last several months, about who-met-when-with-whom.

And they’ve turned up nothing. There’s nothing there. No collusion with Russia. We know already.

The only other thing that Trump MAY have done (because we still have only one side of the story), is if he hurt the feelings of James “Leaker” Comey by expressing a polite “hope” that Comey wouldn’t prove to be a ridiculous butthole toward General Flynn. Big. Deal. Even by Comey’s account: No, Trump didn’t suborn anyone to wrongdoing.

As such, Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into these matters is a waste of time and resources that would be much better spent investigating the crimes of the Obama administration. Not only the spying and other harassment of domestic opponents, but also the Obama administration’s collusion with Hillary Clinton in covering up (or failing to prosecute) her many crimes; such as the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play corruption, Hillary’s willful and large-scale security breaches (that should have been prosecuted and weren’t – why not?), and more.

The purposes of Special Counsel Mueller are entirely political.

  1. Have a monkey on Trump’s back, instead of Obama’s and Hillary’s backs where it belongs.
  2. Have a monkey on Trump’s back, so that he will be unable to accomplish his campaign promises (infrastructure rebuild, tax reform, Obamacare reform, immigration / The Wall, smashing ISIS).
  3. Throw 1,000 lawyers at Trump and his key associates, so that eventually they will trip up in some “process” crime of not having responded with utter perfection, every time.

That’s how the game works. You just keep adding lawyers until you create a problem. Humans are forgetful, sloppy and flawed by nature. If you add enough lawyers, you are 100% guaranteed to catch someone in some inconsistency, eventually. It doesn’t matter whom you’re looking into. In this way, you can subvert or reject the result of an election.

If Trump were to fire Mueller, the controversy would be enormous but a lot of people would understand. Now including myself.

Under present circumstances, it would be reasonable and just. Let the Democrats demagogue their violent, insane “base” about it, and let the other half(-plus) of the country get on with the grownups’ business.

UPDATE: A prediction from Newt Gingrich that before it’s over, we’ll need a Special Counsel to investigate the Special Counsel.

Hey lefties!

by

If President Obama had ordered an FBI investigation to stop: It would have been a legal order. He would have been 100% within his constitutional powers.

Whether it would have been a politically smart move, is a different and legitimate question.

Whether he would have been covering something up – or maybe not – is a different and legitimate question.

Whether Congress and/or media and/or citizens should then investigate whatever he MIGHT have been covering up, is a different and legitimate question.

Whether he would have been right morally, is a different and legitimate question.

Whether Congress should then try to punish him, via censure or impeachment – or maybe not – is a different and legitimate question.

But would Obama’s order, as such, have been a crime of obstruction? No. Because here in America, we have something called a “constitution” which creates “separation of powers” including a unitary “executive branch”, in which the FBI resides.

The FBI does not reside in the legislative branch (Congress).

The FBI does not reside in the judicial branch (Supreme Court).

The FBI resides in the executive branch and, at the end of the day, follows the policies and orders of a chain of command that goes to the Attorney General and then to the President.

That is how the U.S. system of government works. Obama could have literally ordered the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation to stop, and he would have been within his legal powers. (But again: the optics, morality, and how Congress and the citizenry should follow up on his order, would be different and legitimate questions.)

Now, substitute “President Trump” for “President Obama” in the above, and do the math. We’ll wait.

After that, we can turn to fact that President Trump actually never ordered any FBI investigation to stop.

Which fact means that you, lefties, are working yourselves up – and dividing America with your hate-filled hysteria on the Comey-Flynn matter – and making deadly (or potentially deadly) assaults on your fellow Americans – for nothing.

An ethical question

by

Suppose you’re going after a job. It would be ideal for you in so many ways: it’s work that you really want to do, great company and setup, reasonable hours, no commute, having that job would enable you to complete a pending home purchase or marriage, etc. And, for whatever reason, you’re not having luck in other job offers – for now. Truth be told, you are desperate for this particular job.

It’s time to negotiate salary. You don’t want your employer to know your desperation. That would give them the edge. You want them to feel desperate. So, you drop hints about your many alternate offers and plans.

You don’t lie outright – for example, you don’t say “I have four other offers that I need to answer by Monday.” Because you know that would be false. You say things of a general nature whose implications could easily become true by next week or next month, such as “I have my shingle out there of course, and you can imagine some of the great responses coming my way.”

The distinction is that you’re saying things whose implications are not true at this moment, but not impossible either. You’re saying things that are potentially true, if you yourself were to invest more time or effort. Are such statements lies? Are you a fraud or sleazeball for making them?

I’m asking this for a political reason, not a personal one. After I see a few comments, I’ll write the second half of this post. 🙂

I appreciate the comments. Here’s the second half. [Read more…]

Kabuki theater

by

Figuring out what’s happening in Washington – under the surface, with the Deep State factions – is a guessing game. Highly uncertain. Of course I don’t “know anything”, in the sense of having sources. I read the tea leaves as best I can, and I guess.

When President Trump unexpectedly did a huge Saudi arms deal, I had a feeling that former FBI Director Comey’s testimony would then turn out as a net win for Trump. What’s the connection? Hard to explain. I’m going to say some stuff now which could easily be crap; feel free to shoot it down in the comments, or to add your own ideas.

[Read more…]

CNN checks itself – the tiniest bit

by

This is a tortured story which Zero Hedge laid out, but not clearly. I’ll try to make it clear.

When President Trump fired former FBI Director James “Leaker” Comey, his letter referred pointedly to Comey “informing me [Trump], on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.”

That upset CNN because, if true, it undermines their Trumprussia narrative (that Trump somehow colluded with Russia to steal Queen Hillary’s rightful crown).

Earlier this week, using anonymous sources, CNN tried to create an impression that Trump was under FBI investigation – and was either lying or stupid to claim otherwise. From CNN’s original story:

Comey is expected to explain to senators that those were much more nuanced conversations from which Trump concluded that he was not under investigation. Another source hinted that the President may have misunderstood the exact meaning of Comey’s words, especially regarding the FBI’s ongoing counterintelligence investigation.

But then Comey testified that Trump indeed was never under FBI investigation. Thus it was either CNN, or their anonymous sources, who were lying and/or stupid.

CNN has since corrected their story:

The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation…

Coincidentally perhaps, CNN has fired one of its worst Trump-haters.

Last week, after the latest London terrorist attack, in response to a Trump tweet suggesting that the terrorist attack is confirmation of the need for Trump’s “travel ban”, CNN host Reza Aslan flipped out, [publicly calling Trump a POS].

Less than a week later, Aslan was fired by CNN…“CNN has decided to not move forward with production on the acquired series ‘Believer with Reza Aslan,’” the network said in a statement. “We wish Reza and his production team all the best. “

And we knew already that CNN recently cut off Kathy Griffin as well.

The buzz today is that things could get even worse for Comey the Leaker, CNN and other Trump-haters, as more comes out on Trump’s side of the story. We shall see.