Wednesday, March 21, 2018

The Just Firing of Andrew McCabe - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Serious charges could follow the release of the Inspector General’s report.

Based on the recommendation of career officials in the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe late Friday for good cause. The dismissal occurred less than two days before McCabe was planning to retire and become eligible to receive lucrative pension benefits. 

"After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)," Sessions said in a statement Friday. "The FBI's OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions. The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability.  As the OPR proposal stated, ‘all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.’ Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.” 

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz reportedly made his findings regarding McCabe’s alleged misconduct while looking into how the Justice Department and FBI handled investigations leading up to the 2016 presidential election, including their investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server for government business. McCabe had already been placed on leave several weeks ago, reportedly in response to these findings. His dismissal for cause was the next logical step.

Mr. Horowitz, whose full report is yet to be made public, was sworn in on April 16, 2012, during the Obama administration. He also served in the Justice Department from 1991 to 2002. He is no partisan hack whose conclusions can be easily dismissed.  Yet McCabe and his supporters are trying to turn McCabe's firing for good cause, reportedly based on those conclusions, into a partisan issue. 

McCabe whined in an interview with Politico that his self-imposed ordeal was “personally devastating.” He complained that he was the victim of “an ongoing effort to undermine my credibility because of the work that I did on the Russia case, because of the investigations that I oversaw and impacted that target this administration.” 

In a statement he issued on Saturday, the day after his firing, McCabe elaborated on his victimhood narrative: "The OIG's focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sense only when viewed through this lens."

No, Mr. McCabe. The Inspector General's findings and the actions leading up to your firing were taken in response to your alleged authorization of a self-serving press leak to a former Wall Street Journal reporter and your lack of candor in explaining to Justice Department officials what you had done. Even in your statement attempting to exonerate yourself, you appear to be stretching the truth. You claimed, for example, that the FBI Director at the time, James Comey, was “aware of the interaction with the reporter.” The term “interaction” is bureaucratese for leaking. Yet former FBI Director Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last May that he never authorized anyone to leak information to the press regarding the FBI’s investigations and added, “If I find out that people were leaking information about our investigations, whether to reporters or to private parties, there’ll be severe consequences.” Although Comey was not around to impose those “severe consequences” himself on McCabe, they were finally imposed nevertheless. 

The leaking episode may only be the tip of the iceberg. Should Andrew McCabe have recused himself altogether from the Hillary Clinton e-mail and Clinton Foundation investigations because of at least the appearance of a conflict of interest stemming from his wife’s receipt of large campaign contributions from a political committee run by Terry McAuliffe, a close associate of the Clintons? Reportedly about 98% of the McAuliffe related donations to McCabe’s wife came after the FBI launched the investigation into Hillary Clinton, although it was not until three months after his wife lost her election bid that McCabe became the FBI’s second in command and, according to the FBI, “assumed responsibility for the Clinton email investigation.” 

What role, if any, did McCabe play in the apparent plot by anti-Trump FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok to come up with an “insurance policy” to prevent or undermine a Trump presidency? The issue surfaced with the release of a Strzok text message from August of 2016: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…” Did “Andy’s office,” where the prospect of a Trump election victory was given such urgent attention, belong to Andrew McCabe, as seems likely?

To what extent was McCabe involved in the submission to the FISA court of misleading applications for authority to spy on Carter Page, a U.S. citizen? To what extent was he involved in approving or establishing the FBI’s reported arrangement with foreign agent Christopher Steele regarding the discredited dossier used to support the FISA applications? The applications to the FISA court reportedly omitted the material fact that the unverified dossier supporting the applications, authored by Christopher Steele using Russian sources, was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, which Hillary Clinton controlled. McCabe reportedly testified before the House Intelligence Committee that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steele dossier information. Yet if McCabe was aware of the source of its funding and its unverified Russian sources, did he participate in, if not help lead, a fraud on the FISA court?

McCabe’s supporters are lining up to support his victimhood narrative and to turn his firing for good cause into a partisan issue. One notable exception is the otherwise highly partisan Representative Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who said that the firing may have been “justified,” while at the same time not ruling out the possibility that it “can also be tainted.”

Maryland Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin stuck to the Democratic talking points. He said it appeared "vindictive and political" for the Trump administration to fire McCabe, taking away his substantial pension. “It also is a reflection on the administration’s disdain for the FBI itself. I just think this is outrageous. The Department of Justice, the FBI, should be independent and this type of political behavior should be unacceptable,” Senator Cardin said. Apparently, the senator forgot or did not realize that Attorney General Sessions was following the recommendation of career officials at the FBI and Justice Department, who had based their recommendation on the reported findings of the independent Inspector General and were intent on preserving the integrity of the FBI.

Some Democrats have gone on Twitter to offer McCabe jobs in the federal government. 
Representative Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, for example, tweeted: “Andrew McCabe: I have the need to hire a Special Senior Staff Attorney to help me with my work on the House Judiciary Committee dealing with threats to the Constitution and the rule of law in America. You're perfect for the job. DM me.” Evidently, Rep. Raskin’s idea of dealing with threats to the Constitution and the rule of law in America is to reward someone who may well have been guilty of perpetrating such threats while serving in a high government position.

Representative Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, tweeted that McCabe should call him if he needs a federal job. “I am serious.  We have to stand up to bullies like @realDonaldTrump & @jeffsessions @USAGSessions #Resist #twill #AndrewMcCabeFired #standuptobullies #chicago @Comey” Evidently, using the FISA court to bully an American citizen, based on an unsubstantiated dossier funded by the political opposition, does not bother Rep. Gutierrez.

John Brennan, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration, responded to President Trump’s expression of satisfaction with the firing by tweeting: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.” Brennan should look in the mirror before castigating anyone else. 

Going back to McCabe’s dismissal based on his authorization of a leak to the media and his alleged misleading statements to government investigators, McCabe said that he will not remain silent. He may first want to consult a criminal lawyer. Why should he be treated any differently than others who have been accused of making false statements to federal investigators and have faced criminal charges, such as former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Martha Stewart? Depending on the evidence that emerges with the release of the Inspector General’s report, criminal charges against McCabe may well be the most appropriate outcome.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Intersectionality, Tribalism and Farrakhan - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

A movement of bigotries can only divide us.

A funny thing happened on the way to the intersectional future. The proverbial knapsack was unpacked in the Women’s March and inside wasn’t just racial tribalism, but racial and religious supremacism.

Why do Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour of the Women’s March like Farrakhan and his hate group?

The Nation of Islam preaches that black people are the master race. It doesn’t just hate white people, Jews and a whole bunch of other folks. It hates them out of a conviction in its own superiority. According to its teachings, “the Blackman is the original man” and lighter skinned people were “devils” created by an evil mad scientist to rule over black people until they are destroyed by UFOs.

It even teaches that monkeys are descended from white people.

Progressive media essays defending Obama, Rep. Keith Ellison,  Rep. Danny Davis, Mallory and other black leaders for their Farrakhan links have urged concerned liberals to look at the positive aspects of the Nation of Islam, its love for black people, not the negative, its hatred for white people.

But it is the “positive” that is the problem. 

Intersectionality promises to package tribal identity politics into a utopia of social justice. But the essence of tribalism is the superiority of your people and the inferiority of all other groups. Tribalism doesn’t have to be violent, hostile or hateful. Most peoples are tribal after all. But when you combine the most radical identity politics elements, as the left does, then bigoted supremacism is certain.

The clown car of identity politics runs smoothest when it has a common enemy: white people. Coalitions like the Women’s March assemble an array of groups who are united by their hatred of Trump, white people, Israel and root beer. And it works as long as no one lifts up the hood and looks at the engine.

Black nationalism is racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. The Nation of Islam isn’t an exception. From Jeremiah Wright, “Italians… looked down their garlic noses”, to Eldridge Cleaver, “rape was an insurrectionary act” to Amiri Baraka, the ugliest possible supremacist bigotry is its natural state.

"We are all beautiful (except white people, they are full of, and made of s___)," Amiri Baraka wrote. "The fag's death they gave us on a cross... they give us to worship a dead jew and not ourselves."

“I got the extermination blues, jew-boys. I got the Hitler syndrome figured... So come for the rent, jewboys,” the Guggenheim fellowship, PEN and American Book Award winner, and former Poet Laureate of New Jersey ranted.

Baraka was one of the country’s most celebrated black nationalist poets and he was a former member of the Nation of Islam. Baraka’s Black Mass circulated the NOI’s racist creation myth.

It was the NOI’s conviction of black superiority and white inferiority that attracted Baraka and so many other black nationalists. The NOI is one of a variety of black supremacist religious groups, from the similarly exotic Moorish and Black Hebrew churches, to NOI splinter groups such as Five-Percent Nation and black nationalist churches like the one attended by the Obamas and presided over by Jeremiah Wright. But religious black supremacism is only a component of a larger cultural movement that lies at the heart of black nationalism and mingles historical conspiracy theories with racial supremacism.

The comingling of black nationalism with intersectional politics has produced a new generation (often of second-generation radicals) that dresses up its racism not only in the lyricism of the old black nationalism of Wright and Baraka, but in the obtuse academic jargon of intersectionality.

That’s where Tamika Mallory and Ta-Nehisi Coates come from. But political word salads and poetry only conceal what you choose not to pay attention to. And that’s why we’re talking about Louis Farrakhan.

The mass of progressive media articles, essays and explainers deployed to protect the Women’s March can be summed up as, “Stop paying attention.” And what we’re not supposed to be paying attention to is the slow death of liberalism and its substitution by the intolerant tribal extremism of identity politics.

It’s why the echo chamber of progressive media has turned against the New York Times editorial page where too many articles questioning identity politics and political censorship have appeared. Bari Weiss and Quinn Norton, articulate young women, are the most immediate targets, but the larger target is James Bennet, the page’s gatekeeper, who is unwisely giving liberals a glimpse of where they’re headed.

The remaining liberals still wandering the open plains of a dying ecosystem don’t understand that they are becoming extinct. When they endorse vocal identity politics movements, it is because they believe that addressing the grievances of their extremists is a necessary step to a tolerant colorblind society.

They haven’t grasped that a tolerant multiracial society is the last thing supremacists of any race want.

And the left tells them what they want to hear, that the strident tone of the activists is a momentary phenomenon triggered by their fury at injustice and oppression. Once we’re all intersectionalized and truthfully reconciled, the pain underlying the appeal of a Farrakhan or a Wright will dissipate.

It’s a lie. And they know it’s a lie.

Intersectionality is a lie. Like the Nation of Islam, it’s not just a lie in its negative hateful aspects, but in its promise of a utopia once the “white devils” and their “white privilege” are out of the way.

Groups of identity politics extremists and their white cishet lefty allies can only be briefly united by the negative, not the positive. The “call-out culture” meant to spread social justice through the movement isn’t just a form of political terror; it fails to reach the innate bigotry of each identity politics group.

The meltdown of the Women’s March shows why intersectionality was always a Potemkin Village.

Identity politics movements can’t fight bigotry, because they are naturally bigoted. Instead of actually rejecting bigotry, they project it on a convenient target like Trump, and then pretend that by destroying him, they can cleanse society. The more targets they destroy, the more they need to find to maintain an alliance whose only true unifying principle is a mutual denial of each other’s supremacist bigotries. And so the battle against racism becomes a war against microaggressions and structural white supremacy.

The whole thing is a ticking time bomb. And it keeps going off every few years. When it blows up, lefty activists rush out, as they are doing now, to plead, wheedle and warn that the real enemy is “white supremacy” and everyone needs to stop paying attention to the racist or sexist views of their own allies.

These “rainbow coalitions” of racist radicals don’t fight bigotry; they mobilize bigots for racial wars.

Tamika Mallory praising Farrakhan isn’t shocking. It would be more shocking if she didn’t. It’s hard to find major black figures in politics and the entertainment industry who don’t hang out with him.

Both Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, the first two serious black presidential candidates, did. The Congressional Black Caucus hosted him. London Mayor Sadiq Khan acted as his lawyer. The list of black entertainers is all but endless. Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube (both members), Michael Jackson, Eddie Murphy, Spike Lee, Arsenio Hall, Common, Kanye West, Mos Def, Young Jeezy and Erykah Badu to name a few.

Not every individual who meets up with Farrakhan necessarily shares all his bigoted views, but many find his tribal affirmation of black superiority appealing and they value that more than they do any kind of tolerant society. That’s what Tamika Mallory, in her own awkward way, was trying to tell us.

Black nationalism is a tribal cause. It will always put its people first. The same is true of the rest of the hodgepodge of political identity groups that form up the intersectional chorus. No amount of calling out will change that. That’s why the calling out is mostly directed at safe targets, preferably white.

There is no larger unity at the end of the rainbow. Only smoother versions of Farrakhan. Barack instead of Baraka. Rants about “white devils” and “satanic Jews” filtered through academic jargon.

A movement of bigotries can only divide us. And that’s all identity politics has to offer America. Instead of equal rights in a united nation, we will be members of quarreling tribes. And those tribes, like Farrakhan’s fans, will be incapable of seeing members of other tribes as having the same worth they do.

And people who don’t believe that the “other” has the same worth, won’t grant him the same rights.

The left claims that it’s fighting for equality. What it’s actually fighting for is a tribal society where the notion of equal rights for all is as alien as it is in Iraq, Rwanda and Afghanistan, where democracy means tribal bloc votes and where the despotism of majority rule invariably ends in terror and death.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

AIPAC’s claim it supports only Israeli Policies proven false - Morton A. Klein

by Morton A. Klein

AIPAC's pro-Statehood and anti-Settlement policies contradict the Israeli government's wishes.

When America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) CEO Howard Kohr, addressing AIPAC’s Policy Conference , called for establishing a Palestinian Arab state, he inadvertently exposed a decades-old myth: that AIPAC only supports all policies of the Israeli government.

Kohr unequivocally stated: “We must all work toward that future: two states for two peoples … One Jewish with secure and defensible borders, and one Palestinian with its own flag and its own future.”

This is the policy of neither the Trump Administration nor Israel. 

President Trump has repeatedly stated that he supports any settlement that commends itself to both sides. Indeed, at this very AIPAC Conference, neither Vice-President Mike Pence’s speech, nor Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s speech made any call for Palestinian statehood.

As for Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been clear that, under prevailing conditions, neither he nor his government are contemplating a Palestinian state. Furthermore, only two months ago, the internal committee of Likud, Israel’s ruling party, voted in favor of applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea/Samaria (West Bank) and eastern Jerusalem.

The Israeli public are no less at odds with Mr. Kohr than the Israeli government: A January 2017 Maagar Mochot poll found that an overwhelming majority of 75% of Israelis support Israeli sovereignty in Judea/Samaria, while a March 2017 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs poll showed that 57% of Israelis oppose Israeli withdrawal from Judea/Samaria. 

It isn’t difficult to diagnose their lack of enthusiasm for Palestinian statehood. A Palestinian state is likely to fall into the hands of the terrorist organization Hamas, which calls in its Covenant for the destruction of Israel and the global murder of Jews. Indeed, a 2016 poll conducted by the Arab World Institute for Research and Development indicates that Hamas-affiliated lists would win any PA elections that might be held  –– assuming any transfer of power within the PA was peaceful.

Creating a Palestinian Arab terror state, largely immune from Israeli reprisals behind what would now be sovereign borders, would greatly endanger Israel. Nor, as we have argued before, is it possible to create a demilitarized Palestinian Arab state, even if demilitarization were an explicit provision in any peace treaty that created one.

Indeed, only this past week, Netanyahu said explicitly on the subject: “You can bring models, theoretical models, say it will be good if we give them a state … Empirically, it doesn’t work with what we see. When we leave land, terror organizations take it up. Immediately.”

And AIPAC’s record in recommending concessionary policies is long-standing.

Thus, AIPAC supported the disastrous 2005 Gaza withdrawal, which led to over 10,000 Jews being uprooted and enabled Hamas to eventually take over the Strip and exponentially increase rocket fire into Israel, with the result that there have been three major Gaza wars since that date.

And of course AIPAC was an enthusiastic supporter of the original 1993 Oslo Accords, the greatest self-inflicted wound in Israel’s history. The cost of Oslo has included not only ultimately decreasing peace prospects, but, most tragically, many thousands of murdered and maimed Israelis as well. 

I personally sat alongside Mr. Kohr testifying at Congressional hearings on the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, in which he repeatedly conceded that arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat’s behavior required improvement, but also argued that Arafat was doing well enough to justify continued negotiations as well as continued US diplomatic and financial support. 

As we all know, Arafat eventually launched the 2000 terror war which claimed the lives of almost 2000 Israeli civilians and wounded and maimed thousands more. Mr. Kohr was deeply mistaken then as he is deeply mistaken now.

With a such a record of poor judgment and over-eager willingness to endorse the platitudes and orthodoxies of the day, AIPAC has lost its credibility to be urging the US or Israeli governments to make such a life-and-death decision as creating a Palestinian state. 

But then the idea that AIPAC lobbies vigorously on behalf of Israeli policies no matter what is a long-standing urban myth. For example, AIPAC has never supported Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria, though privately asked to do so by past Israeli governments over the decades.

AIPAC also waited a year before supporting  the Taylor Force Act, which would defund the PA if it continues to pay over $400 million annually in salaries to blood-soaked, jailed Palestinian Arab terrorists and stipends to the families of dead terrorists. AIPAC only supported Taylor Force Act after it had been dramatically weakened.

And when it came to 2015 Iran nuclear deal, AIPAC proved altogether a paper tiger.

This should have been AIPAC’s moment. A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and the deal provides a glide-path to Tehran acquiring nuclear break-out capacity. This was moreover a bipartisan issue in Israel and the Jewish world, and AIPAC’s task was crystal clear. It was also far from being an impossible one: AIPAC needed only to secure the support of 13 of 46 Democratic senators to sink the deal. Yet, in the event, it was only able to secure the votes of four. This was a momentous failure.

All this is past. AIPAC should seek now to undo some of the damage it has done by immediately retracting Mr. Kohr’s speech in support of Palestinian statehood and demand an end to all US aid to the PA unless and until the PA ceases to pay terrorists and their families.

Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). He was named one of the top five influential Jews in America by a major national Jewish weekly. WWW.ZOA.ORG . Follow him on Twitter @Mortonaklein7


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1967 - Eli E. Hertz

by Eli E. Hertz

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression.

In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt's President: "Destruction of Israel." At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of Judea and Samaria [E.H., The West Bank], Sinai and the Golan Heights.
International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. More than half a century after the 1948 War, and more than four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors' attacks.
Who Starts Wars Does Matter
Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:
"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's [The state formed by the union of the republics of Egypt and Syria in 1958] use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.
"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.
"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."
Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:
"On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan.
"Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."

Eli E. Hertz


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Schiff’s FISA Memo reveals FBI and DOJ FISA crimes - Mark Langfan

by Mark Langfan

Far from contradicting Republican claims, the Schiff rebuttal provides information on the Clinton Campaign and DNC's efforts to find 'dirt' on then candidate Trump.

Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who has relentlessly led the House Democratic “Collusion” attack on President Trump, compiled a response memo attempting to contradict the House Majority Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) memo of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and FBI FISA court abuses committed against then-Candidate, and now President, Donald Trump. 

Instead of contradicting the Republican Report, Schiff provided the public with the key documentary kernel of the actual text of the above-super-top secret Carter Page DOJ/FBI FISA application.  By providing this actual key FISA application text, Schiff has confirmed that numerous DOJ/FBI staff committed Federal crimes in their October 21, 2016 Page FISA application. 

DOJ/FBI represented to the FISA Court that it only “speculated” that Glenn Simpson, whom the FBI/DOJ knew had been hired by the Clinton Campaign and the Democrat National Committee, was only “likely looking” for dirt on Candidate Trump.  It is the FBI/DOJ’s own words stating that Simpson was “likely looking” for political dirt that comprise knowing and intentional perjury by the DOJ/FBI to the FISA court. 

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC weren’t “likely looking” for dirt, they were paying for any and every lie they could collect.  Such clear and convincing documentary evidence of DOJ/FBI’s grave Federal crimes under 18 U.S.C. Section 1623 – False declarations before grand jury or court in a FISA application requires a Federal Prosecutor, not a powerless DOJ Inspector General.

Here is the actual unedited text of the Schiff Memo:

[Start of Minority FISA “Correcting the Record” Report page 5]

“DOJ’s Transparency about Christopher Steele

Far from “omitting” material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, (footnote 17) DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias.  DOJ explained in detail Steele’s prior relationship with and compensation from the FBI; his credibility, reporting history, and source network; the fact of and reason for his termination as a source in late October 2016; and the likely political motivations of those who hired Steele.

DOJ was transparent with the Court about Steele’s sourcing:  The Committee Majority, which had earlier accused Obama Administration officials of improper “unmasking,” faults DOJ for not revealing the names of specific U.S. persons and entities in the FISA application and subsequent renewals.  In fact, DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting U.S. citizen information by purposefully not “unmasking” U.S. persons and entity names, unless they themselves are the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.  DOJ instead used generic identifiers that provided the Court with more than enough information to understand the political context of Steele’s research. 

In an extensive explanation to the Court, DOJ discloses that Steele, “was approached by an identified U.S. Person,(“Glenn Simpson”, Footnote 18), who indicated to Source #1[Steele](Footnote 19) that a U.S.-based law firm (“Perkins Coie,” Footnote 20) had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia.(“Donald Trump” Footnote 21)  (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship.)  The identified U.S. Person hired Source #1 to conduct this research.  The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia.  The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” (Footnote 22- Entire preceding paragraph is from the actual Department of Justice, Foreign Intelligence Court Application, October 21, 2016, pp. 15-16, n. 8. Repeated in subsequent renewal applications.)”

[End of Minority Report]

Before discussing the “likely looking” smoking gun lie, a glimpse at some of Schiff’s legal analysis actually implicates Schiff himself in the criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States government.  Take his “unmasking” argument.  Schiff legally compares the unmasking of an incidental U.S. citizen who has been ensnared in a FISA surveillance with an actual all-too-willing U.S. citizen volunteer of “counterintelligence” information to the FBI.  To conflate the FISA civil rights protections of an incidentally surveilled US citizen with a domestic U.S. citizen and political organization who both knowingly and willingly paid for Kremlin-derived political dirt is, at best, a legal fraud. 

There is absolutely no FISA application legal cause to unmask the incidentally taped US citizen who was not the counterintelligence target.  But, if a US citizen is actively paying Russian Kremlin sources for grossly political dirt, and knowingly and intentionally involving himself into a counterintelligence investigation, it is vital for the FISA court to know everything about him to assess the actual motivation behind creation of the proffered information, most especially his name.  Here, Schiff actually asserts, that the FBI/DOJ “purposefully” failed to unmasked Glenn Simpson, his firm, and most importantly his client - the Clinton Campaign.  This is such a purposeful material omission that it should be seen as a prima facie Federal crime.

For Schiff to claim the FBI/DOJ was protecting “sources and methods” by not disclosing the Clinton and DNC political source is ludicrous.  You protect the sources and methods of a “sleeper cell” in deep cover in the Kremlin because the sleeper agent will be captured by Russia.  Here the Clinton Campaign and DNC were in no danger of anything but well-deserved political embarrassment for intentionally providing the US government with lies and falsehoods.  Here, the Kremlin was explicitly and intentionally providing the political lies where the Kremlin powers-that-be were knowingly and purposefully feeding the DNC and Clinton campaign the anti-Trump lies.

And it gets worse for the Obama DOJ/FBI criminals.  The Schiff memo shows that the Steele “explanatory” paragraph was only in a “footnote” of the FISA application.  How do we know it was only referenced in a footnote in the FISA Top-secret application?  Because the Schiff “Footnote 22” states the cited paragraph was found at “pp.15-16, n. 8.”  “n. 8” means that the paragraph was in Footnote “8” at pages 15-16.  That  means the FBI/DOJ lie that no one could ever conclude was really the Clinton Campaign was hidden in a densely typed Footnote “8” making it highly unlikely anyone would even see it.

The heart of the matter is that on October 21, 2016, the date of the FISA Page application, the DOJ and FBI clearly knew Glenn Simpson was an immediate proxy and paid agent of the Clinton Campaign and the DNC. 

Their FISA application footnoted and underlined statement that “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person[Glenn Simpson] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s [Trump’s]campaign.” is not only a sin  of omission, but an actual knowing and intentional perjury.  The FBI/DOJ knew that Simpson was a Clinton Campaign paid-agent who wasn’t “likely looking” for political dirt to discredit Candidate Trump, but  was single-mindedly, at any cost, 100% looking for any lie that they could find to discredit Candidate Trump. 

The FBI/DOJ’s knowingly withholding this vital information about the real source of the financing of the Steele Memo from the FISA court, and lying about it in Footnote “8” implicate numerous Federal crimes that require an immediate appointment of a Federal prosecutor.

It is clear why the Republicans voted unanimously to release the Schiff “Rebuttal”: It contained the actual smoking gun text of the October 21, 2016 FISA application itself.  Schiff has unwittingly provided the public with the documentary evidence that proves the DOJ/FBI Obama lackeys committed federal crimes in their attempt to acquire the “insurance policy” that could destroy the Trump Administration. 

If the October 21, 2016 FISA was a criminal endeavor, then we don’t have merely another Watergate, we have a massive ongoing criminal conspiracy against the United States of America.

Mark Langfan is Chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI) and specializes in security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Kurdish Afrin Falls to Turkey - Uzay Bulut

by Uzay Bulut

To Islamize the powerful European continent, Turkey has been promoting demographic, rather than military, jihad.

  • Turkey Islamized northern Cyprus through a military invasion in 1974. To Islamize the much more powerful European continent, however, Turkey has been promoting demographic, rather than military, jihad.
  • "The places where you work and live are your homelands and new countries now... Drive the best cars. Live in the most beautiful houses. Make five children -- not just three. For you are the future of Europe." — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, 2017.
Yesterday, while many Europeans are still pilloried for viewing mass migration from Muslim-majority countries as a threat to Western culture -- and are still accused of "xenophobia," "Islamophobia" and "fear-mongering" -- the city of Afrin, in the Kurdish area of Syria, fell to Turkey.

At the same time, a prominent Turkish government official has been openly and proudly declaring that the demography of Europe is changing in favor of Muslims.

MP Alparslan Kavaklıoğlu, a member of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the head of the parliament's Security and Intelligence Commission, recently stated:
"The fortune and wealth of the world is moving from the West to the East. Europe is going through a time that is out of the ordinary. Its population is declining and aging. It has a very old population. So, people coming from outside get the jobs there. But Europe has this problem. All of the newcomers are Muslim. From Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. Those who come from these places are Muslim. It is now at such a level that the most popular name in Brussels, Belgium is Mohammed. The second most popular name is Melih [Malih] and the third one is Ayşe [Aisha]."
According to Kavaklıoğlu, if this trend continues,
"the Muslim population will outnumber the Christian population in Europe. This... has increased the nationalistic, xenophobic and anti-Islam rhetoric there. Hence, marginal, small parties have started to get large numbers of votes... But there is no remedy for it. Europe will be Muslim. We will be effective there, Allah willing. I am sure of that."
Kavaklıoğlu is not the first Turkish official to stress the importance of population growth. In 2009, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who was prime minister at the time, called on the public to have at least three children per family. The greater our numbers, he said, "the stronger we will be." Since then, Erdoğan has been trying to encourage Turkish nationals to multiply. In 2013, he reiterated his plea:
"We need a young and dynamic population... Right now, the West is in trouble. But we do not want to put Turkey in the same trouble. I am calling on my country through mothers: Do not take this sensitivity of ours lightly. We need to make this widespread, in waves. We need to make this happen. The [value] of this cannot be measured with money or any other physical wealth."
In 2017, Erdoğan called on Turks residing in Europe to have even more children:
"The places where you work and live are your homelands and new countries now. Lay a tight claim to those places. Open more businesses and enroll your children in better schools. Live with your families in better neighborhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the most beautiful houses. Make five children -- not just three. For you are the future of Europe."

Pictured: Thousands of supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan rally, waving Turkish flags, in Cologne, Germany, July 31, 2016. (Photo by Sascha Steinbach/Getty Images)

Erdoğan is now also saying the same thing to Turks in Cyprus. During a recent meeting with the prime minister and deputy prime minister of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (recognized only by Turkey), Erdoğan reportedly said, "Economic growth happens in parallel with population growth. The population of Greek Cypriots is more than one million. Just make your own population grow."

Turkey already largely Islamized and Turkified northern Cyprus through a military invasion in 1974. The Turkish military terrorized the indigenous Greek Cypriots, causing them to flee to the south. The Turkish government then imported thousands of illegal settlers from Turkey to northern Cyprus, to change the demographic structure of the illegally occupied territories. To Islamize the much more powerful European continent, however, Turkey has been promoting demographic, rather than military, jihad. This attempt by Ankara to guarantee that Muslims outnumber Christians globally has been accompanied by the erection of mosques – "from Europe to Africa, from the Balkans to the Central Asia" -- by Turkey's government-funded Diyanet (Religious Affairs General Directorate).
Whose assessments, then, are liberal Europeans to believe regarding unfettered immigration? Those who consider the mass influx from Muslim countries a threat to liberty and security, or the honest planners and perpetrators of demographic replacement and Islamization?

One only needs to look at Afrin, Cyprus and the appalling human rights record of Muslim-majority societies.

Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist born and raised in Turkey. She is presently based in Washington D.C.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Media using phony polls to force narrative of Trump failure - Brian C. Joondeph

by Brian C. Joondeph

When the standard anti-Trump stories aren’t getting traction, phony polls are how the media can tell the world that everyone hates Trump and wishes he wasn’t the President.

Big media is confused these days. Their go-to story about Trump-Russia collusion is a dead end. The House Intelligence Committee wrapped up their investigation finding, “No evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians."

Trump his hitting his stride, shedding his first year of advisors and cabinet members, adjusting his team as he settles into his job as President. Like a molting snake, shedding its first layer of skin as it grows a new and improved layer. The swamp is beginning to drain as evidenced by Andrew McCabe’s dismissal. More swamp drainage to follow, we hope.

This is not what the media expected. First of all, they did not expect Trump to win the election. Media polls were quite certain Hillary Clinton would be the next President, the only question being the size of the landslide. When Trump did win, the media began a nonstop blitz of negative news about the President, his administration, and his family

Russian collusion, affairs with porn stars, chaos in the White House, the President as an incompetent ignoramus. Nary a positive word with 91 percent of news coverage negative toward Trump.

Obviously, none of this is working. The media can always go back to their standard playbook and pick out a golden oldie – opinion polls. When the standard anti-Trump stories aren’t getting traction, the polls are how the media can tell the world that everyone hates Trump and wishes he wasn’t the President.

The latest poll is from NBC, specifically an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey. CNN provides their interpretation of the poll with this headline, “Trump approval rating improves slightly, but still underwater.”

The guts of the poll show that on March 18, Trump has a total approval rating of 43 percent and a total disapproval of 53 percent. True his rating improved slightly from the last poll of two months ago when he was at 39 percent total approve. And he is underwater by comparing the total approve and disapprove number. So, CNN’s interpretation is technically correct. But let’s look a little deeper at the poll internals, specifically who was polled.

When asked about party affiliation, respondents were classified as “strong”, “not very strong”, or “leaning toward” one party of the other. The numbers are interesting. 41 percent of those polled fall in the Democrat bucket while only 33 percent fall in the Republican camp. This difference of 8 percent in the party affiliation of those polled is quite close to the difference in the poll’s approval-disapproval difference of 10 percent.

What a surprise! Ask your Democrat friends and family if they approve or disapprove of President Trump and virtually all will disapprove. On the Republican side, most will approve, except for the NeverTrump crowd who would be ecstatic if it were a President Bush or Kasich implementing the Trump agenda, but hating the fact that instead it’s some loudmouth from Queens advancing the most conservative agenda since Reagan.

This is reminiscent of opinion polls during the presidential campaign. In mid 2016, I wrote about an ABC News poll gleefully proclaiming a 12 point lead for Clinton over Trump. This survey oversampled Democrats by 12 points, accounting for the poll result. The reality was a dead heat at that time.

This current poll is no different, inaccurately reflecting public sentiment, instead advancing the left-wing media agenda that Trump is unpopular, that Americans regret electing him. Wishful thinking on their part. That question won’t be answered until November 2020 when Americans will decide whether Trump gets another four years or takes the route of Andrew McCabe.

Another way to look at President Trump’s popularity is through Rasmussen’s Daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Rasmussen has the distinction of being one of the most accurate predictors of the 2016 presidential election.

As of March 19, Trump’s total approve number is 47 percent, versus 52 percent disapprove. This is similar to what his numbers have been over the past weeks, hitting a high of 50 percent in late February, but overall hovering in the high 40s.

Big media doesn’t like to cite this poll as it doesn’t fit their narrative, that everyone hates Donald Trump. It’s also interesting to see how the media’s messiah was viewed at a similar point in his presidency, the guy with the sharp crease in his slacks, none other than Barack Obama.

Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll was active during Obama’s years in the White House too, though the media seems unable to do a simple internet search and find these results. How popular was Obama on March 19, 2010, exactly 8 years ago, 14 months into his “fundamental transformation of America”?

Obama’s total approve number was 45 percent, and total disapprove at 55%. Two percent lower approval and 3 percent high disapproval than Donald Trump at a similar points in their presidencies. Obama also hit 50 percent on one particular day but otherwise hovered in the mid 40s.

A few points lower than Trump, but statistically the same. This despite Obama having a strong favorable media breeze in his sails, overwhelmingly positive, while Trump is sailing into a hurricane force headwind of over 90 percent negative coverage.

That’s the real story, that despite an unprecedented propaganda war against the current president by the media and the deep state, he is polling at least as well as Obama was at the same point in his presidency.

Don’t expect NBC, ABC, or CNN to ever report that angle, preferring to emphasize any negative aspect their polls, oversampling Democrats to reinforce their point.

Lastly, speaking of the deep state, 74 percent of respondents in a Monmouth poll, “Believe in a deep state when it is described as a collection of unelected officials running policy.” The same deep state, which included the media, fudging opinion polls to drive the narrative.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Who Are the Jihadists Fighting alongside Turkey in Syria? - Sirwan Kajjo

by Sirwan Kajjo

The remaining 17 groups that make up the Syrian portion of Operation Olive Branch are a combination of Salafist, jihadist and ultra-extremist militants who have been either formed or supported by Turkey at various stages of Syria's seven-year civil war.

In its offensive launched on January 20 against Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, Turkey has deployed more than 25,000 Syrian rebel fighters who have been equipped and trained by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's powerful military.

The offensive, code-named Operation Olive Branch, aims at dislodging the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) from the Kurdish enclave of Afrin. On March 18, Turkish military and allied jihadist rebels took control of Afrin's city center. Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), an insurgent group that has been fighting for greater Kurdish autonomy in Turkey's southeast. Backed by the United States, the YPG has been instrumental in the U.S.-led war on terror in Syria since 2014.

Pictured: Turkish soldiers at an outpost on the Turkey-Syria border. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

Nine days after the start of the operation, the pro-Turkish government website, Suriye Gundemi, published an infographic showing the Syrian rebel groups involved in the Afrin offensive. The website says that three divisions are part of the National Army that is under the command of the Syrian interim government, an anti-Syrian regime body based in Turkey.

This so-called army consists mainly of Islamist militants who were part of the most radical Islamic factions of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) at some point during the Syrian conflict, and was formed only two weeks prior to the Afrin operation. Most of these fighters fled to Turkey after they were defeated in battles across Syria, including in Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Idlib and Hama. While in Turkey, they were recruited by Turkish intelligence agencies to be part of forces invading the Kurdish-held Afrin.

The remaining 17 groups that make up the Syrian portion of Operation Olive Branch are a combination of Salafist, jihadist and ultra-extremist militants who have been either formed or supported by Turkey at various stages of Syria's seven-year civil war. The following is a rundown of these groups:

Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror Brigade
Named after the notorious Ottoman Sultan Mehmed the Conquerer, who ruled in the 15th century and violently conquered Constantinople and Southeast Europe, this ethnic Turkmen group was founded in 2012 at the height of the Aleppo battle. It controlled six districts in eastern Aleppo, imposing a set of sharia (Islamic) laws on local residents. The group commanders were also involved in criminal activities, such as robbery and human trafficking. The group was later embraced by the Turkish government, and thus it participated in Operation Euphrates Shield, another Turkish-led offensive in northern Syria, which ended in March 2017. It has close to 1,000 fighters.
The Sultan Murad Division
An extremist group established by Turkey in 2013, it receives direct financial, military and logistic support from Turkish armed forces. Most of its fighters are ethnic Turkmen. Prior to the Afrin offensive, it was primarily based in the city of Aleppo. The group has been involved in clashes with other rebel groups over revenue sharing of the Bab al-Salameh border crossing when a rival group decided to hand over the crossing to the main Syrian opposition body.
The Hamza Division
Founded in April 2016 in Turkey, it was one of the first Turkish-backed Syrian groups that entered the Syrian town of Jarablus in 2017 alongside the Turkish military. Adopting an extremist anti-Western Islamic ideology, the group strongly believes in the return of Ottoman rule over the entire Middle East.
The Sham Legion
Originally named the Homs Legion, the group that was established in March 2014, has nearly 4,000 fighters, making it the largest force within the Operation Olive Branch. It is a union of at least 19 Islamist groups affiliated with the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group joined other rebel forces in forming the Fateh al-Sham operation center. It has been active in the provinces of Aleppo, Idlib and Homs. The group is currently led by Yasser Abdulrahim, a rebel leader known for changing sides based on funding sources.
The Shamiyah Front
The second largest rebel group participating in Operation Olive Branch, the Shamiyah Front is a union of Islamists and Salafists from Aleppo. Its members are largely remnants of the Nureddine al-Zanki Brigades and other extremist groups that were active in Aleppo in 2015. Supported by Turkey and Qatar, this rebel group believes that jihad is the only path for Syria to become an Islamic emirate governed by sharia law. It has an estimated 3,000 fighters.
The Mountain Falcons (Hawks) Brigade
Named after the Zawiyeh Mountain in the northwestern province of Idlib, the group was active in Idlib's countryside. It was originally part of the Descendants of the Prophet Brigades. It clashed with the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda's Syrian branch, over revenue and power sharing. Defeated by al-Nusra, its members were forced to flee to Turkey, before regrouping and joining the Afrin operation.
Jaysh al-Nasr
The group is made up of smaller groups that operated in Idlib, Hama and Latakia.
Al-Mustafa Regiment
Named after the Islamic prophet Mohammed's title, the faction was founded in June 2016 with the financial and military support of Turkey. It participated in Operation Euphrates Shield.
Islamic Al-Waqqas Brigade
Named after Saad bin Abi Waqqas, a companion of the prophet Mohammed and the 17th person to embrace Islam, the group was formed in early 2016 by the Turkish government. It has nearly 1,000 well-trained fighters.
Turkmen Muntasir Billah Brigade
Named after al-Muntasir bi'llah, the Abbasid caliph who ruled in the 9th century, this Syrian rebel group has embraced a radical Islamic ideology since its inception in February 2014. Based in Aleppo and Raqqa, it has engaged in several battles with Syrian regime troops. The group welcomed the arrival of ISIS in Raqqa and did not attempt to challenge its rule. After Aleppo was retaken by the Syrian military, most of the group's fighters fled to Turkey, where they went through an organizational restructuring. They played a central role in launching Operation Euphrates Shield.
The Suleyman Shah Brigade
Named after Suleyman Shah, the father of Omsan I, founder of the Ottoman Empire, this group was formed in Turkey in April 2016 to participate in Operation Euphrates Shield. Its fighters are largely ethnic Turkmen, with a significant percentage of Sunni Arabs. It is currently led by Mohammed al-Jassim, also known as Abu al-'Amsha.
Samarkand Brigade
Named after the Uzbek city of Samarkand, this is another Turkmen group that was formed by Turkey in April 2016. In its inaugural statement, it said that its main objective was to fight the Kurdish YPG. The group is led by Wael Musa.
The Elite Army, Jaish al-Shamal, Usood al-Fateheen Brigade, Ahrar al-Sharqiya Unit and Al-Awwal al-Magawir Brigade
These smaller groups that were formed in Syria and Turkey. Each group reportedly has 200-300 fighters who are commanded by the Turkish military and larger rebel groups.

Sirwan Kajjo is a Syrian-Kurdish Washington-based journalist and author.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.