American democracy dies in the Democrat’s Deep State Darkness
WASHINGTON. Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s very public two-year investigation into Russia collusion failed to produce evidence that any American cooperated in so-called Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. For two years, Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff steadfastly maintained they had irrefutable evidence that President Donald Trump was an agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin. But these claims, which the media reported as “bombshells” proving the “walls were closing in” on the Trump administration, turned out to be lies.
And so, a top-secret campaign to remove President Donald Trump from office is taking place behind closed doors thanks to the Democrat/Deep State alliance forged during the administration of President Barack Obama.
Top-secret part I:
Joseph Mifsud, a former Maltese diplomat and current academic, has a brief conversation in 2016 with Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Over drinks at a bar, Mifsud mentions he hears the Russians purloined incriminating emails from Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Papadopoulos later repeats this juicy rumor to an Australian diplomat over, what else, copious drinks at a London bar.
Alexander Downer, Australia’s high commissioner to Britain, passes Papadopoulos’s secondhand info to Her Majesty’s Secret Service and they, in turn, pass it along to Obama’s weaponized US intelligence services.
The FBI runs a counterintelligence operation against Papadopoulos using their informant and University of Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper, who served in several Republican administrations.
During a House hearing regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia collusion report, Rep. Jim Jordan asks Mueller if Mifsud (“the guy who puts this whole [Trump/Russia collusion] story in motion”) is “Western intelligence or Russian intelligence.” And Mueller replies, “[I] Can’t get into that.”
Mifsud’s pivotal role in the Russia collusion hoax and his intelligence associations are tightly held secrets of America’s Deep State.
But the plot fails.
Top-secret part II:
A CIA whistleblower files a complaint with the Office of Inspector General. He or she claims that during a telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump pressures his counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
That “pressure” centers on the PRESSURE Biden placed on former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Biden admits, in a video made during his meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, that $1 billion in US aid is withheld from Ukraine until that nation’s prosecutor general is fired for corruption.
Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian oil and gas company, is the target of a corruption probe by fired Prosecutor General Victor Shokin.
Burisma, we later learn, pays Joe Biden’s son Hunter a tidy $50,000 a month for serving on its board.
The identity and intelligence associations of the CIA whistleblower, who admits he or she is “not a direct witness to most of the events described” in the complaint, is a tightly held secret of America’s Deep State.
As of this writing, the news media is excitedly reporting there may be a second CIA whistleblower. Known but to America’s Deep State and privileged Democrats.
Top-secret part III:
House Democrats confirm to the Washington Post and CNN that the CIA whistleblower’s identity will be guarded. They say he or she might testify from a secure location away from Capitol Hill. They add that appearance and sound-altering software will disguise the person’s video image and voice while testifying before two intelligence committees of Congress.
Like the mysterious Joseph Mifsud, the whistleblower’s identity and intelligence associations are closely held secrets of America’s Democrat’s Deep State.
Top-secret part IV:
Democrat Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, lies that he and his staff have no knowledge of, or are coordinating with, the CIA whistleblower mentioned above.
“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” Schiff tells MSNBC’s Sam Stein, “… We would love to talk directly with the whistleblower.”
But the New York Times reports:
“The House [Intelligence Committee] staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested [in early August that] the [whistleblower] find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistleblower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff.”
MSNBC’s Sam Stein tells his network’s dwindling audience he contacts the dissembling Schiff to ask for an explanation. He says Schiff “expressed regret for not having been more clear in his wording.”
Stein fails to say if Schiff’s lack of clarity is to hide a truth. You know, a lie.
It’s clear the House Intelligence Committee chairman not only knows of the CIA whistleblower but advised he or she on how to lawyer up and get an impeachment inquiry going just in time to influence the 2020 presidential election.
Additionally, the Washington Examiner reports:
“Schiff is also planning to close a hearing with the [CIA] whistleblower, if he decides to testify, and he is considering additional, closed-door hearings and deposition of witnesses called to talk to the panel about matters related to the impeachment inquiry.”
Secret impeachment inquiries? A CIA witness disguised to hide his or her identity as a ploy to deny President Trump a face-to-face with his accuser?
And that reminds me of something Special Counsel Robert Mueller said in testimony before Congress in late July. Mueller testifies that he finds no evidence Trump or his campaign team colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. However, the lack of collusion cannot be seen as an exoneration. Huh? Trump has to prove what he did not do?
A puzzled Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Mueller:
“Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?”
Mueller appeared confused by the question and asked Ratcliffe to repeat it. But that didn’t help and Mueller remained confused.
‘I’ll make it easier,” said the steadfast Ratcliffe. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?”
The befuddled Mueller hemmed and hawed a moment and then got down to brass tacks.
“I cannot. But this is a unique situation.”
Having failed to find a legal rationale for expelling Trump from office, America’s Deep State provides Democrats a game plan that eliminates the need for public scrutiny in the removal of the nation’s democratically elected chief executive.
You see, a process that failed so miserably in public has a much better chance for success when conducted in secret. Behind closed doors. Using technology designed to distort a witness’s image and voice to match their warped testimony.
And this “unique situation” in which Americans find themselves means that, very soon, a future president that takes the oath of office will be one whose name is a closely guarded secret. One on a strict “need-to-know” basis.
A name known and approved by a select few members of the Democrat’s Deep State.
Top Image: President Barack Obama at CIA headquarters in
Langley, Virginia in 2011. Photo: The White House.