Welcome to the World of Pulitzer Prize Winning Political Cartoonist Michael P. Ramirez
History of Intelligence 02-16-17
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FINALLY SCORES!
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 BY JOHN HINDERAKER POWERLINE
I have been reading for many years that the CIA is more formidable in Washington infighting than anywhere else. Is there a penalty for rarely seeing what is right around the corner? One might think that is the job of an intelligence agency, but somehow repeated failures have only resulted in larger budgets. While many individual agents are undoubtedly conservatives, the careerists who run the CIA have long been liberals, associated for the most part with the Democratic Party. No doubt that has benefited them in budget battles, but not so much when it comes to doing their jobs.
Michael Ramirez comments sardonically. He actually is rather kind; he could have included a number of other failures, such as the intelligence community’s misjudgment with regard to Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs. But when it comes to political infighting, the CIA is still strong.
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 BY JOHN HINDERAKER POWERLINE
I have been reading for many years that the CIA is more formidable in Washington infighting than anywhere else. Is there a penalty for rarely seeing what is right around the corner? One might think that is the job of an intelligence agency, but somehow repeated failures have only resulted in larger budgets. While many individual agents are undoubtedly conservatives, the careerists who run the CIA have long been liberals, associated for the most part with the Democratic Party. No doubt that has benefited them in budget battles, but not so much when it comes to doing their jobs.
Michael Ramirez comments sardonically. He actually is rather kind; he could have included a number of other failures, such as the intelligence community’s misjudgment with regard to Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs. But when it comes to political infighting, the CIA is still strong.
Separating Fact From Innuendo in the Flynn Fiasco
FEB 17, 2017 5:00 AM EST Eli Lake BLOOMBERG
After getting a lot of flak over my last column on the political assassination of Michael Flynn, I'd like to clear something up about national security leaks. I am in favor of them. What's more, I oppose the rigorous enforcement of the outmoded laws meant to protect state secrets, particularly if that involves monitoring or investigating reporters.
The issue with the ouster of Flynn as national security adviser is not the mishandling of classified information, despite some of President Donald Trump's tweets about it. It's about Flynn's detractors selectively disclosing to the public the communications of U.S. officials, and how this represents a chilling abuse of power.
The backdrop to this is all the open questions about how Russia influenced the last election, and whether Trump's associates colluded in this operation. That is a necessary investigation. If Trump and his advisers had anything to do with that, it's a high crime.
The good news is that the FBI, in conjunction with the intelligence community, is now probing the matter. So is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There is also renewed momentum for a more formal independent commission to examine all of this as well. That's important.
But it's worth asking at this point, what any of this has to do with Flynn? He failed to give all the details of some December phone calls with the Russian ambassador, but at no point has he been accused of working with Russia in its campaign to hack leading Democrats, distribute their e-mails on the internet or sabotage the election in less grotesque ways. While others in Trump's orbit are allegedly being investigated for this (including his former campaign manager Paul Manafort), the Washington Post has reported that Flynn is not a target at this point of an FBI probe.
So what law did Flynn violate? According to the New York Times, he may have violated the Logan Act, an antiquated statute that prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign adversaries. The Times reported that Obama administration advisers believed Flynn may have negotiated a deal with Russia just after Obama had imposed new sanctions and expelled Russian spies as punishment for Moscow's interference in the election. On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that he may have misled FBI agents investigating the phone calls.
There are a few important points here. To start, there is no indication that Flynn made any quid pro quo with the Russians. The Times reports this, and I have confirmed it with my own sources. Second, the Logan Act, which dates back to 1799, is likely unconstitutional. The Justice Department does not prosecute Americans violating it. And in this case, the private citizen was about to become the national security adviser. If it's illegal for incoming U.S. officials to discuss policy with foreign adversaries, then the hard work of preparing the transition of a foreign policy agenda for an incoming administration will be outlawed. The FBI investigation is more serious, but so is disclosing the bureau's ongoing investigations to the press. ~Read More~
FEB 17, 2017 5:00 AM EST Eli Lake BLOOMBERG
After getting a lot of flak over my last column on the political assassination of Michael Flynn, I'd like to clear something up about national security leaks. I am in favor of them. What's more, I oppose the rigorous enforcement of the outmoded laws meant to protect state secrets, particularly if that involves monitoring or investigating reporters.
The issue with the ouster of Flynn as national security adviser is not the mishandling of classified information, despite some of President Donald Trump's tweets about it. It's about Flynn's detractors selectively disclosing to the public the communications of U.S. officials, and how this represents a chilling abuse of power.
The backdrop to this is all the open questions about how Russia influenced the last election, and whether Trump's associates colluded in this operation. That is a necessary investigation. If Trump and his advisers had anything to do with that, it's a high crime.
The good news is that the FBI, in conjunction with the intelligence community, is now probing the matter. So is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There is also renewed momentum for a more formal independent commission to examine all of this as well. That's important.
But it's worth asking at this point, what any of this has to do with Flynn? He failed to give all the details of some December phone calls with the Russian ambassador, but at no point has he been accused of working with Russia in its campaign to hack leading Democrats, distribute their e-mails on the internet or sabotage the election in less grotesque ways. While others in Trump's orbit are allegedly being investigated for this (including his former campaign manager Paul Manafort), the Washington Post has reported that Flynn is not a target at this point of an FBI probe.
So what law did Flynn violate? According to the New York Times, he may have violated the Logan Act, an antiquated statute that prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign adversaries. The Times reported that Obama administration advisers believed Flynn may have negotiated a deal with Russia just after Obama had imposed new sanctions and expelled Russian spies as punishment for Moscow's interference in the election. On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that he may have misled FBI agents investigating the phone calls.
There are a few important points here. To start, there is no indication that Flynn made any quid pro quo with the Russians. The Times reports this, and I have confirmed it with my own sources. Second, the Logan Act, which dates back to 1799, is likely unconstitutional. The Justice Department does not prosecute Americans violating it. And in this case, the private citizen was about to become the national security adviser. If it's illegal for incoming U.S. officials to discuss policy with foreign adversaries, then the hard work of preparing the transition of a foreign policy agenda for an incoming administration will be outlawed. The FBI investigation is more serious, but so is disclosing the bureau's ongoing investigations to the press. ~Read More~
Our good friend Roman Genn is one of our favorite fine artists and he has created a limited print of his brilliant watercolor seen on the Jan. 23rd issue of the National Review magazine. It's called Outta Here, and is limited to only 100 signed and numbered fine giclee prints. It is conveniently sized at 12 x 16, with the image measuring 9 x 12 inches. We love the fact that Roman immigrated to the United States in 1991 after a storied career in Moscow as a teenaged political activist who used his art to protest the Soviet system. Read more about Roman HERE.
Click here or on Image to purchase (may take a few minutes to load).
Click here or on Image to purchase (may take a few minutes to load).
Join our friend Dave Sussman at WhiskeyPolitics.net for coverage of CPAC 2017 held in Washington D.C. Feb. 22-26. Dave will be talking to the movers, shakers and opinion makers and reporting back here as well his website and Ricochet.com. For Dave's interview with our own Michael P. Ramirez, please click HERE
Time To Really Drain The Swamp
WILLIAM JURS 02/17/2017 DAILY CALLER
So Trump has waded into the swamp, new galoshes on, digging tools and materials in hand, a winning smile, and high hopes for the commencement of draining. He thought he might even find a few toads to kiss behind closed doors, like the old days of smoke-filled rooms, arm-twisting and DC deal-making.
Instead, his cigar is soaked, the soggy match won’t light, and he’s gotten a real whiff of the odor. Now the swamp creatures nip at his ankles, and the mosquitoes have proceeded to drain him.
Let’s call it a honeymoon in the tropics, and move on. But how might the four year marriage of Trump and Swamp proceed? One way or another, it will be draining.
The US government, far from consisting of the three traditional branches of government taught in civics texts, actually consists of large, career class of federal bureaucrats, congressional aides, judicial underlings, and other mandarins that fill the ranks of state beneath the shifting political appointees and figureheads of departments.
One segment of the permanent government that inhabits the swamp, year in, year out, as presidents and their staffs come and go, is the national security state, Intelligence community, the strong arm of the deepest reaches of financial, banking, corporate and military-industrial power.
They have their foreign policy preferences, and will try to take down any executive who gets in the way, whether for profit or misplaced patriotism.
So how does a new Sheriff ride into town and do anything, when spooks and hacks are surveilling his activity and selectively leaking info to Swamp press organs, and withholding other intelligence from the president and his staff?
He can’t, unless he can cobble a popular majority, and pick a side in the internecine intrigue within the Deep State itself, imbue it with his program, and twist the arms of Congress to carry out the core of his agenda.
The Deep State will either co-opt Trump or be co-opted by him: on trade, on borders, on foreign policy. It is time for Trump to plot a three dimensional chess strategy for the draining.
Trump, perhaps sensing this, is again going to take his case directly to the people. Hopefully he speaks on the matter of these leaks and their true motivation, to a crowd of Americans tired of it all, becoming wiser to it all, confused and divided, but still enthusiastic about their new President. ~ Read More~
WILLIAM JURS 02/17/2017 DAILY CALLER
So Trump has waded into the swamp, new galoshes on, digging tools and materials in hand, a winning smile, and high hopes for the commencement of draining. He thought he might even find a few toads to kiss behind closed doors, like the old days of smoke-filled rooms, arm-twisting and DC deal-making.
Instead, his cigar is soaked, the soggy match won’t light, and he’s gotten a real whiff of the odor. Now the swamp creatures nip at his ankles, and the mosquitoes have proceeded to drain him.
Let’s call it a honeymoon in the tropics, and move on. But how might the four year marriage of Trump and Swamp proceed? One way or another, it will be draining.
The US government, far from consisting of the three traditional branches of government taught in civics texts, actually consists of large, career class of federal bureaucrats, congressional aides, judicial underlings, and other mandarins that fill the ranks of state beneath the shifting political appointees and figureheads of departments.
One segment of the permanent government that inhabits the swamp, year in, year out, as presidents and their staffs come and go, is the national security state, Intelligence community, the strong arm of the deepest reaches of financial, banking, corporate and military-industrial power.
They have their foreign policy preferences, and will try to take down any executive who gets in the way, whether for profit or misplaced patriotism.
So how does a new Sheriff ride into town and do anything, when spooks and hacks are surveilling his activity and selectively leaking info to Swamp press organs, and withholding other intelligence from the president and his staff?
He can’t, unless he can cobble a popular majority, and pick a side in the internecine intrigue within the Deep State itself, imbue it with his program, and twist the arms of Congress to carry out the core of his agenda.
The Deep State will either co-opt Trump or be co-opted by him: on trade, on borders, on foreign policy. It is time for Trump to plot a three dimensional chess strategy for the draining.
Trump, perhaps sensing this, is again going to take his case directly to the people. Hopefully he speaks on the matter of these leaks and their true motivation, to a crowd of Americans tired of it all, becoming wiser to it all, confused and divided, but still enthusiastic about their new President. ~ Read More~
Michael's books - Click to purchase from Amazon
  |
  |
When President Obama’s National Security Advisor Lied, The Media Laughed
It’s somewhat ironic that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Michael Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor.
By Julie Kelly THE FEDERALIST
FEBRUARY 17, 2017
Buried deep beneath the Michael Flynn hysteria this week was Judicial Watch’s release of newly obtained State Department documents related to the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. One email confirms—again—that the Obama administration knew the day after the attack it was not a random act of violence stemming from an anti-Muslim video. That was the excuse shamefully propagated by top Obama administration officials (including the president himself) and swallowed whole by a media establishment desperate to help Obama win re-election six weeks later.
According to the summary of a call on September 12, 2012 between State Department Under-Secretary Patrick Kennedy and several congressional staffers, Kennedy was asked if the attack came under cover of protest: “No this was a direct breaching attack,” he answered. Kennedy also denied the attack was coordinated with the protests in Cairo over the video: “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”
It’s somewhat ironic—galling?—that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor. It begs for a little trip down memory lane, to a kinder, gentler time when the media gave a great big pass to another national security advisor in the days after four Americans, including an ambassador, were murdered in Libya by Islamic terrorists under her watch.
Lying to Us Only Matters If We Dislike You
Fun fact: While Trump press secretary Sean Spicer fielded 55 questions on February 14 related to the Flynn debacle, Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney received only 13 questions from reporters on September 12, 2012, three of which were set-ups to blast Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration after the attack. 55 to 13.
So as we now suffer through yet another patch of media mania, conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about how Trump hearts Russia, as well as the daily beatings endured by Spicer, let’s reminisce to when the media and Obama’s press flaks spun, deflected—even joked about golf and “Saturday Night Live!”—less than a week after Benghazi. ~Read More~
It’s somewhat ironic that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Michael Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor.
By Julie Kelly THE FEDERALIST
FEBRUARY 17, 2017
Buried deep beneath the Michael Flynn hysteria this week was Judicial Watch’s release of newly obtained State Department documents related to the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. One email confirms—again—that the Obama administration knew the day after the attack it was not a random act of violence stemming from an anti-Muslim video. That was the excuse shamefully propagated by top Obama administration officials (including the president himself) and swallowed whole by a media establishment desperate to help Obama win re-election six weeks later.
According to the summary of a call on September 12, 2012 between State Department Under-Secretary Patrick Kennedy and several congressional staffers, Kennedy was asked if the attack came under cover of protest: “No this was a direct breaching attack,” he answered. Kennedy also denied the attack was coordinated with the protests in Cairo over the video: “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”
It’s somewhat ironic—galling?—that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor. It begs for a little trip down memory lane, to a kinder, gentler time when the media gave a great big pass to another national security advisor in the days after four Americans, including an ambassador, were murdered in Libya by Islamic terrorists under her watch.
Lying to Us Only Matters If We Dislike You
Fun fact: While Trump press secretary Sean Spicer fielded 55 questions on February 14 related to the Flynn debacle, Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney received only 13 questions from reporters on September 12, 2012, three of which were set-ups to blast Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration after the attack. 55 to 13.
So as we now suffer through yet another patch of media mania, conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about how Trump hearts Russia, as well as the daily beatings endured by Spicer, let’s reminisce to when the media and Obama’s press flaks spun, deflected—even joked about golf and “Saturday Night Live!”—less than a week after Benghazi. ~Read More~