Investigation

In what has become an unprecedented partisan abuse of legislative power, the Democrats have made a series of moves intended on undermining the Executive office at the expense of our Constitutional Republic.

In the epicenter of the madness, Washington DC Impeachment zealots are scurrying around the hallowed halls of Congress in a desperate bid to distract the public from the growing panic regarding the Spygate investigation into the Obama Administration, which could pull the rug out from under the Democrats’ chances in the upcoming election.

AP reports, “President Donald Trump on Thursday granted Attorney General William Barr new powers to review and potentially release classified information related to the origins of the Russia investigation…Trump is giving Barr a new tool in his investigation, empowering his attorney general to unilaterally unseal documents that the Justice Department has historically regarded as among its most highly secret.”

Trump explicitly delegated Barr with declassification power — noting it would not automatically extend to another attorney general — and only for use in the review of the Russia investigation. Before using the new authority, Barr should consult with intelligence officials “to the extent he deems it practicable,” Trump wrote in a memo formalizing the matter.

Outside Washington DC, congressional Democrats are wreaking havoc on the future of the Presidential election, whether their constituents want it or not. 18 states are considering bills that would require Presidential candidates to disclose their taxes in order to be on the 2020 election ballot. Out of those 18 States, only Vermont would require candidates for governor and other statewide offices to disclose at least part of their tax returns.

Meanwhile, as the Washington Times reports, the Nevada Senate approved a National Popular Vote bill, intended on undermining the electoral college, which now goes to the Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak’s desk.

“Assembly Bill 186 would bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia.”

Source: InfoWars

Spread the love

President Trump has undoubtedly received the most negative press coverage of any president in American history.

In May, 2017, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard reported that in the first 100 days of his presidency, 80% of the media’s coverage of President Trump was negative, compared to 41% for his predessesor, Barack Obama.

Data Collected by
The Shorenstein Center at Harvard

According to the Harvard report, American journalists are not the only ones unfairly covering the President. According to their report, European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.

It has been a pattern since President Trump was inaugurated well over a year ago. Coverage of the White House on the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — remains 91 percent negative, according to a new study by the Media Research Center, which has been tracking the phenomenon since Mr. Trump hit the campaign trail in 2016.

It was over 90 percent hostile then — and remains so now. The trend is unprecedented, according to the analysis.

The conservative press watchdog monitored nightly evening networks newscasts throughout January and February to find that anchors and correspondents uttered 10 times more negative comments about the president than positive statements. Analysts examined over 500 stories.

Out of a total of 712 evaluative comments made on the air, only 65 were positive, or 9 percent. The rest — 647 comments — were negative, amounting to 91 percent. The ongoing Russia collusion investigation was the leading topic of choice, followed by immigration issues, the recent government shutdown, and the White House response to the Parkland student shooting.

Read More:
https://100percentfedup.com/actor-jon-voight-asks-americans-to-get-behind-trump-president-trump-is-the-greatest-president-since-abraham-lincoln-video/

Spread the love

President Trump has undoubtedly received the most negative press coverage of any president in American history.

In May, 2017, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard reported that in the first 100 days of his presidency, 80% of the media’s coverage of President Trump was negative, compared to 41% for his predessesor, Barack Obama.

Data Collected by
The Shorenstein Center at Harvard

According to the Harvard report, American journalists are not the only ones unfairly covering the President. According to their report, European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.

It has been a pattern since President Trump was inaugurated well over a year ago. Coverage of the White House on the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — remains 91 percent negative, according to a new study by the Media Research Center, which has been tracking the phenomenon since Mr. Trump hit the campaign trail in 2016.

It was over 90 percent hostile then — and remains so now. The trend is unprecedented, according to the analysis.

The conservative press watchdog monitored nightly evening networks newscasts throughout January and February to find that anchors and correspondents uttered 10 times more negative comments about the president than positive statements. Analysts examined over 500 stories.

Out of a total of 712 evaluative comments made on the air, only 65 were positive, or 9 percent. The rest — 647 comments — were negative, amounting to 91 percent. The ongoing Russia collusion investigation was the leading topic of choice, followed by immigration issues, the recent government shutdown, and the White House response to the Parkland student shooting.

Read More:
https://100percentfedup.com/actor-jon-voight-asks-americans-to-get-behind-trump-president-trump-is-the-greatest-president-since-abraham-lincoln-video/

Naresh Goyal, Chairman of Jet Airways speaks during a news conference in Mumbai
Naresh Goyal, Chairman of Jet Airways speaks during a news conference in Mumbai, November 29, 2017. REUTERS/Danish Siddiqui/File Photo

May 25, 2019

(Reuters) – Indian carrier Jet Airways (India) Ltd founder Naresh Goyal and his wife Anita Goyal were stopped from leaving India on Saturday at Mumbai airport, according to an airport official who asked not to be named.

The couple were taken into custody by immigration officers, the Indian Express reported, citing sources.

The airport official did not confirm that the couple had been detained.

It was not immediately clear why the couple had been prevented from traveling, or whether it was related to reported regulatory probes into the airline.

It was not immediately possible to reach either the Goyals or Jet for comment late Saturday.

Local media said the Goyals had been traveling to Dubai for a connecting flight to London.

Local media, citing sources, reported earlier this month that the ministry of corporate affairs had been looking into Jet’s books and had asked for a corporate fraud investigation into the airline, suspecting that its promoters siphoned off funds.

Jet said at the time that it had complied with all regulations. The Goyals did not comment on the reports at the time.

Once one of India’s largest carriers, Jet was forced to ground all flights last month after running out of money and failing to secure funds, crippled by mounting losses as it attempted to compete with low-cost rivals.

The carrier is saddled with some $1.2 billion in bank debt, and Goyal and his wife stepped down from the airline’s board in March amid the crisis.

(Reporting by Maria Ponnezhath, Rajendra Jadhav, and Zeba Siddiqui; Editing by Frances Kerry)

Source: OANN


YouTube has deleted commentator Lauren Southern’s much-anticipated documentary Borderless less than 24 hours after it was uploaded to the platform.

Before it was removed, Southern reported several difficulties in trying to make Borderless available.

“On release day the film wouldn’t play in the back end—so we uploaded another version. This version uploaded and processed, we could watch it and we set it to premiere. Suddenly the movie began to process again and stopped in time for the premiere,” Southern said.

“So when the time set for the premiere rolled around we waited and—nothing. Thirty minutes of ‘premiere starting shortly’ we hit publish. The film went live but wouldn’t show up on the channel, nor would it show up in people’s subscription area.”

“There were no notifications and when shared or added to lists the video would simply say ‘video deleted’. Video also has been stuck continually on 1 view and only available by searching ‘Borderless’ specifically or using the direct link,” she added.

YouTube hasn’t yet explained how exactly Borderless violates its terms of service.

The documentary follows Southern and her team into their investigation of Europe’s migrant crisis, covering human traffickers and illicit NGO activity used to exploit Europe’s open borders.

“[Borderless is] a completely fair, reasonable and balanced movie highlighting human trafficking and people smuggling on the ground in 9 countries. It could be argued this is the most comprehensive documentary ever produced on the issue. No ‘hate speech’, no opinions, just raw footage from on the ground. And it was taken down,” Southern said.

This latest censorship move by YouTube shows that even measured and thorough investigative journalism isn’t safe from Big Tech’s fascist social engineers.


A new study has exposed Big Tech’s bias this time revealing YouTube’s trending tab in the US is rigged. Paul Joseph Watson explains how this type of censorship will actually be bad for all users.

Source: InfoWars


YouTube has deleted commentator Lauren Southern’s much-anticipated documentary Borderless less than 24 hours after it was uploaded to the platform.

Before it was removed, Southern reported several difficulties in trying to make Borderless available.

“On release day the film wouldn’t play in the back end—so we uploaded another version. This version uploaded and processed, we could watch it and we set it to premiere. Suddenly the movie began to process again and stopped in time for the premiere,” Southern said.

“So when the time set for the premiere rolled around we waited and—nothing. Thirty minutes of ‘premiere starting shortly’ we hit publish. The film went live but wouldn’t show up on the channel, nor would it show up in people’s subscription area.”

“There were no notifications and when shared or added to lists the video would simply say ‘video deleted’. Video also has been stuck continually on 1 view and only available by searching ‘Borderless’ specifically or using the direct link,” she added.

YouTube hasn’t yet explained how exactly Borderless violates its terms of service.

The documentary follows Southern and her team into their investigation of Europe’s migrant crisis, covering human traffickers and illicit NGO activity used to exploit Europe’s open borders.

“[Borderless is] a completely fair, reasonable and balanced movie highlighting human trafficking and people smuggling on the ground in 9 countries. It could be argued this is the most comprehensive documentary ever produced on the issue. No ‘hate speech’, no opinions, just raw footage from on the ground. And it was taken down,” Southern said.

This latest censorship move by YouTube shows that even measured and thorough investigative journalism isn’t safe from Big Tech’s fascist social engineers.


A new study has exposed Big Tech’s bias this time revealing YouTube’s trending tab in the US is rigged. Paul Joseph Watson explains how this type of censorship will actually be bad for all users.

Source: InfoWars

X

Story Stream

recent articles

By Eric Felten, RealClearInvestigations
May 25, 2019

Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated, the long knives are out and the president’s antagonists are watching their backs. They have moved from accusing President Trump of treason to pushing revisionist narratives that try to shift the blame for the debunked probe onto others.

President Trump with Attorney General William Barr: Newly empowered.

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

This effort is expected to accelerate following Trump’s decision Thursday to empower Attorney General William Barr to declassify CIA, Pentagon, and Director of National Intelligence documents as necessary to access “information or intelligence that relates to the attorney general’s review” of the Russia probe.

In other words, he’s gaining the authority needed to investigate the investigators.

CIA sources immediately objected in the New York Times that assets’ lives would be at risk, stunting Langley’s ability to recruit. Perhaps. But the argument is a bit shopworn, raising the question whether intelligence managers are looking to protect their agents and sources, or aiming to protect themselves.

There are a growing number of indicators that the leading players in the 2016 election drama are turning on one another, making a mad dash for the lifeboats to escape being dragged under with the political Titanic that is Christopher Steele and his dossier. These are many of the same people who had been eager to exploit the dossier, that collection of memos paid for by the Clinton campaign and supposedly sourced from Russia. Once treated like the Rosetta stone of collusion, the Steele documents now seem even to Trump antagonists more like the Howard Hughes diaries.

Back when fingers weren’t pointing: FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in 2014.

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

A “former CIA official” has told Fox News that two of Trump’s most high profile accusers – former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Director of the CIA John Brennan – didn’t want anything to do with Steele’s opus. It was former FBI Director James Comey, the source said, who was pushing to use the dossier in the official Intelligence Community Assessment, issued in the final days of the Obama administration. Having failed at that, thanks to Clapper and Brennan’s diligence (or so the story goes), Comey went rogue and confronted President-elect Trump with the salacious highlights produced by Steele.

Even the peripheral players are doing their best to shift blame. Former FBI General Counsel James Baker – who is under criminal investigation for leaks –  recently went on the Skullduggery podcast to assert that  he and other bureau officials were “quite worried” that  Comey’s meeting with Trump would look like a page out of J. Edgar Hoover’s playbook – invoking  the legendary FBI director who stockpiled damaging information to blackmail politicians. Would Comey be wrong to interpret Baker’s comments as an offer to testify against his former boss in exchange for a deal on the leaks investigation?

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch: Case of testimony over “matter.”

AP Photo/Cliff Owen

Comey has no shortage  of adversaries, partly because old rivals he thought he had dispatched — such as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch —  are back in the mix, and he is possibly sensing his vulnerability. It was in June 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Comey tossed Lynch under the proverbial bus. Now it’s clear she’s showing she can climb out from under the motor coach and dust herself off.

In September of 2015, Lynch and Comey were preparing to testify on Capitol Hill and expected to be asked about the Hillary Clinton email probe — code-named the Midyear Exam — which at that point had not been officially acknowledged. “I wanted to know if she [Lynch] would authorize us to confirm we had an investigation,” Comey told lawmakers. “And she said yes, but don’t call it that; call it a ‘matter.’ And I said why would I do that? And [Lynch] said just call it a ‘matter.’” Comey says he reluctantly went along with Lynch’s demand, even though it gave him “a queasy feeling.” He worried “that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate.”

Lynch pushed back against the notion she had twisted Comey’s arm. In April 2018 she told NBC’s Lester Holt that she didn’t remember the meeting the way Comey described it, and that the FBI director had raised no objections.

Comey and Lynch: Seeing things differently.

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

But now that the questions about officials’ behavior regarding the 2016 candidates has become a fraught topic, those officials are taking stronger stands to defend themselves. Comey continues to leave little wiggle room in his portrayal of the conversation with Lynch. In a December 2018 closed-door congressional interview, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) asked him to confirm “the fact that the attorney general had asked you to refer to this investigation as a matter, correct?”

“That is correct.” Comey said.

Not so, says Lynch. On Dec. 19, 2018, she appeared before a closed-door session of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. She was being questioned by Republican staff attorney Zach Somers. He asked “whether you ever instructed Director Comey to call the Midyear Exam investigation a matter?” She said his testimony was the first she had any indication “that he had that impression of our conversation.”

That answer was a little ambiguous, so Somers asked Lynch directly: “So you do not believe you ever instructed him to call it a matter?”

“I did not,” said Lynch. “I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will.” Under penalty of lying to Congress, the former AG declared, “I didn’t direct anyone to use specific phraseology.”

Before leaping to the conclusion that Lynch is calling Comey a liar, we need to keep reading the transcript of Lynch’s testimony, which ends up being far less definitive than it first appears. As is so often the case with lawyers’ lawlerly responses, the assertion turns on specific words. Lynch said she didn’t “instruct” or “direct” anyone to use any “specific” language. Instead, she testified, she had told Comey that she personally referred to the Hillary affair as a “matter” or “issue” and “that was the suggestion that I made to him.”

Could it be this is the shape of investigations — sorry, matters — to come? The spectacle of former power players parsing verbs at one another? It may seem a sound defensive strategy now, but it will grow harder to craft phraseology subtle enough to slip out of trouble. Legalistic sparring becomes increasingly difficult as the number of those being put under oath proliferates, and as the number of investigations mount. The game theory concept known as the “Prisoner’s dilemma” is confounding enough when there are two players having to figure out whether to trust one another or sell each other out. Make it multi-person, game theorists point out, and the difficulty for the players grows exponentially.

Making the game even more difficult is how much of the play is being done under cover. When so much of the frenzied blame-shifting is right out in the open, who knows how much whet work with the long knives is going on in the shadows? “If Brennan and Comey and Clapper are doing this publicly,” one Senate staffer says, private-sector dossier-peddlers “[Sidney] Blumenthal, [Cody] Shearer and [Glenn] Simpson are doing it privately.”

There’s no overstating institutional animosities and how likely they are to affect efforts to find out the full story of what happened in the 2016 election. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the State Department and various intelligence agencies are supposed to cooperate, working together to amplify their efforts through coordination. Instead, they often end up at odds, competing for the praise and resources that come with successes and laying off on others the blame that attends mistakes and failures.

“The FBI and DoJ are ruthless to each other, petty to one another,” one congressional staffer marvels.

Peter Strzok: “DoJ are putzes, man,” he texted. “God I hate them.” 

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

FBI investigator Peter Strzok provides a vivid example of the attitudes at play. In texts to his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, he makes declarations such as “I hate DoJ.” Half an hour later he sends another text that includes “And I hate DoJ.” Elsewhere in the texts, the people of “main justice” are called “political dicks” In the same spirit Strzok declares “DoJ are putzes, man.” Later he tells Page, “Don’t trust DoJ” and declares, “God I hate them.” Page describes DoJ as the “no brigade.” She writes, “I just feel like throttling DOJ.”

Connoisseurs of the knife fights between Justice and the bureau keep an eye out not only for what gets reported in the press, but where it gets reported. “The Department of Justice has good relations with, and tends to leak to, the Washington Post,” says a longtime Capitol Hill staffer. “The FBI leaks to the New York Times.”

He points to the competing narratives about then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s supposed offer to wear a wire and record conversations with the president. The story broke in the New York Times last September and portrayed then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe as the level-headed professional pushing back against Rosenstein’s fevered fantasies, which included not only the suggestion of secretly recording Trump, but the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment to have him removed from office. “The extreme suggestions show Mr. Rosenstein’s state of mind in the disorienting days that followed Mr. Comey’s dismissal,” the Times wrote. “Mr. Rosenstein appeared conflicted, regretful and emotional, according to people who spoke with him at the time.” In other words, if there were dubious decisions being made by federal law enforcement officials, it wasn’t just Rosenstein’s fault, according to the Times; it was because the deputy AG was losing his marbles.

Conflicting accounts: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, left, and FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe, right, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

The Times story was followed shortly thereafter by a Washington Post take on the same events, a version significantly more friendly to Rosenstein. According to “attendees at the meeting,” it was McCabe who was pushing boundaries, advocating an “investigation into the president,” the Post wrote. In this account, “Rosenstein responded [to McCabe] with what one person described as a sarcastic comment along the line of: ‘What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?’” The Post story attributed to a “Justice Department official who met frequently with both McCabe and Rosenstein” that “in the months that followed, Rosenstein never broached either subject — the 25th Amendment or a possible wiretap involving the president.”  

You don’t have to be a champion contestant on that peculiar Washington game show — “Guess the Source!” — to have a sense of which side of the street was providing what information to which newspaper.

Given the Times’s sources in and around the FBI, there is particular significance when the Times writes a revisionist history of the bureau’s activities involving the 2016 election. At the end of 2017 the paper had done its best to write the dossier out of the creation myth of the Russia investigation. The Times had maintained, in an April 20, 2017 article, that it was Carter Page’s ill-advised commencement speech in Moscow in the summer of 2016 that had sparked the FBI’s concerns the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia. This line came from the dossier, which had alleged that Page had secret meetings with billionaire oligarchs during his Moscow stay. But after the dossier started to be exposed as the partisan document it was, a new reason emerged to justify the launching of a counterintelligence probe into team Trump — that George Papadopoulos had supposedly mentioned, over drinks with an Australian diplomat, that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz: With him on the case, leakers are “getting ahead of the story.”

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

That alternate origin story remained largely unchanged until early this month, when the Times rewrote its narrative, clearly with the help of FBI sources. The new narrative included the revelation that the bureau had sent a “government investigator” to London under the false name “Azra Turk.” Her undercover mission was to flirt with Papadopoulos and pump him for information about Trump and the Russians. The Times helpfully (from the FBI’s point of view) portrayed this as evidence of the “level of alarm” investigators had about Trump and Russia. 

The article was a classic example of a fundamental Washington PR technique, that of “getting ahead of the story.” Knowing the Azra Turk business is being looked over by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, sources in, or formerly of, the bureau went to friendly reporters and fed them information that could put the events in the least unflattering light possible. Note, however, that the bureau players — who normally wring their hands about the national security damage done by the release of unredacted information — aren’t above leaking details of covert ops if that’s what it takes to soften a blow.

As things unravel further, they’re likely to get nastier. In part that’s because the FBI doesn’t just hate the Department of Justice. If the Page-Strzok texts are any indication, the bureau doesn’t much like the State Department either. “DOJ is a wild pain in the ass,” Strzok texts Page. “Not as bad as State, but still.” Faced with sending some documents about the Hillary email investigation to Foggy Bottom, Page texts, “I’m not giving State an advance warning. F them.” Strzok responds, “And yes, totally. F State. No heads up.”

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page: “We both hate everyone and everything.”

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

They not only sneered at their colleagues across the street (Justice and the FBI are housed on opposite sides of Pennsylvania Avenue), their feelings toward their bureau co-workers ranged from diffidence to detestation.

Consider the infamous text from Strzok to Page: “Just went to a southern Virginia Wal-Mart,” Strzok wrote. “I could SMELL the Trump support.”

Lost in the noisy outrage over the Trumpy odors insult has been Page’s reply: “Yep, out to lunch with Sally” Moyer, Page texted. “We both hate everyone and everything.”

“Do you hate everyone and everything?” Republican staff attorney Arthur Baker asked Moyer — a unit chief in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. The question came in an October 2018 closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

“Some days,” Moyer deadpanned.

The questioner was nonplussed: “But you don’t hate everyone and everything all the time?”

“Not all the time, no.”

Sally Moyer: A little gallows humor.

Moyer may have been indulging in a little gallows humor, but aggravation with the job and co-workers at the FBI — hate for everyone and everything all the time — seems to be commonplace in the bureau. Page calls various colleagues everything from “an ASTOUNDING douche” to “a petulant baby.”

Given the paramount heights to which both Strzok and Page had risen within the FBI, it’s unlikely they were outliers among the bureau’s management class. Their casual contempt for co-workers and for the departments of Justice and State can’t be attitudes far out of step with those of their seventh-floor colleagues. Sticking it to State and Justice and even (perhaps especially) the fellow down the hall: If that was the culture of the FBI’s leadership when the investigators were riding high and enjoying the power that came from collaborating with State and Justice in the pursuit of a president, just imagine how they are likely to behave toward one another now that they have become the pursued rather than the pursuers.

Even in the best of times, departments and agencies such as Justice, State and the FBI find themselves in back-stabbing bureaucratic battles of all against all. Imagine how those Hobbesian bureaucrats, whether current or former, are likely to behave when the outcomes being fought over have profoundly personal ramifications. One recalls the moment in “It’s a Wonderful Life” when the upstanding George Bailey is sinking in frantic desperation: “Do you realize what this means?!” he shouts at doddering Uncle Billy, who’s lost the bank deposit. “It means bankruptcy and scandal and prison. That’s what it means.” With shocking savagery, Bailey throws the old man down in his chair and declares, “One of us is going to jail, and it’s not going to be me!”  

Related Articles

On Thursday night Fox’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” featured rare prime time coverage of the bombshell leaked OPCW report which refuted key events surrounding the April 2018 alleged chemical gas attack in Douma, Syria — which resulted in massive US and allied airstrikes on Damascus, nearly leading to a major war at the time. And now new allegations are looming which could once again lead to US airstrikes on Syria. 

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the international chemical weapons watchdog group which has worked in tandem with the UN to investigation claimed Sarin and chlorine gas attack sites in Syria. The smoking gun document, Tucker said in opening remarks, vindicates his and others’ past skepticism. He said:

“Now a leaked document shows there was good reason to be skeptical.” 

But here we are again — one year later — with yet another chemical attack claim near Idlib on Sunday, which the US State Department says it is investigating, vowing to “respond quickly and appropriately” if Assad is found guilty of using the banned weapons, according to an official statement.

But crucially, as Tucker Carlson pointed out on his show Thursday evening in reference last year’s Douma events, “At the time that happened this program was pretty much the only show on mainstream television to show any skepticism about the official narrative of the attack.”

Introducing a segment with Democratic presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard, a known longtime skeptic on Syrian regime change, Carlson reviewed the prior two American attacks on the Syrian government, noting “Justification for both attacks was an alleged aerial chemical weapons attack on anti-Assad rebels in Douma, Syria.”

Congresswomen Gabbard told the Fox host during the interview that the leaked document presents major reasons to doubt the official narrative concerning both Douma and the most recent claims out of Idlib being advanced by the al-Qaeda groups Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) and the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP). She said she is reaching out to both the UN and OPCW for answers.

Referencing current and past Syria chemical attack claims, Tucker agreed that, “I’m beginning to suspect that we’re being played here.”

The document, whose authenticity the OPCW has confirmed, contends that the official story which was used to justify an air strike by the US, UK and France about poison gas being dropped on civilians from Syrian government helicopters is scientifically implausible, saying “In summary, observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.” — Establishment Narrative-Managers Struggling With New Syria Plot Holes

Since the leaked OPCW report surfaced over a week ago there’s predictably been mainstream silence, perhaps with the exception of two major UK outlets, The Independent and The Daily Mail.

Rocket scientist and MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol has also weighed in to say the new evidence reveals the “attacks were staged”.

Writing for The Independent, world-renowned Middle East war correspondent Robert Fisk summarized the significance of the leaked report. This comes just as once again US war rhetoric against Damascus is looming.

Fisk wrote in his report:

The OPCW officially maintains that these canisters were probably dropped by an aircraft – probably a helicopter, presumably Syrian – over Douma on 7 April 2018. But the dissenting assessment, which the OPCW made no reference to in its published conclusions, finds there is a “higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft”.

It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW. In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat “is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document”.

Importantly, the OPCW has confirmed the authenticity of the report, authored by an expert that had spent most of his career as an on the ground technical investigator since the OPCW’s inception.

The leaked OPCW document can be accessed here.

Though there’s largely been a mainstream media blackout on the leaked document, it’s possible it could slowly trickle into media discourse following Fox’s prime time coverage on Tucker’s show.

Fisk further articulated that the document is a game-changer at the conclusion of his article, saying, “Put bluntly, the paper is suggesting that the location of the cylinders was a set-up, that someone inside Douma immediately after the bombings of 7 April 2018 – and no one, not even the Syrians or Russians, deny there was conventional bombing and shelling that night – placed the cylinders in the locations in which they were subsequently examined by the OPCW.”

With the potential for a new round of attacks by US forces against Assad based on fresh chemical attack claims out of Idlib, we wonder, did President Trump catch Tucker’s show on Thursday night?

Source: InfoWars

President Donald Trump said Friday he “may very well talk” to Prime Minister Theresa May about potential spying on the 2016 campaign by the Five Eyes intelligence alliance of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

In remarks Trump made before departing on a trip to Japan, the president touched on an issue that he’s made a priority: the origins of the FBI Russia probe.

“Mr. President, are you going to talk to Theresa May about potential Five Eyes spying into your campaign,” he was asked.

“I may very well talk to her about that, yeah,” he responded, according to a transcript of the remarks released by the Office of the Press Secretary.

“There’s word and rumor that the FBI and others were involved, CIA were involved, with the U.K., having to do with the Russian hoax,” he continued. “And I may very well talk to her about that, yes.”

Trump on Thursday issued an order allowing Attorney General William Barr to declassify any information Barr sees fit during his review of the events that prompted the FBI to open an investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source: NewsMax Politics

Police officers are seen near the site of a suspected bomb attack in central Lyon
Police officers are seen near the site of a suspected bomb attack in central Lyon, France May 24, 2019. REUTERS/Emmanuel Foudrot

May 24, 2019

LYON (Reuters) – French police were hunting a suspected suitcase bomber on Friday after an explosion in the central city of Lyon that injured 13 people, officials said.

The suspect was captured on security video leaving a bag in front of a bakery shortly before an explosion occurred at around 5:30 pm, police sources and local mayor Denis Broliquier said.

Most of those hurt were hospitalized for treatment to leg injuries that were described as light.

President Emmanuel Macron characterized the incident as an “attack” when the news broke during a live YouTube interview ahead of Sunday’s European elections. “My thoughts are with the injured,” he said.

Paris anti-terrorism prosecutors opened an investigation as police said they were treating the blast as an attempted homicide, and Interior Minister Christophe Castaner headed to the scene.

The partially masked suspect appeared in security camera footage wheeling a bicycle to the scene, before leaving a bag outside a branch of Brioche Doree, a popular bakery chain.

Police sources described the suspected attacker as a European or North African male, seen wearing beige Bermuda shorts, an army-green scarf or head wrap and dark glasses.

Soon after he left, the blast rained metal bolts on passersby in front of the premises on rue Victor Hugo, several blocks from the city’s main station, according to police.

Police forces across France have been instructed to increase security in public places and event venues, Castaner said.

(Reporting by Catherine Lagrange in Lyon, Emmanuel Jarry and Marine Pennetier in Paris; Writing by Laurence Frost; Editing by Peter Graff)

Source: OANN


Current track

Title

Artist