Tuesday, December 04, 2018

DEEP STATE          


Mueller’s Intricate Cover Up of Deep State Spying on Trump

RUSH: Michael Cohen has begged a federal judge for mercy after his guilty plea. I should tell you, Paul Sperry, who writes for the New York Post and Real Clear Politics, took a look. He did a deep dive into Cohen’s plea that has been publicized by Mueller. We’ll link to it at RushLimbaugh.com. I’d have to read the whole thing to you, basically get in the weeds, but his conclusion is that this plea deal actually exonerates Trump, but that that’s not the way Mueller is gonna end up reporting this.

Now, Rudy Giuliani is out joining the criticism of Mueller because it’s apparent from Jerome Corsi and Manafort that what Mueller is doing, which we discussed last week, is trying to force people to say what Mueller wants them to say. He’s trying to force people to lie in order to make the case that Mueller wants to make. And Giuliani is now calling Mueller out on this as well. So Cohen apparently has done this. Cohen has apparently told Mueller what he wants to hear about some things, particularly his Trump Tower meeting.

And again, folks, I can’t stress enough here, this is so crucial and so important to illustrate how actually literally bogus all of this is. The original Russian collusion story that the media and the deep state reported for now two years is that the Russians and Trump got together and conspired — they really want to use conspiracy instead of collusion, but they don’t dare. And they haven’t needed to. Collusion people are interpreting it to meet conspiracy anyway. See, conspiracy is a crime. Collusion isn’t. And that’s why they have to be very careful in not using the word “conspiracy” ’cause there isn’t any crime here.

They have literally created the impression in nearly half this country’s population that the Russians tampered with votes and that Trump was aware of it and agreed to let them do it in order to benefit from it, i.e., being elected president, Hillary losing. This is what they made the American people think the Mueller investigation is.

I can’t tell you the number of left-wing Democrats and American leftists, the Democrat voting base who literally to this day still think that’s what all this is and that Mueller has the smoking gun, the silver bullet or what have you. And Mueller doesn’t have anything of the sort because nothing of the sort happened. So now Mueller has got these witnesses and he’s asking them to say various things that may not have happened. Manafort, Jerome Corsi, they’re alleging that this is what Mueller is doing.

And, by the way, the reason I tend to believe it — I don’t know either Manafort or Corsi — but the reason I believe it is because the same people on Mueller’s team did this exact thing during the Ted Stevens trial, the senator from Alaska, and during the Enron trial. They did the exact same thing.

And, in fact, get this! James Comey has been subpoenaed to testify behind closed doors to a House committee. Comey sued! And he got some DOJ lawyers to represent him, trying to shut this down. Now, the DOJ has nothing to say to the Congress. The Congress can do open session or closed session, and there’s nothing, because of separation of powers, that anybody can say about it.

And yet Comey had his lawyers sue on the basis that he didn’t want closed session. He wanted open because he’s afraid, he says, that they’re gonna leak what he says to make him look bad. Imagine that! James Comey, who leaks like a sieve to make everybody else look bad, is afraid he’s gonna get the same treatment, so he wanted an open hearing. And he got some lawyers to go out and sue on that basis.

Now, a bombshell happened that has not hit the Drive-By Media, and it’s from John Solomon who, on Friday, reported that there were at least six different deep state operatives who attempted to infiltrate and set up the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Now, we know of two or three. We know of Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor and his involvement with George Papadopoulos. And we know of Stefan Halper. And we know of the Australian ambassador, John Howard.


Via Skoonj .... 


Skoonj said...

The information about the six spies on the Trump campaign must be coming from somewhere. Solomon isn't making it up and it is extremely important. I suspect Trump himself, or someone close to Trump is now able to put the pieces together and have a cohesive whole. Remember, and Rush talked about this, the spying on him started before he was a candidate. In fact some of it started before he announced, as Trump now knows.

So how did the CIA/DOJ/FBI (and others) target Trump with opposition research so early? Actually, I believe he wasn't the only one targeted, but eventually he was the main target. Remember back in 1996? This from Wikipedia: "The White House FBI files controversy of the Clinton Administration, often referred to as Filegate, arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to FBI security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission." That was Hillary's gig.

There were over 900 files on Republicans, mostly office holders. They were being used by the Clintons as a threat against those Republicans. Does anyone think that went away? No, in fact it has expanded. Want to know why your Republican representative is so gutless? Here is your answer. As an aside, my friend, the late Tony Blankley, who at the time was press spokesman for Newt Gingrich, said he was surprised his file was there as he wasn't an elected official.

Anonymous said...

What would Whitey Bulger have to say about the FBI?

Eskyman said...

Rush has this pretty right IMHO, but there's one slip he repeated twice: as an Australian connection he mentioned John Howard, but the person was actually Alexander Downer. Howard was Prime Minister of Australia until 2007.

Alexander Downer was High Commissioner to the UK from 2014 to 2018 & had his fingers in lots of dirty deals, e.g. he's the guy who gave A$25 Million to the Clinton Crime Foundation, and he's the guy who met Papadoupolous in a bar & traded secrets over drinks to get the ball rolling on this Trump "investigation." He's well known for gaffes, sorta like Joe Biden! (Though as far as I know he's not a pedophile, just a loose cannon.)

Howard was a pretty good PM, he was a bit right-of-center (Australia generally is way Left of the USA) and in my book his only bad spot, which was a doozy, is that he's the guy who put through the Gun "Buyback" which caused crime to skyrocket in Oz, and also led to a lot of new creative statistics so that can't easily be proven.

Many say there hasn't been a mass killing since then, which isn't actually true, though nothing like the Port Arthur Massacre has happened; but then, nothing like that had happened before, either.

Skoonj said...

Eskyman, you killed two birds with one stone. It was Downer, not Howard. And he was High Commissioner, not Ambassador. Virtually every one who talks about him calls him Ambassador. Australia doesn't have an Ambassador to Britain, or need one. Still, considering his high position, it's flat amazing he got involved in the attempted coup/plot against Trump.

oy vey ole' said...

Bongino spells it out in today's episode #864 The Epic Race Against Time to Expose the Truth

Anonymous said...

Australian crime did NOT skyrocket in Australia after the buyback. Guns are largely irrelevant in Australian crime. If the US gun murder rate was the same as the Australian gun murder rate, you would have less than 400 gun murders per annum, not the 13,000 reported by the US CDC.
Most of the 30-40 gun murders that happen here each year are professional criminals taking out the competition. Also, beware of those talking percentages - the normal range of +-5 gives a percentage variation around 20%.

Eskyman said...

Hey, I'm flattered! An certain Mr. Anonymous from Nowhere has "corrected" me, using figures he ̶p̶u̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶t̶ made up all by himself- or was it the liars at Snopes? They're well known for their creative way of ̶f̶i̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ creating "facts."

As Mark Twain warned us, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics." Also, "a lie goes around the world before the truth gets its boots on."


Skoonj said...

oy vey ole', I wasn't able to play the selection. Was I supposed to do something with it first?

Anonymous said...

Dude, I sure hope your argument is based on more than the seriously flawed article you link. First, "[P]rofessor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney," the sole authoritative source quoted in the article shows himself to be a gun grabber of the first order because he also wants to go after ammunition:
[excerpt]"Gun enthusiasts are quite right when they say guns don’t kill–it’s the bullets that kill," Professor Alpers added. "For many years we just focused on the guns and ignored the ammunition that was lying around–now people are starting to realise that ammunition control is just as important."[/excerpt]
If Australian gun owners are stupid enough to put up such a specious argument, they deserve what they get. I, for one, have thousands of mostly wad cutter rounds for my handguns "lying around", and not one of them has gone out and killed anyone. Despite Alpers' lunatic position, it remains a People Problem.
I have to question whether you read the article or just grabbed the headline because it seemed related to the topic at hand. --General Petty Officer Fifth Class Skyhawker Doug

Eskyman said...

@Gen.P.O.5thC.Skyhawker Doug, please let me explain further.

The false statement from Anonymous that I was addressing is "Australian crime did NOT skyrocket in Australia after the buyback." The gun ban DID increase crime in Australia, as that article points out, which is why I linked it; I'd have preferred an article talking about how ordinary crime skyrocketed, not just "gun crime" because most criminals then and now don't use a gun in Oz, that much Anon above got right, but across the board crime went up drastically: muggings, home robberies, store robberies, etc.

The article specifically states: "Australia has seen a rise in gun crime over the past decade despite imposing an outright ban on many firearms in the late 1990s." Then a little further along it gets even more specific: "...gun crimes have spiked dramatically in the Australian states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Tasmania. In Victoria, pistol-related offenses doubled over the last decade. In New South Wales, they tripled. The other states saw smaller but still significant increases." The authoritive source is "an analysis of government statistics conducted by The New Daily," not egghead academics.

From personal experience, because I was living there at that time, I can state that this increase in crime happened in Western Australia too, as common sense would indicate. (Less guns = more crime as Dr. Lott would say.)

You are quite correct: the gungrabbers mentioned in that article are bull goose loonies of the academic variety, who personally believe all kinds of idiotic things that have no basis in fact and are unreasonable on their face; but I wasn't addressing any other arguments than the one brought up, and I certainly wasn't endorsing any of that foolishness or using them as "authoritive sources!"

Perhaps you should follow your own advice: read the article before sounding off.

Anonymous said...

Well, I did read the article but the lunacy uttered by Alpers overwhelmed my brain and erased the first four paragraphs from memory. Or maybe it's FBS (Full brain syndrome). Regardless, we're on the same side and I didn't/don't disagree with anything you wrote. -- General Petty Officer Fifth Class Skyhawker Doug

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.