Anonymous ID: 7af83c Feb. 25, 2020, 3:31 a.m. No.8242653   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Thursday, February 20, 2020

The Grennell Appointment

No need to spend much time on the appointment of Rick Grennell as Acting DNI. Trump has made a move that appears to be aimed at the heart of the Intel Community (IC).

 

Grennell will not only have access to top leve intel, he'll also have access to material that was used against Trump and can be declassified

 

Yes, Trump gave full power to declassify to AG Barr, and we haven't seen much. While I'm willing to wait, I do believe that more can be done in terms of transparency. We the People do deserve to get a look at more of the coup plotting than has been revealed, Trump wants it, and I see no reason to believe that there aren't large amounts that could be revealed without harm to either national security or future prosecutions. Yes, the intel services of "allies" would be unhappy, but Americans deserve to know who our "allies" really are. Beyond that, putting names to documents that will be revealed in court at a later date prejudices no one.

 

Perhaps more importantly, however, Grennell will have access to pretty much everything to do with Impeachment Theater, and he can declassify that, too. Everything internal to the IC that went through the IC IG office–Michael Atkinson–could be declassified. Could this be a backdoor way to reveal Atkinson's House testimony. Yes. And much else. We may be about to learn much more about everyone who had anything to do with the Impeachment Theater and the Ukraine Hoax. And that will inevitably involve upon the Russia Hoax

 

http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-grennell-appointment.html?m=1

 

I won't say that Grennell and Barr will be in competition, exactly, but I can see no reason whatsoever for Grennell to try to ingratiate himself with anyone in DC except Trump. DNI is a cabinet level post, which places Grennell on a level with Barr. Grennell is in a position to be a powerful ally to the Barr/Durham investigation in terms of breaking through bureaucratic logjams and delaying tactics. Barr should go for it.

Anonymous ID: 7af83c Feb. 25, 2020, 4:19 a.m. No.8242807   🗄️.is 🔗kun

I never quite got what Grassley’s and Johnson’s request on the IG footnotes were significant, this article lays it out plainly. Long article read the whole thing

 

A Steele - Papadopoulos Connection

Earlier today commenter EZ brought to my attention an article by Margot Cleveland that had somehow eluded my feed reader. The article–Senators: IG FISA Abuse Report Misled Public About Crossfire Hurricane–expands on earlier coverage of the letter that Senators Grassley and Johnson recently sent to AG Bill Barr. Here's how I set this up in Grassley, Johson Charge Horowitz Dossier Misleads Public:

 

Basically, the senators are demanding that AG Barr declassify four footnotes in the Horowitz Dossier. The reason for their demand is that they assert that the classified footnotes contradict supposed "information" that was made public in the Horowitz Dossier. The senators' letter to Barr is in two versions–one classified, the other unclassified and made public. The unclassified version states in part:

 

We have reviewed the findings of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with regard to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and we are deeply concerned about certain information that remains classified. Specifically, we are concerned that certain sections of the public version of the report are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information redacted in four footnotes. This classified information is significant not only because it contradicts key statements in a section of the report, but also because it provides insight essential for an accurate evaluation of the entire investigation. The American people have a right to know what is contained within these four footnotes and, without that knowledge, they will not have a full picture as to what happened during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

 

I'm guessing that Barr will need to take these complaints seriously. They strike at the credibility of both OIG and DoJ. Could it be that these footnotes relate to John Durham's harsh comments on Horowitz's work?…

 

Now, I have always supposed that the official story that Crossfire Hurricane was NOT predicated on information from Christopher Steele was disinformation. I still hold to that view, even though the official documentation seems to support that version. This is where I believe Cleveland's new analysis is important. Cleveland's analysis focuses on a footnote that I wasn't aware of, footnote #302, and her analysis points to the importance of what the two senators are talking about and strongly suggests that the redactions may be at the very heart of Barr and Durham's criticism of Horowitz's report. What is misleading about Horowitz's report in its published/redacted version is that it gives the impression that Steele had no particular involvement in the origin of Crossfire Hurricane–it appears to support the FBI's official explanation that Papadopoulos and the completely dodgy narrative surrounding Papadopoulos' conversations with Downer and Mifsud served as the predication….

 

In light of all this, Cleveland rightly returns to what she believes is the common thread between the public statements of Barr/Durham–issued at the same time as the IG's report–and the subsequent letter from the two senators:

 

[W]e already know that Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham disagree with the IG’s predication conclusion: Durham released a statement after the IG report hit, stressing that “[b]ased on the evidence collected to date, . . . we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” We also now know from the Grassley-Johnson letter that “certain sections” of the IG report “are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information” contained in the redacted footnotes.

 

AG Barr has made it crystal clear that he regards these issues as key to the Durham investigation. The focus that Durham has shown on the Italian, British, and Australian involvement in the Russia Hoax confirms that–as does Cleveland's analysis.

 

http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-steele-papadopoulos-connection.html?m=1

Anonymous ID: 7af83c Feb. 25, 2020, 4:26 a.m. No.8242831   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Note Snodgrass the writer of NYTs article? The woman recently supposedly named has not been confirmed, interesting. I think you guys named this person early on

 

UPDATED: The Purge Continues

With Impeachment Theater in his rear view mirror and with Dems obsessing over their own incompetence and fractiousness–not to mention the public's basic lack of interest–Trump seems to feel free to purge key elements of his administration of Obama era holdovers. The Washington Examiner reports–Bigger than Vindman: Trump scrubs 70 Obama holdovers from NSC:

—President Trump is making good on his promises

Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.

—“This month, we will complete the right-sizing goal Ambassador O’Brien outlined in October, and in fact, may exceed that target by drawing down even more positions,” John Ullyot, the NSC’s senior director for strategic communications, told Secrets.

—This is progress. OTOH, it's best to bear in mind that Obama era holdovers aren't the only problem. Consider: Ciaramella and Misko (and some other Obama holdovers) left the NSC before Impeachment Theater began. They kept in touch with what was going on in the White House through communications with … Trump's own people! Yes, John Bolton, who brought the Vindman twins into the NSC. We also know that before that other Trump appointees–McMaster comes to mind–carried out purges against people Michael Flynn had brought in. So Draining the Swamp is a bit more complicated than just ousting Obama holdovers.

—Also, this morning Joe diGenova announced on radio:

—"I am told that soon there will someone else leaving the White House, who wrote that article [see below]. Apparently they have identified 'anonymous' and we were told that – Victoria and I were at dinner with a senior government official last week — and we were told that by this person they have, in fact, identified 'anonymous.'"

—Unfortunately he also said he didn't want to burn his source by naming "Anonymous." This is the original article from September 5, 2018:

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

—I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

—Which once against shows that Obama holdovers aren't the only or, perhaps, biggest problem.

—UPDATE: diGenova's claim may not be news–unless Anonymous is someone other than the chief speechwriter for former SecDef Jim "Moderate Dog" Mattis. As commenter Mike Sylwester notes, this story has been "out there" for a while–unless its someone different or they've simply confirmed the identity. According to the NYPost in November, 2019:

—A former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton said he believes the anonymous writer of a scathing New York Times op-ed and tell-all book about the Trump administration is the chief speechwriter for former Defense Secretary James Mattis.

—David Kusnet, writing in The New Republic on Monday, said he compared the writing styles of “A Warning,” which was published on Nov. 19, with former Pentagon aide Guy Snodgrass’ memoir “Holding the Line,” which was published in October.

Kusnet said by reading the two works, the “clues to Anonymous’s identity are apparent.”

—“As in ‘A Warning,’ the sentences and paragraphs are pithy and punchy. Every chapter in both books begins with an inspiring but not cliched quotation from an historic figure,” Kusnet writes in making his case that Snodgrass is Anonymous.

—“Many passages in both books are remarkably similar: the ordeal of conducting a Pentagon briefing for Trump; national security staffers exchanging appalled asides about Trump’s conduct of foreign policy via Twitter; and the arguments for why American alliances strengthen national security and immigration policy shouldn’t be based on building a border wall,” he continued.

Snodgrass, a 43-year-old retired naval aviator and Top Gun instructor, tweeted “the swirl continues…” and linked to a copy of the New Republic article.

Kusnet said that while some of what Anonymous wrote in “A Warning” appears to disqualify Snodgrass, other qualities mark him as the author.

“Snodgrass checks three boxes: He can write. He knows and cares about national security — a major theme of ‘A Warning.’ And, to borrow from his description of Mattis, he is ‘a badass’ who eventually offended his hero and won a pre-publication battle with the Pentagon over the release of ‘Holding the Line,'” Kusnet wrote.

Snodgrass did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Kusnet’s supposition.

—I covered that back then: Mattis Speechwriter The "Anonymous" Author Of "A Warning"? but forgot. We'll see.

 

http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-purge-continues.html?m=1

Anonymous ID: 7af83c Feb. 25, 2020, 4:30 a.m. No.8242845   🗄️.is 🔗kun

This author points out some of the same problems I have with CTH, the constant back and forth of is Barr bad now

 

UPDATED: Too Big To Jail?

That's the title of one of CTH's latest attacks on AG Bill Barr–the implication being that Barr regards some of the Russia Hoax plotters as "too big to jail." Evidence? It's a long post, typical at CTH, but the only hint at presenting evidence comes at the end in a Paul Sperry tweet:

 

Paul Sperry

@paulsperry

BREAKING: Carter Page revealed on John Solomon Reports podcast that special Spygate prosecutor John Durham's team has not contacted him for an interview or asked him for any docs or records, even tho Durham is believed to be investigating FBI officials who illegally spied on Page

12:06 AM - Feb 7, 2020

 

Sundance thinks that if Barr/Durham were serious about the whole Russia Hoax–especially including the Wikileaks/Assange angle–then they would have interviewed Carter Page.

 

But ask yourself: Why? What would be the point in interviewing Page?

 

The FBI is now admitting that at least some of the FISAs on Page were "illegal." The FISC agrees. That part of the investigation is in the bag.

 

How did they come to that conclusion of illegality? Easy. They looked at internal FBI files and records. The proof is in writing, in FISA records, in emails, in FBI asset files, etc. There was no need to ask Page anything to arrive at the conclusion of illegality. After all, what would Page know? The FBI was spying on him–that means what they did was done in secret, without Page's knowledge. By the very nature of it all, Page would have no information of value. Which is pretty evident to anyone who has listened to one of Page's many TV interviews. Page had no personal interaction with any of the main players at the FBI or DoJ. He has no records that would shed light on what was happening at the FISC.

 

Sundance is wasting our time with this stuff. If we don't see results by summer, as promised by Barr, we'll know we've been had. Till then, I'll be patient.

 

http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/02/too-big-to-jail.html?m=1

Anonymous ID: 7af83c Feb. 25, 2020, 5:32 a.m. No.8243020   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3187 >>3332 >>3392

Navy and Marine Corps to Ban Personal Firearms for Foreign Troops

 

24 Feb 2020

Military.com | By Gina Harkins

The Navy and Marine Corps will prohibit foreign troops from buying and carrying personal weapons as the military continues rolling out new restrictions after a Saudi officer carried out a terrorist attack on a U.S. military base.

 

International service members training with sailors and Marines at bases in the U.S. or its territories face a host of new rules on personally owned firearms and ammunition, the services announced last week. The restrictions also apply to foreign troops' family members accompanying them.

 

Foreign troops assigned to Navy and Marine Corps bases, regardless of their country of origin, will be prohibited from possessing, storing, using, transporting, carrying, purchasing, selling or transferring personally owned firearms, weapon components or ammunition, the new policies state.

 

All international military students will have to sign agreements on the new rules or risk getting booted out of the U.S. Those training with the Navy must do so by April 15 and those training with Marines by May 1.

 

Related: Marine Corps Limits Foreign Troops' Base Access After Pensacola Attack

 

International troops' family members over the age of 18 must also sign the agreements.

 

"Failure to do so will result in immediate expulsion from training or school, and orders generated for immediate transfer back to their home country, to include accompanying family members," the Marine Corps' message states.

 

Foreign service members and their families will have no access to personally owned weapons or ammunition "until after returning to their home country," according to the Navy's policy.

 

The new restrictions are part of a Pentagon-wide review of security measures following a Dec. 6 shooting on a Navy base in Pensacola, Florida. A Saudi officer training there lawfully purchased a semiautomatic handgun with an extended magazine through a hunting-license loophole.

 

The exception allows non-immigrant visa holders who otherwise are not permitted to buy firearms or ammunition to purchase them if they have a valid state-issued hunting license permit or other required documentation, David Bowdich, deputy director of the FBI, said last month.

 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/24/navy-and-marine-corps-ban-personal-firearms-foreign-troops.html

Anonymous ID: 7af83c Feb. 25, 2020, 5:44 a.m. No.8243073   🗄️.is 🔗kun

John Noname actively worked against the US military going in to find POWs in years of sitings of them, biggest betrayal of all time!

 

New Hampshire Senators Call on Esper to Honor 'Lost 74' on Vietnam Wall

 

24 Feb 2020

The New Hampshire Union Leader, Manchester | By Shawne Wickham

New Hampshire's two U.S. senators have signed on to a bipartisan letter urging Defense Secretary Mark Esper to add the names of the 74 American sailors who died aboard the USS Frank E. Evans in 1969 to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington.

 

Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, and Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are leading a dozen lawmakers who requested a meeting with Esper to discuss the matter.

 

Noting that last year marked the 50th anniversary of the loss of the sailors during a training exercise off the coast of Vietnam, the senators said honoring their sacrifice "is long overdue."

 

During international maneuvers on June 3, 1969, the Evans collided with a much larger Australian aircraft carrier and the smaller ship was cut in half.

 

Seventy-four sailors died, including two young men from New Hampshire: Ronald Arthur Thibodeau of Manchester and Gary Joseph Vigue of Farmington. Both were married and had young sons.

 

The military did not include the "Lost 74" sailors' names on the Vietnam wall in Washington, D.C., because the accident happened outside the designated combat zone.

 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/24/new-hampshire-senators-call-esper-honor-lost-74-vietnam-wall.html

 

Typed in John McCain betrayed MIA Viêt Nam, lots is sites popped up besides this one

http://www.mccainbetrayspows.org/home/4530777103

Anonymous ID: 7af83c Feb. 25, 2020, 6:19 a.m. No.8243239   🗄️.is 🔗kun

DOJ re-examining decades-old law that grants sweeping legal protections for online speech

 

Interdasting! The title makes it seem like old laws are not still good laws.

 

DOJ re-examining decades-old law that grants sweeping legal protections for online speech” via FOX NEWS https://ift.tt/2PjSMY5

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6135230162001#sp=show-clips

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-re-examining-decades-old-law-that-grants-sweeping-legal-protections-for-online-speech/vi-BB10iHrf

Anonymous ID: 7af83c Feb. 25, 2020, 6:24 a.m. No.8243274   🗄️.is 🔗kun

And this why we need a wall and a working immigration system

Report: Immigration, Citizenship, and the Federal Justice System, 1998-2018

 

In 1998, 63% of all federal arrests were of U.S. citizens; in 2018, 64% of all federal arrests were of non-U.S. citizens.

 

https://www.bjs.gov/