OBAMA, YATES, CLAPPER, OR INTENT AND INTERPRETATION, PICK YOUR OWN POISON!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!

OBAMA, YATES, CLAPPER, OR INTENT AND INTERPRETATION, PICK YOUR OWN POISON!

YATES AND CLAPPER ADDMITTED UNMASKING, WIKILEAKS EMAILS NEVER CHALLENGED BY HILLARY’S TEAM FOR THEIR ACCURACY, AND DID OBAMA DECLASSIFY THE CLASSIFIED RUSSIAN HACKING INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? 

I watched the questioning of fired Assistant Attorney General Yates by Senator Cruz and thought it was more than telling. It exposed how Obama’s 'left over' Justice Department defended, unconstitutionally, the Obama policies and agenda. Yates, like ‘her’ ex-Potus, used intent and interpretation to override the Constitution and bypass congress, while rejecting and undermining President Trumps travel ban Executive Order. If you recall Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigation into the Russians influencing of America’s 2016 election because he supposedly met with the Russian ambassador, which by the way was one of the duties of his job description. Yates and her staff were appointed by Trump, and was running Trump's Justice Department until his attorney general nominee, Sen. Jeff Sessions was confirmed. Before that, she had spent years defending Obama administration policies, championing changes to the criminal justice system and curtailing the federal government's use of private prisons. What you should notice is that when overriding President Trump’s EO on the travel ban, she used the term, like the other courts that ruled against the ban, of ‘INTENT’ and ‘INTERPRETATION’ which they truly believe overrides the letter and rule of law, and our constitution!

“In 2014, Michael Flynn abruptly announced that he was retiring from the Army ahead of schedule. It was the polite way of saying that he was canned for doing a miserable job at the DIA. From there, Flynn embarked on a career as an unregistered foreign agent, traveling the world to complain about the Obama administration and picking up paychecks despite warnings from the Defense Department. Obama didn't like Flynn, which was pointed out by Trump's Press Secretary, and appears to have tried to sour and sabotage Flynn's 'new' loyalty to the Trump campaign. Obama tried to warn Trump about Flynn, but did nothing to protect America from the collusion he was trying to lay at the Trump administration's feet. Hillary doubled down on the Russian connection during the election cycle while Obama and his corrupt 'Department of Justice' led by Loretta Lynch tried to build a case against Trump's Administration and the collusion of Russia in America's election using the already knowing Flynn's actions and paid appearances over seas during Obama's term in office. Did Obama allow Flynn, who was a unregistered foreign agent, keep his security clearance after being fired, and then allowing him to travel overseas and get paid for meetings with the Russians? Is this the major reason Obama didn't rescind, and then renew Flynn's security clearance, knowing that Flynn was rubbing elbows with candidate Trump, and use as something to discredit the Trump Presidency in the future? Was this Flynn's, like Hillary's OK'd State Department gig when 'George Soros' switched horses and backing in the 2008 election to Obama? Is the reason why there was no Inspector General hired to watch over the finances for the American taxpayer in the State Department the reason, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accidently lost or misplaced $6 Billion dollars during her stay, and leadership role at the State Department?       

What’s suspicious here is trying to find a reason why Obama never rescinded Flynn’s security clearance classification, but chose to renew it before President Trump came into office! Why, with an approved high security clearance by the Obama Administration would the Trump Administration doubt his loyalty or actions? Why would Obama allow Flynn to do what he’s accused of while he was still the President of the United States?  

Obama warned Trump, then president-elect, not to give the post of national security adviser in his administration to Flynn, a former Obama aide said, but why would, after knowing what Flynn had already done chose to do nothing about informing his own administration about the possible compromise?

Last but not least were the demands of his fellow progressive politicians to declassify the Russia file before leaving office so that it can be seen by the American people be the reason Flynn was unmasked?  Seven Senate Democrats, who all sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have sent a request to President Obama asking him to declassify all materials related to Russia interfering in the US presidential election.

Along with the election recount, the American people deserve the details about Russia’s meddling in the presidential election. Did these angry and out for blood 7 Senators cause the possible unmasking of Flynn to make Trump’s incoming administration illegitimate? Did Obama, at the last minute declassify the information about the ‘Once Trump takes office’ unproven accusations, that those details will never be released! Did the ‘Sinister 7’ decide on their own to make the information public so that the American people can decide for themselves if the election was tampered with? Did Obama’s declassify the classified information so that it could be freely released? Yates and Clapper admitted to knowing about a/the unmasking of Flynn, so, the only question left now is did ex-president Obama OK the declassification of the Russia hacking information to hurt the incoming Obama Administration, and is he involved in the cover-up of the declassified facts and the illegal unmasking of Flynn. ~~With Jason Easley, a Friend of America!

Does anybody care that the content of the Wikileaks emails were never challenged for their accuracy and authenticity by anyone on Hillary’s team? Did anybody notice that the DNC didn’t have an IT guy that could secure their servers and protect them from being hacked with the simplest fix?  But it’s the Russians, right?

CRUZ QUESTIONED YATES ON THE MERITS OF HER UNCONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS ON THE PRESIDENTS EO. 

CRUZ: It is correct that the constitution vests the executive authority in the president?

YATES: Yes.

CRUZ: And if an attorney general disagrees with a policy decision of the president -- a policy decision that is lawful -- does the attorney general have the authority to direct the Department of Justice to defy the president's order?

YATES: I don't know whether the attorney general has the authority to do that or not. But I don't think it would be a good idea. And that's not what I did in this case.

CRUZ: Well, are you familiar with 8 USC Section 1182?

YATES: Not off the top of my head, no.

CRUZ: Well, it -- it -- it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement, and that led to your termination. So it -- it certainly is a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute.

By the express text of the statute, it says, quote, "whenever the president finds that entry of any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate."

Would you agree that is broad statutory authorization?

YATES: I would, and I am familiar with that. And I'm also familiar with an additional provision of the INA that says no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against an issuance of a visa because of race, nationality or place of birth, that I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted.

And that's been part of the discussion with the courts, with respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described.

(CROSSTALK)

YATES: But my concern was not an INA concern here. It, rather, was a constitutional concern, whether or not this -- the executive order here violated the Constitution, specifically with the establishment clause and equal protection and due process. CRUZ: There is no doubt the arguments you laid out are arguments that we could expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the policy decision of the president.

I would note, on January 27th, 2017, the Department of Justice issued an official legal decision, a determination by the Office of Legal Counsel, that the executive order -- and I'll quote from the opinion -- "the proposed order is approved with respect to form and legality."

That's a determination from OLC on January 27th that it was legal. Three days later, you determined, using your own words, that although OLC had -- had opined on legality, it had not addressed whether it was, quote, "wise or just."

YATES: And I also, in that same directive, Senator, said that I was not convinced it was lawful. I also made the point that the office of -- OLC looks purely at the face of the document and, again, makes a determination as to whether there is some set of circumstances under which some portion of that E.O. would be enforceable, would be lawful.

They, importantly, do not look outside the face of the document. And in this particular instance, particularly where we were talking about a fundamental issue of religious freedom -- not the interpretation of some arcane statute, but religious freedom -- it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president's actions, and the intent is laid in and out his statements.

WAS THIS DECLASSIFIED REPORT CLAIMING RUSSIAN HACKING OF THE 2016 ELECTION RIGGED?

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra whether he accepted the conclusion by 17 intelligence agencies in a recently released declassified report that Russia interfered in the 2016

Presidential election and that this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hoekstra gave an answer many viewers of "The Kelly File" did not anticipate. He noted that the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.

The declassified report issued on January 6 is an abridged version of a longer report ordered by President Obama that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to undermine the 2016 president election, hurt Hillary’s candidacy and promote Donald Trump through cyber warfare, social media and the state-owned Russia cable channel RT. Although the report’s authors said they have high confidence in most of these conclusions, they were unable to include any evidence for classification reasons.

As someone who worked in the intelligence field for 25 years, I share Congressman Hoekstra’s concerns about Friday’s declassified Russia report and a similar Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and DHS on October 7, 2016.

I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.

I AM CONCERNED BOTH INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS WERE RIGGED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

You may remember when Hillary Clinton claimed during the final presidential debate on October 19 that based on the October 7 ODNI/DHS statement, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails were an effort by Russia to interfere with the election.

Clinton’s remark was not accurate. Although the October memo said, “the U.S. Intelligence Community” was confident that the Russian government was behind the alleged hacking, the October memo was drafted by only two intelligence organizations – ODNI and DHS.

Since it came out only a month before the presidential election and was co-authored by only two intelligence agencies, the October memo looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to produce a document to boost Clinton’s reelection chances.  Its argumentation was very weak since it said the alleged hacking of Democratic emails was “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.

Friday’s declassified intelligence report on Russia hacking is even more suspicious.  As Congressman Hoekstra noted, this report was drafted and cleared by only three intelligence agencies, not 17.  DHS, which co-authored the October statement, added a brief tick to the new report, but did not clear it.  The Office of Director of National Intelligence, which co-authored the October memo, did not draft or clear Friday’s report, nor did other members of the U.S Intelligence Community with important equities in this issue such as DIA and the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau (INR).

The declassified Russian report also lacks standard boilerplate language that it was coordinated within the U.S. Intelligence Community. This language usually reads: “This memorandum was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was coordinated with the US Intelligence Community” or “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”

Given how politically radioactive the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election has become, why wasn’t the January 6 Russia reporting an intelligence community-coordinated assessment?  Why were several important intelligence agencies and their experts excluded?

It also is important, as Hoekstra indicated in his Fox News interview, that intelligence community assessments on extremely controversial issues include dissenting views, such as those added by INR to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD program.  A declassified version of this estimate was released in 2002 that included INR’s dissent.

The content of the declassified report was underwhelming. Although the report made serious accusations of Russian interference in the election, it did not back them up with evidence. And, as Hoekstra also noted in his Fox News interview, the report made some dubious arguments that Russia succeeded in influencing the election using its RT cable channel, a Russian propaganda tool that is only taken seriously in the United States by the far left.

It’s also troubling that the unclassified report does not mention the extremely weak internet security of Clinton’s private email server, the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. This makes it impossible to determine whether the alleged hacking and leaking of Democratic emails was more Russia and other hostile actors exploiting this carelessness rather than a deliberate and robust Russian operation to interfere with the election.

This is not to say the new CIA/NSA/FBI report is without value.  I believe the classified report probably includes solid evidence on the intensive and broad-based cyber warfare efforts that Russia, China and other states have been conducting against the United States for the last eight years that President Obama has ignored.

I am encouraged that President-elect Trump responded to this report by stating that will take aggressive action against cyber warfare against the United States in the early days of his administration.

At the same time, I believe President-elect Trump and his team are justified in questioning the January 6 report as politically motivated.

I am concerned that the exclusion of key intelligence players and the lack of dissenting views give the appearance that the conclusions of this report were pre-cooked.

I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.

Adding to the Trump team’s concerns that intelligence agencies were playing political games over possible Russian interference in the election, is the fact that at the same time these agencies were refusing to brief Congress about their findings on this issue, they were constantly being leaked to the news media. The most recent press leaks, some by intelligence officials, occurred this week on the classified contents of the new Russia report before they were briefed to Mr. Trump.

The new intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election broke so radically with the way objective and authoritative intelligence community assessments are supposed to be produced that it appears to have been rigged to support a pre-ordained set of conclusions to undermine President-elect Trump. I believe the October 2016 memo and related developments support this unfortunate conclusion.

It is vital that the Trump administration and U.S. intelligence agencies move beyond this situation by working together to forge new policies to protect our nation against the many serious threats it faces, including radical Islam, cyber warfare, nuclear proliferation, Russia, China and other threats.

Intelligence agencies were led astray by the Obama administration’s partisanship and national security incompetence.

I am confident that over time, the outstanding men and women Trump has named to top national security posts will ensure that America’s intelligence agencies have Trump’s confidence and produce the hard hitting and objective intelligence he will need to defend our nation. ~~By Fred Fleitz, a Friend of America!

CONCLUSION:

"The left doesn’t really have a message to deliver to America at this point in time, but the old Democratic Party seems to be the ‘New’ Socialist Party to the American people, and its constituency! They support division, obstructionism, and the current resistance that they’re anarchist branch is delivering to the youth of our nation and future leaders. Old school Democrats who believe in our founding fathers vision for this exceptional country don’t need to jump ship, but choose a different crayon in the box of Democratic candidate possibilities. I’m a registered Independent and  chose to follow anyone that believes in the defense of our Constitution. I believe in some of the ideas from both sides of the aisle, I believe in free choice, I believe Sanctuary Cities harbor and protect MS-13, radical Islamic terrorists, and thrive and bribe base on the drugs that are killing our Youth, our future, and preventing America from being great again!  I believe that all immigrants and refugees should be welcome based on their vetting and the immigration laws that are outlined in those existing immigration laws that have been on the books before Obama came into office in 2008. Obama decided to use intent and interpretation to bypass those rules of law and Constitution, and transform America to a socialist following ideological future. I also believe that the agenda journalists that work for the ‘Paid to Repost’ Media, has influenced the election through its fake polls, fake news, and fake sources far more than the Russians could possibly ever do!"

Obama’s agenda of Political Correctness has intentionally come in between every social aspect of every American's life, and this once together country has been separated, not by patriotism that this country exuded back during the times of WWI and WWII, but by forgetting about the inclusion and acceptance that ran rampant before Obama and his 8 years of attempting to drive everyone onto the rolls of big government, and dependent on their control of your life, and finances!

 Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks. 
Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!