Obama Spy Chiefs Pressured

PUBLISHED: 1:00 PM 26 Mar 2019
UPDATED: 5:27 PM 26 Mar 2019

“Historic Abuse”: Wall Street Journal Calls For Obama Spy Chiefs Investigation

In what appears to be an attempt to control the negative backlash the media is facing for its promotion of the fake Russian collusion scandal, the Wall Street Journal is demanding that Obama’s former spy chiefs be investigated for their continued lies.

The take down is backfiring... big time.

In what appears to be a complete 180 degree turn, the Wall Street Journal has immediately called for an investigation into Obama’s former spy chiefs.

Their reason? Too many lies… and continued lies.

Given the backlash from the American public concerning the bull the mainstream media has fed them for the last two years, the about face may not seem so suspicious.

It looks like the Journal is trying to regain a modicum of credibility.

But, just because their motives might not be pure, doesn’t mean they aren’t right.

They are.

James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, and James Clapper were all in on the set-up and furthered the lies claiming that the president was a Russian asset.

Instead of taking the blame for the part they played—i.e. accepting at face value the claims of these liars—the Journal placed the blame squarely on these four ‘intelligence’ officers.

And while it is certainly true that these men were part of the soft coup conducted by the deep state and carried out by Mueller, which was also designed simultaneously to cover up their own treasonous crimes—they were not the only ones, and shouldn’t be the only people investigated.

The Journal reported:

Now that special counsel Robert Mueller has found that no one in the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, Democrats are busy moving the goal posts. But this is a distraction from the real reckoning that needs to come.

The one we need is for all the intelligence officials—including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Central Intelligence Agency chief John Brennan, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—who pushed the Russia conspiracy theory.

The special counsel has just made clear they did so with no real evidence.

Mr. Mueller could have said he didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute.

Instead he was categorical: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

This wasn’t for lack of trying on Moscow’s part. “Despite multiple offers” from Russia-affiliated individuals to help their campaign, Mr. Mueller reports, the Trump people didn’t take them up on it.

So why do 44% of Americans—according to a Fox News poll released Sunday—believe otherwise? Part of the answer has to be that the collusion tale was egged on by leading members and former members of the American intelligence community.

Intelligence professionals are trained to sift through the noise and distractions in pursuit of the truth. In this case, however, they went all in for a tale that the Russian government had somehow compromised Mr. Trump or his close associates.

In peddling this line, their authority rested on the idea they had access to alarming and conclusive evidence the rest of America couldn’t see. Now it appears they never had much more than an unverified opposition-research dossier commissioned by Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Nevertheless, they persisted. Start with the FBI’s Mr. McCabe, who boasts that he is the man who opened the counterintelligence probe into Russia and President Trump. Today the question has to be: On what evidence was this extraordinary step predicated, apart from Mr. Trump’s saying things the G-man didn’t like?

As recently as three weeks ago, Mr. McCabe—sacked by the bureau for a “lack of candor”—told CNN that he still thought it “possible” President Trump was a “Russian asset.” Again, on what evidence?

Ditto for Mr. Clapper, who said he agreed “completely” with Mr. McCabe that Mr. Trump could be a Russian asset. He added only that he couldn’t be certain whether it was “witting or unwitting.” Coming from a former director of national intelligence, this is a grave accusation. But on what evidence?

Or consider Mr. Brennan. After a presidential press conference in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin in which Mr. Trump refused to acknowledge Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Mr. Brennan tweeted that the president’s behavior was “nothing short of treasonous.” Not “wrong,” not “outrageous,” but “treasonous.”

It wouldn’t be the last time he invoked the “t” word.

Mr. Brennan also used it after the president pulled his security clearance last August. During a subsequent appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd suggested that a former intelligence chief might wish to be a little more circumspect with his accusations.

“You are the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United States,” said Mr. Todd. “It’s not a private citizen. A lot of people hear the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United States of treason—that’s monumental, that’s a monumental accusation.” Mr. Brennan said he regretted nothing, and cited for his judgment his training as an “intelligence professional.”

Finally there’s Rep. Adam Schiff. As ranking member and now chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff has been claiming for some time that there’s “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.” This past weekend on ABC’s “This Week,” he said there’s “significant evidence of collusion.” Does anyone else think there’s a credibility problem when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee starts sounding like O.J. Simpson vowing to find the “real killer”?

The article goes on to explain that there are only two ways to interpret these actions.

Either, these men are categorically stupid, or they are so filled with hate for the ‘bad orange man’ that they couldn’t help themselves from trying to illegally remove him from office.

However, other people clearly recognize that there is a third option.

These men were terrified of President Trump—a real maverick they could not control because he is already rich—and were desperately buying time so they could destroy or otherwise eliminate the evidence of real treason.

You know, like selling one-fifth of America’s nuclear resources, possibly having agents gun down a peaceful family because the land they owned was part of the deal, promising Russia more pay-to-play schemes, etc.

The special counsel, many people argue, was a ruse.

It was simply a way to cover real crimes, and then if caught, these guys could cop to lesser wrongdoings like FISA court lies and an attempted soft coup.

Because in truth, such activity would be frowned upon and possibly punished by jail time in a cushy federal prison. However, the real collusion and other actions could land them at the end of a rope.