The long-delayed release of testimony from the House Intelligence Committee has proved embarrassing for a variety of former Obama officials who have been extensively quoted on the allegedly strong evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians. Figures like James Clapper, who is a CNN expert, long indicated hat the evidence from the Obama Administration was strong and alarming. However, in testimony, Clapper denied seeing any such evidence. One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion.
Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated
“was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill… Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.”
MSNBC never seriously questioned the statements despite the fact that Farkas left the Obama Administration in 2015 before any such investigation could have occurred. As we have seen before, the factual and legal basis for such statements are largely immaterial in the age of echo journalism. The statement fit the narrative even if it lacked any plausible basis.
Not surprisingly, the House Intelligence Committee was eager to have Farkas share all that she stated she “knew about [“the Trump folks”], their staff, the Trump’s staff’s dealing with Russian” and wanted to get “into the open.” After all, she told MSNBC that “I knew that there was more.”
She was finally put under oath in the closed classified sessions and there was nothing but classified crickets. Farkas was repeatedly asked to share that information that electrified the MSNBC hosts and audience. She repeatedly denied any such knowledge, telling then Rep. Trey Gowdy (R, S.C.), “I didn’t know anything.”
Gowdy noted that Farkas left the Obama administration in 2015 and asked “Then how did you know?” She repeated again “I didn’t know anything.”
Gowdy then asked “Well, then why would you say, we knew?”
He also asked
“You also didn’t know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, did you?” Gowdy later asked, getting to the point.
“I didn’t,” Farkas responded.
MSNBC has said nothing about its prior headline story being untrue. Indeed, the media has barely acknowledged that the new documents reinforce that there was never any evidence of collusion and ultimately the allegations were rejected by the Special Counsel, Congress, and inspectors general.
For her part, Farkas has moved on. She is running for Congress. She is still citing her role in raising “the alarm” about Russian collusion:
“After I left the Obama administration, I campaigned to help elect Secretary Clinton as our next President. When Russians interfered in that election, I was among the first to sound the alarm and urge Congress to take action. And I haven’t let up since then.
She was indeed one of the first but it proved to be a false alarm based on nonexistent knowledge. Does that matter anymore?
91 thoughts on ““I Didn’t Know Anything”: Former Obama Official Criticized After Classified Testimony Contradicts Her Public Statements”
HOLY COW —
President Trump is on full blown offense. Barack Obama has no idea what’s coming.
He spied on the wrong guy.
Yes, now he is calling it Obamagate.
SAN ANTONIO PASSES RESOLUTION AGAINST HATE SPEECH – Chinese Virus
The resolution is available in the article.
I had a friend who lives in San Antonio call the police department to learn when the resolution would apply and what they would do about it.
The response was vague but he suggested that if someone said ‘Chinese virus’ and someone else felt uncomfortable then the police would respond to a call and investigate.
Hate Speech is hardly definable under these terms and, in any event, is not illegal. What is likely illegal is the San Antonio resolution.
Even if no charges are filed, a visit by armed officers will certainly chill speech, as it is intended to do. It likely will also open the city up to civil damages.
What were they thinking?
That law would clearly be unconstitutional.
Well, the lying twit deserves her own Irish Poem. She was probably lying or she may have been covering up for someone. Either way, she is lying.
Stick A Fark In It???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a liar named Fark-
Who we find out was kept in the dark!
But Farkas was loath,
To lie under oath,
While on TV, she sure jumped the shark!
Farking Great! Soros doesn’t call her Evil-lying Farkup for nada!
Squeeky – ah, we miss the Fonz in his leather jacket jumping the shark. Good times. 😉
Are you still looking for Obama’s birth certificate? Let us know where you are on that.
Hutom– Why did Obama spend millions in court to prevent anyone from seeing his birth certificate?
Why did Governor Abercrombie who was Obamie’s friend fail to find the certificate in Hawaii’s records?
Odd but genuine questions.
Gators make terrible liars, I see. How do all these nihilists have jobs. A union, maybe?
I lasted thru 1 minute and 20 seconds of that until I was about to throw up. Ewww! Queers!
To the Democrats, up and down the line in the Obama administration, Republicans are evil. They may be the only evil entities left in the world for there’s nothing evil about Castro, Chavez, or terrorists, but anyone who believes in conservative or religious dogma are the personification of evil in our world. Evelyn Farkas may not have known the details of the evil ways of the incoming administration, but she knew they were Republicans and therefore inherently evil. That was enough for her to know that the means justified the need to stop them from inflicting evil upon our nation and the world. When intelligent Democrats, like JT, express shock and dismay at the actions of elected and nominated Democrats, I think they assign their thoughts and goals to these people. When they encounter true evil in our world, such as a person who believes in supply side economics, or an administration that might try to reverse their legislation, it’s a philosophical parallel to worst atrocities in human history to them, and they will use any means to stop them. I know JT was an Obama supporter, but I don’t think he knew the full breadth of what he was supporting.
You make some really good points. There is not a reasoned-argument vs. reasoned-argument thing going on between Right and Left. It is reasoned-argument vs. quasi-religious faith on the Left.
Older Democrats are still going on about “Republicans are the party of the Rich!” years after finding out Hillary made gazillions giving speeches to Wall Street, and Obama selling out to Wall Street in 2009.
There is a lot of mental illness on the Left, and I am not just saying that as pejorative. They really do accept they can bring in millions of illegal cheap laborers and still claim they want to help poor black people. Or that your sex is a subjective thing and biological men should be able to compete in women’s sports.
Yes, Squeeky Fromm, and the left chides the right for being hyper-religious automatons who eagerly await our marching orders. I don’t know about you but I’ve met far more diversity on the right than I ever have on the left. As far as party of the rich, me thinks it rich when the rich (female dog) about the rich. Hyper libs Aerosmith came out with a song called Eat the Rich shortly after signing a 40 million dollar contract with Sony, and as you say Hillary and the Obamas are always hating the rich when they have more money than 97% of us. (The Clintons are no longer obscenely loaded after Hillary lost her path to influence in ‘16.) BytheBy Ms. Fromm, I look forward to you replies, hilarious poems, et al. on this blog.
Get a load of that BOTOX stare
where are all these Democrats getting their Botox injections done during our supposed “lockdown?”
Enquiring minds want to know
I’ll add that “The long-delayed release of testimony from the House Intelligence Committee has proved embarrassing” for A.G. Barr as well. For example, see this commentary from Mary McCord re: “Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth” (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opinion/bill-barr-michael-flynn.html ) and her released testimony: https://www.dni.gov/files/HPSCI_Transcripts/2020-05-04-Mary_McCord-MTR_Redacted.pdf
To be honest, I’m puzzled that you’re more concerned about Farkas’s public statements than about a legal motion filed by the government. And it’s not as though the misrepresentation that McCord notes is the sole problem with the recent motion. For example, the motion claims “This crime, however, requires a statement to be not simply false, but ‘materially’ false with respect to a matter under investigation.” However, 18 U.S. Code § 1001 doesn’t require that it be “a matter under investigation,” only that it be a “matter within the [agency’s] jurisdiction.”
Also keep in mind that these transcripts may still have redacted sections (as with McCord’s transcript), and we have no way to determine what those sections may reveal about “evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians.”
Get out a here with all that law stuff! This is a virtual lynching posse, not a legal forum!
This blog is no longer a law site. It’s PR operation for Barr and Trump. Twist any law upside down and inside out and you get Turley’s view of law under Trump.
FishWings, are you saying that Turley is out of line for discussing the fact that former Obama officials went on the news and claimed to have knowledge of evidence of collusion, and then when put under oath, denied it?
If so, why? Is your reason that it’s detrimental to the Democratic Party? Because you are on a legal blog complaining about the topic at hand, which is factual and not disputable.
You are also fully aware that Professor Turley routinely criticizes President Trump. Why do you say things that aren’t true? Repeating propaganda for the cause?
Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the GW Law faculty in 1990, and in 1998, became the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history.
He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). He has written more than three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals including those of Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, and Northwestern Universities, among others. He most recently completed a three-part study of the historical and constitutional evolution of the military system.
Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades, including his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former U.S. Attorney Generals during the Clinton impeachment litigation. Professor Turley also has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases.
He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He also is a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country.
He is a member of the USA Today board of contributors and the recipient of the “2005 Single Issue Advocate of the Year” – the annual opinion award for the Aspen Institute and The Week magazine. More than 400 of his articles on legal and policy issues regularly appear in national newspapers. He also has worked as the CBS and NBC legal analyst, respectively, during national controversies.
— From his university bio
Turley deserves modest respect from people who disagree with him, not constant slanders. you impeach yourself with your own strident remarks
JT’s abandonment of even a pretense of objectivity and balance, as well as his constant repeating of false statements – no, “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russians has not been disproved, no, the Logan Act is not unconstitutional, no, Bernie did not have the 2016 Primaries stolen from him, etc, etc – warrants scorn from those who would like to see some of that supposed intelligent and fair analysis on this blog.
The Dims play everything right down the middle, bookworm. They set the rules, we’re just better at the game.
Talk about being played: the Trump camp has gotten you to buy into the “us vs. them” narrative, plus the notion that all this is just a “game”. Tell that to someone who has lost a loved one to COVID-19. 90% of COVID-19 cases could have been prevented but for Trump’s incompetence, but, hey, he plays a better game. So…keep blaming “the Dims”, “the Libs”, “the Left”, and the MSM.
JT does what lawyers and law profs are trained to do: to marshal facts, reasoning and legal citations to support his arguments.
You OTOH simply string together naked and unsupported assertions and think you’ve made a slam-dunk.
Name one “analyst” on television today who offers ‘even a pretense of objectivity and balance’ AND refrains from ‘constant repeating of false statements.’ Name one.
In other words, you will be hard-pressed to find a more fair and balanced and objective ‘analyst’ than Turley. Try real hard to name one.
Is that supposed to be a defense of JT? Really?
I don’t follow any particular “analysts on TV today” so you got me there. Maybe his ‘constant repeating of false statements.’ is SOP.
There was no ‘collusion.’ Catch up.
Kurtz, why anonymous? Just like to prop up the numbers.
“abandonment of even a pretense of objectivity and balance”? That’s a patently false statement. Professor Turley routinely criticizes President Trump when he feels it warranted.
The fact that you cannot stand Turley remarking on anything that benefits Trump is purely partisan.
How rude and dishonest. You seem to be petulantly making it up at this point.
Karen, Farkas did not claim to be anything other than what she was. A citizen who was a Russia expert who had not worked in the administration since 2015, long before any investigations were begun and even before any alleged collusion between the Russians and Trump – PS JT is wrong again that it has been proved there was none and he knows better or is worse than what he accuses here. This is non-event that demonstrates JTs total buy in for Trump propaganda.
Yes, she did. She literally did, which was the subject of this blog post. She claimed to know about evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. That’s what she said when she went on TV and said that Congress had to act or Trump would hide it.
Her statements were why she was called to testify under oath. JT remarked on her exit in 2015, and wondered why the journalists who bought her story didn’t question it.
When you have to rely on a series of misstatements, you must not believe in your own position. Else why utter untruths?
what does Fish know about law anyhow
It’s actually a law site that is perverted by a bunch of progressives like you that know next to zero but mouth off a lot. One can always tell your type. You have no facts and can’t respond to any that are brought up.
Turley is one of the most knowledgeable lawyers whether one agrees with his opinion or not. Since he is center left I often have disagreements with him but right now he is responding to officials, many of whom are lawyers themselves, that have broken the law. Simple minded people get angry at him for attacking those that are lawless.
Guess you’ll be leaving on principle then since are a principled person. Right?
Don’t be absurd. A lynching posse is mob justice that circumvents the law.
What this is about is trying to make the law apply equally, and ferreting out wrongdoing.
Wait. Is your position that you think it’s possible that these officials said, repeatedly, under oath, that they had no knowledge of Trump colluding with Russia, whatsoever, but you think a redacted section would have the same people saying, just kidding, he really did it?
Because in order for that to be true, they would have had to lie under oath. They were explicitly asked if they had any knowledge, at all, and the answer was no.
The reason why you hold out hope when all is lost, is because you have been conditioned, for years, to think that Trump colluded with Russia. It was a lie. Russia sold a false dossier to Hilary Clinton in order to throw the country into disarray. Your continuing to cling to the belief that Russian propaganda was true makes you unwittingly aid Russia.
All you’ve heard on the news was false. Russia succeede in destabling our country. It is very difficult to undo brainwashing when the media, Hollywood, and friends and family keep reinforcing the disinformation.
The facts don’t say what you want them to. That’s difficult, but there is no changing it.
“Is your position that you think it’s possible that these officials said, repeatedly, under oath, that they had no knowledge of Trump colluding with Russia, whatsoever, but you think a redacted section would have the same people saying, just kidding, he really did it?”
Of course not. Which is why I neither said nor implied that.
By “these transcripts,” I’m referring to the entire collection, which includes over 50 transcripts: https://intelligence.house.gov/russiainvestigation/
You say “these officials said, repeatedly, under oath, that they had no knowledge of Trump colluding with Russia, whatsoever,” but I doubt that you’ve read through those dozens of transcripts to know which of these people “said, repeatedly, under oath, that they had no knowledge of Trump colluding with Russia” and which didn’t, though of course I could be wrong about that.
How many of those transcripts have you actually read?
Also, the interviewees weren’t limited to “officials,” so I’m not sure whether you’re referring to a subset or simply calling them all “officials” even if they aren’t.
“They were explicitly asked if they had any knowledge, at all, and the answer was no.”
According to you, how many of the interviewees said this and how many didn’t? As a simple example, if you think Mary McCord said that, please **quote** where you think she said it (the link to her transcript is above).
“The reason why you hold out hope … Your [sic] continuing to cling to the belief … The facts don’t say what you want them to …”
Please don’t assume facts not in evidence or pretend that your beliefs about me are knowledge. The only evidence you have about my beliefs are what I’ve written, and what I’ve written doesn’t state what you’ve projected onto me.
Sorry, I mixed up McCord’s 302 (a redacted version of which was released earlier: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.4.pdf ) and her HPSCI testimony (just released). Her 302 is more relevant to the Barr/Shea motion. My mistake.
Thanks Commit. Interesting read and a part with McCord’s NYTs piece today.
You’re welcome. I’m curious to see how Judge Sullivan responds.
What a perfect little demon in the rough! Farkas would make a perfect companion to Seth Warner/Peter Shill and bythebullsh!t here! And, they could probably give her lessons on lying with a straight face!
It’s ironic that you write this column on public misrepresentation while yourself misrepresenting things in your claim “the media has barely acknowledged that the new documents reinforce that there was never any evidence of collusion and ultimately the allegations were rejected by the Special Counsel, Congress, and inspectors general.”
The SCO report did not assert anything close to “there was never any evidence of collusion.” The report rarely referred to “collusion” because “collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law” (p. 180). The SCO absolutely did find evidence relevant to conspiracy (e.g., “the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign,” p. 173), but concluded that it was not sufficient to **charge** anyone with conspiracy (e.g., “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election,” p. 9). Similarly for other relevant crimes, such as “the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals” (p. 185); there was evidence, but they judged it insufficient to bring charges. The report also noted that “the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference” (p. 9). Similarly, the investigation found considerable evidence of obstruction of justice. There is no way to tell whether they would have found sufficient evidence to bring conspiracy charges had it not been for the lies and obstruction impairing the investigation. And of course, other lawyers — in reading the report — believed that there was sufficient evidence to bring conspiracy charges.
You present zero evidence that “the allegations were rejected by … Congress, and inspectors general,” and you should know full well that many members of Congress don’t reject the allegations, though clearly other members do reject them.
You also quote Farkas saying “When Russians interfered in that election, I was among the first to sound the alarm and urge Congress to take action,” but you then falsely claim “She was indeed one of the first but it proved to be a false alarm.” In no way was there a false alarm about Russian interference. Russia DID interfere, and multiple government entities — including the ODNI and the Senate Intelligence Committee — have addressed this.
OK, I’m your huckleberry! What exactly did the Russians do to interfere in our election???
There are multiple government reports on this. Here are two volumes from the Senate Intelligence Committee:
And here are two more, from the ODNI and the SCO:
Read to your heart’s content.
“Read to your heart’s content.”
I did. Then, I read the newspaper. The Russian interference was so awful the DOJ dropped the indictments against them. LOL
Hey, do you have a brother-in-lies named Bookworm?
None of that refutes what I said, which was “Russia DID interfere, and multiple government entities — including the ODNI and the Senate Intelligence Committee — have addressed this.”
You’ve attempted to move the goalposts, a common logical fallacy.
For the record, though, there was more than one indictment of Russians, and they weren’t all dismissed. If you want to understand why the case you cite was, you can read the explanation in the motion: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6811273-200316-Concord-Motion-to-Dismiss.html
“None of that refutes what I said, which was “Russia DID interfere”
That is correct. The Steele Dossier came from digging dirt.
“Podesta testimony: Hillary Clinton knew in 2016 about Russia dirt digging on Trump
Former Clinton campaign chairman talks about how DNC, Clinton campaign funded research”
Oughta Be Committed:
ALL of which refutes what you said. The 13 indictments of Russians were face saving for the bumbling Mueller team just like indicting the 12 Russian intelligence officers was. There’s a better chance of trying the 12 Apostles than those guys. Simply put there has been no proof presented in court that the Russians did anything. It’s all surmise since Hillary and a crooked FBI refused to examine the DNC server that CrowdStrike claims proves it. Last time I checked, CrowdStrike nor the 3 intelligence services affected (not 13) doesn’t allow cross examination. So the evidence of Russian interference via hacking Podesta’s computer in only in the hands of those who benefit from undermining the POTUS. Funny how that isn’t persuasive.
You call me “Oughta Be Committed,” but my name is “CommitTo HonestDiscussion,” and I *am* committed to honest discussion. *You* ought to be committed to honest discussion as well. Your name-calling doesn’t advance honest discussion, and since I also see you doing this a lot with others, this will be my last response to you. I choose not to continue discussions with people who choose to be either uncivil or dishonest.
Your claim “ALL of which refutes what you said” is nonsense. I said and implied nothing about court cases, so “there has been no proof presented in court …” doesn’t refute what I actually said, which — again — was “Russia DID interfere, and multiple government entities — including the ODNI and the Senate Intelligence Committee — have addressed this.” I already substantiated my *actual* claim by providing links to the ODNI’s report, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, and the SCO report, and you haven’t bothered to quote a single thing from any of them that you believe to be false, much less have you “refuted” them.
You claim “there has been no proof presented in court that the Russians did anything” and later refer to “cross examination [in court],” as if court is the only place that evidence is presented or examined/disputed. But of course, courts are not the only place that evidence of a claim can be presented or examined/disputed. If you look at all true claims in the world, only a tiny fraction have evidence presented/examined in court. As a simple example, this column where we’re commenting draws on evidence from transcripts of testimony in Congress. But I don’t see you claiming that Turley has been refuted because of a lack of “proof presented in court” about Farkas’s HPSCI testimony. Do you believe that the only evidence that matters in the world is evidence presented in court? If so, that’s a strange belief, and if not, that undermines your argument that all of this revolves around evidence presented in court. And if you’re now going to suggest that the HPSCI allowed cross-examination under oath, the same is true for congressional cross-examination of the people testifying about Russian interference.
Your claim that “a crooked FBI refused to examine the DNC server” suggests that you don’t understand the use of forensic imaging — byte-for-byte copies of hard drives and memory — in cybercrime investigations (here’s some background about how the FBI deals with electronic evidence: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ssmanual2009.pdf ).
The FBI did create and examine forensic images. Just how do you think the FBI determined the information they presented in this indictment: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download ? And your use of the singular “server” suggests that you don’t even know that over 140 servers were involved and that you ignore the evidence of 2016 Russian cybercrime involving the GOP. And of course, the Russian interference wasn’t limited to cybercrime. As the DNI noted, “Russian Campaign Was Multifaceted: Moscow’s use of disclosures during the US election was unprecedented, but its influence campaign otherwise followed a longstanding Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or ‘trolls.’ … Russian influence campaigns … use a mix of agents of influence, cutouts, front organizations, and false-flag operations” (p. 2). Earlier, you said “I did [read the Senate Intelligence Committee, DNI and SCO reports to my heart’s content].” Perhaps your heart is content with minimal reading, as you’re ignoring most of what those reports contain.
You are the most DISHONEST person of all the commenters on here 25/8. You, Buythebullsh!t, Anon, jinn, couldnt impress anyone even if you posted all of the names of NYC telephone directory.
At least Paint Chips does nails on the side for honest wages
“You are the most DISHONEST person of all the commenters on here”
I invite you to quote something I wrote that you believe is false and present valid evidence (not just an opinion) that it’s false.
If I’ve said anything that’s incorrect, I’d like to correct it.
But you simply spouting off that you think I’m dishonest yet not presenting a shred of evidence is pretty worthless as a claim.
My guess: you disagree with my views, and you dislike that I back up my claims with actual evidence, and you’re just griping.
And just to be clear: I’m not trying to “impress” anyone. I’m trying to have an honest discussion with people, even if we disagree.
“My guess: you disagree with my views, and you dislike that I back up my claims with actual evidence, and you’re just griping.”
You back up your claims with trivialities.
I don’t wanna read a bunch of crap. I am lazy. Tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS what the Russians did.
“I don’t wanna read a bunch of crap. I am lazy.”
“Tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS what the Russians did.”
LOL that you want me to do it for you because you’re too “lazy” (your word) to do it yourself. Sorry, but I have better things to do with my time.
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,
Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,
Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,
Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,
Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
James E. Boasberg et al.
Crazy to the rescue — only Sessions deserves an annotation? Your ❤️ just isn’t in it, you can do better.
Comments are closed.