Monday, August 17, 2020
Monday, June 1, 2020
Antifa
Quote:
Antifa’s American insurgency
ROSS CLARK MAY 31, 2020
We are witnessing glimmers of the full insurrection the far-left has been working toward for decades. The killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis was merely a pre-text for radicals to push their ambitious insurgency. In a matter of hours, after the video of Floyd began circulating the internet, militant antifa cells across the country mobilized to Minnesota to aid Black Lives Matter rioters. Law enforcement and even the state National Guard have struggled to respond in Minnesota.
Portland, Oakland, Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta are just some of the other cities waking up and finding smoldering ruins where businesses once operated. Nearly 30 other cities experienced some form of mass protest or violent rioting. At least three people have been killed so far.
Antifa, the extreme anarchist-communist movement, has rioting down to an art. The first broken window is the blood in the water for looters to move in. When the looting is done, those carrying flammable chemicals start fires to finish the job. Footage recorded in Minneapolis and other cities show militants dressed in black bloc— the antifa uniform — wielding weapons like hammers or sticks to smash windows. You see their graffiti daubed on smashed up buildings: FTP means **** the Police; ACAB stands for All Cops Are Bastards; 1312 is the numerical code for ACAB.
Last night, rioters reached the gates of the White House, possibly the most secure location on Earth. There, they chipped away at the barriers piece-by-piece while law enforcement struggled to respond. One Secret Service officer reportedly had a brick thrown at his head. Footage recorded at the scene showed him blood-soaked. Police were eventually able to repel masked rioters by using pepper spray and tear gas. That worked, for now.
The militants uprising across the country want a revolution and they don’t care who or what has to be destroyed in the process. If their comrades die, they are elevated as martyrs in propaganda. Death is celebrated.
At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM’s founders, are self-identified Marxists who make no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want the abolishment of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the rule of law. Antifa have partnered with them, for now, to help accelerate the break down of society.
The US is getting a small preview of the anarchy antifa has been agitating, training and preparing for. Ending law enforcement is a pre-condition for antifa and BLM’s success in monopolizing violence. Those who are harmed first are the weak and vulnerable, the people who cannot protect themselves. Small business owners in Minnesota pleaded for mercy, even putting up signs and messages in support of the rioters, but to no avail.
The destruction of businesses we’re witnessing across the US is not mere opportunism by looters. It plays a critical role in antifa and BLM ideology. Their stated goal is to abolish capitalism. To do that, they have to make economic recovery impossible. Antifa sees a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to exploit an economically weakened America during the coronavirus pandemic. It’s Going Down, one of the most popular antifa blogs in North America, tweeted on Friday:
’10 years from now, people won’t look back and ask: “Why did it explode in 2020?” Massive unemployment while the rich rake in billions from tax-cuts + bailouts, the earth on the brink of collapse + police murdering people daily. Instead they’ll ask: “Why didn’t it happen sooner?”‘
Antifa are taking actions considered extreme even among their own ranks. On Thursday night in Portland, rioters surrounded a vehicle filled with passengers and shot at it, hitting one person inside. The driver was able to escape but the injured passenger had to go to hospital for treatment. In Oakland, two federal police officers guarding a government building were shot in an ambush drive-by. One was killed and the other has critical injuries. The following day in Seattle, masked antifa militants stole a rifle from a police vehicle before setting it ablaze.
Media, politicians, the public — all of us — have underestimated the training and capability of left-wing extremists, who are united in purpose. All the parts of rioting serve a purpose. Looting and fires destroy local economies. Riots can overwhelm the police and even the military. All of this leads to a destabilized state. America is brave and beautiful. She is not invincible.
________________________________________
So, snore, right? Yup.
Here's a more shiny object for you then....
There are 2 things that I want to address, the title of the topic AND one of the followup responses. First, the topic....Rep. Jordan indicates that Rosenstein didn't have the fortitude to stand up to the "swamp" and ultimately caved in.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/06/06/jim-jordan-rosenstein-just-caved-to-the-swamp-with-2017-special-counsel-mueller-appointment/
Second, in reading some of the responses to the article, one individual who has put this all together, explains what he or she thinks has happened. I will cut and paste "incurablewounds" response here:
ABSOLUTELY Rosenstein is the swamp!!!!
Here's what it looks like when all the pieces are sewn together
It smells like conspiracy and treason. Everyone needs to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because it’s very important......
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
A Grand Jury had been impanelled.
Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.
Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton
Foundation were declared. Now you would think that an honest
investigator would be able to figure this out.
Look who took over this investigation in 2005: None other than
James Comey; Coincidence? Guess who was transferred into the Internal
Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? None other
than, Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner. Isn’t that interesting?
But this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?
No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States,
Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame?
Another coincidence (just an anomaly in statistics and chances), but it was Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common?
They all were briefed and/or were front-line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.
Another coincidence, right?
Fast forward to 2009....
James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, official government business, on her own personal email server.
The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of the Hillary.
Like all good public servants do, supposedly looking out for
America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve
the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t, America got absolutely nothing out of it.
However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton
goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one hour speech; then meets with
Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.
Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009.
Who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland?
None other than, Rod Rosenstein. And what happened to the informant?
The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.
How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of
America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole
providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?
Very soon after; the sale was approved!~145 million dollars in
“donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities
directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division? None other than, - Lois Lerner.
Ok, that’s all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right?
Let’s fast forward to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9
“investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy
who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select
Committee on Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State
Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email
server.He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over
when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was
required by law. He also discovered that there was Top Secret
information contained within her personally archived email.
Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they
floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that
were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we
shall leave it with this…… they did everything humanly possible to cover
for Hillary. .
Now this is amazing, guess who became FBI Director in 2013? None
other than James Comey; who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer
(Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six
million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer? Amazing
how all those no-bids just went right through at State, huh?
Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the “Clinton Email
Investigation” after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner
“Matter” at the Internal Revenue Service and he exonerates her. Nope....
couldn’t find any crimes there.
In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of
Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals
like candy.They didn’t even convene a Grand Jury!
Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a
miracle from God himself, like the true “Gangsta” Comey is, James steps
out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of
2016, and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing.
Do you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney
General,Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks
government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian
Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of
malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage..... pick a crime, any crime, chances are...... this group and a few others did it:
All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted.
All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves
All connected in one way or another to the Clinton's.
They are like battery acid; they corrode and corrupt everything they touch.How many lives have these two destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of
operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the
history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue
Service.
Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.
The person that is the common denominator to all the crimes above
and still doing her evil escape legal maneuvers at the top of the 3
Letter USA Agencies?
Yep, that would be Hillary R. Clinton.
Now who is LISA BARSOOMIAN? Let’s learn a little about Mrs. Lisa H. Barsoomian’s background.
Lisa H. Barsoomian, an Attorney that graduated from Georgetown Law, is a protégé of James Comey and Robert Mueller.
Barsoomian, with her boss R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998.
Lawrence also represented:
Robert Mueller three times;
James Comey five times;
Barack Obama 45 times;
Kathleen Sebelius 56 times;
Bill Clinton 40 times; and
Hillary Clinton 17 times.
Between 1998 and 2017, Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times.
You may be saying to yourself, OK, who cares? Who cares about the work history of this Barsoomian woman?
Apparently, someone does, because someone out there cares so much
that they’ve “purged” all Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton
representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in 1999
from the DC District and Appeals Court dockets (?). Someone out there
cares so much that even the internet has been “purged” of all
information pertaining to Barsoomian.
Historically, this indicates that the individual is a protected
CIA operative. Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence
community. Although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases
representing the DC Office of the US Attorney, her email address is Lisa
Barsoomian at NIH.gov. The NIH stands for National Institutes of
Health. This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an
operative by using another government organization to shield their
activities.
It’s a cover, so big deal right? What does one more attorney with ties to the US intelligence community really matter?
It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and
aluminum imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of
California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition to President Trump, the
Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal
and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana
legalization mix …. and last but not least Mueller’s never-ending
investigation into collusion between the Trump team and-the Russians.
Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention?
BECAUSE….
She is Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s WIFE!
*****************************************************************************
Could be that Barsoomian is a name that will surface from attorney general Barr's investigation....
Antifa’s American insurgency
ROSS CLARK MAY 31, 2020
We are witnessing glimmers of the full insurrection the far-left has been working toward for decades. The killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis was merely a pre-text for radicals to push their ambitious insurgency. In a matter of hours, after the video of Floyd began circulating the internet, militant antifa cells across the country mobilized to Minnesota to aid Black Lives Matter rioters. Law enforcement and even the state National Guard have struggled to respond in Minnesota.
Portland, Oakland, Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta are just some of the other cities waking up and finding smoldering ruins where businesses once operated. Nearly 30 other cities experienced some form of mass protest or violent rioting. At least three people have been killed so far.
Antifa, the extreme anarchist-communist movement, has rioting down to an art. The first broken window is the blood in the water for looters to move in. When the looting is done, those carrying flammable chemicals start fires to finish the job. Footage recorded in Minneapolis and other cities show militants dressed in black bloc— the antifa uniform — wielding weapons like hammers or sticks to smash windows. You see their graffiti daubed on smashed up buildings: FTP means **** the Police; ACAB stands for All Cops Are Bastards; 1312 is the numerical code for ACAB.
Last night, rioters reached the gates of the White House, possibly the most secure location on Earth. There, they chipped away at the barriers piece-by-piece while law enforcement struggled to respond. One Secret Service officer reportedly had a brick thrown at his head. Footage recorded at the scene showed him blood-soaked. Police were eventually able to repel masked rioters by using pepper spray and tear gas. That worked, for now.
The militants uprising across the country want a revolution and they don’t care who or what has to be destroyed in the process. If their comrades die, they are elevated as martyrs in propaganda. Death is celebrated.
At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM’s founders, are self-identified Marxists who make no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want the abolishment of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the rule of law. Antifa have partnered with them, for now, to help accelerate the break down of society.
The US is getting a small preview of the anarchy antifa has been agitating, training and preparing for. Ending law enforcement is a pre-condition for antifa and BLM’s success in monopolizing violence. Those who are harmed first are the weak and vulnerable, the people who cannot protect themselves. Small business owners in Minnesota pleaded for mercy, even putting up signs and messages in support of the rioters, but to no avail.
The destruction of businesses we’re witnessing across the US is not mere opportunism by looters. It plays a critical role in antifa and BLM ideology. Their stated goal is to abolish capitalism. To do that, they have to make economic recovery impossible. Antifa sees a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to exploit an economically weakened America during the coronavirus pandemic. It’s Going Down, one of the most popular antifa blogs in North America, tweeted on Friday:
’10 years from now, people won’t look back and ask: “Why did it explode in 2020?” Massive unemployment while the rich rake in billions from tax-cuts + bailouts, the earth on the brink of collapse + police murdering people daily. Instead they’ll ask: “Why didn’t it happen sooner?”‘
Antifa are taking actions considered extreme even among their own ranks. On Thursday night in Portland, rioters surrounded a vehicle filled with passengers and shot at it, hitting one person inside. The driver was able to escape but the injured passenger had to go to hospital for treatment. In Oakland, two federal police officers guarding a government building were shot in an ambush drive-by. One was killed and the other has critical injuries. The following day in Seattle, masked antifa militants stole a rifle from a police vehicle before setting it ablaze.
Media, politicians, the public — all of us — have underestimated the training and capability of left-wing extremists, who are united in purpose. All the parts of rioting serve a purpose. Looting and fires destroy local economies. Riots can overwhelm the police and even the military. All of this leads to a destabilized state. America is brave and beautiful. She is not invincible.
________________________________________
So, snore, right? Yup.
Here's a more shiny object for you then....
There are 2 things that I want to address, the title of the topic AND one of the followup responses. First, the topic....Rep. Jordan indicates that Rosenstein didn't have the fortitude to stand up to the "swamp" and ultimately caved in.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/06/06/jim-jordan-rosenstein-just-caved-to-the-swamp-with-2017-special-counsel-mueller-appointment/
Second, in reading some of the responses to the article, one individual who has put this all together, explains what he or she thinks has happened. I will cut and paste "incurablewounds" response here:
ABSOLUTELY Rosenstein is the swamp!!!!
Here's what it looks like when all the pieces are sewn together
It smells like conspiracy and treason. Everyone needs to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because it’s very important......
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
A Grand Jury had been impanelled.
Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.
Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton
Foundation were declared. Now you would think that an honest
investigator would be able to figure this out.
Look who took over this investigation in 2005: None other than
James Comey; Coincidence? Guess who was transferred into the Internal
Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? None other
than, Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner. Isn’t that interesting?
But this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?
No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States,
Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame?
Another coincidence (just an anomaly in statistics and chances), but it was Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common?
They all were briefed and/or were front-line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.
Another coincidence, right?
Fast forward to 2009....
James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, official government business, on her own personal email server.
The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of the Hillary.
Like all good public servants do, supposedly looking out for
America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve
the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t, America got absolutely nothing out of it.
However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton
goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one hour speech; then meets with
Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.
Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009.
Who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland?
None other than, Rod Rosenstein. And what happened to the informant?
The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.
How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of
America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole
providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?
Very soon after; the sale was approved!~145 million dollars in
“donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities
directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division? None other than, - Lois Lerner.
Ok, that’s all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right?
Let’s fast forward to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9
“investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy
who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select
Committee on Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State
Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email
server.He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over
when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was
required by law. He also discovered that there was Top Secret
information contained within her personally archived email.
Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they
floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that
were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we
shall leave it with this…… they did everything humanly possible to cover
for Hillary. .
Now this is amazing, guess who became FBI Director in 2013? None
other than James Comey; who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer
(Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six
million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer? Amazing
how all those no-bids just went right through at State, huh?
Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the “Clinton Email
Investigation” after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner
“Matter” at the Internal Revenue Service and he exonerates her. Nope....
couldn’t find any crimes there.
In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of
Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals
like candy.They didn’t even convene a Grand Jury!
Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a
miracle from God himself, like the true “Gangsta” Comey is, James steps
out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of
2016, and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing.
Do you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney
General,Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks
government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian
Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of
malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage..... pick a crime, any crime, chances are...... this group and a few others did it:
All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted.
All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves
All connected in one way or another to the Clinton's.
They are like battery acid; they corrode and corrupt everything they touch.How many lives have these two destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of
operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the
history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue
Service.
Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.
The person that is the common denominator to all the crimes above
and still doing her evil escape legal maneuvers at the top of the 3
Letter USA Agencies?
Yep, that would be Hillary R. Clinton.
Now who is LISA BARSOOMIAN? Let’s learn a little about Mrs. Lisa H. Barsoomian’s background.
Lisa H. Barsoomian, an Attorney that graduated from Georgetown Law, is a protégé of James Comey and Robert Mueller.
Barsoomian, with her boss R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998.
Lawrence also represented:
Robert Mueller three times;
James Comey five times;
Barack Obama 45 times;
Kathleen Sebelius 56 times;
Bill Clinton 40 times; and
Hillary Clinton 17 times.
Between 1998 and 2017, Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times.
You may be saying to yourself, OK, who cares? Who cares about the work history of this Barsoomian woman?
Apparently, someone does, because someone out there cares so much
that they’ve “purged” all Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton
representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in 1999
from the DC District and Appeals Court dockets (?). Someone out there
cares so much that even the internet has been “purged” of all
information pertaining to Barsoomian.
Historically, this indicates that the individual is a protected
CIA operative. Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence
community. Although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases
representing the DC Office of the US Attorney, her email address is Lisa
Barsoomian at NIH.gov. The NIH stands for National Institutes of
Health. This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an
operative by using another government organization to shield their
activities.
It’s a cover, so big deal right? What does one more attorney with ties to the US intelligence community really matter?
It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and
aluminum imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of
California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition to President Trump, the
Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal
and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana
legalization mix …. and last but not least Mueller’s never-ending
investigation into collusion between the Trump team and-the Russians.
Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention?
BECAUSE….
She is Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s WIFE!
*****************************************************************************
Could be that Barsoomian is a name that will surface from attorney general Barr's investigation....
Sunday, May 17, 2020
Flynn by Epoch Times
In this Monday, June 24, 2019, file photo, Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, departs a federal courthouse after a hearing in Washington. Trump said Sunday, March 15, 2020, that he is considering a full pardon for Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about dealings with Russia’s ambassador before Trump took office. AP photo/Patrick Semansky, file photo
Petr Svab
The Epoch Times
The belief that Lt. Gen Michael Flynn was set up by the FBI has been backed up by a string of evidence in documents released by the Department of Justice.
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty in 2017 to one count of lying to the FBI.
On May 7, however, the DOJ dropped the case against him, saying that when the FBI interviewed Flynn Jan. 24, 2017, the investigation into him was “no longer justifiably predicated” and “seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.”
The motion to dismiss the case was accompanied by more than a dozen documents substantiating the decision.
The FBI opened a counterintelligence case on Flynn Aug. 16, 2016. The stated reason was public information that Flynn was an adviser to Trump, had “ties” to some entities “affiliated” with Russia and visited Russia the year before.
After four months of investigating, the FBI couldn’t find any “derogatory” information on Flynn.
On Jan. 4, 2017, William Barnett, one of the agents managing the Flynn case, drafted a document to close the case, saying there were no more investigative leads to follow.
That afternoon, the former head of FBI counterintelligence operations, Peter Strzok, reached out to Flynn’s case manager, urging him to keep the case open. The documents indicate the case manager was likely Barnett.
Former FBI Director James Comey later said in a meeting with lawmakers that he authorized the closing of the Flynn case, but that it was kept open because the bureau learned about Flynn’s calls with former Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak.
“I think I had authorized it to be closed at the … end of December, beginning of January. And we kept it open once we became aware of these communications,” Comey told the House Intelligence Committee March 2, 2017. “There were additional steps the investigators wanted to consider.”
But what steps?
Flynn’s calls coincided with new sanctions imposed on Russia by former President Barack Obama in late December 2016. Flynn’s lawyers were never given the transcripts of the calls, but the DOJ said he requested from Kislyak “that Russia avoid ‘escalating’ tensions in response to” the sanctions. Russia responded by holding off on its retaliation for several months.
The morning of Jan. 4, 2017, Lisa Page, special counsel to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Strzok’s mistress, sent an email to former FBI General Counsel James Baker.
“Code section at question,” the email’s subject read, with “18 USC 953” in the body.
The number refers to the Logan Act, a 1799 law that prohibits Americans from conducting diplomacy on their own with countries that the United States has a dispute with.
Less than 10 minutes later, Strzok emailed Page the text of the statute – writing “because I am awesome” – and attached a 2015 document about Logan Act from the Congressional Research Service.
“All the legislative history they cite does not involve incoming administrations,” he said in the email, quoting from the document that “viability” of the statute may involve “constitutional issues, such as freedom of speech and right to travel.”
“You are awesome. Thank you,” Page replied, and a few hours later sent the text of the statute to McCabe without any mention of the constitutional issues.
In the afternoon, Strzok texted another FBI staffer about the need to keep the Flynn case open.
“We need to decide what to do with him w/r/t (with regards to) the (redacted),” he said.
The “seventh floor (was) involved,” he said by text, referring to the FBI top leadership.
But there seemed to be no appetite at the DOJ to pursue a Logan Act violation. No one has ever been convicted of breaking the law, and only two people were ever charged, the last one in 1852.
Mary McCord, former head of the DOJ’s National Security Division, said she was not thinking about a criminal investigation at the time, according to a report from her July 17, 2017, interview with the FBI and the Special Counsel office.
“It seemed logical to her that there may be some communications between an incoming administration and their foreign partners, so the Logan Act seemed like a stretch to her,” according to the report from the interview.
“The feeling among NSD attorneys was Flynn’s behavior was a technical violation of the Logan Act, but they were not sure this would have a lot of jury appeal, or if pursuing it would be a good use of the power of the Justice Department,” according to an Aug.15, 2017, FBI report from an interview with former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
“Yates had the impression the FBI was more eager to pursue prosecution initially,” according to the report.
McCord did call the Kislyak calls “concerning” and Yates labeled them “problematic.” Yet neither of them clearly explained what was “concerning” or “problematic” about them.
“Indeed, Mr. Flynn’s request that Russia avoid ‘escalating’ tensions in response to U.S. sanctions in an effort to mollify geopolitical tensions was consistent with him advocating for, not against, the interests of the United States,” Timothy Shea, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, in the motion to dismiss the Flynn case, said.
In any event, with no Logan Act charge incoming, the Flynn case seemed dead in the water. But it still wasn’t closed. Nobody seems to have provided a good explanation why.
“Nothing, to my mind, happens until the 13th of January,” Comey told the House committee.
‘Flood is coming’
In fact, the week after the scramble to keep the Flynn probe open was one of the most consequential in American history, with national repercussions rippling out for years to come.
The FBI, and Comey in particular, played a central role.
On Jan. 6, 2017, Trump was briefed by the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as the heads of the FBI, National Security Agency and CIA on their “assessment” that Russia meddled in the election. They also said the Kremlin favored Trump in their influence campaign, though the NSA partially dissented from that assessment.
A declassified version of the report was released the same day, “a virtually unheard-of, real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about to direct them,” according to The New York Times.
As an annex to the assessment was attached a two-page summary of the Steele dossier, a collection of unsubstantiated claims about supposed Trump-Russia collusion.
The dossier was supposedly written by Christopher Steele, a former British spy. He was paid through intermediaries by the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of former State Secretary Hillary Clinton. Both Steele and his employers had for months peddled the dossier to the media, the FBI, the State Department, the DOJ and Congress.
Right after the Jan. 6 meeting, Comey privately briefed Trump on the most salacious allegation from the dossier. He didn’t give him the summary.
“I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to speak to PE (President-elect) about alone or in a very small group,” Comey said about the meeting in an email Jan. 7, 2017, to senior FBI leadership, according to a May 21, 2018, release by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
“I then executed the session exactly as I had planned,” Comey said, adding, “I said media like CNN had them (the dossier content) and were looking for a news hook.”
As it seems, the FBI was aware that information about the Trump-Comey briefing was in fact the hook CNN would use.
“Flood is coming,” McCabe said Jan. 8, 2017, in the subject of an email to senior FBI leadership.
“CNN is close to going forward with the sensitive story. … The trigger for them (CNN) is they know the material was discussed in the brief and presented in an attachment,” he said in the email.
Less than an hour later, McCabe emailed Yates and then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Matthew Axelrod with the subject line “News.”
“Just an FYI, and as expected, it seems CNN is close to running a story about the sensitive reporting,” he said.
On Jan. 10, 2017, Strzok wrote to other senior FBI officials, “Per Rich, CNN to publish C material today between 4 and 5.”
That afternoon, CCN ran a story saying (incorrectly) that Trump was presented with a “two-page synopsis” of the dossier during the Jan. 6 briefing. Shortly after, BuzzFeed released one of the versions of the dossier itself.
Within hours, the collusion narrative was imprinted on much of the nation’s psyche. More leaks were coming that would build on that foundation.
On Jan. 12, 2017, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius published a column where he said a “senior U.S. government official” told him that Flynn called Kislyak multiple times Jan. 29, 2016. Ignatius suggested that if Flynn talked about the Russia sanctions, he may have violated the “spirit” of the Logan Act. Other media followed with their own stories, repeating the Logan Act narrative.
Under the enormous pressure to distance themselves from anything Russia-related, several Trump team members, including the incoming Vice President Mike Pence, questioned Flynn about the calls. Flynn said he didn’t talk about sanctions and that’s what the team told the media.
The calls “had nothing whatsoever to do with the sanctions,” Pence told CBS News Jan. 15, 2017, in an interview the network almost wholly dedicated to questions about Russia.
With this denial, the FBI effectively had Flynn trapped. The officials knew that Pence, a man known for closely guarding his reputation, told a lie on national television and that Flynn was responsible.
Yates and some others from the intelligence community wanted to inform the Trump team of Flynn’s predicament, she said. Her take was that the lie made Flynn “compromised” because the Russians would know he lied.
It would have possibly led to Flynn’s firing, but the outcome was uncertain. After all, Trump held Flynn in high regard.
Comey seemed aware that the “compromise” angle was weak.
It was “possible,” he testified, that the lie made Flynn blackmailable, but “that struck me as a bit of a reach, though, honestly,” he said.
Comey blocked the idea of informing the White House. The Kislyak transcripts were the FBI’s information and he had the last word on who gets it, Yates said.
Instead, Comey had a more ambitious plan – to have Flynn interviewed by his agents.
“For some reason (Flynn) hasn’t been candid with the Vice President about this,” Comey explained the need for the interview. “My judgment was we could not close the investigation of Mr. Flynn without asking him what is the deal here. That was the purpose.”
Yet, if the bureau really wanted to know why Flynn may have lied to Pence, it took step after step that seemed to defeat that purpose.
The officials didn’t plan at all to confront Flynn about what he told Pence. They instead went to great lengths to cast the interview as a friendly chat between fellow government officials. If Flynn was to say something they knew wasn’t true, the agents would ask again, slipping in some words from the call transcripts, Strzok later told the FBI and the Special Counsel office. If Flynn didn’t catch on, they wouldn’t press again. They were not to confront Flynn about any discrepancies directly or show him the transcripts.
This approach didn’t sit well with Bill Priestap, former FBI head of counterintelligence.
“What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to – get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” he said in his notes dated Jan. 24, 2017, arguing the team should “rethink” its approach.
“We regularly show subjects evidence. With the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing,” he said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”
The bureau was risking its reputation, he said.
“If we’re seen as playing games, WH (White House) will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games,” he said in his notes.
His concerns were dismissed. What’s more, Comey went forward with the interview without consulting or even informing the DOJ, which later angered Yates, she said.
When McCabe called Flynn Jan. 24, 2017, to set up the interview, Flynn readily agreed to have the agents over for a talk about the Kislyak calls. He said that the FBI probably already knew what was said anyway.
“You listen to everything they (Russian representatives) say,” Flynn said, according to McCabe’s notes from that day.
McCabe said he told Flynn he wanted the interview done “as quickly, quietly and discretely as possible.” If Flynn wanted anybody to sit in, such as one of the White House lawyers, the DOJ would have to be involved, McCabe told him.
It was some “egregious” behavior, according to Marc Ruskin, a 27-year FBI veteran and Epoch Times contributor.
“To affirmatively go ahead and say that you don’t need to have an attorney present really goes beyond the bounds of anything that most agents in the past would have considered an acceptable behavior,” he said in a phone call.
Still, Flynn agreed to talk to the agents alone.
About two hours later, Strzok and Supervisory Special Agent Joe Pientka showed up at the West Wing of the White House for the interview.
Flynn was “relaxed and jocular” with the agents, “unguarded” during the interview and “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,” Strzok later said.
As part of the rather sprawling interview, Flynn denied talking to Kislyak about sanctions. The agents asked again: Did he ask for Russia to not engage in “tit-for-tat?”
He seemed less sure.
“Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t, ‘Don’t do anything,’” he said, according to the agents’ report from the interview and their notes.
Flynn said in a Jan. 29 declaration to court he still doesn’t remember talking to Kislyak about sanctions.
“I told the agents that tit-for-tat is a phrase I use, which suggests that the topic of sanctions could have been raised,” he said.
The FBI and the DOJ seemed none the wiser after the interview.
The agents came back with the impression “that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying,” Strzok said.
“Do you believe that Mr. Flynn lied?” Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., asked Comey during the committee meeting.
“I don’t know. I think there is an argument to be made that he lied. It is a close one,” he replied.
DOJ prosecutors were skeptical that Flynn just didn’t remember, according to Yates. They asked the FBI if it wanted to interview Flynn again – a common practice in cases where it seems the interviewee lacked candor.
But the FBI not only didn’t want another interview, but Yates “recalled them being pretty emphatic about it,” the report from her interview said. She said she didn’t know why.
Despite previously insisting on the opposite, Comey was suddenly all for informing the White House of Flynn’s situation.
He “said it was a great idea” for Yates to talk to the White House counsel, “and agreed a ‘lawyer to lawyer’ talk made sense,” according to Yates.
Yates and McCord met with Don McGahn, former White House counsel, and his associate Jan. 26, 2017. They told them that Flynn lied to Pence and that the FBI interviewed him in the White House two days before.
McCord described McGahn as “shocked” by the news. Flynn was fired two weeks later.
Reprinted with permission of The Epoch Times.
Petr Svab
The Epoch Times
The belief that Lt. Gen Michael Flynn was set up by the FBI has been backed up by a string of evidence in documents released by the Department of Justice.
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty in 2017 to one count of lying to the FBI.
On May 7, however, the DOJ dropped the case against him, saying that when the FBI interviewed Flynn Jan. 24, 2017, the investigation into him was “no longer justifiably predicated” and “seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.”
The motion to dismiss the case was accompanied by more than a dozen documents substantiating the decision.
The FBI opened a counterintelligence case on Flynn Aug. 16, 2016. The stated reason was public information that Flynn was an adviser to Trump, had “ties” to some entities “affiliated” with Russia and visited Russia the year before.
After four months of investigating, the FBI couldn’t find any “derogatory” information on Flynn.
On Jan. 4, 2017, William Barnett, one of the agents managing the Flynn case, drafted a document to close the case, saying there were no more investigative leads to follow.
That afternoon, the former head of FBI counterintelligence operations, Peter Strzok, reached out to Flynn’s case manager, urging him to keep the case open. The documents indicate the case manager was likely Barnett.
Former FBI Director James Comey later said in a meeting with lawmakers that he authorized the closing of the Flynn case, but that it was kept open because the bureau learned about Flynn’s calls with former Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak.
“I think I had authorized it to be closed at the … end of December, beginning of January. And we kept it open once we became aware of these communications,” Comey told the House Intelligence Committee March 2, 2017. “There were additional steps the investigators wanted to consider.”
But what steps?
Flynn’s calls coincided with new sanctions imposed on Russia by former President Barack Obama in late December 2016. Flynn’s lawyers were never given the transcripts of the calls, but the DOJ said he requested from Kislyak “that Russia avoid ‘escalating’ tensions in response to” the sanctions. Russia responded by holding off on its retaliation for several months.
The morning of Jan. 4, 2017, Lisa Page, special counsel to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Strzok’s mistress, sent an email to former FBI General Counsel James Baker.
“Code section at question,” the email’s subject read, with “18 USC 953” in the body.
The number refers to the Logan Act, a 1799 law that prohibits Americans from conducting diplomacy on their own with countries that the United States has a dispute with.
Less than 10 minutes later, Strzok emailed Page the text of the statute – writing “because I am awesome” – and attached a 2015 document about Logan Act from the Congressional Research Service.
“All the legislative history they cite does not involve incoming administrations,” he said in the email, quoting from the document that “viability” of the statute may involve “constitutional issues, such as freedom of speech and right to travel.”
“You are awesome. Thank you,” Page replied, and a few hours later sent the text of the statute to McCabe without any mention of the constitutional issues.
In the afternoon, Strzok texted another FBI staffer about the need to keep the Flynn case open.
“We need to decide what to do with him w/r/t (with regards to) the (redacted),” he said.
The “seventh floor (was) involved,” he said by text, referring to the FBI top leadership.
But there seemed to be no appetite at the DOJ to pursue a Logan Act violation. No one has ever been convicted of breaking the law, and only two people were ever charged, the last one in 1852.
Mary McCord, former head of the DOJ’s National Security Division, said she was not thinking about a criminal investigation at the time, according to a report from her July 17, 2017, interview with the FBI and the Special Counsel office.
“It seemed logical to her that there may be some communications between an incoming administration and their foreign partners, so the Logan Act seemed like a stretch to her,” according to the report from the interview.
“The feeling among NSD attorneys was Flynn’s behavior was a technical violation of the Logan Act, but they were not sure this would have a lot of jury appeal, or if pursuing it would be a good use of the power of the Justice Department,” according to an Aug.15, 2017, FBI report from an interview with former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
“Yates had the impression the FBI was more eager to pursue prosecution initially,” according to the report.
McCord did call the Kislyak calls “concerning” and Yates labeled them “problematic.” Yet neither of them clearly explained what was “concerning” or “problematic” about them.
“Indeed, Mr. Flynn’s request that Russia avoid ‘escalating’ tensions in response to U.S. sanctions in an effort to mollify geopolitical tensions was consistent with him advocating for, not against, the interests of the United States,” Timothy Shea, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, in the motion to dismiss the Flynn case, said.
In any event, with no Logan Act charge incoming, the Flynn case seemed dead in the water. But it still wasn’t closed. Nobody seems to have provided a good explanation why.
“Nothing, to my mind, happens until the 13th of January,” Comey told the House committee.
‘Flood is coming’
In fact, the week after the scramble to keep the Flynn probe open was one of the most consequential in American history, with national repercussions rippling out for years to come.
The FBI, and Comey in particular, played a central role.
On Jan. 6, 2017, Trump was briefed by the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as the heads of the FBI, National Security Agency and CIA on their “assessment” that Russia meddled in the election. They also said the Kremlin favored Trump in their influence campaign, though the NSA partially dissented from that assessment.
A declassified version of the report was released the same day, “a virtually unheard-of, real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about to direct them,” according to The New York Times.
As an annex to the assessment was attached a two-page summary of the Steele dossier, a collection of unsubstantiated claims about supposed Trump-Russia collusion.
The dossier was supposedly written by Christopher Steele, a former British spy. He was paid through intermediaries by the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of former State Secretary Hillary Clinton. Both Steele and his employers had for months peddled the dossier to the media, the FBI, the State Department, the DOJ and Congress.
Right after the Jan. 6 meeting, Comey privately briefed Trump on the most salacious allegation from the dossier. He didn’t give him the summary.
“I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to speak to PE (President-elect) about alone or in a very small group,” Comey said about the meeting in an email Jan. 7, 2017, to senior FBI leadership, according to a May 21, 2018, release by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
“I then executed the session exactly as I had planned,” Comey said, adding, “I said media like CNN had them (the dossier content) and were looking for a news hook.”
As it seems, the FBI was aware that information about the Trump-Comey briefing was in fact the hook CNN would use.
“Flood is coming,” McCabe said Jan. 8, 2017, in the subject of an email to senior FBI leadership.
“CNN is close to going forward with the sensitive story. … The trigger for them (CNN) is they know the material was discussed in the brief and presented in an attachment,” he said in the email.
Less than an hour later, McCabe emailed Yates and then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Matthew Axelrod with the subject line “News.”
“Just an FYI, and as expected, it seems CNN is close to running a story about the sensitive reporting,” he said.
On Jan. 10, 2017, Strzok wrote to other senior FBI officials, “Per Rich, CNN to publish C material today between 4 and 5.”
That afternoon, CCN ran a story saying (incorrectly) that Trump was presented with a “two-page synopsis” of the dossier during the Jan. 6 briefing. Shortly after, BuzzFeed released one of the versions of the dossier itself.
Within hours, the collusion narrative was imprinted on much of the nation’s psyche. More leaks were coming that would build on that foundation.
On Jan. 12, 2017, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius published a column where he said a “senior U.S. government official” told him that Flynn called Kislyak multiple times Jan. 29, 2016. Ignatius suggested that if Flynn talked about the Russia sanctions, he may have violated the “spirit” of the Logan Act. Other media followed with their own stories, repeating the Logan Act narrative.
Under the enormous pressure to distance themselves from anything Russia-related, several Trump team members, including the incoming Vice President Mike Pence, questioned Flynn about the calls. Flynn said he didn’t talk about sanctions and that’s what the team told the media.
The calls “had nothing whatsoever to do with the sanctions,” Pence told CBS News Jan. 15, 2017, in an interview the network almost wholly dedicated to questions about Russia.
With this denial, the FBI effectively had Flynn trapped. The officials knew that Pence, a man known for closely guarding his reputation, told a lie on national television and that Flynn was responsible.
Yates and some others from the intelligence community wanted to inform the Trump team of Flynn’s predicament, she said. Her take was that the lie made Flynn “compromised” because the Russians would know he lied.
It would have possibly led to Flynn’s firing, but the outcome was uncertain. After all, Trump held Flynn in high regard.
Comey seemed aware that the “compromise” angle was weak.
It was “possible,” he testified, that the lie made Flynn blackmailable, but “that struck me as a bit of a reach, though, honestly,” he said.
Comey blocked the idea of informing the White House. The Kislyak transcripts were the FBI’s information and he had the last word on who gets it, Yates said.
Instead, Comey had a more ambitious plan – to have Flynn interviewed by his agents.
“For some reason (Flynn) hasn’t been candid with the Vice President about this,” Comey explained the need for the interview. “My judgment was we could not close the investigation of Mr. Flynn without asking him what is the deal here. That was the purpose.”
Yet, if the bureau really wanted to know why Flynn may have lied to Pence, it took step after step that seemed to defeat that purpose.
The officials didn’t plan at all to confront Flynn about what he told Pence. They instead went to great lengths to cast the interview as a friendly chat between fellow government officials. If Flynn was to say something they knew wasn’t true, the agents would ask again, slipping in some words from the call transcripts, Strzok later told the FBI and the Special Counsel office. If Flynn didn’t catch on, they wouldn’t press again. They were not to confront Flynn about any discrepancies directly or show him the transcripts.
This approach didn’t sit well with Bill Priestap, former FBI head of counterintelligence.
“What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to – get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” he said in his notes dated Jan. 24, 2017, arguing the team should “rethink” its approach.
“We regularly show subjects evidence. With the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing,” he said. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him.”
The bureau was risking its reputation, he said.
“If we’re seen as playing games, WH (White House) will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games,” he said in his notes.
His concerns were dismissed. What’s more, Comey went forward with the interview without consulting or even informing the DOJ, which later angered Yates, she said.
When McCabe called Flynn Jan. 24, 2017, to set up the interview, Flynn readily agreed to have the agents over for a talk about the Kislyak calls. He said that the FBI probably already knew what was said anyway.
“You listen to everything they (Russian representatives) say,” Flynn said, according to McCabe’s notes from that day.
McCabe said he told Flynn he wanted the interview done “as quickly, quietly and discretely as possible.” If Flynn wanted anybody to sit in, such as one of the White House lawyers, the DOJ would have to be involved, McCabe told him.
It was some “egregious” behavior, according to Marc Ruskin, a 27-year FBI veteran and Epoch Times contributor.
“To affirmatively go ahead and say that you don’t need to have an attorney present really goes beyond the bounds of anything that most agents in the past would have considered an acceptable behavior,” he said in a phone call.
Still, Flynn agreed to talk to the agents alone.
About two hours later, Strzok and Supervisory Special Agent Joe Pientka showed up at the West Wing of the White House for the interview.
Flynn was “relaxed and jocular” with the agents, “unguarded” during the interview and “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,” Strzok later said.
As part of the rather sprawling interview, Flynn denied talking to Kislyak about sanctions. The agents asked again: Did he ask for Russia to not engage in “tit-for-tat?”
He seemed less sure.
“Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t, ‘Don’t do anything,’” he said, according to the agents’ report from the interview and their notes.
Flynn said in a Jan. 29 declaration to court he still doesn’t remember talking to Kislyak about sanctions.
“I told the agents that tit-for-tat is a phrase I use, which suggests that the topic of sanctions could have been raised,” he said.
The FBI and the DOJ seemed none the wiser after the interview.
The agents came back with the impression “that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying,” Strzok said.
“Do you believe that Mr. Flynn lied?” Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., asked Comey during the committee meeting.
“I don’t know. I think there is an argument to be made that he lied. It is a close one,” he replied.
DOJ prosecutors were skeptical that Flynn just didn’t remember, according to Yates. They asked the FBI if it wanted to interview Flynn again – a common practice in cases where it seems the interviewee lacked candor.
But the FBI not only didn’t want another interview, but Yates “recalled them being pretty emphatic about it,” the report from her interview said. She said she didn’t know why.
Despite previously insisting on the opposite, Comey was suddenly all for informing the White House of Flynn’s situation.
He “said it was a great idea” for Yates to talk to the White House counsel, “and agreed a ‘lawyer to lawyer’ talk made sense,” according to Yates.
Yates and McCord met with Don McGahn, former White House counsel, and his associate Jan. 26, 2017. They told them that Flynn lied to Pence and that the FBI interviewed him in the White House two days before.
McCord described McGahn as “shocked” by the news. Flynn was fired two weeks later.
Reprinted with permission of The Epoch Times.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
I sometimes feel a little nervous or guilty about leaving A.A. but after contacting an old friend from this blog, he reminded me it's ok.
See, He reminded my why I had to leave A.A.
Not because it's this predatory place of "religious Cult", but quite the opposite.
A.A. has been infiltrated by liberal left leaning Democrap atheisitic radical Snowflake feeley touchy Antifa loving George Soros loving adult-children, that I just figured to give up, and guess what?
I'm better off and I annoy them because although they already have destroyed the Blamestream Lamestream Fakestream mainstream media, Hollywood, the NFL, SNL, academia, the "intelligence" agency, a slight majority in the House of Representatives, and even some RINOs in the Senate, they want more.
I walked away, turned my station, and pissed them off.
For example, Nancy Pelosi, first she was Russian for Impeachment, now she's just Stalin.
Keep this in mind, your President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, has the lowest approval rating in the History of Approval Ratings... for Radical Islamist Terrorists.
:)
Have a nice day.
Oh, my old buddy from A.A. who was/is also an author of this blog, the reason we had a falling out is because I told him about my politics. He told me his thoughts about that President in the White House and other politicians to his credit. Then I told him he might as well start hating on me because according to "his" people, I'm a white racist homophobic misogynistic xenophobic redneck. Then he told me how America did in fact create this nation on shame and genocide and etc. and blah blah blah… then I set him straight with some facts... which I'll include down below, then he pretty much told me we should no longer speak.
I'm fine with that. …
Here's a History Lesson for Y'all…
Who started the Republican Party? Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic Party? In 1820, Andrew Jackson.
Jackson screwed over the Native Americans for the Democrats’ vote – Indian Removal Bill.
National Republican Senator Frelinghuysen opposed taking Indian land by violence. National Republican Congressman Davy Crockett also opposed this.
Democrats passed it, Jackson signed it into law.
Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer of Early American History describes the air of destruction of most celebrated and ancient American Peoples a “Trail of Tears.”
Besides stealing land of the Indians, Democrats also embraced slavery on plantations.
Jackson owned hundreds of slaves. He had Betty receive 50 lashes for washing neighbors’ clothes without his permission.
Jackson, in 1804, ran an add for the return of a runaway slave, offering $50.00 for the return, and $10.00 for each 100 lashings, up to 300 lashings, essentially a death sentence.
Jackson didn’t just steal their labor. He raped young women.
Republicans formed to end slavery and to free runaway slaves.
John C. Calhoun was one of the most notorious Democratic defenders (and Senator) of slavery. He said that slavery benefited both parties.
Today, Democrats duck responsibility by trying to blame the South. But Northern Democrats tried to protect slavery. One such advocate was Illinois Senator Steven Douglass. He thought each state should decide for/against slavery. He wanted slavery all over the world, not just here.
Republicans wanted to end the spread of slavery. Republican Senator Charles Sumner (1856) denounced slavery.
Preston Brooks, Democratic Congressman, physically attacked him from behind with a cane, nearly killing him.
Lincoln considered slavery a “form of theft.”
“You work, I eat.”
Democratic Propaganda states the Civil War as being a contest between anti-Slavery North vs. the pro-Slavery South. This is a lie. The Civil War was about a war between the Abolitionists and those who wanted Slavery.
Lincoln said, “The judgment of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
But didn’t some Republicans own slaves? No. All the slaves at the time of the Civil War were owned by Democrats.
So, the Civil War is best known as a contest between the anti-slavery Republican Party and the Pro-Slavery Democratic Party.
Lincoln wanted to give freed slaves citizenship, equal rights, and the right to vote.
The Democrats couldn’t believe it.
Lincoln was assassinated.
Democratic Party Legacy:
Oppression
Indian Massacres
Broken Treaties
Slavery
But they claim to be the party of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
But that was just an Act. There already was a Civil Rights Movement lead by the Republican Party from back in the 1860s.
The 1960s Act merely tried to claim laws that were already put into the Constitution 100 years previously by the, that’s right, Republicans.
A little known fact, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Today’s Democrats take credit for Civil Rights legislation.
So what’s their contribution? They finally agreed to stop filibustering it so it could pass.
“40 Acres and a Mule”
The Republican Party set aside 400,000 acres of confiscated Confederate land and began dividing it to give freed slaves 40 acres and a left-over army mule.
Democratic President Andrew Johnson gave the land back to its former plantation owners.
Democrats claim to be the “Party of Economic Opportunity”, but they opposed the 13th Amendment.
Slavery Abolishment: Republicans were 100% for, Democrats were 77% against.
Democrats claim to be the Party of “Social Justice”, but they fought the 14th Amendment, which gives citizenship to Blacks and established equality of rights under the law.
14th Amendment: Republicans 94% for, Democrats 0% for.
Democrats lecture Republicans over Racial Equality.
Racial Equality: the Democrats voted against the 15th Amendment, refusing to give slaves the right to vote.
15th Amendment: Republicans 100% for, Democrats 100% against.
Republicans also gave women the right to vote. Suffragettes were virtually all Republican, Democrats opposed Suffragettes. They fought it and lost in Congress. Then they fought it in the States where they lost again.
Democrats New Plan: Carol Swain from Vanderbilt Law School is an expert on Race Relations and Civil Rights; After Civil War in 1865, the Democratic Party was in ruins and they needed a New Plan.
The Ku Klux Klan was founded by Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was the first Grand Wizard and a pledged delegate to the Democratic Convention.
The whole purpose of the Democratic Party was to reestablish White Supremacy.
1868, the party platform was “This is a white man’s country, let a white man rule.”
Black Republicans and White Republicans were its targets.
Congressman James Hinds was the first sitting member of Congress assassinated.
During the Klans’ long reign of terror, they killed over 3,000 blacks and over 1,000 white Republicans.
The Ku Klux Klan was the military arm of the Democratic Party.
Why has all of this been swept under the rug? To cover the tracks of the Democratic Party.
The violence of racism carried well into the 20th Century, at other times, it merely changed forms.
Ida B. Wells refused to give up her 1st Class train seat to a white man. She was a Republican, working for a Republican paper. She fought for a Black Man’s 2nd Amendment right and wanted a Winchester in their home to defend themselves against the KKK.
Early Democrats opposition to the 2nd Amendment had a racist motive. In fact, almost every thing they did had a racist motive.
Why did the KKK have a revival in the early 20th Century?
Another fan of the KKK was President Woodrow Wilson. “The Birth of a Nation” by D.W. Griffith, -the first movie screened in the White House.
In 1914, Ida B. Wells confronted Woodrow Wilson for his racist views.
She called him out for removing black officials from top jobs and putting them in menial jobs, janitors, etc.
He said segregation is good for both.
He continued to segregate the Federal Government.
1924: Democratic National Convention: “The Klan Bake”
10s of 1000s of Klansmen marched on New York City shouting racist slogans and burning crosses to celebrate the Democratic Party’s refusal to condemn the KKK in their platform.
The New Deal:
FDR didn’t have the votes to pass the New Deal program, so he promised the Democratic Party that he would block any anti-lynching legislation and he would exclude blacks from most New Deal programs.
White farmers were paid to not grow crops which meant many Blacks lost their jobs.
So most blacks, if they worked on the land, if they worked as maids, if they were paid in cash, they couldn’t get Social Security.
Johnson knew he had the Black vote, but privately, he knew the Black voters outnumbered the White voters in Texas.
Called the Negro Bill, he said, “We got to give them just enough but not enough to make a difference.”
Democrats are still trying to use Black Peoples’ vote for their own gain.
Deny, Deny, Deny, Shift Blame, Shift Blame, Shift Blame. That’s all they do.
Bill Mahr: “If you are racist, you’re probably a Republican.”
The Big Switch:
Senator Strom Thurmond was a racist Democrat who became a Republican.
But wait a minute. The Blacks switched to the Democratic Party in the 1930s, based on the promises of the New Deal.
They didn’t do it due to Race. They knew they were joining the party of the KKK and the party of segregation.
Southern Whites moved over to the Republican Party much later, during the 1970s to 90s, as the South became much more prosperous.
Racism had declined dramatically in the South. So as the South became less racist, it became more Republican.
So Blacks and Whites switched parties for economic reasons.
The proof of this is in Byron Shafer and Richard Johnson’s book, “The End of Southern Exceptionalism.” It shows the poorest, most racist Whites never switched.
The Whites that did switch from Democrats to Republicans, “were the non-racists, who were attracted to the Republican Party’s message of opportunity, prosperity, and upward mobility.”
So, besides Strom Thurmond, who else switched from Democrat to Republican?
Leaders of the KKK?
Leaders of other racist organizations?
Democratic Congressmen?
Democratic Senators from 1860-2000?
All who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
14 of 1600, so less than 1%
The Big Switch is a Big Lie.
The Democrats didn’t switch from being the Bad Guys to the Good Guys, the simply found a new and better scam.
Millions of Southern Blacks moved north, joined by millions of immigrants, from all over the world. So the Democrats got an idea; Let’s recreate the plantation, but now do it in the inner city.
Obama- Dreams from my Father, “Seemed like we’d always be second-class citizens. Plantation Politics.” So evidently, Plantation talk was coming from Barack’s dad.
Black people in the worst jobs, worst housing, police brutality rampant, but when the so-called black committeemen came around election time… “We’d all line up and vote the Straight Democratic Ticket. Sell our souls for a Christmas Turkey. White folks spitting in our faces, and we’d reward them with a vote.”
So what has Obama done to get rid of the Democratic Plantation? Nothing.
That’s because he’s running it.
These plantations weren’t just for Blacks, they were also for other minorities and immigrants.
When these groups arrived, they found waiting for them a Democratic Welcoming Committee.
They helped them out, got them a place to live, got them jobs.
The immigrant plantation had their own names; ghettoes, slums, barrios.
Welcome to America!
The Democrats built them, put these vulnerable people in them, and made sure no one left them.
Nothing’s free. They made sure these folks voted for them.
Gangs have bosses who control them. The Democrats invented the “Big City” Boss.
They didn’t just control politics, they also controlled industry, Unions.
Once in power, they steal the city treasury and shake-down businesses.
This makes them the “Original Community Organizers.”
Inner City racket.
Research Richard J. Daley
Johah Goldberg is an editor at the National Review. “Democrats used to like to be called Liberals.”
Today, it’s Progressive. What does Progressive mean? Social engineering, social control.
U.S. : Progressivism
USSR: Communism
Italy: Fascism
The Holocaust started off as progressive ideas, experimentation, planning, eugenics.
Margaret Sanger – Silver Lake New Jersey 1926. – Planned Parenthood.
So...
in short, I think he's just so shamed and stuffed with deep seated resentment because deep down in his gizzards, he knows what many duped democrats know, especially those minorities and immigrants who were pimped out by the "Democrat" elite who traded their crumbs and broken promises for a vote.
For a vote!
Meditate or Chair Yoga on that for a month or two.
Not because it's this predatory place of "religious Cult", but quite the opposite.
A.A. has been infiltrated by liberal left leaning Democrap atheisitic radical Snowflake feeley touchy Antifa loving George Soros loving adult-children, that I just figured to give up, and guess what?
I'm better off and I annoy them because although they already have destroyed the Blamestream Lamestream Fakestream mainstream media, Hollywood, the NFL, SNL, academia, the "intelligence" agency, a slight majority in the House of Representatives, and even some RINOs in the Senate, they want more.
I walked away, turned my station, and pissed them off.
For example, Nancy Pelosi, first she was Russian for Impeachment, now she's just Stalin.
Keep this in mind, your President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, has the lowest approval rating in the History of Approval Ratings... for Radical Islamist Terrorists.
:)
Have a nice day.
Oh, my old buddy from A.A. who was/is also an author of this blog, the reason we had a falling out is because I told him about my politics. He told me his thoughts about that President in the White House and other politicians to his credit. Then I told him he might as well start hating on me because according to "his" people, I'm a white racist homophobic misogynistic xenophobic redneck. Then he told me how America did in fact create this nation on shame and genocide and etc. and blah blah blah… then I set him straight with some facts... which I'll include down below, then he pretty much told me we should no longer speak.
I'm fine with that. …
Here's a History Lesson for Y'all…
Who started the Republican Party? Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic Party? In 1820, Andrew Jackson.
Jackson screwed over the Native Americans for the Democrats’ vote – Indian Removal Bill.
National Republican Senator Frelinghuysen opposed taking Indian land by violence. National Republican Congressman Davy Crockett also opposed this.
Democrats passed it, Jackson signed it into law.
Alexis de Tocqueville, the French observer of Early American History describes the air of destruction of most celebrated and ancient American Peoples a “Trail of Tears.”
Besides stealing land of the Indians, Democrats also embraced slavery on plantations.
Jackson owned hundreds of slaves. He had Betty receive 50 lashes for washing neighbors’ clothes without his permission.
Jackson, in 1804, ran an add for the return of a runaway slave, offering $50.00 for the return, and $10.00 for each 100 lashings, up to 300 lashings, essentially a death sentence.
Jackson didn’t just steal their labor. He raped young women.
Republicans formed to end slavery and to free runaway slaves.
John C. Calhoun was one of the most notorious Democratic defenders (and Senator) of slavery. He said that slavery benefited both parties.
Today, Democrats duck responsibility by trying to blame the South. But Northern Democrats tried to protect slavery. One such advocate was Illinois Senator Steven Douglass. He thought each state should decide for/against slavery. He wanted slavery all over the world, not just here.
Republicans wanted to end the spread of slavery. Republican Senator Charles Sumner (1856) denounced slavery.
Preston Brooks, Democratic Congressman, physically attacked him from behind with a cane, nearly killing him.
Lincoln considered slavery a “form of theft.”
“You work, I eat.”
Democratic Propaganda states the Civil War as being a contest between anti-Slavery North vs. the pro-Slavery South. This is a lie. The Civil War was about a war between the Abolitionists and those who wanted Slavery.
Lincoln said, “The judgment of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
But didn’t some Republicans own slaves? No. All the slaves at the time of the Civil War were owned by Democrats.
So, the Civil War is best known as a contest between the anti-slavery Republican Party and the Pro-Slavery Democratic Party.
Lincoln wanted to give freed slaves citizenship, equal rights, and the right to vote.
The Democrats couldn’t believe it.
Lincoln was assassinated.
Democratic Party Legacy:
Oppression
Indian Massacres
Broken Treaties
Slavery
But they claim to be the party of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
But that was just an Act. There already was a Civil Rights Movement lead by the Republican Party from back in the 1860s.
The 1960s Act merely tried to claim laws that were already put into the Constitution 100 years previously by the, that’s right, Republicans.
A little known fact, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Today’s Democrats take credit for Civil Rights legislation.
So what’s their contribution? They finally agreed to stop filibustering it so it could pass.
“40 Acres and a Mule”
The Republican Party set aside 400,000 acres of confiscated Confederate land and began dividing it to give freed slaves 40 acres and a left-over army mule.
Democratic President Andrew Johnson gave the land back to its former plantation owners.
Democrats claim to be the “Party of Economic Opportunity”, but they opposed the 13th Amendment.
Slavery Abolishment: Republicans were 100% for, Democrats were 77% against.
Democrats claim to be the Party of “Social Justice”, but they fought the 14th Amendment, which gives citizenship to Blacks and established equality of rights under the law.
14th Amendment: Republicans 94% for, Democrats 0% for.
Democrats lecture Republicans over Racial Equality.
Racial Equality: the Democrats voted against the 15th Amendment, refusing to give slaves the right to vote.
15th Amendment: Republicans 100% for, Democrats 100% against.
Republicans also gave women the right to vote. Suffragettes were virtually all Republican, Democrats opposed Suffragettes. They fought it and lost in Congress. Then they fought it in the States where they lost again.
Democrats New Plan: Carol Swain from Vanderbilt Law School is an expert on Race Relations and Civil Rights; After Civil War in 1865, the Democratic Party was in ruins and they needed a New Plan.
The Ku Klux Klan was founded by Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was the first Grand Wizard and a pledged delegate to the Democratic Convention.
The whole purpose of the Democratic Party was to reestablish White Supremacy.
1868, the party platform was “This is a white man’s country, let a white man rule.”
Black Republicans and White Republicans were its targets.
Congressman James Hinds was the first sitting member of Congress assassinated.
During the Klans’ long reign of terror, they killed over 3,000 blacks and over 1,000 white Republicans.
The Ku Klux Klan was the military arm of the Democratic Party.
Why has all of this been swept under the rug? To cover the tracks of the Democratic Party.
The violence of racism carried well into the 20th Century, at other times, it merely changed forms.
Ida B. Wells refused to give up her 1st Class train seat to a white man. She was a Republican, working for a Republican paper. She fought for a Black Man’s 2nd Amendment right and wanted a Winchester in their home to defend themselves against the KKK.
Early Democrats opposition to the 2nd Amendment had a racist motive. In fact, almost every thing they did had a racist motive.
Why did the KKK have a revival in the early 20th Century?
Another fan of the KKK was President Woodrow Wilson. “The Birth of a Nation” by D.W. Griffith, -the first movie screened in the White House.
In 1914, Ida B. Wells confronted Woodrow Wilson for his racist views.
She called him out for removing black officials from top jobs and putting them in menial jobs, janitors, etc.
He said segregation is good for both.
He continued to segregate the Federal Government.
1924: Democratic National Convention: “The Klan Bake”
10s of 1000s of Klansmen marched on New York City shouting racist slogans and burning crosses to celebrate the Democratic Party’s refusal to condemn the KKK in their platform.
The New Deal:
FDR didn’t have the votes to pass the New Deal program, so he promised the Democratic Party that he would block any anti-lynching legislation and he would exclude blacks from most New Deal programs.
White farmers were paid to not grow crops which meant many Blacks lost their jobs.
So most blacks, if they worked on the land, if they worked as maids, if they were paid in cash, they couldn’t get Social Security.
Johnson knew he had the Black vote, but privately, he knew the Black voters outnumbered the White voters in Texas.
Called the Negro Bill, he said, “We got to give them just enough but not enough to make a difference.”
Democrats are still trying to use Black Peoples’ vote for their own gain.
Deny, Deny, Deny, Shift Blame, Shift Blame, Shift Blame. That’s all they do.
Bill Mahr: “If you are racist, you’re probably a Republican.”
The Big Switch:
Senator Strom Thurmond was a racist Democrat who became a Republican.
But wait a minute. The Blacks switched to the Democratic Party in the 1930s, based on the promises of the New Deal.
They didn’t do it due to Race. They knew they were joining the party of the KKK and the party of segregation.
Southern Whites moved over to the Republican Party much later, during the 1970s to 90s, as the South became much more prosperous.
Racism had declined dramatically in the South. So as the South became less racist, it became more Republican.
So Blacks and Whites switched parties for economic reasons.
The proof of this is in Byron Shafer and Richard Johnson’s book, “The End of Southern Exceptionalism.” It shows the poorest, most racist Whites never switched.
The Whites that did switch from Democrats to Republicans, “were the non-racists, who were attracted to the Republican Party’s message of opportunity, prosperity, and upward mobility.”
So, besides Strom Thurmond, who else switched from Democrat to Republican?
Leaders of the KKK?
Leaders of other racist organizations?
Democratic Congressmen?
Democratic Senators from 1860-2000?
All who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
14 of 1600, so less than 1%
The Big Switch is a Big Lie.
The Democrats didn’t switch from being the Bad Guys to the Good Guys, the simply found a new and better scam.
Millions of Southern Blacks moved north, joined by millions of immigrants, from all over the world. So the Democrats got an idea; Let’s recreate the plantation, but now do it in the inner city.
Obama- Dreams from my Father, “Seemed like we’d always be second-class citizens. Plantation Politics.” So evidently, Plantation talk was coming from Barack’s dad.
Black people in the worst jobs, worst housing, police brutality rampant, but when the so-called black committeemen came around election time… “We’d all line up and vote the Straight Democratic Ticket. Sell our souls for a Christmas Turkey. White folks spitting in our faces, and we’d reward them with a vote.”
So what has Obama done to get rid of the Democratic Plantation? Nothing.
That’s because he’s running it.
These plantations weren’t just for Blacks, they were also for other minorities and immigrants.
When these groups arrived, they found waiting for them a Democratic Welcoming Committee.
They helped them out, got them a place to live, got them jobs.
The immigrant plantation had their own names; ghettoes, slums, barrios.
Welcome to America!
The Democrats built them, put these vulnerable people in them, and made sure no one left them.
Nothing’s free. They made sure these folks voted for them.
Gangs have bosses who control them. The Democrats invented the “Big City” Boss.
They didn’t just control politics, they also controlled industry, Unions.
Once in power, they steal the city treasury and shake-down businesses.
This makes them the “Original Community Organizers.”
Inner City racket.
Research Richard J. Daley
Johah Goldberg is an editor at the National Review. “Democrats used to like to be called Liberals.”
Today, it’s Progressive. What does Progressive mean? Social engineering, social control.
U.S. : Progressivism
USSR: Communism
Italy: Fascism
The Holocaust started off as progressive ideas, experimentation, planning, eugenics.
Margaret Sanger – Silver Lake New Jersey 1926. – Planned Parenthood.
So...
in short, I think he's just so shamed and stuffed with deep seated resentment because deep down in his gizzards, he knows what many duped democrats know, especially those minorities and immigrants who were pimped out by the "Democrat" elite who traded their crumbs and broken promises for a vote.
For a vote!
Meditate or Chair Yoga on that for a month or two.
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Sober 16 years today and still don't want to drink a bourbon and coke...
Sixteen years sober, took me 26 or 36 years to get it, depending on how you look at it.
I have a host of friends. I am not a prey to misery and depression. I am employable and have a satisfying career, I am making a living. I am of use to people.
I've not gone to A.A. but about one time a year over the last few or several years, sort of forget exactly. When I do go to that meeting, it's my old homegroup which is still a great place with solid A.A. stepworkers. One guy has bad ALS over the last several years and still rides his bike to the meeting. He had to trade his Harley in for a Harley trike. It's pretty cool.
But, I had to leave. It is not for me now. If what I'm doing stops working, I know where to go back to. Haven't needed it so far.
I used to have drunk dreams, or nightmares if you will. Now I have occasional A.A. dreams, or nightmares if you will. In this dream, I dream I went back to A.A., then wake up in a cold sweat, then say, "Ah, I'm still sober... and still free from meetings! Thank God, it was just a dream."
:)
I have a host of friends. I am not a prey to misery and depression. I am employable and have a satisfying career, I am making a living. I am of use to people.
I've not gone to A.A. but about one time a year over the last few or several years, sort of forget exactly. When I do go to that meeting, it's my old homegroup which is still a great place with solid A.A. stepworkers. One guy has bad ALS over the last several years and still rides his bike to the meeting. He had to trade his Harley in for a Harley trike. It's pretty cool.
But, I had to leave. It is not for me now. If what I'm doing stops working, I know where to go back to. Haven't needed it so far.
I used to have drunk dreams, or nightmares if you will. Now I have occasional A.A. dreams, or nightmares if you will. In this dream, I dream I went back to A.A., then wake up in a cold sweat, then say, "Ah, I'm still sober... and still free from meetings! Thank God, it was just a dream."
:)
Friday, January 3, 2020
Old post from March 2009
I’m chairing a meeting tonight on the Bedevilments. I’d ask you now where you stand with these questions today… and what you’re doing spiritually to treat them or how has God blessed you already in these areas;
• We were having trouble with personal relationships
• We couldn’t control our emotional natures
• We were a prey to misery and depression
• We couldn’t make a living
• We had a feeling of uselessness
• We were full of fear
• We were unhappy
• We couldn’t seem to be of real help to other people
It may be that you’ve recently been through a set of steps and God has restored you and given you power in these areas and given you solutions to these problems.
Or maybe you’re like me and been through a set of steps and see some issues still lingering here.
My question is what’s your current or recent experience in these areas and what are some examples where God’s taken you to better things.
• We were having trouble with personal relationships
Well, I’m kind of new to this Thing, this Entity that we all call God. I either forget that God has me and the world in His best interest and that He already knows what my purpose in life is and how I can best serve the world. I’ve offered myself to God in the 3rd Step and asked God to take away my difficulties. Do I remain in this proper “relation” to God? Well no, not exactly. I lack faith. I rely on self and go to fear. When I don’t sense God, I go back to playing God. And as the book says, “It didn’t work”. I forget that from time to time.
Relationship with self. A little too much, if you know what I mean.
Relationship with spouse/significant other; It may be that you’re so situated that you’re widowed or single or dating or married. I’m married, so… my experience tells me that I could use God’s guidance in this area. Sex; she’s not at her “optimum weight for me, I’m no 22 year old stud, so it could be better. We have all this exercise equipment, but it collects dust. At minimal, we could go for walks together and eat healthier. Or I could sweep it under the rug and bitch about it in inventory later this year. Could be worse. Somehow, I’m missing how God could help me in this area. Advice from others has always sucked really hard. Advice from others’ has not shed one once from her ass, nor has it shed a pound of fat off my gut. At least the spouse still wants to spend time with me. We’ve come a pretty good way in 9 years, but she makes 3 times what I do. I’m the Man here! I’m supposed to be the King of the Castle. More on this later.
Relationship with my spiritual peers; I go to lunch on Friday, but not so much fellowship with guys around my 5 years of sobriety. I have opportunity for this with another group, but it’s too social and not enough spiritual. I do, after all, have a wife to go home to. I need to work out a compromise with my peers and wear the pants with the wife too.
• We couldn’t control our emotional natures
In a meeting on Friday, I yelled at my boss and he told me to clear out my desk and go home. So I did. Then 15 minutes later, he apologized and owned up to his part and asked me to go back to work. My emotional nature seemed to spike that morning and I started with rage and wound up with self-pity. I spent the rest if the weekend in fear, but I’ve got my resume handy. I guess I could use God in this area.
• We were a prey to misery and depression
I’m not big on misery and depression, that I’m aware of. Despite the current worldly situation, I’ve got a job to go to and I’ve got my bills to date; albeit sometimes 2 weeks late. I’m well fed, clothed good enough, have pretty good health, and am working with a new man who’s in step 4 and hangin’ in there with going to meetings. I don’t do much other service work but I’ve got a pretty good balance of AA, seeking God through steps 10, 11, and 12, family, recreation, hobbies, chores, etc. If I get off my otherwise lazy ass and do something, I’m pretty content and happy.
• We couldn’t make a living
Well I don’t make any less money than I did two years ago, but I don’t think I’ve earned a pay raise nor have I received a review in two years. I’ve been here for over 5 years now. Year before last I got a big bonus, but this year, I spent the 100 bucks buying the Boss’s family Christmas gifts. It was a wash. My bills have increased in amount and I don’t make no more money. I have credit dept. It’s holding steady, but look at the money I’m throwing away there. The wife makes 3 times what I do. Who wears the fucking pants here? According to our salaries, I wear the fucking dress and ought to be in the fucking kitchen making her pot fucking pie. If it weren’t for her, I’d be poor. Then again, I pay near 50% of the bills and she drives the better car and has the bigger savings, checking, and retirement account. If it weren’t for her, I’d have no fucking medical insurance. Thank God she’s willing to help me. I should pray to her every night. She’s become my sugar-momma-God.
• We had a feeling of uselessness
My company is a small and growing company. We’ve slowed in our business and I’ve been trying to find ways to charge money and bring in capital for my expertise. We used to make the bulk of our money off flooring installs, but other companies are so broke, they ain’t buying new floors. I need to get creative here find a way to “carry my own weight”. I could use God’s help in this area.
• We were full of fear
I’m getting a little pissed watching the stock market slide and unemployment grow. Where’s the fucking bottom? We haven’t been living high on the hog for a couple of years now. What if I lose my job or my wife loses her job? Yeah, fear. It’s bad enough when I have to look at my own family, but what about our city, state, country, global economy? God does not intend for us to live in fear. Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional. I want to not suffer, and I ain’t crazy about pain. Need I just wake up, show up, put the gloves on and ask, “How can I help?”
• We were unhappy
I’ve been pretty darned spoiled, to be honest. I look at my oldest brother Chris, who’s a paranoid schizophrenic. He hears voices, smokes a cigarette every 3 minutes and slams Dr Peppers and coffee and takes his strong medication every day just to function. It seems like he’s existing to breathe tobacco smoke, ingest caffeine and mood altering meds, pace the floors in a ritual manner, and once in a while, reminisce about something that’s happened 50 years ago. I’m glad to just be an alcoholic who hasn’t lost his mind yet. Then there’s my nephew who’s back in prison for using meth, stealing a woman’s purse, and dragging her 50 yards with his car as she tried to reach into it to grab her purse back from him. He was supposedly “spun out” for about 8 days straight when it happened.
• We couldn’t seem to be of real help to other people
Well I show up at meetings and share my experience with the topic and stuff… I’m glad that I belong to a strong group that does all 12 steps, but our group has seen no new members that have stayed longer than about 2 meetings. I’m the newest member of our small meeting of 4 or 5 or six people. My five years is it! I’m the newcomer! I’ve had to send new guys I meet to our rival group for one reason or another. What the fuck is wrong with this picture? Why can’t we work with a guy who’s taking meds for manic-depressive? Why do women ask if we’re a stag group? Is it me? Is it the group as a whole? Could we use God in this area?
Anyway… Just looking for a topic that will challenge our little group a bit tonight.
• We were having trouble with personal relationships
• We couldn’t control our emotional natures
• We were a prey to misery and depression
• We couldn’t make a living
• We had a feeling of uselessness
• We were full of fear
• We were unhappy
• We couldn’t seem to be of real help to other people
It may be that you’ve recently been through a set of steps and God has restored you and given you power in these areas and given you solutions to these problems.
Or maybe you’re like me and been through a set of steps and see some issues still lingering here.
My question is what’s your current or recent experience in these areas and what are some examples where God’s taken you to better things.
• We were having trouble with personal relationships
Well, I’m kind of new to this Thing, this Entity that we all call God. I either forget that God has me and the world in His best interest and that He already knows what my purpose in life is and how I can best serve the world. I’ve offered myself to God in the 3rd Step and asked God to take away my difficulties. Do I remain in this proper “relation” to God? Well no, not exactly. I lack faith. I rely on self and go to fear. When I don’t sense God, I go back to playing God. And as the book says, “It didn’t work”. I forget that from time to time.
Relationship with self. A little too much, if you know what I mean.
Relationship with spouse/significant other; It may be that you’re so situated that you’re widowed or single or dating or married. I’m married, so… my experience tells me that I could use God’s guidance in this area. Sex; she’s not at her “optimum weight for me, I’m no 22 year old stud, so it could be better. We have all this exercise equipment, but it collects dust. At minimal, we could go for walks together and eat healthier. Or I could sweep it under the rug and bitch about it in inventory later this year. Could be worse. Somehow, I’m missing how God could help me in this area. Advice from others has always sucked really hard. Advice from others’ has not shed one once from her ass, nor has it shed a pound of fat off my gut. At least the spouse still wants to spend time with me. We’ve come a pretty good way in 9 years, but she makes 3 times what I do. I’m the Man here! I’m supposed to be the King of the Castle. More on this later.
Relationship with my spiritual peers; I go to lunch on Friday, but not so much fellowship with guys around my 5 years of sobriety. I have opportunity for this with another group, but it’s too social and not enough spiritual. I do, after all, have a wife to go home to. I need to work out a compromise with my peers and wear the pants with the wife too.
• We couldn’t control our emotional natures
In a meeting on Friday, I yelled at my boss and he told me to clear out my desk and go home. So I did. Then 15 minutes later, he apologized and owned up to his part and asked me to go back to work. My emotional nature seemed to spike that morning and I started with rage and wound up with self-pity. I spent the rest if the weekend in fear, but I’ve got my resume handy. I guess I could use God in this area.
• We were a prey to misery and depression
I’m not big on misery and depression, that I’m aware of. Despite the current worldly situation, I’ve got a job to go to and I’ve got my bills to date; albeit sometimes 2 weeks late. I’m well fed, clothed good enough, have pretty good health, and am working with a new man who’s in step 4 and hangin’ in there with going to meetings. I don’t do much other service work but I’ve got a pretty good balance of AA, seeking God through steps 10, 11, and 12, family, recreation, hobbies, chores, etc. If I get off my otherwise lazy ass and do something, I’m pretty content and happy.
• We couldn’t make a living
Well I don’t make any less money than I did two years ago, but I don’t think I’ve earned a pay raise nor have I received a review in two years. I’ve been here for over 5 years now. Year before last I got a big bonus, but this year, I spent the 100 bucks buying the Boss’s family Christmas gifts. It was a wash. My bills have increased in amount and I don’t make no more money. I have credit dept. It’s holding steady, but look at the money I’m throwing away there. The wife makes 3 times what I do. Who wears the fucking pants here? According to our salaries, I wear the fucking dress and ought to be in the fucking kitchen making her pot fucking pie. If it weren’t for her, I’d be poor. Then again, I pay near 50% of the bills and she drives the better car and has the bigger savings, checking, and retirement account. If it weren’t for her, I’d have no fucking medical insurance. Thank God she’s willing to help me. I should pray to her every night. She’s become my sugar-momma-God.
• We had a feeling of uselessness
My company is a small and growing company. We’ve slowed in our business and I’ve been trying to find ways to charge money and bring in capital for my expertise. We used to make the bulk of our money off flooring installs, but other companies are so broke, they ain’t buying new floors. I need to get creative here find a way to “carry my own weight”. I could use God’s help in this area.
• We were full of fear
I’m getting a little pissed watching the stock market slide and unemployment grow. Where’s the fucking bottom? We haven’t been living high on the hog for a couple of years now. What if I lose my job or my wife loses her job? Yeah, fear. It’s bad enough when I have to look at my own family, but what about our city, state, country, global economy? God does not intend for us to live in fear. Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional. I want to not suffer, and I ain’t crazy about pain. Need I just wake up, show up, put the gloves on and ask, “How can I help?”
• We were unhappy
I’ve been pretty darned spoiled, to be honest. I look at my oldest brother Chris, who’s a paranoid schizophrenic. He hears voices, smokes a cigarette every 3 minutes and slams Dr Peppers and coffee and takes his strong medication every day just to function. It seems like he’s existing to breathe tobacco smoke, ingest caffeine and mood altering meds, pace the floors in a ritual manner, and once in a while, reminisce about something that’s happened 50 years ago. I’m glad to just be an alcoholic who hasn’t lost his mind yet. Then there’s my nephew who’s back in prison for using meth, stealing a woman’s purse, and dragging her 50 yards with his car as she tried to reach into it to grab her purse back from him. He was supposedly “spun out” for about 8 days straight when it happened.
• We couldn’t seem to be of real help to other people
Well I show up at meetings and share my experience with the topic and stuff… I’m glad that I belong to a strong group that does all 12 steps, but our group has seen no new members that have stayed longer than about 2 meetings. I’m the newest member of our small meeting of 4 or 5 or six people. My five years is it! I’m the newcomer! I’ve had to send new guys I meet to our rival group for one reason or another. What the fuck is wrong with this picture? Why can’t we work with a guy who’s taking meds for manic-depressive? Why do women ask if we’re a stag group? Is it me? Is it the group as a whole? Could we use God in this area?
Anyway… Just looking for a topic that will challenge our little group a bit tonight.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
Bill Whittle
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)