Tying the conspiracy together: "The Russia Investigation Circus Is Over. Will There Be A Parade?"

SOURCE: www.msn.com...

You will recall that former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, today’s P.T. Barnum, set the stage for this circus when he claimed that the intelligence Community was unanimous in its assessment that Russia influenced the election. For months the Democrats and the media — but I repeat myself — told us that 17 intelligence agencies agreed. They did not, of course. The only agencies involved were the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency — and the NSA had only moderate confidence in the estimate.
Later Clapper admitted that the conclusion was not even arrived at by the agencies, but by a handful of selected players in these agencies.

I’m willing to bet that the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, Peter Strzok, was one of those players.

This entire narrative rests on the assertion that Russia hacked the Democrat National Committee computer server and released, over the course of the campaign, emails that put Mrs. Clinton in a bad light.

How do we know that? Why, we took the word of the private company hired by the DNC attorneys who told us that.

Shocking? No. Especially after Obama specifically said it never happened right after the election. Please review my previous posts where I stated the entire investigation was initially a counter-intelligence investigation. As I said from the beginning, it was never an investigation into Trump. It was spun this way by the MSM and these very few unlawful deep state agents (like Strozok). He is largely responsible for spinning this standard counter-intelligence investigation into a criminal investigation - the first of its kind since criminal investigation (in the past) have only focused on actual crimes (since none of the false malicious partisan and hypocritical accusations re: "collusion" are crimes).

We have the most competent criminal investigators in the world. They have grand jury and subpoena powers and are employing all of it against President Trump, his children and his associates.

Did they employ those vast powers to get access to the DNC server and discover for themselves whether it was Russia, or perhaps a disgruntled employee, who actually got access to the emails? NOPE!

What else did the DNC lawyers arrange? Why, they arranged launder millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious charges against Trump. They paid Russians. It was arguably illegal. This dossier has been in the hands of much of the media and our vaunted intelligence services for over a year and none has yet been able to verify the charges.
(Has the Special Counsel verified them? NOPE!)

All circuses, of course, have a tiny car full of clowns.

First came Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr who met secretly with the authors of the bogus dossier. He kept this secret from his bosses. I wonder why?

(Is the Special Counsel looking into that? NOPE!)

Then, climbing out from under the hood came Andrew Weissmann, whose past history of prosecutorial misconduct clearly earned him a starring role in this circus. He sent his fawning congratulations to the Acting Attorney General for flagrantly refusing to carry out a presidential order that her own legal counsel determined was a legal order. Weissman’s anti-Trump bona fides are in fine shape too.

Then came the head clown, Peter Strzok, who found the time to text his mistress thousands of times while helping FBI Director Jim Comey write a memo that exonerated Mrs. Clinton in the email investigation before she was even interviewed.

Strzok then interviewed Mrs. Clinton without putting her under oath. No notes exist. He allowed co-conspirator, Cheryl Mills to sit in on the interview playing the role of Mrs. Clinton’s attorney.

Strzok had already interviewed Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin who both told him that they were unaware that Mrs. Clinton had a private server though there are emails from them referring to it and Abedin had her own email address on it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Strzok sandbagged Michael Flynn into an interview that Flynn did not need to participate in, but Strzok concluded that Flynn told the truth.

In the center ring breaking down doors and intimidating American citizens was none other than the ringmaster, Bob Mueller, who decided months after Strzok interviewed Flynn that he needed a scalp. He overruled the person actually in the room for the interview and decided that Flynn lied after all.

We will soon discover what else the loquacious Peter Strzok had to say in 10,000 texts. It was more than just the admission that he, like the rest of the clowns, was a Democrat. That wouldn’t even be newsworthy. What if we learn that he repackaged the bogus dossier as an FBI intelligence document in order to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump’s associates?

If our government misrepresented Democrat opposition research as an FBI intelligence document in order to get a warrant to spy on Trump associates and failed to disclose that to the grand jury which indicted them, the entire chain of events is as bogus as the dossier and will be thrown out of court by an angry judge.

Time to get those pitchforks and torches ready. The tar is hot, and feathers have been plucked. Unless of course the new DOJ properly handles these Earth shattering revelations and exposures. This is the biggest scandal since 1776. Absolutely stunning revelations of treason-like contempt by these unelected agents and architects of this conspiracy.

I'd personally cast a vote to see them hanged. However, prison would be an acceptable alternative, provided they aren't housed anywhere subject to US law/constitutional protections.

I posted this not only to provide this very insightful analysis, but also to put all of these pieces together so my fellow ATSers can see the broad architecture of the conspiracy against Trump. Conspiracies are notoriously difficult to prove, but the circumstances and information presents a very strong circumstantial case. Put it this way, the government has prosecuted citizens using far more dubious evidence.

There are still over 10k texts waiting to be revealed (of Strozok's), as well as a litany of other developments taking place. Many of the conspirators listed above have been subpoenaed to testify before congress regarding this matter, and AG Sessions has already opened up several parallel investigations into these allegations (and the many issues surrounding the Clinton RICO enterprise).

Stay tuned folks, because the only parade this circus is going to see will be the perpetrators of this conspiracy being whisked away in handcuffs.

a reply to: JBurns

What a waste of tax payers money. At least make up something believable. Not even lefitst believe the bs, except sadly hardcore indoctrinated leftists that watches MSNBC 24/7.

a reply to: amfirst1


Exactly.

99.9% of the Democrats I know mock the false Russian narrative. Everytime something happens, they'll sarcastically ask/post whether "The Kremlin" (lightning bolts and thunder) was involved

Of course they weren't involved. If they cared so much about the GOP, where have they been? Last I checked we got our asses handed to us in VA, MD and even AL! (well, not handed to us but we did lose nevertheless).

Where was our "Russian interference" ????

Imagine how stupid you have to be to not only fail to recognize clear fake news and a made up story, but to then devote a year pursuing said fake news with a fake investigation while wasting millions of dollars in doing so.

Welcome to the democrat party.

We didn't need "The Russians" (or as some sour grapes will say: "The Soviets!") to elect Trump.

Whether they want to believe/see this or not, we already knew about these deep state actors and conspirators! Not one Trump voter had any doubts about the Clinton investigation being mishandled. In fact, only die-hard Clinton apologists and cultists believed (believe) she was being "maliciously targeted."

We've known about them for a long time now. May not have had the evidence to back it up, but anyone paying attention could see things weren't as they should've been.

Now that we have the evidence? I admit it is vindicating - much like the Snowden revelations or any other number of leaks affecting the IC (we knew about mass surveillance, for example, since the late 90's). Once again, having proof simply gives us the ammo we need to silence the Disinformers and propagandists who for so long discredited our message by attempting to paint us as "conspiracy theorists."

Sorry guys: it will just be "theorists" from here on out. The only actors even remotely involved in "conspiracy" anything is the criminals themselves. The rest of us just expose them. As we will continue to do, with full knowledge that (get ready for it) we were right all along - as usual.

a reply to: MysticPearl


Agreed, but it is important to point out that the majority of the centrist Democratic party are reasonable people. Much like us, they comprise the "silent majority." In their party, sadly, the younger generation of extremist far-leftists have crowded out their voices or shamed/harassed them into silence.

A majority of Democratic party members are reasonable, thinking people with great love for our country and reverence for the Constitution. All people are vulnerable to disinformation and propaganda, and we cannot fault these people for falling for it.

It is crucial we not further shame or harass mainstream Democrats, simply because doing so will likely cause them to "double down" on these BS beliefs (it reinforces a position of weakness, otherwise). We don't need "told you so's" or anything other than "we all fall for lies sometime, but lets work together to make this right."

Most Dems I know can't stand hearing the incessant paranoid ramblings about Russian hacking/involvement/"collusion"/conspiracy, and reject the erroneous claims as the propaganda it is.

a reply to: JBurns

I don't consider the democratic party to include your classic liberal anymore.

The party now stands for far left extremism. That's where its leaders have taken it. That's much of the voice of the party nowadays. That's what we see all over social media as well.

Basically, the classic liberal no longer has a party.

a reply to: JBurns


Well as long as someone can manufacture enough pink hats to sell (capitalism) and say misogyny. white males and pro life women are out to put half the population to death? I think David Brock funded by Soros have some more tricks up their sleeves?
Fun watching em squirm and get more violent though!

a reply to: MysticPearl


So true

As someone who left the party last year (as a classical liberal/libertarian), I agree completely. I refused to smile and nod as the party was pushed to the extremist far-left (communism, violence, antifa, provocations, etc) while my fellow majority of moderates were silenced (or shamed/censored by the party into silence).

Sadly you are correct. I just want to say that classical liberals, libertarians and even anarchists (being the ultimate expression of individualism and personal freedom) are aligned with our ultimate goals and objectives. I think a lot of the moderates are starting to see the light though, and realize their party has been taken over by this fringe extremism.

I think party leaders simply fear for their jobs, although players like Pelosi and DiFi have always been on the fringe and supported fringe movements. Whether it is because they're extremists or they simply realized the direction the party was headed in, I could not say for certain

Can you imagine the crippling blow we'd deal these people *if* (and it is a big if) moderates over the entire spectrum banded together and demanded action? We may be historically silent, but together we are truly a force to be reckoned with.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: JBurns

I don't consider the democratic party to include your classic liberal anymore.

The party now stands for far left extremism. That's where its leaders have taken it. That's much of the voice of the party nowadays. That's what we see all over social media as well.

Basically, the classic liberal no longer has a party.

Agreed!

I wish people center and right of center would quit using the term liberal! I know quite a few Classical Liberals who are hell bent to stop the extremists whom have taken over the Democratic Party. I call the extremists Progs! Progs versus Nazi's, this is shaping up to be a freak show!

Can't wait to see the usual Silly suspects show up and argue against this.

From MSN no less.

originally posted by: stosh64
Can't wait to see the usual Silly suspects show up and argue against this.

From MSN no less.

Yes, MSN putting out a story like this out there seems to be a sign that the jig is up on the fake Russian narrative.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: stosh64
Can't wait to see the usual Silly suspects show up and argue against this.

From MSN no less.

Yes, MSN putting out a story like this out there seems to be a sign that the jig is up on the fake Russian narrative.

Did you notice their big disclaimer?

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Cant have their prog readers abandon the MSM sinking ship quite yet.

a reply to: JBurns

Classic liberalism upholds the values of free speech and tolerance.

The current left is the exact opposite of that, policing speech everywhere and hating anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I'm actually more of a classic liberal. But the current left wouldn't want any part of me. I've been labelled far right.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: stosh64
Can't wait to see the usual Silly suspects show up and argue against this.

From MSN no less.

Yes, MSN putting out a story like this out there seems to be a sign that the jig is up on the fake Russian narrative.

Did you notice their big disclaimer?

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Cant have their prog readers abandon the MSM sinking ship quite yet.

Yes, but even so, this article is a mighty big baby step for The Daily Caller.

a reply to: JBurns

I have thought, more than once, the whole Russian story was nothing more than a deflection away from the real purps to give them time to clean up the evidence of the real collusion that transpired with the Obama/Clinton et al plans and crimes.. To many heads of departments have been found to have committed wrongs and cover ups.... When the wrongs are this big the wheel of justice (if it still turns at all) will take a long time to run through the mud and bring the purps to justice IMO..

I for one just hope there are still people in government who believe in right and wrong and will not rest until the whole stinking mess is exposed along with those who committed any crimes brought to some form of their just reward.
Kinda of a shame we don't do public hanging anymore...

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: JBurns

Classic liberalism upholds the values of free speech and tolerance.

The current left is the exact opposite of that, policing speech everywhere and hating anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I'm actually more of a classic liberal. But the current left wouldn't want any part of me. I've been labelled far right.

That's the simply amazing part to me. I GET that progressives don't like me or my conservative views. Comes with the territory. But when they force a true liberal or Libertarian out and try to tar and feather them with the far right tag.....that's just insane and I've seen it happen numerous times.

a reply to: JBurns

Excellent post, and replies so far. I just don't think the usual far left cultists will touch this thread with a long pole. Too much truth to deny.

a reply to: MysticPearl


I too have been mistakenly labeled as far-right owing to my pro second amendment beliefs.

It is unfortunate that a party I (and likely yourself as well) supported for so many years has turned into this ####-show so quickly. It has all been predicated on this dubious and highly speculative election-era hyperbole that Trump was somehow "a threat" to the republic. When he mentioned the mere possibility of contesting the election results, thousands of Clintonites derided him while the Obama Admin droned on about "the importance of the peaceful transfer of power."

They even coined a catch-phrase: "when they go low, we go high."

Well, what happened to that? I'm not criticizing them for being uncivil, after all this is politics and to lash out verbally in frustration is human. But they took it far past the point of even vitriol, spawning false evidence, investigations, allegations and even embedding malicious entities into key positions within the government super organism.

They engaged in the very behavior that just months before had been labeled as "anti-democratic, a threat to the republic, a grave danger, etc."

Then the Al Franken hit job happened. I couldn't stand Franken, but this guy agreed to an ethics hearing and had handled the matter quite professionally. Once again, his principled "allies" in congress abandoned him and threw him under the bus. Gillbrand especially, likely for the selfish cause of furthering her "hardliner" stance in preparation for a 2020 Presidential bid.

How can the party be so quick to abandon its principles? Seemingly the newer generation (not entirely, but largely millenials) is so quick to abandon their ideals.

a reply to: 727Sky

I have thought, more than once, the whole Russian story was nothing more than a deflection away from the real purps to give them time to clean up the evidence of the real collusion that transpired with the Obama/Clinton et al plans and crimes..

Agreed. Despite the whole cold war commie witch hunt thing ongoing-- the first we heard of russia hacking began because Hillary needs an excuse why she lost the election.