Special Report: Russia Collusion

Introduction

"The acknowledgment by James Comey, the F.B.I. director, on Monday that the bureau is investigating possible connections between President Trump's campaign and Russia's efforts to sabotage Hillary Clinton's chances is a breathtaking admission." - from Comey's Haunting News on Trump and Russia by the Editorial Board of the New York Times on March 20, 2017.

That is not the first time that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has investigated foreign interference in a US election. In the 1990s, the FBI investigated then President Bill Clinton for colluding with communist China. In that case it involved millions of dollars in illegal donations to the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign, and even Clinton himself. That case also contained staggering amounts of hard evidence

including eyewitnesses, sworn testimony, confessions, admissions, and videotape. 

In a side-by-side comparison, the evidence against Bill Clinton makes what the Democrats claim to have on President Trump look like a comic book. And based on what we have seen so far, the Democrats' claims wilt in the sunlight once exposed and appear as a cheap diversion to hide something far worse that they know some in their Party have done.

The reason for writing this special report on so-called Trump-Russia collusion is that there is not only very little evidence that candidate and now President Donald Trump colluded with Russia, but also thin evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election at all. There is, however, a considerable amount of evidence that Democrats have been colluding with foreign nations for years to subvert US elections. This report presents evidence that directly contradicts Democrats and their media operatives' claims that President Trump may have "colluded" with Russia and committed an act of "treason" in doing so.

Furthermore, this report will show that if the standard of evidence for making claims about Trump were ever applied to Presidents Obama and Clinton, they could both be convicted of the Democrat Party concocted crime of "collusion" -- and in the case of Bill Clinton, treason as well. This report also does not contain any conspiracy theories, internet rumors, or any other type of speculation, it is direct evidence and explanations of its relevance to the cases.

The Case  Against Republican Collusion with Russia:

"Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of America's oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to 'cancel the Paris climate agreement,' the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change. Laying out his positions on energy and the environment at an oil industry conference in North Dakota, he vowed to rescind President Obama's signature climate change rules and revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring petroleum from Canada's oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries." - from Donald Trump's Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules by the Ashley Parker and Coral Davenport of the New York Times on May 26, 2016.

Russian Economy
The  Times article lays out that if Trump is elected president, it would mean a vast expansion of domestic oil production and other fossil fuels, including the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline that had been shut down by the Obama Administration. What does this have to do with Russia one might ask. To begin with, Russia's economy is heavily reliant on petroleum exports. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook :

"Russia is one of the world's leading producers of oil and natural gas, and is also a top exporter of metals such as steel and primary aluminum. Russia's reliance on commodity exports makes it vulnerable to boom and bust cycles that follow the volatile swings in global prices."
The same CIA report on the Russian economy explains that petroleum was one of the industries that the Russian Government and Oligarchs maintain control of. It is central to their survival. Then candidate Trump's plans for US energy expansion and the cancellation of Obama's environmental rules intended to restrict energy production would mean more petroleum on the open market. More oil means lower oil prices and that spells disaster for the Russian economy says the CIA:

"Russia is heavily dependent on the movement of world commodity prices and the Central Bank of Russia estimates that if oil prices remain below $40 per barrel in 2017, the resulting shock would cause GDP to fall by up to 5%."
In other words, US increases in oil production would contribute to a $60 billion loss of revenue for the Russian economy. It is difficult to see how

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Oligarchs (the ones Democrats accuse of helping Trump in the election and who most benefit from

Russian petroleum) could have possibly seen a Trump presidency as an advantage for them.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton, according to many sources, campaigned on an energy policy that could only help Putin and the energy oligarchs. Clinton campaigned vigorously on cutting oil and gas subsidies which would have driven up the price of oil and gas and thus made Russian oil and gas more valuable. For example, Business Insider reported:

"Clinton's campaign has the stated goal of generating half of the US's electricity from renewable resources by the end of her first term. Clinton opposes Arctic drilling and has expressed skepticism for oil production off the southeastern Atlantic coast. The Clinton campaign opposes construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, saying that the project, 'distracts from U.S. efforts to combat climate change.' Clinton has remained silent on the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline."

The reality is that Russia could not and cannot afford a Trump presidency based on economics alone. In fact, one of the great divides between Republicans and Democrats is over environmental policy. Democrats favor crippling US oil and gas production because they say it would help the environment and Republicans believe in drastic increases in oil and gas production -- this is divided by party lines more than almost any other issue. And approximately one third of the Russian economy is more likely to thrive when Democrats are in power, and economic calamity when Republicans are.

Russian Security
The Democrat narrative that Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election is ridiculous from an economic standpoint, but from the perspective of Russia's national security interests and ambitions it is even more absurd. The Clinton and Obama record on Russia is shocking, especially in the context of how dangerous Democrats say Russia and Putin are now. Clinton and Obama would be guilty of treason for what they did for Putin, by the standards in which Democrats and the media have measured Trump's supposed "collusion".

The Case  For Democrat Collusion with Russia:

"This is not the first time [the Russians have] done things like this. We have records of their attempts to interfere in our electoral process going back to the 1960s. There's always been this ambient level of Soviet or Russian activity, involvement, and attempts to influence our election. Never before have we seen an effort like this. This was unprecedented." - froman interview by former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper with CNN's Dana Bash.

So now is it fair to ask: "Who did Russia prefer in the 2008 election?" Perhaps that is an easy choice considering Republican candidate John McCain had been warning about Russia since Putin came into power there. On the other hand, President Obama considered Russia and Putin an ally. In hindsight, and through the "collusion" lens, Obama looks rather guilty of it himself. The list of things Obama and Clinton did to damage US national security on behalf of Russia is long, but some of the highlights follow:
 
Russian Whispers
In March of 2012 towards the end of Obama's first term, in a scene that can only be described as bizarre and chilling, Obama was making private remarks to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev unbeknownst to Obama, the hot microphones of reporters captured a glimpse of the sheer cynicism and dastardliness of then President Obama:

Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space."

Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you..."

Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

What an ominous event, and yet the media and Democrats were unmoved by this revelation, but just four years later the same people would be accusing Donald Trump of "treason" based on no more evidence than Trump publicly saying something flattering about Putin and a marginal campaign advisor who had done business in Russia. Any American president who would tell the leader of another country that he needed "space" to mislead his own citizens in order to be re-elected and then have more room to accommodate that nation's interest is scandalous enough, but this was not even the first time Obama had taken drastic steps to help Russia at the expense of American national security interests and those of our true allies.

Russian Spies
A year and a half before the surreptitiously taped conversation between Obama and the Russian premier, Medvedev awarded Russia's highest honor to ten spies that had penetrated the U.S. and gotten close to both Obama and Clinton. In late June 2010, the FBI captured the ten Russians, who had been living and working inside United States for at least ten years under deep cover as part of a sleeper cell. According to the  Washington Post , the agents established contact with both Obama and Clinton officials: "Their mission was to gather information and identify potential future government employees who could be helpful, officials said."

Little did they know, Obama would eventually prove to be shockingly helpful on his own. Other reports said the spies were tasked to gather information about what possible negotiating positions the administration might have regarding treaties and arms control agreements. Obama made it clear that Russia didn't need spies for that, under his "reset" policy he would just whisper to Medvedev that as long as he could feign toughness to get re-elected he would be extremely flexible regarding missile defense, and basically everything else.

Usually, captured spies face years in prison and intense interrogation in an effort to discover exactly what the infiltrators know, who they answer to in their own country, and who they have been in contact with inside the U.S. -- the type of information that is vital to national security. But that didn't happen in this case. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former head of U.S. Counterintelligence, Michelle Van Cleave expressed concern over Obama's reaction to such devastating penetration:

"In 2010, the FBI rolled up 10 'illegals' - all Russian citizens living here under deep cover, part of a clandestine espionage support network under tightly held investigation for over a decade. Their long-awaited in-custody interviews promised rare insights into Russian intelligence operations in this country. Instead, all 10 were sent off to Moscow in a pre-emptive 'spy swap' before they could even get debriefed."

Smells like evidence of "collusion" doesn't it? Or worse. It seems rather odd that Obama and Clinton had no interest in Russian espionage in 2010. And this was the real type of espionage, not what is passing for "espionage" now where Democrats claim that Russian hackers, through surrogates "bought ads on Facebook that could have helped Trump". No, this was "deep penetrating" espionage according to the FBI.

In less than two weeks after being caught these Russian moles were whisked off to a hero's welcome back in Moscow. Eric Holder's Justice Department immediately returned them to Russia before our counter-intelligence officials could interrogate the spies, thereby undermining a criminal case, which a federal court in Manhattan was planning to bring against them. 

Because of this act, investigators will never know the true extent to which these Russian agents were able to carry out their mission of infiltrating policymaking circles in Washington and New York to collect intelligence on the state of American politics and foreign policy to guide Russian relations with the U.S. We will also never know how effective the Russians were in recruiting Americans inside the U.S. government and in the Obama administration into their espionage ring. This whole deal smelled so bad that even the Washington Post had to acknowledge it:

"John L. Martin, who supervised dozens of espionage cases during a 26-year career at the Justice Department, said earlier spy exchanges took years to work out. The speed at which the latest one occurred was 'absolutely unprecedented.'"

The Post also recognized the severity of Obama's actions regarding the case by summing it up in political terms referring to the swap of ten newly apprehended covert agents in exchange for four Russians, some of whom were merely accused of illegal contacts with Americans, and had been in Russian jails for years: "Indeed,"writes the  Post , "the swap could feed Republican criticism that the Obama administration is too accommodating toward Russia."

In 2016 Democrats and their media allies began stressing over and over again just how dangerous Russia is and how they are a national security threat to the U.S. If that is the case, why have the House and Senate Committees not called Obama and Clinton to testify as to why they did this? This was much more than "accommodating."

The Obama Administration approached Russia on bended knee. It was almost as though the United States had done something wrong by rounding up their spies in our country. According to the Post article: "Obama administration officials said the deal illustrated the good working relationship between the former Cold War enemies. After initially denying that the agents worked for Moscow, the Russian government did an about-face and was willing to deal, U.S. officials said."

The Russians plant deep moles into the U.S. and after we catch them in the act of spying, we immediately return them, without any interrogation, and the Obama administration called that a "good working relationship"? That could raise serious questions about precisely for whom Obama and Clinton were "working". 

The Post also reveals an almost delusional view from Obama insiders about the spy swap: "'We drove the terms of this arrangement, which was based on national security as well as humanitarian grounds,' said one of the U.S. officials." Also according to the Post: "The quick agreement suggested both Washington and Moscow wanted to move beyond the scandal, which occurred as the Senate is weighing a new bilateral nuclear arms-control accord."

Russian Arms
It makes perfect sense why Moscow would want to sweep this under the rug; but why would the U.S. have any interest in protecting a country caught spying on us? Unless, of course, Obama was planning to hand Moscow everything it desires with regards to American unilateral disarmament. In that case, Obama wouldn't want the American people to dwell on the fact that Russia is treating us like their Cold War adversary and the Obama Administration was treating them like they won the Cold War.

Several months later, immediately following the 2010 elections where Republicans gained seats in the Senate, Obama rushed the New START Treaty through the lame-duck Senate in a manner that was legally dubious at best. The Senate quickly ratified this treaty with "no changes," per the demands of the Russian government. Like its predecessor, New START heavily favored Russia's national security at great cost to that of the U.S. by including no provisions for Russian disarmament of its tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia has a significant advantage over the U.S.

The excuses for Obama to push through the New START were pathetic. Basically those in favor insisted that the treaty would allow U.S. inspectors back into Russia to make sure the Russians are eliminating their nuclear stockpile in accordance with the treaty. Mitigating that, however, is the fact that our inspectors can only look at the sites that the Russians tell us we can inspect. That's it. That's the best argument Obama had for supporting the treaty. On the other hand, you could write a thick book about the reasons to reject it.

Russia desperately wanted the U.S. to sign this treaty; in fact, Russian leaders even warned us that we had better not tamper with the language of the treaty while it was being considered during the lame-duck (illegitimate) Senate session. One of the reasons they couldn't contain their participatory enthusiasm is that the treaty limits our ability to deploy a missile defense system. And we just might need that missile defense system because the treaty calls for reductions in our arsenal of nuclear-armed missiles, which puts Russia at an even greater strategic offensive advantage.

It is complicated to explain, but to simplify the effect of the New START treaty, imagine that the U.S. has a handgun and five bullets, and the Russians have a handgun and ten bullets. Russian Premier Medvedev says to Obama that he will throw away five of his bullets if Obama throws away five of his. Only an idiot would take that deal. Well, an idiot or someone who doesn't mind selling out his country.

But there is a precedent to this stupidity. In 1998, the Russians made the outlandish argument that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty did not apply to them because they were no longer the USSR, but it did apply to us because we were still the United States. Communist China, which was never involved in the ABM Treaty, also asserted that the U.S. should be bound by it. Most observers at the time were sure the Russians and Chinese were being wildly provocative to see what would happen. President Clinton somehow agreed with their outrageous proposition. In short, Clinton "colluded" with the two most dangerous countries on the planet against his own country. No wonder many senior people who worked in national security in the 90s were quietly saying Clinton was a traitor (not kidding).

The Russians, and their previous incarnation the Soviet Union, were notorious for not abiding by any of these agreements they signed with the United States. In fact, at the very moment the Obama Administration was bum-rushing this treaty through the Senate, the Russians had already been refusing to comply with another agreement, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). The CFE treaty was signed in 1990 and was intended to "establish military parity and stability in the conventional military forces and equipment of Europe between the NATO countries and those of the Warsaw bloc." According to an  Agence France Presse report, "Russia suspended its observance of the treaty in 2007" while the U.S. continued to meet its obligations under the treaty for four years before the State Department began, reluctantly, to reconsider unilateral adherence to the treaty.

In 2009, while Russia was failing to comply with the CFE Treaty, Obama, without a single objection from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sold out our allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, by announcing that we were pulling out our missile defense systems from those two countries, a drastic move that Moscow had demanded the Obama administration take. The Bush administration had developed the system and provided for its deployment in the two eastern European allies who were once members of the Soviet Bloc, ostensibly to defend against long range Iranian missiles. But the Poles and Czechs saw the defense system and the strategic relationship with the U.S., as insurance against Russia's nostalgia for its hegemony in the region. And with good reason. Only months earlier Russia had invaded Georgia and was at the time fighting for increased control in Ukraine. This announcement came despite the fact that the two countries had welcomed the presence of those systems, which we had promised to build in response to Iran's recent testing of a ballistic missile that could reach Poland.

The Czechs and the Poles acknowledged that they had been sold out by Obama.

Fox News reported on the reaction from Poland: 

"Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama's new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous 'gray zone' between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere."

A similar reaction came from the Czech Republic according to the Fox News  report: 

"An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, stated: 'An ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid.'" 

It was bad enough that Obama caved to Russia's demands and abandoned two staunch U.S. allies, but he did it on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, as if to celebrate the re-emergence of Russia to its position of dominance over these now free and democratic nations. That kind of treachery goes well beyond "collusion" -- but for some reason Democrats and the media were not bothered at all by it.

And More
In light of Obama's apparent strategy of allowing Russia to think they won the Cold War, it should come as no surprise that he also handed over top-secret weapons technology. So not only did Obama remove our missile defense system from our allies Poland and the Czech Republic, he has now told Russia exactly how to attack not just those allies, but America itself. In January 2012, the  Washington Times reported Obama's intentions in his signing statement attached to the 2012 defense authorization bill, "Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority."

An earlier Washington Times report stated that:

"U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal."

For anyone who doubts the damage Obama and his Democrat predecessor, Bill Clinton, has done to America's national security or how it will make the entire free world less safe in the future, just look at what is happening on the Korean Peninsula right now. North Korea has nuclear weapons today because of the Clinton administration's 1994 "Agreed Framework," a fool's bargain that was supposed to ensure that North Korea did not get nuclear weapons. But instead of preventing them from getting nukes, it managed to accelerate their nuclear program.

Throughout the rest of the Clinton years, career intelligence analysts were advising them in no uncertain terms that North Korea was cheating on the agreement and pursuing nukes more rapidly with technology we provided them under terms of the agreement. But, instead of acknowledging the failure of the "Agreed Framework" and fixing it, Clinton and his people crowed about its success in stopping the dangerous Kim Jong-il from getting the very bomb that his son, Kim

Jong Un, threatens the U.S. with now.

Duplicitous Democrats such as Clinton and Obama cannot be trusted to negotiate sensitive national security agreements. They have proven too many times that they will sell America out for a piece of paper that they say will "denuclearize the world" or "will ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon".

Conclusion

Obama's and Hillary Clinton's words and actions in their dealings with Russia were dangerous and, at times, borderline treasonous. In his own words to Russian President Medvedev, Obama revealed that his re-election would usher in new U.S. policies under which Russia would be allowed to strengthen its military capabilities at the direct expense of U.S. national defense.

He all but said, "I am only pretending to be looking after my own country." And regardless of his intentions for our national security, Obama's acknowledgement that he could not be honest about his intentions in an election year drives home the additional point that he did not want Americans to go to the polls with accurate information about his plans to placate Russia. So far, that hot mic discussion Obama had with Medvedev represents far more "collusion" than anything Democrats have been able to throw at Trump.

This all represents the "collusion" Democrats say they have been looking for with regard to Trump. And this isn't even a little collusion, this is massive scale sell-off of American national security to the interests of Putin and Russia. While Democrats are pretending to look for some subtle sign that Trump tipped Putin to release some emails embarrassing to Clinton, Obama and Clinton were handing Russia everything they wanted. Why would Russia want Trump to win the election? It simply makes no sense on any level.

Which brings us back to the new Clinton-Democrat-media pose that Russia and Putin are a threat to U.S. national security. Of course, there is no doubt that they are a threat. Republicans have been warning about this for years. Which raises questions about Obama and Clinton's loyalty to Russia for four and eight years. The Obama-Clinton collusion with Russia really does look like treason, but only now that Democrats need to use Putin as a foil against President Trump do they feign concern.

The idea that has been sold to the American people is that somehow Vladimir Putin was out to get Hillary Clinton and help Trump win the election. That is a manufactured political lie concocted so Democrats can attempt to impeach President Trump. The reality is that there is practically nothing that Trump could do for Russia that would be worse for the U.S. and the world than what Clinton and Obama have already done.

Yet still, the Democrats pose as concerned oversight investigators as though none of these things happened. And most so-called journalists play along with this charade as though the authorities now promulgating theories that Russia wanted Trump to win the election hadn't just tricked them into believing Obama administration lies about the deal with Iran.

Scott Wheeler is an investigative journalist and the executive director of the National Republican Trust PAC.

SPECIAL REPORT: MEDIA'S DANGEROUS GAME

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN TRUST SPECIAL REPORTS

The Democrats and their media allies spent the last two years lying, sliming, and smearing President Trump and those of us who support him, now we need to spend the next two years telling the truth about them. We're putting the corrupt Democrats and phoney journalists on notice that we have their number.
 
We must keep this project going from now until 2020. We cannot wait or it will be too late. Help Us Continue Our Investigations of Corrupt Democrats!!

Special Report: Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein

China’s Special Channel to Washington

Feinstein was the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee when she led the attack on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Feinstein and her staff orchestrated one of the worst smear campaigns against a judicial appointee in history. She manipulated witness statements and pushed for delays in the hearing in order to do damage, not just to Kavanaugh, but to all Republicans running for office in the approaching election.

The attacks on Judge Kavanaugh were part of a larger strategy to put Republicans in an unmanageable situation going into the 2018 midterm election. That strategy was to make Republicans appear to be insensitive to female vulnerabilities because Republicans need the votes of suburban women in many swing states and districts. Feinstein and the Democrat’s strategy worked as seen in the number of close elections this year.

Feinstein and Real Collusion with Communist China

Senator Feinstein herself has a long, sordid history in dealings with the communist government of the People’s Republic of China. This report will expose the damage that Feinstein has done to U.S. national security and the assistance she has provided to communist China. Readers of this report can draw their own conclusions about whether Feinstein was used by China or knowingly participated in multiple channels of espionage.

In August of 2018 multiple news sources reported that California Senator Dianne Feinstein employed a Chinese agent for twenty years -- until 2013 when the FBI informed her of the presence of a foreign spy on her Senate staff. The spy was listed as “office director” of Feinstein’s California office and had been her driver for several years and, according to news accounts, the spy was reporting to the Chinese Ministry of State Security at the San Francisco Consulate.

Feinstein sought to downplay the FBI’s discovery of the Chinese agent saying that he never had “access to sensitive information”. That may or may not be true, but either way, having a foreign agent on her staff at any level represents a dramatic compromise of national security.

During the twenty-year span that Feinstein had the agent on her staff covered the period in which she was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It also, apparently covered a period in the mid to late 1990s when Feinstein took actions that crippled production of lanthanides, a substance critical to America’s national security while China was trying to take over the market.

A November 2018 report from a private intelligence firm, Defense One, revealed more details of a familiar theme, that China is attempting to halt US production of critical rare earth metals called lanthanides. These lanthanides are used to produce what the U.S. Department of Defense calls “exotic materials”. These materials are used in the production of America’s most advanced weapons systems.

For well over two decades China has sought to control the world’s market for rare earths and lanthanides, and in the late 1990s China accomplished that military objective with the help of Feinstein and then President Bill Clinton.

In 1994 Feinstein was the driving force behind the “California Desert Protection Act” which protected an unremarkable desert area surrounding the U.S.’s only rare earth mine. There was nothing to protect, no particular species of anything unique, but it did put the mine operations in a precarious situation.  Mountain Pass Mine, as it is known, was then owned by a company called Molycorp.

Feinstein’s California Desert Protection Act effectively gave the Department of Interior home field advantage when dealing with the mine, since Molycorp’s waste water pipeline passes through a small portion of the newly protected Mojave Desert before reaching its destination in an evaporation pool owned by the mine. 

By all accounts, Molycorp was a good steward of the government controlled land that surrounds the mine and had a very good environmental record.

In the summer of 1996, a waste water pipe burst during routine maintenance, while being flushed with fresh water.  Thousands of gallons of water spilled into the government protected land, where the parched ground absorbed it a short distance from where it should have drained and evaporated into the desert air.  The company immediately reported the spill and a month later, a coalition of armed government agents including representatives from the Bureau of Land Management arrived at Molycorp’s gates.

A mine employee present that day said, “It was a SWAT type raid, they had guns out.” Molycorp had already begun to clean up the spill, even though there was no hazardous waste involved, but the federal government, after receiving a letter from Feinstein, halted the clean up and began a process that would ultimately prevent the mine from producing any more rare earths or lanthanides. That forced the US Department of Defense into the extraordinary position of having to import critical materials for high-tech weapons from communist China.

About that time, a communist Chinese state-owned company, Baotou Rare Earths, opened an office in San Francisco. Its representative, Weiji Cui, told investigators at the time that he believed Molycorp would go out of business and Baotou was preparing to take over the world’s lanthanide market. And it did.

At that time, the Molycorp owned Mountain Pass Mine provided nearly all of U.S. rare earths and approximately 80 percent of the world’s supply. In a short time, China became the world’s leader in rare earths. Also at that time, national security experts warned that it was dangerous for the government to put Mountain Pass Mine out of business and predicted that once China had cornered the market, they would not sell rare earths to the U.S. That prediction has come to pass this year.

According to the Defense One report, “In August, China announced that it would reduce rare earth separation and smelting by 36 percent through the end of the year, putting it on track to produce… only enough for domestic production, with none left for export.” In other words, China’s intent was to choke off the US supply of materials crucial for high tech weapon systems.  And Feinstein played a leading role in assisting China’s military objective.

In a recently released Pentagon industrial base study, the US military has raised concerns about China’s dominance of the rare earth market, according to that report allowing China to control US rare earth supplies was a “significant and growing risk” to American national security.

Senator Feinstein has had a long relationship with the People’s Republic of China, going back to when she was mayor of San Francisco, which has troubled many in the US Intelligence Committee. When Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco, she formed a “sister city” relationship with the mayor of Shanghai, Jiang Zemin, in the early 1980s. Jiang rose to be the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and President of the People’s Republic of China from 1993 to 2003, the period in which China’s military gained access to America’s most important weapons technology. Feinstein, her husband Blum, and Jiang have maintained extremely close relations over the past thirty-eight years.  

Feinstein and Blum have fared very well financially as a result of this relationship with China. US Intelligence officials have privately expressed concern over Feinstein and Blum’s relationship with China, but considering Feinstein’s powerful position in the Senate, those concerns have never been fully investigated.

In August, The Federalist magazine published an extensive report detailing Feinstein and Blum’s relationship with China. Among its findings:

China has for almost forty years cultivated warm relations with Feinstein.

Feinstein has uniformly taken political positions supporting greater ties with China while taking a relatively dovish and strictly apologist line on its human rights atrocities.

Feinstein’s husband has profited handsomely during Feinstein’s career from the greatly expanded China trade she supported. It is, of course, possible that the Feinstein family’s privileged position with the Chinese regime improved his investment opportunities.

Feinstein has served as a key intermediary between China and the U.S. government while serving on committees whose work would be of keen interest to the PRC.

A recent report authored by a sinologist, Nicholas Eftimiades, who spent more than thirty years with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Department of State, explained how effective the Chinese have become at infiltrating our government:

This report presents initial findings from analysis of 274 documented cases of Chinese worldwide espionage since the year 2000. High-level findings are as follows:

1. China has expanded its espionage efforts considerably over the last 20 years.

2. Chinese entities conducting espionage include government agencies, the military, state owned enterprises (SOEs), private companies/individuals, and select universities.

3. Nearly half of China’s espionage efforts target U.S. military and space technologies. Almost 25 percent of cases target commercial interests.

4. China is unlikely to significantly curb its espionage efforts, as they provide a cost efficient means to expand the economy, advance research and development, project military power, and meet China’s stated goal to become a world power.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Feinstein would have been informed about the Chinese espionage operations against US national security many times. Yet Feinstein propped up the communist Chinese government repeatedly during the time she has been in the Senate.

There are more very troubling facts surrounding her relationship with China.  In late 1996 early 1997, a mysterious Chinese banker showed up in the United States with some startling information. The banker, who we cannot name for security purposes, told U.S. intelligence officials that his “princeling” bosses in China had told him on three occasions in the past two to three years that they were not concerned about their espionage operations in the U.S. because “they had a special channel to Washington” and that they could “fix things up” if their operations were uncovered.

When China was caught funneling illegal campaign donations to then President Bill Clinton and to Feinstein, the California Senator helped in the cover-up, which included shutting down witness testimony about FBI investigations to the Senate.

Now Feinstein has used her position in the Senate to make specious claims about President Trump and the Russia “collusion” lies concocted by the Democrat Party. For example, last January, Feinstein released a transcript of the closed-door testimony of Glenn Simpson, who ran Hillary Clinton’s opposition research and produced the “Russia Dossier” on President Trump, to the public.

While there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia “collusion” there is significant evidence that Dianne Feinstein has done far more than collude with communist China. 

The narrative: Putin preferred Trump in the 2016 election.

This is the storyline that the Democrats concocted, and their media allies continue to use as the context for all coverage of President Trump, the election, and Trump’s relationship with Vladimir Putin and Russia.

This report will show how and why this narrative is being used; evidence showing why it is false has been excluded and ignored largely due to intentional conflating of two issues -- one that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and two, that Russia and Putin’s efforts were intended to help Candidate Trump win the presidency.

To decouple these two issues, we will begin with the first question:

What did Russia’s interference consist of?

According to current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray, Russia has tried unsuccessfully on a few occasions to “hack” voting machines but their usual method of operation is to deploy disinformation or propaganda.

According to Wray, “What they do is they will identify a divisive issue, and through a variety of means, some overt, some covert, some through fake news, some through propaganda, will essentially sow divisiveness, spin people up on both sides of the issue, and then kind of watch us go at each other.”

So, the answer to the first question is yes. By the way, Russia has been interfering in our elections for at least 70 years, and always preferred Democrats, a fact conveniently suppressed in the current narrative.

Now the second question: Did Russia and Putin prefer Donald Trump?

We actually answered this question from a geo-political standpoint in our previous report “If You Only Knew” which concluded that there is no possible way it would have been in Russia or Putin’s interest for Trump to win the election -- not economically, nor in terms of Russia’s national security.

So why does the so-called “mainstream media” and Democrat Party constantly try to claim that Putin preferred Trump?

What we have learned about Russian operations from the Intelligence Community (reliable members of the community) and Justice Department investigations is that Russia’s game is to create dissention among American citizens.

In other words, their objective is to cause chaos by playing both sides against each other. In this case, if the Russians did hack the DNC servers (that is still in question), there objective was to use what they found to show that Bernie Sanders was cheated out of the primary election and Trump (who they believed was going to lose) was cheated in the general election.

The only evidence to emerge thus far that shows any Russian actions on behalf of Trump was a measly $200,000 worth of Facebook ads aimed at discrediting Clinton. More than one billion dollars was spent to elect Clinton so $200k is a meaningless amount of effort.

When you consider the billions of dollars from the “mainstream media” in what is called “in-kind” contributions to Clinton, the Facebook ads are not even worthy of discussion. Yet that is the one thing that Democrats and their media allies cling to as evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win. That is it. Yet they continue to conflate these two issues of Russia meddling and the desire to elect Trump.

If candidate Trump had been the frontrunner, Russia was prepared to make the argument that the media, Democrats, and Clinton herself are making now—that Clinton was cheated out of the election by Trump colluding with Russia. But notice who is promoting this narrative? You can accurately say that Democrats, their media allies, and Clinton are carrying water for Russia and Putin. The Russians would never have this kind of effectiveness with any other propaganda, but just as they have over many decades, Democrats have been the most prolific agitprop distributors for dictators and tyrants in the United States for more than 70 years.

The Russians could never have been this effective without the Democrats and the media. Throughout the run up to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both reassured the nation that our elections could not be tampered with. According to Clinton, Obama, and the media it was downright unpatriotic to suggest that our elections were being tampered with. They said that because they were sure that Clinton would win.

Immediately following Trump’s win, the Democrats and the media began to call the election into question, violating their own pre-election demands that we accept the outcome or else.

One recent example of the media manipulating this information to help Democrats’ narrative was in the Washington Post. A “journalist” named Philip Bump wrote an analysis entitled “A Broad Debunking of Trump’s Claims about Russian Interference and the Mueller investigation”.

The piece was anything but that and looked as though it had been written by Clinton herself: “And yet, two years and two weeks later, the person believed to have been the deliberate beneficiary of that interference offers this thought on Twitter.” It shows a tweet from President Trump criticizing the Mueller

investigation and raising questions about why the DNC server that was hacked has never been seen by the FBI. Bump then goes on to continue the Democrat Party talking points in what was not labeled a “commentary” but again, a “news analysis”.

“But that there is nothing new in that tweet — that President Trump continues to offer this alternate view of reality and long-debunked conspiracy theories — is remarkable in itself. So, once and for all, let’s walk through Trump’s nebulous assertions, what’s known, and why Trump, perhaps more than anyone else, should know better,” wrote Bump.

A glance at what Bump refers to as “conspiracy theories” is the fact that the FBI needed the DNC server at all to know whether or not Russia accessed it.

He also declares that because the DNC server was “hacked” by Russia there is clear evidence that Russia was trying to help Trump. Left out of his propaganda though was that Russia also hacked Republican servers as well. But Bump repeatedly demonstrates he is not about to let a little thing like facts and evidence get in the way of a good smear campaign.

At another point Bump claims that Clinton’s involvement in the sale of Uranium to the Russians while she was Secretary of State is a “circuitous” conspiracy theory because there are nine members of the CFIUS review board. Bump and his Democrat allies like to pretend that all nine of the CFIUS representatives didn’t work for the Obama Administration, a convenient fact to overlook.

Bump also attacked the only known salient facts about the case as “even more circuitous” by saying that Clinton’s campaign laundering $12 million to former British agent Christopher Steele, who in turn paid official Russian sources for gossip on candidate Trump is believable. He simply declares that there is “no indication that the Russian government or that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed the information to Steele”. He says that despite the fact that Steele’s report references government sources close to Putin.

In addition to the normal Democrat Party advocacy from eighty percent of the news media, there is the addition of a very concerning new element.

According to a Fox News report:

“Now-former FBI agent Josh Campbell publicly claimed he was leaving the bureau because of ‘relentless attacks’ on it, but he really had a cushy gig at CNN lined up – and now media watchdogs are questioning the ethics behind the entire affair.”

Campbell made these assertions in a New York Times column as he exited the FBI and joined CNN as an analyst. I pointed out to Campbell that he had a credibility issue considering he claimed he was leaving because of attacks on the FBI by President Trump and his staff, but he wrote in the Times and went to work for CNN, both of which attack the FBI on a regular basis when it is being aggressive on terrorism and national security matters.

Campbell regularly attacks President Trump and promotes the Russia conspiracy theories on CNN and social media. What Campbell leaves out of his background is that he was James Comey’s personal assistant, not really the crime-fighter as he tries to portray himself. He is a reliable defender of Comey and the others involved in the investigation of the 2016 election and FISA Court warrants.

Also joining CNN after Trump was elected was James Clapper, who was Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration. Again, a reliable critic of President Trump. CNN uses people like this to hide their anti-Republican agenda behind the national security credentials of people like Campbell and Clapper. CNN believes this provides them credibility while they are attacking Republicans and President Trump.

MSNBC and NBC hired Obama Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan. Brennan has provided the most pernicious attacks on President Trump of anyone in the media, calling for him to be “tried for treason”.

The point of people like Campbell, Clapper, and Brennan working in the media is to make it appear to unsuspecting audiences that the media and Democrat attacks on President Trump are authentic. This is typical propaganda -- show a person who used to wear the uniform and say “See, he agrees with us”.

Comey himself lacked credibility because Clinton blamed him for her loss in the 2016 election, so he could not be a reliable media figure for the Democrats, so Josh Campbell, his assistant, was the next best thing.  

The reason their presence in the news media is so important is that if President Trump survives these attacks, and Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, Comey, Clapper, and Brennan could be brought to justice, especially if an independent counsel is appointed to take the cases away from the Justice Department and take over from where the congressional investigations leave off.

Right now -- and expect this “scandal” to grow bigger -- Democrats and their media allies are talking up the indictment of a Russian woman named Maria Butina. She has not been charged with espionage, but with the minor charge of failing to file as a foreign agent of influence.

The media and Democrats are playing up the fact that she had “infiltrated” the National Rifle Association and had been seen cavorting with other conservative

organizations. The way the story is being played is to claim this proves some kind of Russia-Trump-Republican collusion narrative, but it actually is evidence of the opposite. Why would you infiltrate your allies? Russia has attempted to infiltrate conservative groups because we are their enemy.

Apparently, they don’t worry so much about Democrats and the media, perhaps because they know once Trump is vindicated, the Democrats and media will come back to their side again.

Compare and contrast the media treatment of President Trump to how Hillary Clinton was treated during the 2016 election.

In the late 1990s while working undercover in an international arms trafficking network, I happened to mention to a U.S. government official who was familiar with the project that the target of the investigation was "really suspicious" of me. The government official responded, "Well, he should be, he has a reason to be suspicious."

During the 2016 election cycle, the Washington and New York press corps seemed strangely comfortable describing Hillary Clinton as having a long-standing "suspicion of the press corps" without assigning any motives to that suspicion. The implication being that over the years the media had unfairly scrutinized her.
 
If she had been “dead broke” then perhaps they might have a point, but Clinton spent her husband’s entire public life engaged in shady financial deals that enriched the Clintons and sent their co-conspirators to jail. In fact, most of the media left the impression that it is somehow the media's own fault that Clinton was suspicious of them.

Members of the press acted as if they deserved to be critiqued for asking probing questions about the Clintons’ questionable behavior and secrecy surrounding matters about which the public has a right to know.

Briefly in 2015, the media even pretended to be interested in the Clinton Foundation, its odd set of benefactors, and what public benefits the Clintons may have given them for their donations. That curiosity was only temporary.

After a brief dalliance, the media resumed the posture of the Clintons’ defense, the same one they have maintained since their 1992 campaign for president. That is, we can only hold the Clintons accountable if the proof meets an exacting standard, set by the Clintons -- standards not afforded the common man.

The Clinton standard is if they can raise even a modicum of doubt in one shred of a mountain of evidence, then they are 100% innocent. This approach of isolating every incident in a vacuum, the Clintons and the media denied us the privilege of holding them accountable for a pattern of behavior stretching more than 35 years.

Even while the press seemed to be raising questions, they were also qualifying them with “so far there is no evidence directly linking Hillary Clinton to any criminal behavior,” even as she was destroying evidence. 

What was the point of raising questions in the first place if the answer requires Hillary Clinton to either incriminate herself or be declared an innocent victim of the press corps? Hillary chose to remain silent, and the media pretended that the evidence she destroyed or refused to provide might contain information that would vindicate her.

Republicans’ most frequent refrain about the media is that they have a "liberal bias." That is simply not true. After all, don’t members of the media pretend to despise the well-off, particularly those who obtained their wealth under questionable circumstances, sort of like the Clintons did? That is merely a liberal pose. The media has a Democratic Party bias, which is far worse than a liberal bias.

If the press corps were "liberal" it would possess a set of standards to which they would not only hold Republicans accountable, but Democrats as well. However, throughout the 1990s, the mainstream media rarely ever held the Clintons to any liberal standards.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran against "the decade of greed," referring to 1980s prosperity under President Reagan. But as revelations of complex financial transactions, many of which were highly questionable and some outright illegal and made the Clinton's wealthy during the 1980s, the media was largely reluctant to report this staggering hypocrisy.

Similarly, during the 1992 campaign, Clinton attacked then-President George H. W. Bush for coddling "the butchers of Beijing" and failing to keep strategic weapons technology out of the hands of dangerous dictators. Human rights in China was a major issue during the 1992 campaign, as the press corps frequently reminded voters.

But once Clinton took office, he immediately began decontrolling high-tech weapons systems and other technologies that China used to further oppress their own citizens and threaten the U.S. -- even to this day. And it occurred while Clinton was receiving millions of dollars in illegal campaign donations from China -- yes, all this was revealed right in the middle of American liberals' narrative about how big corporate money was unfairly influencing U.S. elections.

One might think that the confluence of two such seismic events would have become fodder for blockbuster exposés in the mainstream media; after all, the narrative fit right into the liberal template. You had big money influencing politicians to aid and abet human rights’ violators, but not only did the mainstream media mostly ignore their own matters of importance, they marginalized House and Senate committees that were investigating what became known as the "China/DNC fundraising scandal."  

Consistent with what the Clinton White House was putting out, the press coverage of the committee investigations was couched in suspicions that Republicans were up to partisan tricks and, therefore, the conclusions of the investigative committees could not be trusted. The self-flattering press corps likes to claim the lofty ideal of "holding the powerful accountable," but defended Bill Clinton, leader of the free-world who violated its most sacred liberal tenets and blames itself for driving poor Hillary Clinton to unnatural heights of suspicion.

 The problem for Republicans, in general, is how to deal with a media that is hostile to them but maintains a sliding scale of accountability for Democrats.

For years I have advised Republicans on how to deal with this problem and was somewhat gratified when a friend, who is a Republican operative, forwarded an article on Rand Paul's challenge to a reporter during the 2016 Republican primary, with a note asking if I had been advising him.

The article explained that when the Associated Press attempted to pin down Rand Paul on abortion, he responded this way:



“Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it's okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me."
 
This is not an endorsement of Rand Paul, but advice for GOP candidates to use smart tactics. For years, I provided Republicans with this rejoinder to reporters’ questions about their stance on abortion:

The President of the United States (Obama) voted three times when he was in the Illinois legislature to allow doctors to kill a baby that survived an abortion. When you get around to asking the president about his abortion extremism, then you can get back to me on it.

Republicans have always felt that the press corps is never going to change, so there is no point in complaining about it. But what Republicans can change is the voters’ perception of the mainstream media.

Look at how Democrats treat Fox News Channel, constantly trying to undermine their reporting by calling it "Republican", "conservative", etc. The reality is that Fox News has more viewers than any other cable news channel, thus, by the very definition, making it more "mainstream" than the so-called "mainstream media".
 
It is far more appropriate to call media outlets “Democrat Party apparatchiks” and Republicans should publicly refer to hostile reporters as Democrat Party hacks who cross-dress as journalists. Republicans should treat the media and the Democratic Party as one amalgam, because basically they are, and having this aired in public gives voters information that they previously may not have considered.

If Republicans make journalists defend their pro-Democrat Party reportage, it will blunt their attacks on the GOP. Every time the media tries to embarrass a Republican, voters will wonder if that validates Republican complaints about the media.

Public opinion polls show that voters rightly sense that the Washington Political Class is responsible for the decline of the nation. Republicans could do well explaining to them that the Democratic Party is the establishment, and the mainstream media their protectors. The failure of the media to hold the Clintons and other Democrats accountable is clear evidence for making that case.

It has never been more evident that what is considered the “mainstream media” will engage in outright propaganda in order to assist the Democrat Party and turning the U.S. into a one-party nation.

###