Electing any Democrat-POTUS empowers ObamaGate grifters – Part VIII – Russia

It is desirable to flip as quickly as possible from “diagnosis” to “treatment” when addressing a medical ailment and, similarly, it’s necessary to define the action-item when confronting how The Donald CONTINUES to be victimized; thus, prior observations in this series [Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and Part VII] culminated in my filing to the District Court, targeting Judge Sullivan with his past so as to prompt him to investigate how the DoJ had engaged in prosecutorial malpractice.

Again, before providing additional context to what has occurred in the Flynn case—and why it matters—it’s desirable to again highlight the news-summaries of the past two days c/o “*Ace of Spades*” [6/29/20 & 6/30/20] AND c/o “*PJMedia*” [6/29/20 & 6/30/20]; the perceptions conveyed continue to be right-on regarding lotsa “hot” issues, even as many hyperlinks overlap. {Reminder:  Hyperlinks surrounded by asterisks (*) are amenable to being read in their entirety.}

And before updating the Flynn case, other manifestations of this scandalous machine-gun attacks on The Donald are recalled; the most recent is the exhumation of the RussiaGate collusion/delusion narrative.

*

That spies and commandos allegedly warned months ago of Russian bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan was the basis of Intelligence assessments indicating they had resulted in deaths of US troops; Trump said, however, that “Intel” did not find the Russia-Taliban bounty plot report “credible” and DNI Ratcliffe debunked the subsequent NY Times report that Trump had been briefed in March about Russia putting bounties on US Soldiers.

Press Secretary McEnany said Russia Bounty reports lacked a consensus from Intel Community and—noting that Dems had revived the Trump-Putin narrative in wake of this “bounty” claimMcEnany added, “It’s time the NY Times and the Washington Post hand back their Pulitzers.” She wasn’t overdoing it, for even Bolton slapped down Chuck Todd’s ludicrous Russia collusion theory about Trump; this scenario was endorsed by KT McFarland, who said Unverified Intel on Russia-Taliban Should Not Reach Trump.

IMHO, this is one of a series of “hits” that are intended to circle the globe before the truth dons its shoes; whether it was oral/written, whether it occurred in 2019/2020 … these are in-the-weeds irrelevancies, for it can be assumed that the Ruskies have been helping ALL of America’s enemies (along with Iran/China).

In any case, Catherine Herridge reported an Intel Official Said the NSA cannot corroborate the Russia- Taliban Story; the myth was reinforced after a flip-flop by John Bolton, who got Caught Lying About Trump and the Russian Bounty Story, yielding the conclusion that this was simply one in a series of “hits” that became duds.

*

In this regard, Bolton’s contribution to what amounts to the Deep State proved personally disillusioning, for I was among those (including Pamela Geller) who had appreciated his muscular foreign policy; even when it deviated from that of The Donald (particularly regarding Kurdistan), he was perceived as a giant (whose signature I had acquired a decade ago @ an academic D.C. conference [ASMEA] focused on the Middle East and Africa) … until he revealed himself to be a Lilliputian.

While I was peddling my anti-JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a.k.a. the Iran-Nuke Capitulation-Pact] op-eds a half-decade ago, I chatted for a half-hour with Fred Fleitz, Bolton’s former Chief Of Staff; he has also been astonished by Bolton did, even as he has revealed what he thinks “Disproves the Whole Book”:  Fleitz called it a “principled decision” for Trump having decided not to attack Iran after a U.S. drone had been shot down because “we would have killed 100-200 people”:

This was not to win votes. This wasn’t to promote the president domestically. It reflected the president’s principle not to get America into additional wars. And it was an act of leadership, because he bucked all of his national security advisors, Pompeo, the Secretary of Defense, so when we hear that the president does not have principles, he’s not qualified to lead, this incident that Bolton puts forward as the turning point for his relationship with President Trump in my mind it disproves the whole book.

Recalling how I extolled Ric Grenell, his condemnation is weighty; he feels the book’s accusations of  misconduct contains classified “nuggets”; one could be that it revealed Iranian nuclear activities Israel discovered in the Mossad raid. Some feel it won’t change minds, but a growing consensus is emerging:  John Bolton isn’t the smoking gun the media want him to be.

This realization may explain the aforementioned flip-flop, inasmuch as he has antagonized both Republicans [White House Says CNN Won’t Let Administration Push Back on Bolton Book] and Democrats [Sen. Murphy:  “Curious” Bolton Wasn’t Willing to Testify]; other allegations [11 insane revelations include White House chaos/misconduct and “personal favors to dictators”] lack cred, because Bolton Made Wild Claims but Failed to Substantiate any Major Contention.

His accusation of an abundance of impeachable offenses lost its sheen when it was recalled that Bolton had said “If I Had to Say Something I Knew Was false I Would Do It”; regardless of its veracity, Trump’s Justice Department sued in federal court to block its distribution (although it’s unclear why the litigation was filed after lotsa pre-release copies had been distributed).

Another problem is that Trump had already condemned China’s concentration camps for Uighurs before Bolton claimed Trump had OK’ed them; this thread is all the more uncanny because Bolton wrote that Trump had encouraged camps and had asked the Chinese to buy agricultural products to assist his reelection effort.

This is why Dems will wield Bolton’s book as a shield against Trump’s “Beijing Biden” attacks, although Demss want it both ways; having eviscerated Bolton’s “Neo-Con” aggressiveness during this entire millennium, they are now ripping him for teasing impeachable allegations rather than testifying.

In any case, Trump’s suit prompted a federal judge to ask Bolton why, if he did not like the review process or its pace, his team did not go to court; he also took issue with the fact that Bolton apparently did not tell the government he was walking away from the review process, absent written authorization and left open the possibility that subsequent criminal charges could be filed against Bolton.

*

Trumpsters such as myself have assiduously followed ObamaGate, now dismayed that the first hearing revealed senators who were unprepared and uncoordinated (reminiscent of former Congressman Trey Gowdy’s disastrous BenghaziGate hearings); watching McCabe and Rosenstein repeatedly accuse one another of lying wasn’t productive.

Of course, the Dems are also guilty of misuse of the Hearing process when they pursued the Senate Impeachment trial; more recently, note that [anti-Trump witness] LTC Vindman is on the current Army Colonels’ Promotion List, perhaps another case of military defiance of their Commander In Chief, although it’s not at all certain that Trump will go along.

Also note that the recent House testimony of Roger Stone Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky explains that he didn’t understand his Job; this exposed the farcical Special Counsel’s Office when he claimed the DOJ sentencing instructions had been based on “political considerations” without “naming names” (instead, relying upon the passive voice in his sentence structure), even as Roger Stone is grateful that Trump is Tweeting about a pardon as he nears being imprisoned (despite the bias of the jury foreperson).

As we stroll down memory lane, note that an Appeals court may mandate Hillary Clinton testify on her e-mails, despite her claim of harassment and that Clinton and Mills had no more to give; she seems to ignore the fact that a subpoena issued to Google last March had turned up about 260 Clinton emails that appear to be work-related and not among the roughly 30,000 pages of emails Clinton had turned over to her former agency in 2014.

On another front, I exposed, years ago, the The Trump Jr. MacGuffin triggered by the claim that Rinat Akhmetshin said Natalia Veselnitskaya presented the contents of documents in a plastic folder that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Dems; I quoted Arthur Miller’s admonition by Willie Loman that “attention must be paid” to what was supposedly being bartered during last year’s Trump Tower meeting, explaining “The only thing you got in this world is what you can sell.”

And on still additional fronts, Svetlana Lokhova has taken her Russiagate defamation case to another U.S. Court and Key Mueller witness George Nader was sentenced to 10 years in prison for child sex charges; it is somewhat gratifying that Paul Manafort was released from prison because of Covid-19 – will serve the rest of his sentence in home confinement.

As Tom Fitton pursues this corruption on multiple levels, note that Chris Wray’s FBI  *refused* a public records request for information regarding Christopher Steele’s primary dossier source (who undermined the Steele Dossier) by claiming the materials are classified and could jeopardize national security; he feels it was Obama All Along, as Judicial Watch Uncovers E-Mails Showing Ben Rhodes and Aides Joking About Benghazi Lies.

To end with a “to be continued” observation, note that the aforementioned Former NSC Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz feels the House Intelligence Committee found John Brennan had “suppressed” Russia Evidence During the 2016 Election.

About the Author
Robert B. Sklaroff MD is a physician-activist who is a radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary [depending upon the topic] who has developed many political stances that scrupulously attempt to identify the "nut" of "hot" issues; although predictions are notoriously deficient [as assiduously chronicled by my son], my insights are durable. I have also written about medical politics [particularly Vaping and ObamaDon'tCare] and have attempted to articulate the action-item [that I have often pursued absent support]. Aggressively followed is the discipline of capturing and then addressing all reputable perspectives; the reader is thereby maximally "armed" to critique the output.
Related Topics
Related Posts
Comments