Fashion

The 45 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump's rambling interview with Sean Hannity – CNNPolitics

The 45 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump’s rambling interview with Sean Hannity – CNNPolitics

(CNN) Evoking the days of the 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump called into Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on Thursday night and the two men spent 45 minutes chatting in what was less an interview and more a sharing of conspiracy theories and reckless rhetoric.
I went through the transcript and picked out the lines you need to see. They’re below. THE POINT — NOW ON YOUTUBE!
In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!
1. “These are people that should be getting Pulitzers, not the ones that got the Pulitzers that got everything wrong.” Trump is referring to two reporters for Fox and another opinion columnist for the Hill newspaper who have reported on stories that he sees as favorable to him. Therefore they deserve Pulitzer prizes. Oh, and also the people who did win Pulitzers ? They got everything wrong! And away we go! 2. “People have been saying this whole — the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about it actually for a long time.” Read More Go on … (Just as an FYI, Trump and Hannity are referring to this piece by opinion writer John Solomon in The Hill newspaper that alleges the Obama White House used Ukraine to push the Russia collusion idea.) 3. “They were the same two, the two lovers that decided to use the FBI server instead of their private so they didn’t get caught. These two were beauties. There is no doubt about it. They were going hog wild to find something about the administration which obviously wasn’t there.” Trump is referring here to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, both of whom worked for the FBI during the 2016 election and sent a series of anti-Trump tweets back and forth . (They were also engaged in an affair.) Trump, Hannity and their world are convinced that Strzok and Page are the leading edge of a “deep state” conspiracy against the President. 4. “Now, she lost and now they are trying to infiltrate the administration to — really, it’s a coup. It’s spying. It’s everything that you can imagine. It’s hard to believe in this country that we would have had that.” A coup! Spying! Worth noting: The “spying” I think Trump is referring to is related to a legal FISA warrant that was approved (and then re-approved three times) on Carter Page who the FBI was concerned was a Russian asset. Donald Trump sent 3 tweets on the Mueller probe Thursday morning. He got (at least) 6 facts wrong. 5. “I don’t know if you remember a long time ago, very early on, I used the word ‘wiretap’ and I put it in Quote: : s, meaning surveillance, spying, you can sort of say whatever if you want.” Trump is referring to tweets he sent in the spring of 2017 in which he accused then-President Barack Obama of ordering a wire-tap on his phone at Trump Tower. Which never happened . 6. “They thought two years ago when I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom, maybe, they — it blew up because they thought maybe I was wise to them or they were caught. And that’s why.” Wait, so Trump accused his predecessor in the White House of spying on him on “a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom?” Sort of a big charge to bring based on that, right? Also, Trump wasn’t “wise to them.” There is zero evidence that Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump’s phones at Trump Tower during the campaign. None. 7. “And you see Comey lied to Congress. Nothing happened. You see him leaking. Nothing happens.” Trump says this a lot. He never offers any specifics of what the former FBI director lied to Congress about. 8. “I want to find out what’s on that server, the DNC server, because that’s the big thing. Nobody has seen that server yet. The FBI didn’t see it, and these are the top people at the FBI where you had absolute dirty cops. These were dirty cops.” No big deal. Just the President of the United States saying that there are “absolutely dirty cops” at the FBI. All normal! 9. “Now, the FBI — I know FBI guys, these are the best in the world.” Wait, but what about the “absolutely dirty cops” that run it? 10. “So, I really say, now we have to get down because this was a coup. This was an attempted overthrow of the United States government.” [narrator voice] It wasn’t. (Related: This is what an attempted overthrow of the government looks like .) 11. “And this was an overthrow and it’s a disgraceful thing. And I don’t — I think it’s far bigger than Watergate.” [narrator voice] It wasn’t. 12. “It’s inconceivable when it goes to Clapper, Brennan, Comey, these people — I would imagine that some other people may be a little bit higher up also knew about it and maybe a lot higher up.” This conspiracy might just go all the way to the top. Which means … [mind explodes] 13. “And you got up to 18, 19, 20, they are all Democrats, many of them made major contributions to the Hillary Clinton campaign.” According to Politifact, there were 13 registered Democrats on the Mueller team. It’s not entirely clear how many of them were “angry.” 14.”It was like a one-sided witch-hunt as I called it.” “One-sided witch-hunt” feels sort of redundant. 15. “He was conflicted for that reason. He also was conflicted because of the fact that Comey and him are best friends.” Comey and Mueller are not best friends . They are acquaintances who have known each other for years because of their shared time in DOJ. And the DOJ itself found that Mueller was not conflicted in any way that would keep him from overseeing the probe. 16. “So, if not best, very close to best. But I would say best friends. You look at pictures of the two of them in the past.” By this definition, if you appear in a photo with someone else, you are best friends. Sorry, that’s just the rule. 17. “We had a nasty business transaction the two of us. I have a nasty transaction with him and then all of the sudden he is my prosecutor. Very, very unfair.” They, uh, didn’t. As Mueller explained in his report , he decided to end his membership with Trump’s country club because his family lived in DC and they weren’t using the club very much. Mueller asked about whether he could get any of his club dues back. That was it. It was not a “nasty transaction.” 18. “Great people that came to Washington, they came to DC to set the world in a very positive way on fire. They wanted to clean things up and do a great job.” I am sure there are some “great people” in all of this. But let’s remember that seven people in Trump’s world pleaded guilty to lying to investigators or other crimes. So the idea that this was a witch hunt that destroyed the lives of great civil servants who were only trying to do good in Washington is a bit of a stretch. 19. “No collusion and also no obstruction, because the statement was made and the attorney general, you know, understood it very well and he read it and he made a decision right on the spot. No obstruction.” To be clear: Mueller documented a number of incidents of potentially obstructive behavior . The idea that Mueller found Trump had committed “no obstruction” is disputed by the text of the report itself . In the report, Mueller makes clear that one of the reasons he did not recommend Trump be charged with obstruction is because under Justice Department guidelines a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime. Therefore, Mueller didn’t even consider it. William Barr, Trump’s hand-picked attorney general, decided to not pursue an obstruction charge. 20. “So, you had no collusion, no obstruction, $35 million spent, and unlimited manpower, woman power, and there is nothing. Nothing.” “(I)f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” reads the Mueller report. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. … Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” — The Mueller Report Don’t tell Donald Trump about Russia’s election interference! 21. “It’s very important for the country to now find out how that whole thing started. And in all fairness to Bob Mueller it started long before he was appointed. This was going on long before that. You understand.” I do! As documented in the Mueller report and in sworn testimony by DOJ officials on Capitol Hill, the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Russian interference began in the summer of 2016 because Australian officials warned their US counterparts that a Trump aide — George Papadopoulos — had been bragging that he knew the Russians had dirt on Clinton. 22. “The first lady and I came down on the escalator on June 16. And this started very shortly after that. It was a disgrace. Disgrace.” It didn’t. Trump’s announcement was the summer of 2015. But, why not repost that amazing moment ? 23. “This was a coup. This wasn’t stealing information from an office in the Watergate apartments. This was an attempted coup.” I’d say this was deeply irresponsible for the President of the United States to repeatedly insist there was a coup against him with absolutely no actual evidence but, well, you already knew that. 24. “He didn’t mention Strzok and Page and McCabe and Comey and the lies and the leaks and overthrow and the whole thing with the Hillary Clinton got a win 100 million to 1, two lovers, two sick lovers, especially the one.” Remember that Mueller’s mission was to detail Russian interference in the 2016 election and the possibility of collusion or obstruction. His task did not include investigating the “two lovers, two sick lovers.” 25.”I’m trying to be very nice and I want to be very tempered, but there are tremendous problems on the other side.” So this is what “trying to be very nice” looks like? Got it! 26. “The fake dossier which even ‘The New York Times’ now says was fake, which, again, I respect that they came out and said it.” The Times story didn’t say the dossier, put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, was “fake,” but rather noted that the Mueller report didn’t validate many of the claims in it. (Worth noting: Trump has spent lots of time insisting the report was a) illegal and b) made up.) 27. “Papadopoulos who nobody knew, and Carter Page, who I actually feel very sorry for. I never met them. But you know, they made him — they used him to try and get — to try and spy on the campaign.” Papadopoulos and Page both worked on the Trump campaign for periods of time. So, there’s that. Then there’s the fact that the FBI didn’t try to get Page to spy on the Trump campaign. They attained a FISA warrant to surveil him. It’s not even close to the same thing. 28. “But to me it seems to be pretty obvious when you look at what happened with Carter Page and it’s — they were spying.” Again: Carter Page was the subject of a FISA warrant . The reason the warrant was approved (and re-approved three times) was because the FBI had sufficient evidence to convince a FISA court judge that Page may have been a Russian asset. 29. “Everything is going to be declassified and more, much more than what you just mentioned. It will all be declassified.” We are going to declassify the hell out of this place! 30. “He is not the brightest light bulb in the group, I don’t think, but he has a name that they know.” Donald Trump has a fire take on Joe Biden, as you might imagine. 31. “We have ordered jets, the likes of which no country has. We have fighter jets, the F- 35, the F-18. We have jets the likes which no country has at all.” The best jets. No one else has these jets. 32.” I can tell you, the bigger the window, the better I did with it.” Donald Trump likes big windows … (in reference to New York City’s plan to cut building emissions ). 33. “People want big windows and now they’re going to take them down to nothing.” Small windows?! What is this, Russia ? 34. “A lot of the wall was, you know, I’m good at this stuff. That’s what I do. We renovated a lot.” Word. Salad. 35. “I watch you and Tucker and I watch Laura and your great guys in the morning with Steve and Ainsley and Brian. Brian came a long way. I kid him but he came a long way, and so many other people.” Three things here: a) Trump watches so much TV b) he refers to a slew of Fox News anchors by their first names and c) Trump thinks Brian Kilmeade came a long way because the Fox anchor now agrees with him all the time. 36. “And a term that, you know, I’m very proud of somebody said which is the best of the names, I don’t know, maybe fake news. Who knows what it is?” So … [looks around] anyone, uh, catch the meaning here? 37. “They are tricky people. But they were fake, they were corrupt.” What Trump is really saying here about the mainstream media is that they didn’t write “nice” stories about him and, therefore, are “fake” and “corrupt.” 38. “I figured at least they would give me, for whatever reason, they would give me great, but they were — I think they were more hostile frankly than CNN, which is hard to believe.” The “they” here is NBC. And Trump’s thought is worth exploring. He believes that because “The Apprentice” ran on NBC for more than a decade, that NBC News would give him favorable coverage. This statement reveals how little he understands how independent journalism does — and should — work. 39. “But we have a fantastic [health care] plan that we’ll be rolling out and subject to us winning back the House, keeping the presidency, which I think we’re going to do. And also obviously winning the Senate.” [ Jim Halpert look straight to camera] There is no plan . 40. “I could have fired everybody. I could have fired Mueller. I could have fired anybody that I wanted to fire, Article 2.” That’s not actually true. Or it’s legally dubious. First of all, Trump wouldn’t be the one directly doing the firing — that would fall to the Justice Department, where Mueller was technically an employee. Department of Justice regulations make clear that a special counsel can only be removed for “good cause,” like misconduct, medical reasons, or violating internal policies. Fact-checking Trump’s claim ‘I never told Don McGahn to fire Mueller’ 41. “I was totally transparent. I didn’t tell anybody you can’t go. I could have. I could have said ‘You are not going to testify. Nobody is going to testify.'” Trump sought to meddle in the Mueller probe on a number of occasions, according to the Mueller report. He tried to remove Mueller. The Mueller report made clear that not only did Trump tell McGahn to get rid of Mueller but, when The New York Times broke that news, he called McGahn into his office again to ask him to issue a statement denying that the incident had occurred. McGahn refused. Trump pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself from the probe. He asked former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to tell Sessions that Mueller’s probe had to be limited to future election interference . 42. “I have known him for a while and he’s a pretty sleepy guy.” Judging from the context here, I think Trump means “dumb” when he says “sleepy.” Because I don’t think he actually believes Biden is narcoleptic. 43. “A lot of people wanted me to take the word ‘sleepy’ to something that rhymes with it. Does that make sense to you? And I thought it was too nasty.” “Creepy?” 44. “He’s got a lot of energy but he has got misguided energy and he’s done very poorly in terms of the Senate.” Bernie Sanders and the case of the misguided energy. 45. “I would hope he would. I hope — I’m rooting for him but he is not going to make it.” The “he” is South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, aka Trump’s favorite candidate. Too bad Mayor Pete’s “not going to make it” to the general election, per Trump. So, yeah, this feels like a good place to end.

The 45 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump’s rambling interview with Sean Hannity – CNNPolitics

(CNN) Evoking the days of the 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump called into Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on Thursday night and the two men spent 45 minutes chatting in what was less an interview and more a sharing of conspiracy theories and reckless rhetoric.
I went through the transcript and picked out the lines you need to see. They’re below. THE POINT — NOW ON YOUTUBE!
In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!
1. “These are people that should be getting Pulitzers, not the ones that got the Pulitzers that got everything wrong.” Trump is referring to two reporters for Fox and another opinion columnist for the Hill newspaper who have reported on stories that he sees as favorable to him. Therefore they deserve Pulitzer prizes. Oh, and also the people who did win Pulitzers ? They got everything wrong! And away we go! 2. “People have been saying this whole — the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about it actually for a long time.” Read More Go on … (Just as an FYI, Trump and Hannity are referring to this piece by opinion writer John Solomon in The Hill newspaper that alleges the Obama White House used Ukraine to push the Russia collusion idea.) 3. “They were the same two, the two lovers that decided to use the FBI server instead of their private so they didn’t get caught. These two were beauties. There is no doubt about it. They were going hog wild to find something about the administration which obviously wasn’t there.” Trump is referring here to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, both of whom worked for the FBI during the 2016 election and sent a series of anti-Trump tweets back and forth . (They were also engaged in an affair.) Trump, Hannity and their world are convinced that Strzok and Page are the leading edge of a “deep state” conspiracy against the President. 4. “Now, she lost and now they are trying to infiltrate the administration to — really, it’s a coup. It’s spying. It’s everything that you can imagine. It’s hard to believe in this country that we would have had that.” A coup! Spying! Worth noting: The “spying” I think Trump is referring to is related to a legal FISA warrant that was approved (and then re-approved three times) on Carter Page who the FBI was concerned was a Russian asset. Donald Trump sent 3 tweets on the Mueller probe Thursday morning. He got (at least) 6 facts wrong. 5. “I don’t know if you remember a long time ago, very early on, I used the word ‘wiretap’ and I put it in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying, you can sort of say whatever if you want.” Trump is referring to tweets he sent in the spring of 2017 in which he accused then-President Barack Obama of ordering a wire-tap on his phone at Trump Tower. Which never happened . 6. “They thought two years ago when I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom, maybe, they — it blew up because they thought maybe I was wise to them or they were caught. And that’s why.” Wait, so Trump accused his predecessor in the White House of spying on him on “a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom?” Sort of a big charge to bring based on that, right? Also, Trump wasn’t “wise to them.” There is zero evidence that Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump’s phones at Trump Tower during the campaign. None. 7. “And you see Comey lied to Congress. Nothing happened. You see him leaking. Nothing happens.” Trump says this a lot. He never offers any specifics of what the former FBI director lied to Congress about. 8. “I want to find out what’s on that server, the DNC server, because that’s the big thing. Nobody has seen that server yet. The FBI didn’t see it, and these are the top people at the FBI where you had absolute dirty cops. These were dirty cops.” No big deal. Just the President of the United States saying that there are “absolutely dirty cops” at the FBI. All normal! 9. “Now, the FBI — I know FBI guys, these are the best in the world.” Wait, but what about the “absolutely dirty cops” that run it? 10. “So, I really say, now we have to get down because this was a coup. This was an attempted overthrow of the United States government.” [narrator voice] It wasn’t. (Related: This is what an attempted overthrow of the government looks like .) 11. “And this was an overthrow and it’s a disgraceful thing. And I don’t — I think it’s far bigger than Watergate.” [narrator voice] It wasn’t. 12. “It’s inconceivable when it goes to Clapper, Brennan, Comey, these people — I would imagine that some other people may be a little bit higher up also knew about it and maybe a lot higher up.” This conspiracy might just go all the way to the top. Which means … [mind explodes] 13. “And you got up to 18, 19, 20, they are all Democrats, many of them made major contributions to the Hillary Clinton campaign.” According to Politifact, there were 13 registered Democrats on the Mueller team. It’s not entirely clear how many of them were “angry.” 14.”It was like a one-sided witch-hunt as I called it.” “One-sided witch-hunt” feels sort of redundant. 15. “He was conflicted for that reason. He also was conflicted because of the fact that Comey and him are best friends.” Comey and Mueller are not best friends . They are acquaintances who have known each other for years because of their shared time in DOJ. And the DOJ itself found that Mueller was not conflicted in any way that would keep him from overseeing the probe. 16. “So, if not best, very close to best. But I would say best friends. You look at pictures of the two of them in the past.” By this definition, if you appear in a photo with someone else, you are best friends. Sorry, that’s just the rule. 17. “We had a nasty business transaction the two of us. I have a nasty transaction with him and then all of the sudden he is my prosecutor. Very, very unfair.” They, uh, didn’t. As Mueller explained in his report , he decided to end his membership with Trump’s country club because his family lived in DC and they weren’t using the club very much. Mueller asked about whether he could get any of his club dues back. That was it. It was not a “nasty transaction.” 18. “Great people that came to Washington, they came to DC to set the world in a very positive way on fire. They wanted to clean things up and do a great job.” I am sure there are some “great people” in all of this. But let’s remember that seven people in Trump’s world pleaded guilty to lying to investigators or other crimes. So the idea that this was a witch hunt that destroyed the lives of great civil servants who were only trying to do good in Washington is a bit of a stretch. 19. “No collusion and also no obstruction, because the statement was made and the attorney general, you know, understood it very well and he read it and he made a decision right on the spot. No obstruction.” To be clear: Mueller documented a number of incidents of potentially obstructive behavior . The idea that Mueller found Trump had committed “no obstruction” is disputed by the text of the report itself . In the report, Mueller makes clear that one of the reasons he did not recommend Trump be charged with obstruction is because under Justice Department guidelines a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime. Therefore, Mueller didn’t even consider it. William Barr, Trump’s hand-picked attorney general, decided to not pursue an obstruction charge. 20. “So, you had no collusion, no obstruction, $35 million spent, and unlimited manpower, woman power, and there is nothing. Nothing.” “(I)f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” reads the Mueller report. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. … Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” — The Mueller Report Don’t tell Donald Trump about Russia’s election interference! 21. “It’s very important for the country to now find out how that whole thing started. And in all fairness to Bob Mueller it started long before he was appointed. This was going on long before that. You understand.” I do! As documented in the Mueller report and in sworn testimony by DOJ officials on Capitol Hill, the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Russian interference began in the summer of 2016 because Australian officials warned their US counterparts that a Trump aide — George Papadopoulos — had been bragging that he knew the Russians had dirt on Clinton. 22. “The first lady and I came down on the escalator on June 16. And this started very shortly after that. It was a disgrace. Disgrace.” It didn’t. Trump’s announcement was the summer of 2015. But, why not repost that amazing moment ? 23. “This was a coup. This wasn’t stealing information from an office in the Watergate apartments. This was an attempted coup.” I’d say this was deeply irresponsible for the President of the United States to repeatedly insist there was a coup against him with absolutely no actual evidence but, well, you already knew that. 24. “He didn’t mention Strzok and Page and McCabe and Comey and the lies and the leaks and overthrow and the whole thing with the Hillary Clinton got a win 100 million to 1, two lovers, two sick lovers, especially the one.” Remember that Mueller’s mission was to detail Russian interference in the 2016 election and the possibility of collusion or obstruction. His task did not include investigating the “two lovers, two sick lovers.” 25.”I’m trying to be very nice and I want to be very tempered, but there are tremendous problems on the other side.” So this is what “trying to be very nice” looks like? Got it! 26. “The fake dossier which even ‘The New York Times’ now says was fake, which, again, I respect that they came out and said it.” The Times story didn’t say the dossier, put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, was “fake,” but rather noted that the Mueller report didn’t validate many of the claims in it. (Worth noting: Trump has spent lots of time insisting the report was a) illegal and b) made up.) 27. “Papadopoulos who nobody knew, and Carter Page, who I actually feel very sorry for. I never met them. But you know, they made him — they used him to try and get — to try and spy on the campaign.” Papadopoulos and Page both worked on the Trump campaign for periods of time. So, there’s that. Then there’s the fact that the FBI didn’t try to get Page to spy on the Trump campaign. They attained a FISA warrant to surveil him. It’s not even close to the same thing. 28. “But to me it seems to be pretty obvious when you look at what happened with Carter Page and it’s — they were spying.” Again: Carter Page was the subject of a FISA warrant . The reason the warrant was approved (and re-approved three times) was because the FBI had sufficient evidence to convince a FISA court judge that Page may have been a Russian asset. 29. “Everything is going to be declassified and more, much more than what you just mentioned. It will all be declassified.” We are going to declassify the hell out of this place! 30. “He is not the brightest light bulb in the group, I don’t think, but he has a name that they know.” Donald Trump has a fire take on Joe Biden, as you might imagine. 31. “We have ordered jets, the likes of which no country has. We have fighter jets, the F- 35, the F-18. We have jets the likes which no country has at all.” The best jets. No one else has these jets. 32.” I can tell you, the bigger the window, the better I did with it.” Donald Trump likes big windows … (in reference to New York City’s plan to cut building emissions ). 33. “People want big windows and now they’re going to take them down to nothing.” Small windows?! What is this, Russia ? 34. “A lot of the wall was, you know, I’m good at this stuff. That’s what I do. We renovated a lot.” Word. Salad. 35. “I watch you and Tucker and I watch Laura and your great guys in the morning with Steve and Ainsley and Brian. Brian came a long way. I kid him but he came a long way, and so many other people.” Three things here: a) Trump watches so much TV b) he refers to a slew of Fox News anchors by their first names and c) Trump thinks Brian Kilmeade came a long way because the Fox anchor now agrees with him all the time. 36. “And a term that, you know, I’m very proud of somebody said which is the best of the names, I don’t know, maybe fake news. Who knows what it is?” So … [looks around] anyone, uh, catch the meaning here? 37. “They are tricky people. But they were fake, they were corrupt.” What Trump is really saying here about the mainstream media is that they didn’t write “nice” stories about him and, therefore, are “fake” and “corrupt.” 38. “I figured at least they would give me, for whatever reason, they would give me great, but they were — I think they were more hostile frankly than CNN, which is hard to believe.” The “they” here is NBC. And Trump’s thought is worth exploring. He believes that because “The Apprentice” ran on NBC for more than a decade, that NBC News would give him favorable coverage. This statement reveals how little he understands how independent journalism does — and should — work. 39. “But we have a fantastic [health care] plan that we’ll be rolling out and subject to us winning back the House, keeping the presidency, which I think we’re going to do. And also obviously winning the Senate.” [ Jim Halpert look straight to camera] There is no plan . 40. “I could have fired everybody. I could have fired Mueller. I could have fired anybody that I wanted to fire, Article 2.” That’s not actually true. Or it’s legally dubious. First of all, Trump wouldn’t be the one directly doing the firing — that would fall to the Justice Department, where Mueller was technically an employee. Department of Justice regulations make clear that a special counsel can only be removed for “good cause,” like misconduct, medical reasons, or violating internal policies. Fact-checking Trump’s claim ‘I never told Don McGahn to fire Mueller’ 41. “I was totally transparent. I didn’t tell anybody you can’t go. I could have. I could have said ‘You are not going to testify. Nobody is going to testify.'” Trump sought to meddle in the Mueller probe on a number of occasions, according to the Mueller report. He tried to remove Mueller. The Mueller report made clear that not only did Trump tell McGahn to get rid of Mueller but, when The New York Times broke that news, he called McGahn into his office again to ask him to issue a statement denying that the incident had occurred. McGahn refused. Trump pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself from the probe. He asked former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to tell Sessions that Mueller’s probe had to be limited to future election interference . 42. “I have known him for a while and he’s a pretty sleepy guy.” Judging from the context here, I think Trump means “dumb” when he says “sleepy.” Because I don’t think he actually believes Biden is narcoleptic. 43. “A lot of people wanted me to take the word ‘sleepy’ to something that rhymes with it. Does that make sense to you? And I thought it was too nasty.” “Creepy?” 44. “He’s got a lot of energy but he has got misguided energy and he’s done very poorly in terms of the Senate.” Bernie Sanders and the case of the misguided energy. 45. “I would hope he would. I hope — I’m rooting for him but he is not going to make it.” The “he” is South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, aka Trump’s favorite candidate. Too bad Mayor Pete’s “not going to make it” to the general election, per Trump. So, yeah, this feels like a good place to end.

Once a white supremacist, always a white supremacist?

Once a white supremacist, always a white supremacist? Social Sharing The National Once a white supremacist, always a white supremacist? How a deadly attack on a Sikh gurdwara sparked an unlikely friendship between two men, one Sikh and one skinhead, and a mission to fight racism. Social Sharing How an unlikely friendship between a Sikh man and a skinhead sparked a battle against racism CBC News · Posted: Apr 27, 2019 4:00 AM ET 27 Arno Michaelis has taken a vocal stand against racism, but as a young man growing up in Milwaukee he was a white supremacist. ‘In the movement I was a big deal,’ he says. ‘I was the lead singer of Centurion. I was one of the first Hammerskins, I was reverend in racial holy war. People seemed to respect me or were afraid of me.’
They never repaired the bullet hole.
On Aug. 5, 2012, a white-supremacist gunman stormed into the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin and opened fire.
Satwant Singh Kaleka, the president and revered leader of the gurdwara in Milwaukee, took five bullets in his torso when he confronted the shooter and tried to stop him.
“My father died a heroic death. He died fighting against a racist gunman,” says his son Pardeep Singh Kaleka.
“He died in the place that he helped build. He might have lost that fight, but we continue on in that battle.”
After the shooting, Milwaukee’s Sikh community decided not to fix the damage done to the doorframe by one of the gunman’s bullets.
Instead, they installed a small plaque below it that reads: “We are one.”
“I think there is a beauty to our painful history,” Kaleka says. “We are going to be resilient through all of this. ‘We are one’ are also the first words in our scripture.” A small plaque below the bullet hole left in a doorframe by a gunman’s attack on the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in Milwaukee reads, ‘We are one.'(Nick Purdon/CBC) Searching for answers
In the days after the shooting, Kaleka says he did all the things he imagined his father would have done.
He helped members of the congregation with their funeral arrangements. He became a spokesperson for his community.
But above all, he tried to make sense of the events of that day. Six people were killed and four wounded before the shooter turned the gun on himself. Pardeep Singh Kaleka’s father, seen in the photo on the wall behind him, was murdered by a white-supremacist gunman.(Nick Purdon/CBC)
“We weren’t surprised that a white supremacist would do something like this,” Kaleka says. “It just hurt because people were trying so hard to become part of the American fabric, and to be told that you are not American enough — hurts.
“I wanted to know why the shooter did what he did,” Kaleka adds. “Why did he come to that temple on that day, on that morning, and kill the people that he did?” Arno Michaelis, white supremacist
What Kaleka didn’t know was that someone else in Milwaukee at that time was also desperate to find out more about the killer.
On the evening of the attack, when it was announced that the shooter was a white supremacist, Arno Michaelis was ashamed and worried.
Michaelis had been a leader in the white power movement in Milwaukee.
“In so many ways this guy was exactly who I used to be,” he says. For seven years as a young man, Arno Michaelis lived and breathed violence. ‘When you practice hate and violence,’ he says ‘things like love and kindness and compassion and forgiveness, all the aspects of being a human being, are not only foreign to you – they are repulsive to you.’
“I lay awake that night thinking [what] if it was someone that I recruited or someone that I knew from back in the day. I had this really sinking feeling from the get-go that I had something to do with this.”
That’s because for seven years, Michaelis had lived and breathed racism.
He was a founder and leader of a worldwide skinhead movement. He sang in a popular white power band.
It was music that got Michaelis involved in white supremacy when he was 16.
“The lyrics were about race and nation and blood and soil, and all these really seductive themes that Adolf Hitler used to corrupt the minds of so many Germans back in the ’30s and ’40s,” he says.
“To me, all that language resounded with me. I didn’t really care about anything up until then.”
In those days as a young man, Michaelis says he radiated hostility. He explains how he was always trying to recruit people to his movement. Former white supremacist Arno Michaelis describes how he used to constantly be on the lookout for new recruits, sounding people out to see if he could persuade them to join his group.0:36
Michaelis doesn’t shy away from admitting what he did. In fact, he says he wants people to know exactly what a white supremacist is capable of.
“I don’t know how many times there were 10 of us walking down a street, and if we saw one lone guy and it was a just target of opportunity, we’d just jump on him and beat the mess out of him. Leave him a bloody pulp,” Michaelis says.
“Sometimes it was because they were black, sometimes we thought they were gay, and we’d just jump on them and brutally beat them and leave them for dead.”
Michaelis adds that his white power group had plenty of guns in those days, because they were preparing for a race war they believed was imminent. If he hadn’t left the movement, Michaelis wonders if one day he might have gone into a place of worship and killed people.
“Had I continued down that path, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that the ideology would have made me so miserable that nothing but homicide followed by suicide seemed to make sense,” he says. Birth and re-birth
What Michaelis says saved him was the birth of his daughter.
“By that time I had lost count of how many friends had been incarcerated,” he says. “And it finally hit me that if I don’t change my ways, then death or prison is gonna take me from my daughter.” In 1994 Michaelis found himself a single parent to his 18 month old daughter.(Michaelis family)
Michaelis left the movement. He took a job as a computer programmer.
He believed he’d left the world of white supremacy behind.
But when the shooting happened at the Sikh temple, his past came back — the shooter was a member of the same racist group Michaelis helped start.
“I certainly felt a real urgent responsibility because of the actual hands-on role that I had in bringing that group to life,” Michaelis says. Once a white supremacist always a white supremacist?
Meanwhile, Pardeep Kaleka, still trying to understand his father’s murder, did something that would change his life.
Searching for answers, he contacted Michaelis.
“I just thought he might know the shooter,” says Kaleka. “And he might be able to get into the intricacies of the day or the day before, and why he chose that place.
“I was really just looking for an explanation.”
Kaleka spoke to Michaelis a few times on the phone before they decided to meet at a nondescript Thai restaurant in downtown Milwaukee. Kaleka and Michaelis still eat regularly at the Milwaukee restaurant where they first met. ‘A lot of people think ‘oh they get together every once in a while and do a talk,” Kaleka says. ‘But we are genuine friends. My kids know him as uncle Arno. His daughter knows me as uncle Par. He is an amazing friend and an amazing brother.'(Nick Purdon/CBC)
“There was a part of me that was like, ‘what am I doing?” Kaleka says. “Because part of you thinks ‘once a white supremacist always a white supremacist.'”
The two men sat down together. They made small talk, and then Kaleka asked Michaelis the question that had been eating at him.
“When I asked Arno ‘why did the shooting happen,’ he responded quite simply: ‘hurt people hurt other people,'” says Kaleka.
“He was honest, saying he didn’t know who the shooter was, but that the shooter was very much who he used to be,” Kaleka adds. An unlikely friendship
Against all odds, Kaleka and Michaelis formed an unlikely friendship.
“We talked a lot about our dads,” Michaelis says. “And we talked a lot about our daughters. And we found out, as we are sharing stories, about how similar not only our loved ones were, but how similar we were.”
They committed to working together to stop the racist violence that had brought them together. Today Kaleka and Michaelis run an organization called Serve2Unite, where they promote compassion and inclusion.(Nick Purdon/CBC)
“People oftentimes ask me, ‘Why did you do that?'” Kaleka says. “The main reason I did that was to understand why people do what they do — and the more important thing, what are we gonna do about it?”
“I knew right there that Pardeep was gonna be an important part of my life,” Michaelis says.
Today Kaleka and Michaelis have created an organization called Serve2Unite that works with young people and educational institutions to cultivate compassion and inclusion.
They travel the world telling their story of how friendship overcame hate, and they meet hundreds of people — students, politicians — and push them to take action against racism. In shadow of 2012 U.S. terrorist attack, former white supremacist and Sikh bring message of unity to Calgary
“Dad’s life was one of connection and it was one of love,” Kaleka says.
“And I look at me and Arno’s journey together as an extension of that love. The lasting message from what happened on Aug. 5 is NOT going to be the shooter’s rampage.” A Sikh man becomes the unlikely friend of a former white supremacist in the wake of a cold-blooded attack in Wisconsin in 2012. Now they travel the world trying to stop hate.11:24
Nick Purdon and Leonardo Palleja

I tried Joanna Gaines’ favorite $4 eyeliner — and I’m obsessed

Get Stuff We Love Subscribe to our newsletter. SUBSCRIBE July 31, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC / Updated April 26, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC / Source: TODAY By Julie Pennell At TODAY we take care to recommend items we hope you’ll enjoy! Just so you know, TODAY may get a small share of the revenue.
Using interviews with specialists, online reviews and personal experience, TODAY editors, writers and experts take care to recommend items we really like and hope you’ll enjoy! TODAY does have affiliate relationships with various online retailers. So, while every product is independently selected, if you buy something through our links, we may get a small share of the revenue.
READ MORE I love all things Joanna Gaines. From her interior design ideas and her recipes to her cool casual personal style , she’s someone I feel like I could be friends with.
In fact, the former “Fixer Upper” star is one of the few celebs I feel is just like me: a simple everyday girl who would probably rather spend Friday nights at home with her family instead of getting glammed up to go out somewhere fancy. (Though when she does get dolled up for a big event , she manages to look just as effortless.)
And, it looks like we also have something else in common now: we both love the same $3 eyeliner.
Revlon Colorstay Eyeliner Pencil, $4, Amazon
Revlon Colorstay Eyeliner Pencil “My absolute favorite eyeliner ever,” one reviewer wrote.
$3.62 Amazon $5.97 $6.41 Walmart $4.99 Target Here’s how it happened: I was sipping coffee watching TODAY one morning when I caught a segment on celebrities’ favorite beauty products . That was when I found out Joanna, who in my opinion has some of the most flawless bold eye makeup I’ve seen, can’t live without this product.
I’ve always used an $18 eyeliner pencil from another brand, and the one in my makeup bag was basically a stub, so I went to Ulta and ordered the Revlon one.
Then, I fell in love.
While it goes on smoothly and looks great, what I enjoy most is that it has a pencil sharpener attached to it, thus eliminating the need to keep a separate sharpener (and subsequently those annoying black sharpening pieces that fall out of it) in your bag at all times.
Joanna Gaines sports a glamorous smoky eye at the TIME 100 Gala in April 2019. Larry Busacca / Getty Images There’s also a smudger attached to use if you want a more smoky look.
The eyeliner is waterproof and lasts up to 16 hours, according to the company’s description. I can attest that it stays on all day.
Joanna wrote on her blog that this is such a tried and true favorite of hers one the producers of “Fixer Upper” sent her over 100 of them for her birthday last year. While I won’t keep multiples (unless she and Chip want to come over and find more storage space in my bathroom), I will definitely continue buying this product from now on.
For more celebrity favorites, check out:
Even Blake Lively has some go-to drugstore beauty secrets Susan Lucci swears by this $9 baby cream to moisturize her skin The 1 product that makes Brooklyn Decker look like she’s ‘glowing all day’ To discover more deals, shopping tips and budget-friendly product recommendations, download the new TODAY app and subscribe to our Stuff We Love newsletter !

Operation Crossfire Boomerang Begins

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,
From Twitter:
Remember Spying on Trump was called “Crossfire Hurricane” ? Well now it’s renamed to “Crossfire Boomerang”. BOOM. Karma!
From the moment the Special Counsel investigation into Trump-Russia collusion began, we’ve been presented with a portrait of Robert Swan Mueller III as a man of unassailable character, a straight shooter, as impartial as can be. But Mueller was director of the FBI for 12 years (2001-2013), he was the king of the spies.
Does anyone really have the idea that the people who work in US intelligence are the country’s straightest shooters? Not everybody does. For instance, not Mike Pompeo, who bluntly stated: We lied, we cheated, we stole ; It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment .”
So why should we believe Mueller is a man of such unassailable character when he rose to one of the very top ranks in intelligence? It doesn’t make much sense, except of course it’s what politics and media – and intelligence- want us to believe. It may not make sense, but boy, does it work.
And then at some point obviously you have to wonder why Mueller got the Special Counsel job on May 27 2017. Because of that unassailable character, we were told at the time. But if that doesn’t apply to Pompeo, why would it be true of Mueller? And why Mueller while there were strong links to US intelligence that would obviously have to be probed by the counsel (but were not).
That brings us straight to the next question: The main issue, post-report, is not whether Trump tried to stop the Mueller probe. The main issue instead is why it was instigated to begin with. Yes, US intelligence. CIA.
And then there’s yet another question: When did Mueller know there was no collusion? Not just 1 or 2 weeks before presenting his report, that’s for sure.
So when? 6 months ago? A year? Did he ever really think there was collusion? If so, based on what? The almost entrirely discredited Steele dossier? Did he have faith in that? The Mifsud-Papadoloulos-Downer connection ‘engineered’ by CIA asset Stephen Halper? Did he have faith in that? Or was the whole thing goal-seeeked from the start?
It appears very silly to assume that Mueller did not start his job with an agenda, because of the heavy involvement of his former employees and colleagues and his best friend James Comey, whose firing by Trump was one of the main reasons to start the investigation. Sounds like a very hard one to sell, but the media did a great job. Everybody bought into it.
And then the whole thing collapsed. Yes, collapsed. Because this was never about finding the truth, it was always about digging for dirt. On Trump. Think Mueller wasn’t aware of that? I own a bridge….
Mueller was forced to find Trump and his team not guilty on conspiracy or collusion -and obstruction. This is because he would have had to prove this, and couldn’t. But he’s left the accusations against the Russian government and Julian Assange stand. Not because he has evidence for that, but because he doesn’t have to prove them.
Nobody believes a word any Russian says anymore, thanks to the MSM and US intelligence campaign against them. As for Assange, it’s obvious what Robert Mueller has done. He’s completely ignored the one person who could have helped him find the truth -just not the dirt-. and let him rot in hell. Here’s wishing for that same hell to befall Mueller and all of his family.
There is zero chance that Mueller didn’t know his buddy and successor James Comey prevented Assange from talking with the DOJ in 2017. Neither wanted Assange’s evidence to become public, because that would have killed the Russia narrative as well as the WikiLeaks one. And then what?
Let’s make one thing clear. All that proof of Russian hacking and Russian Facebook ads? It doesn’t exist. The entire story is fictional. How do we know? Because the only source that says it is true is US intelligence. And they can not be believed. As Mueller’s investigation once again shows.
Mueller and Barr, like all of Washington -it’s a bipartisan effort-, want the narrative to remain alive that the Russians hacked and meddled in the US elections in favor of Trump, and that Julian Assange was in cahoots with them. None of which Mueller has any evidence for. And Mueller at all have no problem sacrificing Assange and Chelsea Manning while they’re at it.
Assange is not the only expert source who is silenced. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -VIPS- also can’t get their voice heard. People who ran US intelligence for decades are being silenced by those who succeeded them. As if they don’t exist. As if their expertise is worthless.
The evidence they offer simply doesn’t rhyme with the official narrative promoted by their successors and the CIA and FBI. Remember: Mueller only dropped in his report what he would have had to provide evidence for. The rest is still there, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
One VIPS member is Larry Johnson, “former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)”. Trump referenced him the other day on Twitter:
“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!
And sure enough, the Guardian today described Johnson as a “conservative conspiracy theorist”. This stuff is predictable. But at least we know that while Mueller et al ignore the VIPS, Trump knows at least something about them. A few excerpts of a letter they sent to Trump last week (which he hasn’t seen, undoubtedly):
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President. SUBJECT: The Fly in the Mueller Ointment
[..] the Mueller report left unscathed the central-but-unproven allegation that the Russian government hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails, gave them to WikiLeaks to publish, and helped you win the election. The thrust will be the same; namely, even if there is a lack of evidence that you colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin, you have him to thank for becoming president.
Mueller has accepted that central-but-unproven allegation as gospel truth [..] Following the odd example of his erstwhile colleague, former FBI Director James Comey, Mueller apparently has relied for forensics on a discredited, DNC-hired firm named CrowdStrike, whose credibility is on a par with “pee-tape dossier” compiler Christopher Steele. Like Steele, CrowdStrike was hired and paid by the DNC.
[..] In Barr’s words: “The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.
Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.” We are eager to see if Mueller’s report contains more persuasive forensic evidence than that which VIPS has already debunked.
“But They Were Indicted! “Circular reasoning is not likely to work for very long, even with a U.S. populace used to being brainwashed by the media. Many Americans had mistakenly assumed that Mueller’s indictment of Russians — whether they be posting on FaceBook or acting like intelligence officers — was proof of guilt. But, as lawyers regularly point out, “one can easily indict a ham sandwich” — easier still these days, if it comes with Russian dressing.
The VIPS mention a few times they can’t get heard. They sent Barr a letter 5 weeks ago, and never got an answer. Here they say: “.. specialists will have a field day, IF — and it is a capital “IF” — by some miracle, word of VIPS’ forensic findings gets into the media this time around.”
The evidence-impoverished, misleadingly labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment” of January 6, 2017 had one saving grace. The authors noted: “The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation — malicious or not — leaves a trail.” Forensic investigators can follow a trail of metadata and other technical properties. VIPS has done that.
If, as we strongly suspect, Mueller is relying for forensics solely on CrowdStrike, the discredited firm hired by the DNC in the spring of 2016, he is acting more in the mold of Inspector Clouseau than the crackerjack investigator he is reputed to be. It simply does not suffice for Mueller’s former colleague James Comey to tell Congress that CrowdStrike is a “high-class entity.” It is nothing of the sort [..] Comey needs to explain why he kept the FBI away from the DNC computers after they were said to have been “hacked.”
And former National Intelligence Director James Clapper needs to explain his claim last November that “the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done.” What forensic evidence? From CrowdStrike? We at VIPS, in contrast, are finding more and more forensic evidence that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked by the Russians or anyone else — and that “Guccifer 2.0” is an out-and-out fraud. Yes, we can prove that from forensics too.
No Russian hacking. No Guccifer 2.0. But Mueller mentions both a lot.
Again, if Mueller’s incomplete investigation is allowed to assume the status of Holy Writ, most Americans will continue to believe that — whether you colluded the Russians or not — Putin came through for you big time. In short, absent President Putin’s help, you would not be president.
Far too many Americans will still believe this because of the mainstream-media fodder — half-cooked by intelligence leaks — that they have been fed for two and a half years. The media have been playing the central role in the effort of the MICIMATT (the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank) complex to stymie any improvement in relations with Russia.
We in VIPS have repeatedly demonstrated that the core charges of Russian interference in the 2016 election are built on a house of cards. But, despite our record of accuracy on this issue — not to mention our pre-Iraq-war warnings about the fraudulent intelligence served up by our former colleagues — we have gotten no play in mainstream media.
Most of us have chalked up decades in the intelligence business and many have extensive academic and government experience focusing on Russia. We consider the issue of “Russian interference” of overriding significance not only because the allegation is mischievously bogus and easily disproven. More important, it has brought tension with nuclear-armed Russia to the kind of dangerous fever pitch not seen since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the Russian provocation was real — authentic, not synthetic.
[..] We recall that you were apprised of that Memorandum’s key findings because you ordered then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to talk to William Binney, one of our two former NSA Technical Directors and one of the principal authors of that Memorandum. On October 24, 2017, Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney by explaining the genesis of the odd invitation to CIA Headquarters: “You are here because the president told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you.”
[..] Binney, a plain-spoken, widely respected scientist, began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. [..] As we told Attorney General Barr five weeks ago, we consider Mueller’s findings fundamentally flawed on the forensics side and ipso facto incomplete. We also criticized Mueller for failing to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.
You may be unaware that in March 2017 lawyers for Assange and the Justice Department (acting on behalf of the CIA) reportedly were very close to an agreement under which Assange would agree to discuss “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” in the leak of the DNC emails and agree to redact some classified CIA information, in exchange for limited immunity. According to the investigative reporter John Solomon of The Hill, Sen. Mark Warner, (D-VA) vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, learned of the incipient deal and told then-FBI Director Comey, who ordered an abrupt “stand down” and an end to the discussions with Assange.
Why did Comey and Warner put the kibosh on receiving “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” [read Russia]? We won’t insult you with the obvious answer.
Assange is now in prison, to the delight of so many — including Mrs. Clinton who has said Assange must now “answer for what he has done.” But is it too late to follow up somehow on Assange’s offer? Might he or his associates be still willing to provide “technical evidence” showing, at least, who was not the culprit?
VIPS can’t get their voices heard. Everyone ignores them. These are highly experienced veterans of US intelligence, whose successors, and politics, and media, simply act as if they don’t exist. And while it’s curious to see how they go out of their way NOT to create the impression that Mueller makes his “mistakes” on purpose, the gist is just that.
What this adds up to is not just that Mueller has come up with nothing in his $20-30-50 million investigation, but that he has purposely left things in his report that he has no evidence for but also doesn’t have to prove , because those he accuses cannot defend themselves. Note also that Mueller has never indicted Assange, he has only smeared him.
Mueller doesn’t just have nothing, he has less than nothing. What is left of his “findings” once the collusion and obstruction elements are gone, are things that either he himself (his team) or US intelligence has concocted out of thin air. And have you seen even one ‘journalist’ who has questioned these fantasies?
I see only ‘reporters’ more than willing to heap their own fiction on top of the report’s. They’ll grudgingly accept there’s no collusion only to run away with what can still be construed as obstruction, but not a single one questions the Russian hacking or emails or Facebook ads anymore or Assange’s involvement, though Mueller offers zero proof for any of these things. Ditto for Guccifer 2.0.
The GRU (Main Directorate of the General Staff of Russian Armed Forces, formerly the Main Intelligence Directorate) is a very advanced operation. When they hack something they leave no traces. US intelligence is just as capable of leaving GRU “traces” as the GRU itself is of NOT leaving them. The CIA is not smarter than the GRU. That’s what we’re looking at here.
How many Americans do you think there are who think this is the way to conduct investigations ostensibly aimed at truth-finding? You know, if only they knew?!
The only thing perceived as reality in America today is a bunch of fantasies designed to hide the truth. What truth there is, is left to rot in hell. What a place -and time- to live.
* * *

Leave a Reply

Instagram