FBI Warns Of Growing Threat Of Left-Wing Violence

Via Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog blog,
Best-selling author Edward Klein’s latest best-selling book is called ‘All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump.’
Klein reveals that this plot started in the Obama White House just weeks after Donald Trump won the 2016 election. Klein explains,
‘Susan Rice was invited to come to a dinner party and give the President (Obama) a plan, and her plan was to unmask the names of Donald Trump associates who had been inadvertently picked up by electronic intercepts by the National Security Agency (NSA). The names of these Americans were supposed to remain confidential. She (Susan Rice) suggested they would be unmasked, meaning they would become public, and they would be distributed widely throughout the intelligence community. Inevitably, therefore, she admitted those names would be leaked to the mainstream media (MSM), and the story would begin that there was collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians. This, of course, was always a fairytale because we have had an investigation going on for more than a year and a half, and no one has come up with a scintilla of evidence to prove that…
She (Susan Rice) wasn’t doing anything illegal, but clearly she was doing something unethical, to put it mildly, because President Obama and his national security advisor were using the intelligence community as a weapon against their political enemy Donald Trump.’

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Nov 24, 2017.

The Big Lie About Hillary’s War In Libya

In this fifth anniversary week of the U. S.-led Libya intervention, it’s instructive to revisit Hillary Clinton’s curiously abridged description of that war in her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices. Clinton takes the reader from the crackdown, by Muammar al-Qaddafi’s regime, of a nascent uprising in Benghazi and Misrata; to her meeting – accompanied by the pop-intellectual Bernard-Henri Lvy – with Mahmoud Jibril, the exiled leader of the opposition National Transitional Council; to her marshaling of an international military response. In late March 2011, Clinton quotes herself telling NATO members, ‘It’s crucial we’re all on the same page on NATO’s responsibility to enforce the no-fly zone and protect civilians in Libya.’
Just two paragraphs later – now 15 pages into her memoir’s Libya section – Clinton writes: ‘[By] late summer 2011, the rebels had pushed back the regime’s forces. They captured Tripoli toward the end of August, and Qaddafi and his family fled into the desert.’ There is an abrupt and unexplained seven-month gap, during which the military mission has inexplicably, and massively, expanded beyond protecting civilians to regime change – seemingly by happenstance. The only opposition combatants even referred to are simply labeled ‘the rebels,’ and the entire role of the NATO coalition and its attendant responsibility in assisting their advance has been completely scrubbed from the narrative.
In contemporary political debates, the Libya intervention tends to be remembered as an intra-administration soap opera, focused on the role Clinton – or Susan Rice or Samantha Power – played in advising Obama to go through with it. Or it’s addressed offhandedly in reference to the 2012 terrorist attacks on the U. S. special mission and CIA annex in Benghazi. But it would be far more pertinent to treat Libya as a case study for the ways that supposedly limited interventions tend to mushroom into campaigns for regime change. Five years on, it’s still not a matter of public record when exactly Western powers decided to topple Qaddafi.

This post was published at David Stockmans Contra Corner on March 25, 2016.