Roger Stone tried to secure pardon for Julian Assange

Roger Stone, a Republican operative and former adviser to President Trump, tried to secure a pardon for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange earlier this year, telling an associate not to “fuck it up.” “I am working to get JA a blanket pardon,” Stone wrote in a January text message to Randy Credico, a comedian who Stone has identified as his backchannel to WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign. “It’s very real and very possible. Don’t fuck it up,” Stone continued. Later he added, “Something very big about to go down.”

The messages were obtained by Mother Jones, which reported Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is investigating Stone’s push for a pardon. Stone, who has not been publicly charged with a crime in the Russia investigation, confirmed the pardon effort to the Washington Examiner. “I never communicated directly to the President but did mail him my DAILY CALLER piece and I did urge my friend Andrew Napolitano to write to him,” Stone said in an email to the Washington Examiner. Credico, who denies being Stone’s backchannel to WikiLeaks, said Stone repeatedly discussed an effort to secure a pardon and claimed that he had been working with Napolitano, a Fox News personality, on a plan in which Napolitano would suggest the idea on his show or directly to Trump. Napolitano denied working with Stone to win a pardon for Assange. Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide, told Mother Jones that prosecutors have asked him if Stone “ever discussed pardons and Assange.” Nunberg said he had not heard Stone bring up the topic. Stone floated the idea in an August interview with the Washington Examiner. Stone said then that he had not spoken with Trump about pardoning Assange.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/roger-stone-tried-to-secure-pardon-for-julian-assange

Chelsea Clinton open to political office 'if someone were to step down or retire'

Chelsea Clinton gave the clearest indication yet that she is open to a career in politics. Speaking to a local news outlet before a book event in Scarsdale, N.Y., Clinton laid out her conditions. "I think if someone were to step down or retire and I thought I could do a good job and it matched my talents, I’d have to think if it’s the right choice for me," Clinton said, according to the Journal News of Westchester County.

Asked why she isn't among the record number of women running for office this year, Clinton admitted she's thought about it. "I don’t have any plans to run for office, but it is something I think about as I hope every young person thinks about it. If you care about what’s happening in the world, you have to care about running for and holding elected office. I hope it’s a question that we ask ourselves," she said. "For me, I live in a neighborhood in the city and in a state where I feel my family, and what I hope for the world, is well-represented."

Chelsea Clinton, the 38-year-old daughter of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, previously expressed an openness to run for office, but up until now indicated she had zero plans to do so. "For me it's a definite no now, but it's a definite maybe in the future because who knows what the future is going to bring?" Clinton said in August during an appearance at the Edinburgh International Book Festival when asked about the prospect of a run for public office, according to the Press Association. Clinton, who works at the family's humanitarian foundation, has been making public appearances to promote her children's book, She Persisted.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/chelsea-clinton-open-to-political-office-if-someone-were-to-step-down-or-retire

ABC News reporter tries to embarrass Mike Pompeo, embarrasses self

On Wednesday evening, ABC News' foreign correspondent Julia Macfarlane suggested that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was delusional when he blamed the Lebanese Hezbollah for the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing.

He served as CIA director but doesn’t know the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was carried out by Islamic Jihad. Hezbollah was founded in 1985. https://t.co/HtqW9xFra8 — 🎃 Ghoulia Macfarlane 👻 (@juliamacfarlane) October 24, 2018

Macfarlane is wrong. Pompeo is right. Indeed, Macfarlane's contention is the equivalent of Russia's claim that the GRU officers responsible for attacking Sergei Skripal, his daughter, and two innocent Britons were actually tourists. While the Lebanese Hezbollah did not formalize its existence until the publication of its ranting founding document in 1985, the group was operationally existent from at least 1982. Allies and servants of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution, Hezbollah received significant financial, logistical, and organizational support from Iran. But as is almost always the case with revolutionary Iran, the support came with significant strings attached. Such was the case in the barracks bombing. While the attack was purportedly carried out by Islamic Jihad, that organization was a bare cutout (or deniable front) for the burgeoning Hezbollah.

The use of cutouts is a go-to tactic for the Iranians and their proxies, in that they believe it allows them to carry out attacks that might otherwise invite retaliation (see the Karbala attack in 2007, the 2011 Washington plot, and the failed 2018 Paris plot). In the same way, Islamic Jihad gave Hezbollah cover to slaughter hundreds of Americans and, as it turned out, successfully push the U.S. out of Lebanon (arguably, President Ronald Reagan's worst foreign policy decision). Regardless, the fact that Macfarlane proudly does not recognize this history (she retweeted her original tweet) is concerning. After all, it really isn't that controversial. The Islamic Jihad cover story is widely regarded by the U.S. and French intelligence communities for what it is: a joke.

In short, Pompeo is right. And for the U.S. Marine Corps, the Hezbollah blood feud was born. Fortunately, the U.S. got some good revenge in 2007 when senior Hezbollah operations officer Imad Mughniyah was pulverized by a joint CIA-Mossad gift.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/abc-news-reporter-tries-to-embarrass-mike-pompeo-embarrasses-self

>>3601525

>>3601528

>>3601544

>>3601530

>>3601545

>>3601570

>>3601583

>>3601585

She completely lacks brainpower and temperament for the job. That aside, who's seat would she take if she could I wonder.

>>3601738

That is an extremely accurate statement imo.

>>3601757

She definitely couldn't, most are sick of the Clinton's as well as others.

Two problems with the New York Times report on foreign spies and Trump's phone calls

President Trump denied on Thursday that he uses a personal cellphone as reported by The New York Times. Still, the Times is likely correct in reporting that foreign intelligence services have been listening into some of President Trump's phone calls.

But that's just the start of the story here. Because there are a couple of problems with the Times' reporting here. First off, the foreign intelligence targeting of Trump's phone conversations is likely not focused on the president's own phones. Instead, the most signal-intercept capable foreign intelligence services operating on U.S. soil are likely focused in on Trump's most regular call partners. If, for example, you're an Israeli MID or Chinese military intelligence officer, and you know that Trump is regularly talking to a close friend such as Chris Ruddy or Thomas Barrack, then you target the communications of those friends. As CNN's Sarah Westwood and Pamela Browne first reported, Trump continues to love these personal calls. But the obvious advantage of focusing in on Trump's friends is that civilians are unlikely to have many safeguards against intelligence targeting. And if you can effectively collect on a Trump friend, you can collect the raw audio of what Trump is saying. This isn't just about ease; it's about access. After all, the White House Communications Agency and the National Security Agency make it difficult to collect calls from Trump's phones or from phones inside the president's inner security bubble. In fairness, the Times report notes that Trump has accepted guidance from security officials only to use certain phones that have been adapted, and to use separate phones to make calls and post to Twitter. But even where foreign services succeed in targeting Trump per se, that success is unpredictable and sporadic. Targeting those outside the bubble thus gives an easier and greater return on investment. It also, in the case of U.S. allies who spy on the U.S. government (mainly the French and Israelis), brings a lower likelihood of blowback in the event of being caught.

The second problem with the Times story comes when it negatively suggests that Trump sometimes uses a third, unsecured cellphone for calls. The issue here isn't that the Times is wrong in worrying about that third phone, but whether Trump's feasible vulnerability to intelligence collection is unique to him. Because the Times also notes that "When Mr. Obama needed a cellphone, the officials said, he used one of those of his aides." See the problem here? The Times' implication is that where Barack Obama's action alleviated security concerns, Trump's action invites them. But that's both untrue and unfair. Those intelligence services which have the operational presence, scaled capability, and intent to target U.S. presidential communications — China, France, Israel, Russia — also have the means of targeting other executive officers in the government. And during the Obama administration, the aforementioned foreign services almost certainly targeted physically-proximate-to-Obama officials like the president's personal aide, and his top advisers such as Valerie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes (indeed, the Israelis effectively admitted doing so).

The NYT falsely blamed conservatives for Gabby Giffords' shooting, now it's publishing Trump assassination fiction

On Thursday, the New York Times published an op-ed blaming President Trump’s brutish and often incendiary rhetoric for the spate of explosive devices mailed this week to Democratic officials. “[W]ords have consequences, especially when they are stated repeatedly by influential figures and sound distinctly like dog whistles to extremists who might well feel emboldened to act on them,” read the submission. “Now more than ever, no one should feign surprise or innocence about this.” Earlier, in June 2017, the Times’ editorial board repeated the long-ago debunked lie that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's political activism had inspired the 2011 Tucson, Ariz., mass shooting in which Rep. Gabby Giffords, a Democrat, was gravely wounded. Times columnist Paul Krugman was largely responsible for mainstreaming this myth.

One year earlier, in 2016, the paper’s editorial board argued Trump’s campaign rhetoric had “emboldened and even encouraged those who have been looking for a license to lash out against immigrants, refugees, minorities and anyone else they find threatening.” Taken together, these articles and op-eds show the paper and its staff adhere sincerely to the idea that violent rhetoric begets violent actions. So here's something interesting: On Tuesday, the Times’ Book Review section published a fictional short story fantasizing about the assassination of the president. I guess the takeaway here is that dangerous rhetoric is dangerous unless they're the ones publishing it.

The author of the Trump assassination story, Zoe Sharp, was one of five writers asked by the Times to submit a fictional response to the question: “What might happen next” to the “Mueller investigation and the relationship between Trump and Putin?" Sharp’s contribution to the Times’ query concludes with these lines: ( see above) They really picked a great week for this, didn't they?

>>3601980

That is how I read it…sleeper cells activated.

Pentagon to send active-duty troops to U.S.-Mexico border

The administration will send about 800 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border ahead of the illegal immigrant caravan, a defense official confirmed Thursday, following through on President Trump’s pledge. A majority of the new troops will be active-duty Army soldiers who specialize in support operations such as logistics and engineering. Medical staff will also be part of the deployment, with an Air Force contingent assisting in aerial evacuations. They will join more than 2,000 National Guard troops already in the region, deployed in April as a previous caravan was testing the border.

It’s not clear what operational gains will come from adding active duty troops to the mix, but it does make good on a declaration Mr. Trump made over the last week that he wanted to mobilize the regular military, not just the guard. “You’re going to see a very secure border. You just watch,” Mr. Trump told supporters at a political rally in Wisconsin Wednesday night. “The military is ready. They’re all set.”

Turning to Pentagon brass to solve problems has been a theme for Mr. Trump during his time in office. The guard troops he asked for earlier this year are helping with surveillance to detect illegal crossings, and also helping with clerical and mechanical work, with a goal of freeing border agents and officers to get out into the field. Guard troops are not involved in patrolling or arresting illegal immigrants or smugglers. From the description officials have given of the new deployment, it does not appear that will change. That makes it unlikely the infusion of personnel will deter the migrant caravan currently streaming north through Mexico.

Mexican officials said it includes about 3,630 people, most of them from Honduras. If they follow the lead of previous migrants, most will make asylum claims in the U.S., and if they pass their initial screening they’ll be admitted and likely released into the community to await a full hearing. Most will then disappear into the shadows, not bothering to follow through on their cases, authorities said during the April caravan. Thursday’s troop deployment announcement angered liberal activists who called it a “desperate political stunt.” “All Americans should be concerned about Trump’s increasingly frantic attempts to stir up animosity and incite violence against people of color, the media and his political opponents,” said Heidi Hess, co-director of CREDO Action. Republicans, though, said the president was right to stiffen the U.S.’s response to the caravan. “President Trump’s use of military force to protect America’s southern border is mandated by the commander-in-chief’s oath of office and constitutional duties,” said Rep. Mo Brooks, Alabama Republican.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/25/pentagon-deploy-more-troops-us-mexico-border/