THE ‘ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT’ VS. TRUMP
President Trump gave a good speech on Tuesday night, but his presidency is still hanging by a thread. Attorney Larry Klayman says an “alternative government” in the intelligence community continues to target him. “These intelligence agencies are more powerful than the president himself,” Klayman said on the Fox Business Network. “They have the ability to blackmail people in this administration to the point that the American people’s interests are going to be subverted.”
Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, said, “How can he [President Trump] represent the interests of the American people when he knows the NSA is likely wiretapping everything he says with foreign leaders and everyone else?”
It may seem like ancient history, but the media used to be concerned about surveillance of American citizens by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. After President Trump was elected, such concern suddenly disappeared. In fact, the media became the recipients of illegal leaks of private conversations by Trump administration officials. One such leak forced the resignation of national security adviser Michael T. Flynn.
Claude Barfield, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), writes that there was nothing improper with U.S. intelligence surveillance of phone calls to and from the Russian ambassador. However, in regard to Flynn, existing law does not permit the NSA or FBI to “listen to the communications of Americans who may be caught in…eavesdropping.”
The allegation that Flynn violated “the ancient 18th century Logan Act that forbids diplomatic activity by private U.S. citizens is no longer relevant, according to almost all legal experts,” notes Barfield. So the wiretaps could not be justified on that flimsy basis.
Flynn was forced out on the equally spurious grounds that he forgot to tell Vice President Mike Pence about elements of the conversations he had with the Russian official.
Barfield says that “a criminal—and certainly civil rights—violation did occur with the public leaks of the details of his conversations with the foreign ambassador from someone (or some persons) in the intelligence community.” The leak violated the Espionage Act, which makes intentional disclosure of classified “communications intelligence activities” a felony. What’s more, citing Timothy H. Edgar of Brown University, it is also a crime for national security officials “to leverage legitimate foreign intelligence collection to reveal public information in order to damage [an] individual they do not believe should serve.”
It is well-known that Flynn’s appointment as national security adviser was opposed by elements in the intelligence community, especially the CIA.
Edgar writes that “Flynn himself may be the first victim of civil liberties abuse during the Trump administration.” He says, “If officials had concerns about Flynn, the law requires they lodge those complaints through the system and not through leaks.”
This means that some intelligence officials viewed Flynn as a threat and wanted him out, using any means possible.
Edgar suggests that Flynn call the ACLU for legal help, but a far better course of action would be to call litigator Larry Klayman, who says it’s clear that “the NSA is spying on the President, his White House, and the administration in general.”
Klayman believes that “loyalists to former President Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their leftist comrades” are behind the illegal surveillance.
Former Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) told Newsmax TV that the NSA “can collect on the Russian embassy, no problem,” but that “when they collect on an American, whether it’s here in the United States or when we collect inadvertently on an American overseas, that information immediately should be what we call minimized. The name should be taken away.”
“Hoekstra explained that a court order must be granted in order to receive permission to release the name of any American captured by the NSA’s spying techniques,” the Newsmax story said.
Rather than be minimized or eliminated, the name was illegally leaked to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. We discussed this sequence of events in the column, “Why the CIA Wants to Destroy Flynn.” Ignatius quoted “a senior U.S. government official” as the source of the information about Flynn.
During his appearance on the Fox Business Channel, Klayman discussed this illegal surveillance and offered to represent Flynn in a legal action. He repeated his claim that the intelligence community was engaged in illegal surveillance not only of Flynn but of other Trump officials, including the President himself.
Klayman has asked for an emergency hearing on this matter from Judge Richard Leon, who had previously ruled in Klayman’s favor in a lawsuit against NSA surveillance. He said the evidence suggests the existence of an “alternative government,” based in the intelligence community, which is more powerful than elected officials.
On the same program, a clip was played of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, saying that the Flynn case represented an abuse of authority. He said that Flynn had his telephone call listened to by the government and leaked to the press, and that if this had happened to a member of the Obama administration, “you can imagine the Democrats in the House and Senate would be going crazy…”
Nunes said that, in order for the intelligence community to listen to an American such as Flynn, a special warrant is required. “I am quite sure this wasn’t done in this case,” he said.
The Washington Monthly, a liberal publication, published a story by Martin Longman that began, “When it comes to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, I have long seen him as an informal member of the intelligence community who often acts as their mouthpiece.” Longman concluded that “the intelligence community took down Flynn…”
The official bio for Ignatius mentions that he covered the CIA when he worked for The Wall Street Journal.
At the Post, Ignatius has expressed concern about whether Obama CIA director John Brennan’s “modernization” of the agency will survive Trump. “After interviewing several dozen CIA officers and veterans over the past several months,” Ignatius wrote, “my conclusion is that Brennan’s reforms should continue…”
Based on stories like this, it would appear that Ignatius is more than willing, even anxious, to advertise his CIA connections.
Any investigation of what Trump calls “illegal leaks” should begin with him.
DEMOCRATS LITERALLY WILL NOT STAND FOR ANYTHING AMERICANS WANT
Madam Tussaud’s Lefty Wax Museum invaded the Democrats’ side of the House Tuesday night to hear President Trump’s first address to Congress. Only marginally life-like, these waxworks couldn’t bring themselves to stand and cheer for anything almost every American wants: more good-paying jobs; safe streets; real, not fake, government-dictated healthcare plans that are too expensive to use; prosecution and deportation of criminal aliens; school choices that give disadvantaged kids a good education; destroying murderous radical Islamic terrorism; meaningful vetting of those from seven nations that could export terrorists disguised as refugees; and a strong, rebuilt military.
It was a brilliant speech and much of its brilliance was in exposing who these Democrats really are.
As the president described his vision of dying industries coming back to life, new infrastructure replacing the old, the drug epidemic dwindling, and our cities seeing rebirth, the leading House Democrat Nancy Pelosi sat granite-faced, licking her teeth. Or was she chewing her cud?
The waxworks did come to life once or twice, when President Trump mentioned paid family leave, a favorite Democrat gimmee they’ve been pushing for years. And there was some applause when he mentioned law enforcement, the military and NATO. But they had to do that because they want us to know that, unlike the president, they’re not Russians.
Disturbingly, at least two prominent Democrats refused to join the moving tribute to fallen hero Ryan Owens. According to Independent Journal Review’s Benny Johnson, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) who was just elected second in command of the Democrat Party, and disgraced Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) kicked out of leadership for corruption, were debating whether to stand and join the overwhelming applause for the Navy SEAL who gave his life for his country. Johnson tweeted that the two were whispering, “Should we stand?” They decided such a display of unbridled national pride just would not do.
Then the president directly addressed them and their fellow stuffed donkeys, saying, “To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, what would you say to American families who lose jobs or loved ones because America refuses to uphold its laws or defend its borders? Our job is preserve, protect and defend the citizens of the United States. We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.” No Democrats stood as the Republicans got to their feet and applauded the first president to put the true name to the most murderous threat on the globe.
The assembled statuary was able to find voice at least once, though. When the president announced a new initiative to support the victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, crimes often ignored by the media, a collective groan of dismay could be heard from the minority while Republicans again cheered.
Another unforgettable moment came toward the end of the speech when the president delivered a soaring message of American unity: “We are one people with one destiny, we all bleed with one blood, we all salute the same great American flag, and we are all made by the same great God.” What American could not agree with these majestic sentiments? And yet there sat most Democrats like marble figures trucked in from nearby Statuary Hall. Senators Franken and Booker looked especially lemon-sucking sullen.
What we learned about Democrats on Tuesday night is what the voters figured out about them in the weeks before the November election. They don’t want more Americans to have jobs, a revived economy, cheaper and better healthcare, more educational choice, a halt to illegal immigration, national and neighborhood security, and a stronger military. The Democrats don’t want anything that will make America great, because a greater America means the citizens they want to make helpless dependents on government are dependent no more. And without a dependent, victim class the donkeys will never again be voted into office. Which is just how it should be.
Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Friday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his post for LawNewz, “Sorry but Jeff Sessions Absolutely Did NOT Perjure Himself Under Oath When Asked About Russia.”
Barnes said the idea Sessions perjured himself was “absurd” and noted it emanates from “the same people who thought Hillary did nothing wrong, when, clearly, she did make false statements to Congress, and the only issue was whether or not it was intentional – and she claimed a lack of memory, I think, 37 different times in her FBI interview subsequent to that.”
He also recalled President Obama promoting former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper into that position despite perjuring himself before Congress “so badly that Ed Snowden became Ed Snowden because of his reaction to it.”
“The exact same people who excused that conduct, as well as the conduct of Eric Holder and two different IRS directors who clearly made material misrepresentations to Congress, are the same ones attacking Attorney General Sessions, who did nothing but answer the question given to him,” said Barnes.
“If he did anything wrong, it was that he was trying to get to the gist of the question, rather than the specific literal question in front of him. The specific literal question was focused on the investigation in general, and he was going to the gist of what everyone was trying to get at, saying, ‘Look, as a surrogate, I had no campaign communications with Russia. There was no continuing exchange of information or anything like that.’ The attorney general confirmed that yesterday at his press conference,” he said.
“The allegation that this is perjury is absurd because it’s not only not a materially or intentionally false statement; it’s simply not a false statement, period. I don’t think any fair interpretation of that statement could say otherwise. It’s only by stripping it of its context, stripping it of the question being asked, stripping it of the whole thing that he answered, that they’ve been able to make this false allegation.”
“Nobody on the Senate panel thought that he meant he never talked to a Russian in his lifetime,” Barnes noted. “That’s the absurd interpretation that some in the media are trying to apply.”
Marlow said the Democrats were effectively arguing that no one should ever speak to the Russian ambassador, not even senators sitting on national security or foreign policy committees.
“It’s completely absurd,” Barnes agreed, comparing it to the House Un-American Activities Committee from the Cold War era, “but times ten, and for less legitimate purpose.”
“At least there, there was a legitimate concern about Communist activity in the country, and there was a real communist threat,” he pointed out. “Here, there’s a country in Russia that’s not really a threat – not like ISIS is a threat, not like radical Islamic terrorism is a threat for the American public – and here they are, taking this to such a degree that now if you’re a senator and you do your job, which is to maintain diplomatic connections, to listen to the other side, to gather information…In this particular case, it appeared that then-Senator Sessions was working on getting Russia to go along with things that would help in the Ukraine that people on both sides were in favor of. And yet somehow that became a bad act.”
“It’s no longer, ‘Have you ever been or are you now a member of the Communist Party?’ It’s, ‘Have you ever been, or are you now, doing your job in communicating with members of the Russian society or government?’ It’s an extreme activity that’s really quite frightening for the well-being of the country, particularly because it has a sort of neo-McCarthyite mentality behind it that’s meant to shame and tar and feather people simply for doing their duty,” he said.
Marlow saluted Barnes as one of the first to compare this bizarrely aggressive attitude towards Sessions’ innocuous meetings with how the same people blithely dismissed Hillary Clinton’s troubling foreign entanglements, which involved large sums of money and actual changes to government policy.
“It took Peter Schweizer and conservative outlets, or this never would have been reported whatsoever,” Marlow contended, referring to Breitbart News senior editor and author of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. “Now these same people see that Jeff Sessions had two conversations with the Russian ambassador – not about the campaign, according to Attorney General Sessions – but these same people are now outraged, outraged, outraged to a level that is at a fever pitch. The hypocrisy is incredible.”
“It’s extraordinary, particularly if you contrast this with what happened with the Iran deal,” Barnes agreed. “There you had over 30 senators meeting with ambassadors and representatives of the Iranian government. You had Ben Rhodes admitting to newspapers how they manipulated the press into a false narrative about it. You had ransom money effectively paid as part of the deal, as part of the structure. And yet, there were no complaints at that time that there was even anything inappropriate about it.”
“And now Senator Sessions, simply for doing his job, is being called a perjurer and a criminal and a wild set of allegations against him that simply don’t have any basis in fact or law,” he marveled. “As a lawyer who has known Sessions all the way back to the time when he was assistant United States attorney, he has one of the highest reputations for integrity and independence of anybody in his line of work, so he’s the last person who should have been attacked in this manner.”
“The degree of hypocrisy and duplicity shows that the people who are attacking him simply have no credibility on this because when you say Hillary Clinton should be president after she clearly did commit perjury before Congress, in multiple contexts, and a whole bunch of other cabinet officials had done so during Obama’s reign, then it’s simply ludicrous for them to attack someone who simply did nothing wrong, in the case of Attorney General Sessions,” said Barnes.
Marlow asked if it was a “classy move” or mere political necessity for Sessions to formally recuse himself from investigations involving the Trump campaign, as he did on Thursday.
“It’s ironic. It’s what I always say about recusals, which is the people who recuse themselves have the precise kind of integrity that meant they should have never recused themselves because they are able to be self-reflective and independent and care about the appearance of impropriety. That high degree of ethics means they would have handled the investigation with a high degree of ethics,” Barnes replied. “Whereas the people who don’t recuse themselves are precisely the people who should because it often reflects their lack of concern for how it appears, and how it often is, in terms of the conflict that they’re not aware of or not willing to deal with, like Loretta Lynch did.”
“Don Lemon the other night, last night, claimed that Loretta Lynch had recused herself. In fact, she did not,” he observed. “Nobody ever put an independent prosecutor in place as it related to Hillary Clinton, and if any case called for it, that one did.”
“I will give Sessions credit. It’s not a surprise. He’s a guy who highly values his independence, highly values his integrity. He always has, his whole life. He did what someone who values the appearance of integrity does. He doesn’t want anyone to say that an investigation did not occur, or an investigation went the wrong direction because he was involved,” Barnes said.
“So I’ll give him credit for that. I think he always planned on doing that. I think the critics who think they had to force him to do that were wrong. He was always going to do that. He just accelerated the timetable a little bit to get it out in the open,” he said.
“The person who’s likely to replace him is a person who has high integrity, who Obama tried to remove from that position during the lame duck period, and Trump put him back in,” Barnes revealed. “So I think that’s the reason why the Democrats will now call for another new counsel – because the person that is replacing Sessions in that capacity is someone who used to be in the tax division, who I know, who has high integrity and is similar to Sessions. He’ll only follow the evidence. He’s not politically ambitious, like the kind of people Obama was trying to put in charge in that instance.”
“They’ll just follow the facts, and what the facts will prove. What it shows is that both Trump and Sessions have great confidence that the facts will acquit them, and I think that’s true in the end,” he predicted.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.