IS THE FORGERY THE ULTIMATE “FAKE NEWS?”
by Sharon Rondeau
“If Mueller, after two years comes back and says, ‘I don’t have the evidence to support that charge,’ that’s a reckoning,” Moran said. “That’s a reckoning for progressives and Democrats who hoped that Mueller would essentially erase the 2016 election. It’s a reckoning for the media. It’s a reckoning around the country if, in fact, after all this time there was no collusion.”
The interview continued with the host and guests agreeing that “other things” could be discovered as a result of the two-year investigation, now reportedly coming to a close. Amid much speculation in many political circles, it has been claimed by some that Mueller, who employed a team of between 13 and 17 prosecutors with left-leaning political views since his appointment in mid-May 2017, has discovered no evidence of Russian “collusion” among Trump associates.
Mueller assumed the probe from the FBI after the agency’s then-director, James Comey, was fired upon the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Allegations of “collusion” arose after the Hillary Clinton campaign, in coordination with the DNC, funneled money to mega-law firm Perkins Coie to then commission opposition-research firm Fusion GPS to procure political “dirt” on Trump from alleged Russian sources. What became known as the “Russia dossier,” compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, was later used by the Obama Justice Department and FBI to obtain surveillance warrants on 2016 Trump foreign-policy advisor Carter Page.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was never informed that the material provided as “evidence” to support the alleged need to monitor Page’s communications was a product prepared for Trump’s political opponent. Page has not been charged with a crime.
Mueller has, however, through a federal grand jury, indicted 37 individuals and entities, 25 of whom are Russian and will likely not be successfully prosecuted in the United States for lack of an extradition agreement with that country. One of the Russian entities is defending itself against the charges in the U.S. courts.
Crimes other than collusion were identified, with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort sentenced last week to 47 months in federal prison for tax evasion and other financial crimes. A judge in another jurisdiction is expected to issue a separate sentence for Manafort this week.
A number of former Trump campaign associates, such as George Papadopoulos and Rick Gates, accepted plea agreements for allegedly lying to the FBI during the course of its investigation.
Since regaining the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats have vowed to pursue a myriad of investigations concerning Trump’s business dealings prior to his inauguration and to prove that at some point in time, he has committed crimes encompassing “obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power.”
Reportage over the last two years by Sara A. Carter (saraacarter.com) and John Solomon of The Hill indicates that the Obama National Security Agency (NSA) was monitoring the communications of Americans in what former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy described as a “massive abuse of the government’s foreign-intelligence-collection authority.”
Further, in April 2017, Carter and Solomon, then working together at Circa News, reported that Obama national security adviser Susan Rice “accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama’s last seven months in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates.”
Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, claimed in a March 3 ABC News interview, “It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice. It’s very clear – 1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt, he tried to – he fired – he tried to protect Flynn from being investigated by the FBI. He fired Comey in order to stop the Russian thing, as he told NBC News. He’s threatened – he’s intimidated witnesses. In public.”
Leading congressional Democrats have also said that despite mandated confidentiality surrounding Mueller’s report, its “findings are too big to be swept under the rug.”
On March 4, Nadler issued document requests to 81 individuals currently or formerly associated with the Trump administration, the 2016 campaign, or the 2020 re-election effort. “By initiating the wide-ranging demand for documents, the Judiciary Committee signaled it is creating its own insurance policy in the event that all of Mueller’s findings are not made public and it finds the kinds of evidence that would be grounds for removing Trump from office,” Politico reported on March 4. “Public hearings and closed-door interviews based off the materials will begin in a matter of weeks, a senior Democratic committee lawyer said.”
A Justice Department Inspector General’s report issued last June found that two former high-ranking FBI officials discussed an “insurance policy” to be activated in the event that Trump won the election over Clinton. Some close observers now believe the “insurance policy” was the continuation of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign by Mueller at Rosenstein’s request.
House Democrats intend to eventually vote on Articles of Impeachment, Politico reported Monday, although they have not yet identified the “high crimes and misdemeanors” required by the Constitution for such an action to commence.
On Sunday’s broadcast, Moran additionally commented that “Democrats have to worry they don’t look like they’re just throwing anything against the wall and hope it will stick and get back to the old type of politics. If they want to beat Donald Trump, beat him. Beat him on the issues, beat him on politics. Don’t beat him with investigations.”
An issue arguably equal to or even more significant than the outcome of the Russia “collusion” investigation is the “fake news” coverage of the April 27, 2011 release of an image uploaded to the White House website said to represent Barack Hussein Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.
Ironically, Donald Trump, then a business and real-estate mogul known around the world, publicly demanded in a number of media interviews that the White House release documentation proving that Obama was constitutionally eligible to serve as president. Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen,” which most Americans believe signifies, “born in the United States,” at a minimum.
For an undetermined number of years, Obama has claimed he was born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961, although no Hawaii hospital has confirmed the claim. Mysteriously, a number of mainstream-media reports initially wrote that Obama was born in either Kenya or Indonesia, with some quietly altering their articles later to say he was “born in Hawaii.”
Considered a taboo subject beginning in 2007 with Obama’s first presidential campaign, media such as the Associated Press and The Washington Post have never explained why they reported Obama’s life narrative differently than he himself has. The statement that he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii,” made in a biography circulated by his then-literary agent between 1991 and 2007 was hastily explained away as a “fact checking error” on the agent’s part once made public.
Once the image was released, Trump, who was considering a presidential run himself at the time, said there would be “many people looking at it,” including “experts,” while stating that he “hoped” the image was “real.” “I hope it checks out beautifully,” he said.
“I’m taking great credit,” Trump continued in an ad hoc interview following his exit from his personal helicopter after hearing the news, for the White House’s release of the image. “People asked me for my birth certificate, and I gave it two days later.”
Within hours of the image’s release, however, a number of experts declared it a poorly-created forgery, eventually prompting the launch of a 5+-year investigation concluding the image to be a “computer-generated forgery.”
The mainstream media barely covered the dissemination of the evidentiary findings gathered by Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse” in three separate press conferences, with some choosing to attack the messenger, lead investigator Mike Zullo. Over the life of the investigation, Zullo reportedly received credible threats against not only his person, but also his family. According to Zullo, at least one member of the media provided him with a sworn affidavit describing threats he or she received after beginning research on Obama’s background.
When Zullo reported at the final press conference on December 15, 2016 that two forensic analysts, each without knowledge of the other and working from different disciplines, reached similar conclusions to his own, the media either avoided reporting or mischaraterized the new development, choosing instead to stress that Arpaio’s investigation had come to a close as a result of his loss in the November 2016 election.
The mainstream media has persisted in reporting that Obama was “born in Hawaii” without having conducted its own independent investigation, similar to recent events in which it has rushed to judgment in an apparent attempt to advance a particular narrative. At least two members of the legacy media, The Washington Post and CNN, now face respective $250 million lawsuits arising from their hastily-drawn-and-reported conclusions not supported by the evidence.
The media has proven again and again its carelessness and avoidance of performing the due diligence once expected of it.
According to Zullo in November, “very, very high, high, high-level White House officials have had a cursory briefing of the information that we garnered about the certificate.” In what could be interpreted as another ironic twist, the individual occupying the Oval Office at the moment has been known to call out the media for “fake news” on an almost-daily basis over the last two years on a myriad of issues.
With agenda-driven reports and a dearth of objective facts now the norm in the media, Americans have yet to discover why the “long-form” birth certificate image was repeatedly affirmed to represent something which Zullo said does not exist.
As with the procuring of the Russia dossier, Perkins Coie placed itself in the middle of obtaining the alleged certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, according to Obama White House Counsel Robert Bauer, founder and former senior partner at the firm.
In late January, after Zullo confirmed that he and an associate, radio host Carl Gallups, were recently approached to write a book about the investigation, Zullo told Gallups:
It’s in the early stages; I don’t really want to speak too much to it. But I will tell you that I really do believe that this issue is going to come up again. I can’t tell you when, but I know. It is still out there; it is still talked about; the media still runs their propaganda psy-ops campaign with that birth certificate….That fraudulent document was the vehicle to put someone in the White House whose allegiances were somewhere else; I think that’s very easy for everyone to see…These issues are going to have to be resolved at some point in time.