AGENTS PROVOCATEUR: DID COMEY’S INFORMANTS FABRICATE RUSSIAN COLLUSION EVIDENCE?

In our nation’s worst governmental scandal, Watergate, the Federal Bureau of Investigation heroically kept widespread White House corruption from being concealed, eventually reviving important prosecutions. Sadly, in today’s increasingly convoluted moral universe, senior FBI officials, it now appears, have tried to artificially create serious “Russiagate” crimes, thereby becoming implicated in a scandal promising to be nastier than Watergate. Congress presently awaits DOJ documents which may or may not confirm what presently seem reasonable inferences of such FBI wrongdoing.

In Watergate, the White House and senior DOJ officials attempted to limit the investigation to the seven arrested members of the burglary team caught penetrating the DNC Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building. Deputy Associate FBI Director Mark Felt, to prevent the FBI from becoming complicit in a politicized investigation, met with the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward to avoid this corruption through public exposure. The FBI deserves its honor as the unsung hero of Watergate, refusing to become politicized.

However, one perverse lesson of Watergate is that Felt would have received great perks and personal laurels if he had gone along with the corrupt political program. Heeding a lesson not intended by Felt, FBI Director James Comey engaged in acrobatic contortions during the 2016 election to help presumed President-Elect Hillary Clinton to escape serious criminal charges in the email and related obstruction probes. But this blatant politicization pales in comparison to emerging evidence that Comey’s team, working with John Brennan’s partisan CIA, and partnering with British intelligence agency GCHQ, had attempted to fabricate serious Trump-Russia electoral interference crimes akin to treason.

The ”Russian collusion” inquiry began in December 2015 (not, as claimed, on July 31, 2016), with a tip from GCHQ to Brennan that Putin wished to financially support a Donald Trump presidential candidacy. Nothing has yet emerged, in subsequent FISA warrant applications or elsewhere in leaks, to suggest that the tip was anything but phony. But on December 28, 2015, after Brennan had hurriedly formed a special “inter-agency” group, one of Comey’s top aides Peter Strzok was attempting to get approval for “LUREs,” Fedspeak for spies, inferentially to penetrate the Trump campaign. All of this would have been well and good if there had been a solid basis to suspect criminal activity by the Trump campaign. But, it now appears, rather than dismiss the inaccurate tip as disinformation, the FBI tried to manufacture evidence where none had existed, hoping real wrongdoing would eventually be found. Thus started an investigation without a crime, long a Comey specialty.

Soon a seeming British plant (associated with UK’s Claire Smith) with Russian connections, Joseph Mifsud, became greatly interested in London-based George Papadopoulos after he was named a Trump advisor on Russian issues in March 2016. Mifsud, whom we should now view as wearing an FBI uniform through his sponsor GCHQ, told Papadopoulos days later of Russian-hacked Clinton emails, and introduced him ostentatiously to a number of Russians. Because Mifsud could be sold to the public as a Russian agent, given his wide array of Russian connections, when Papadopoulos was later indicted for misstating the timing of his Mifsud conversations, American citizens, understandably, could smell Russian collusion. But it was, it seems now, really interaction with a disguised...

Army: Individual Soldiers Will One Day Control Swarms of Robots

Army robotics officials at Fort Benning, Georgia are trying to give individual soldiers the capability to control swarms of air and ground robotic systems for missions that often require large numbers of troops to accomplish.

U.S. ground forces have used small ground robots and unmanned aerial systems for years, but only on a small scale, said Don Sando, director Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate at Benning.

"To really get a large benefit from robotic systems, we have to break the one-soldier, one-robot link, because right now, you generally need one operator for one robotic system and that is effective and interesting, but when I can have dozens of robotic systems controlled by one soldier, now I have a significant advantage," Sando told a group of defense reporters today on a conference call.

A single soldier could conduct reconnaissance over "large areas with fewer soldiers and many dozens of robotic systems," Sando said.

"That starts to matter especially in conditions such as dense urban environment," Sando said. "The problem with urban environments is they consume soldiers ... limited lines of sight, tunnels, buildings -- all the things that just take manpower to overcome and control.

"If we can expand that with robotic systems, both air and ground, then that has significant impact."

The concept could be developed to enhance communications battlefields when networks are hampered by enemy activity as well as natural obstacles.

"If our communications infrastructure is going to be contested, as we know it will, then how can I regenerate quickly and effectively in a given area with robotic systems, both air and ground, to create that network?" Sando said.

CDID officials are developing a common controller that can control air and...

Morning Mistress

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #302

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside? 

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific, 

from the beautiful to the repugnant, 

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed, 

you could be inspired, you could be appalled. 

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended. 

You have been warned.

Hot Pick Of The Late Night

Germany in the CROSSHAIRS of AMERICAN EMPIRE

Girls With Guns

What Do Democrats Stand For In 2018?

A Garden Must Have Fences...

FBI: Clinton Campaign Official Arrested On Child Rape Charges

One of Hillary Clinton’s campaign officials was arrested Tuesday on child sex abuse charges, the FBI has confirmed.

Joel Davis was caught in possession of explicit child sex images and had attempted to get access to children as young as 2 years old for sex.

Davis was chairman of the International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence in Conflict charity. He also worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He’s with her: Joel Davis worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign

Dailymail.co.uk reports: Davis allegedly told undercover FBI agents that he was sexually interested in children of all ages. He is accused of sending the agents sexually explicit photographs of infants and toddlers, including some of the children engaged in sex acts with adults.

The 22-year-old allegedly arranged to meet the nine-year-old daughter of one of the undercover agents and with the purported two-year-old daughter of the officer’s girlfriend.

He allegedly went into detail in the text messages about what sexual activities he intended to engage in with the children.

Prosecutors say Davis repeatedly asked the undercover agent to take naked and sexually explicit pictures and videos of the children and to send them to him.

Following his arrest, Davis allegedly admitted to officers that he had abused a 13-year-old boy in the past and that he kept child porn images on his phone.

‘Having started an organization that pushed for the end of sexual violence, Davis displayed the highest degree of hypocrisy by his alleged attempts to sexually exploit multiple minors,’ FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said.

‘As if this wasn’t repulsive enough, Davis allegedly possessed and distributed utterly explicit images of innocent infants and toddlers being sexually abused by...

The U.N. Human Rights Council Is Confused...

They have been a bad joke for a long time now...

UNIONS STOPPED ADVOCATING FOR WORKERS AND BECAME A POLITICAL ARM OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LONG AGO

The ruling in Janus v. AFSCME demonstrates the political divisions in our nation. At some point, we stopped talking to each other and started blaming each other. Unions are wrong to condemn the right to work lobby and influential laws firms like the Fairness Center without looking inward first. This may seem like a strange statement coming form a union boss, however the right to work lobby didn’t have standing to bring a case against a union without a client.

Can you name one employee or union member that would have an issue with a union advocating for better pay, benefits and working conditions? Such advocacy is supposed to be the goal of any union. Unions were once the protectors of middle class workers for issues concerning employment. Now we find them at the front of every social issue. This has resulted in leaving behind the very workers who pay dues for representation at work. Janus, Friedrichs and a host of other litigants were not created by the right. They were pushed from the left. Today, with the polarization in politics, many unions have moved away from being issue advocates and are now closer to being the political arm of the Democratic Party. This is not the only reason for the shift and focus on litigation against unions.

As with any bureaucracy the larger they become the further away from the core mission they seem to move. Soon the bureaucracy is more about protecting itself over protecting the rights of its members. We cannot sacrifice the individual in the interest of collectivism. That does not mean that a union has to sacrifice its goals. The union should always be an issue advocate without regard to political party. I have found most members can respect and reconcile issues even when the union goes against their own political beliefs, however the advocacy has to be based off strictly on the work place. This level of understanding takes proper communication and can only work when the member feels their voice is being heard.

The decision in Janus is narrowly tailored to the issues outlined in the case. The question of full union membership was not before the court, nor was any restriction from the political activity of unions involving full members. The interesting legal aspect in this case is the courts have already ruled that public employees do not have an absolute right when it comes to the first amendment and that a balancing test is required to weigh free speech issues with the government’s interests to deliver services. And now the Supreme Court has established an absolute right under...