Hjem Løgn Dagens Rush: «Crossfire Hurricane» – kodenavnet til plottet for å fjerne Trump

Dagens Rush: «Crossfire Hurricane» – kodenavnet til plottet for å fjerne Trump

283

New York Times innrømmer nå hva Rush Limbaugh beskrev for et par dager siden, i realiteten en faktisk konspirasjon for å avsette den rettmessig valgte President Donald J. Trump, under kodenavnet «Crossfire Hurricane».

NY Times eier fremdeles ikke skam i livet, og forsøker å spinne det som en slags normal, gyldig prosedyre. Som forventet av et anti- både Trump og vanligfolk («deplorables» ifølge Hillary), men pro- Clintons/Obama/DNC/EU og resten av «globalisme-sumpen» -medie som NYT er.

Vi har forøvrig absolutt «globalisme-sump» også i Norge og de har blant annet gitt 600 millioner eller mer til korrupsjons-dekket kalt Clinton Foundation.

Langt nede i Times’ artikkel kommer erkjennelsen av at de enda ikke kjenner til noe bevis mot Han Donald. Og det etter kanskje mer enn 2 års jakt (alt i alt) for å finne noe som først kunne stoppe, så (etter at Trump vant valget) fjerne eller i det minste pasifisere ham fra å få gjennomført noe:

NYT: A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts. 

Attpåtil rettferdiggjør NYT sin egen dekning, ved å henvise til en artikkel fra Oktober 2016, der de også langt nede i artikkelen erkjente mangelen på beviser:

NYT: Still, they [FBI officials] have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.

Dette er et poeng, fordi det er stikk i strid med det generelle inntrykket som har vært gitt i overskrifter, ingresser og de første avsnitt hele veien. Ikke bare i NY Times, men i USA’s etablissement-media generelt.

Og ettersom deres Norske og andre Europeiske «kolleger» bruker førstnevnte (altså NYT, Washington Post, CNN, etc.) som sannhetsvitner, forplanter samme inntrykk seg av at det er Trump med medarbeidere som er skurkene, i befolkningen her.

Til tross for at realiteten er svært så motsatt ettersom det for Clintons-leiren finnes betydelig og relativt konkret bevismateriale for sterkt uetiske men også ulovlige handlinger:

RUSH: Now, when the FBI begins to break this down for everybody, they can’t avoid the fact that the Clinton campaign did engage in criminal activity!

Hillary was using an illegal server. She was sending and receiving classified documents across an unsecure personal server, including people from the State Department and even the president of the United States.

All of that is a crime. It is a very serious crime. It’s a series of felonies.

Denne listen og mer til måtte også daværende FBI-sjef James Comey erkjenne i Kongresshøring:

 

Tilbake til gårsdagens NY Times’ artikkel. Den begynner med at FBI-agenter reiste til London for å møte Australias ambassadør som hadde bevis for at en av Trumps rådgivere «visste på forhånd om Russlands innblanding i valget»! Det høres jo skikkelig ille ut, eller hva?

NYT: Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.

 

Vel, versjonen Rush Limbaugh leverer (også basert på undersøkelsene til bl.a. Kim Strassel, Andrew McCarthy, Mollie Hemingway) er altså en svært så annen:

RUSH: ..some obscure peripheral foreign policy adviser of the Trump campaign [altså George Papadopoulos] happened to get drunk one night and tell that [at han visste om at Russerne hadde «hacka» Hillary var i besittelse av «hennes e-poster» – altså visste han om «Russisk valg-innblanding»] to the Australian ambassador.

Well, how did the young Trump campaign aide know this? Because the FBI’s informant and a friend of his planted that information in the ear of the Trump peripheral campaign aide. The peripheral Trump campaign aid had no idea of this, he didn’t know any of this. He had to be told. He was told by agents of the FBI, spies and informants the FBI had hired(!!).

And then the Australian ambassador takes the guy out, gets him liquored up at a bar in London, and he repeats what he’s been told. “Hey, the Russians have 30,000 emails.”

The guy wants to sound like an insider. He wants to sound like he’s more involved in the campaign than he is. He wants to sound like he’s a big guy [Papadopoulos var da ca 24 år gammel…].

The Australian ambassador, on cue, Clinton donor(!!), goes back to the FBI and says,
“Hey, I got a Trump guy I had dinner with last night, couple of drinks, this guy tells me the Trump campaign knows that the Russians have thousands of Hillary emails.”
Bam! And the New York Times has admitted that.

Noen uker før valget blusset det opp noe av et PR-problem for Hillary Clinton. Det innvolverte blant annet «de forsvunnede eposter» samt arrestasjonen av Anthony Weiner – ektemannen til Hillary’s nærmeste assistent Huma Abedin – og visstnok ti-tusenvis av eposter funnet på hans PC.

Dessuten at James Comey for en stakket stund, «uventet» gjenåpnet FBI’s undersøkelse av Hillary’s eposter. Rush har en klar oppfatning av hvorfor dette skjedde:

RUSH: But the narrative is the Clinton campaign’s where the crimes happened! So they had to exonerate Hillary ’cause they knew those crimes took place before the election. So they exonerate Hillary. Comey goes through his dog-and-pony show. They even make a big show out of reopening the investigation on October 28th to make it look like they’re not trying to aid Hillary Clinton, to make it look like, oh, my God, they are acting independent. This could end up hurting Hillary really bad.

They all figured Hillary was going to win anyway. All the smart people thought that. This was a way to advance the narrative that the FBI was on the up and up and was not involved, exuding any preference for who won, to make it look like everything that followed that was legit and aboveboard. And what followed the exoneration of Hillary Clinton was the investigation of Donald Trump, but there was no crime. The crime all took place in the Clinton side of this equation, for which she was exonerated.

So now we get this counterintelligence investigation, which is what permits all of these stories, never-ending stories from unnamed sources saying that agents from the Trump campaign were seen talking with agents from Russia. They built this whole myth of things that never happened. The ultimate aim was to drive Trump’s numbers down, pre-election numbers, post-election numbers, presidential approval numbers down, hoping to force and to shame Trump into resigning. That was the overall objective.

 

But they had no crime. They couldn’t find a crime. To this day the New York Times points out there is not a crime. And there has not been any collusion. They can’t find any evidence of what they have been looking for for over a year. So this New York Times story, let’s briefly unpack some things here that — you know, and they admit to this, folks, as though it’s no big deal. They admit to this as though these are newsworthy revelations that are designed to impress us, how thorough our FBI is looking out for us.

Low-information people and leftist activists are supposed to read this and say, “Thank God for the FBI for looking out for us.” And that is the attempted narrative here, to provide them cover, because what they did is grossly illegal, improper, unethical, and should result in every one of these people being fired, loss of pension at bare minimum.

The FBI admitted in the New York Times piece they spied on the Trump campaign. Exactly as the Washington Post wrote last week, as Kim Strassel has been tracking down, and as I tried to piece together last Saturday afternoon and tell you about on Monday.

***

ektenyheter