After many Republicans smeared Donald Trump, suggesting he was not a “real Republican” they were later revealed as Republicans in name only. When the mainstream media and Hollywood smeared Donald Trump as a sexual predator, they were later revealed to be hiding and protecting sexual predators. The FBI is investigating Donald Trump for corruption and collusion, and now have been revealed to be completely corrupt itself.Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump/Russia collusion investigation came under criticism recently when FBI agent Peter Strzok was removed from duty due to fiercely anti-Trump text messages between him and his alleged lover FBI attorney Lisa Page. Peter Strzok previously changed former FBI Director James Comey's description of Hillary Clinton's actions from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless,” interviewed Gen. Michael Fynn leading to eventual charges and also was heavily involved in the entire Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation. Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
It looks like the attempted coup by the deep state to overthrow the results of last year's election may have run into yet another snag and may in fact be a form of blowback, a sort of musket you aim at someone else that goes off in your own face.
Because not only has Mueller's investigation for the last year or so failed to show any collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians in changing the outcome of the election, But now FBI agent Peter Strzok was removed from his role in the special counsel's office after it was discovered he had made negative or hostile or disparaging comments about President Trump in text messages between him and his lover,
FBI attorney Lisa Page.
This is according to the New York Times and Washington Post.
Now we don't know what the contents were of these texts because they have not Mr.
Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas, that required and would have exposed these texts.
And they've also refused to answer questions about why Mr.
Strzok was dismissed, and they've refused to make him available for an interview.
I don't know, maybe they've renditioned him to Turkey or something like that.
Now, Strzok, this FBI agent, is also under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General for his role in Hillary Clinton's email server.
And this is quite a powerful thing.
So he was central in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.
And he was the guy who previously changed Former FBI Director James Comey's description of Hillary Clinton's actions to extremely careless from grossly negligent.
He was the guy who changed that description.
Now, legally, grossly negligent is pretty much the same as extremely careless, but careless doesn't sound legally to the average American, to the average voter.
And so, extremely careless is like, whoops, grossly negligent has a sort of legal air to it.
And although they don't mean much in terms of difference legally, it sounds worse to say grossly negligent rather than extremely careless.
So, the fact that Strzok was the guy who changed that seems quite important.
So, he seems to be hostile to Donald Trump.
He's obviously, I assume, pro-Hillary and therefore had a conflict of interest.
You know, I mean, Jeff Sessions will recuse himself if he once drove past the same town where the guy stayed overnight 16 years ago, apparently.
But this guy, who is compromised in terms of his political allegiances, did not recuse himself.
This information was not provided where it was necessary, and that is some very powerful stuff.
But it goes even deeper than that.
So this FBI agent currently in the wind, Peter Strzok, Was one of the two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn, which of course took place January 24th at the White House.
Now, Flynn has taken a lot of heat for agreeing to speak to the FBI without his lawyer present.
They can interview you over a couple of days or a couple of hours, and if anything changes in your story, if you tell it a slightly different way or something like that, Then they can get you for lying to the FBI, which is why you see so many people when they're interviewed by the FBI or they're interviewed by their under oath and they say, well, what about this? What about this?
And they always say, I refer you to my previous statements about this rather than tell the story again, in which case you can be caught for using a different phrase, a different language and so on.
And so according to another source with direct knowledge of the January 24th interview, Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, had contacted Flynn by phone directly at the White House.
White House officials had spent the, and I quote, earlier part of the week with the FBI overseeing training and security measures associated with their new roles, so it was no surprise to Flynn that McCabe had called.
McCabe told Flynn some agents were heading over to the White House, but Flynn thought it was part of the routine work the FBI had been doing and said they would be cleared at the gate.
It wasn't until they were already in Flynn's office that he realized he was being formally interviewed, right?
So there's, you know, a bunch of training and, you know, get used to your security, got a whole bunch of new roles, so they come in, oh, we want to come talk to you.
Yep, come on in, we'll check you in.
And then, boom, they get into your office, you realize that you're being formally interviewed, and you are now in extreme legal jeopardy.
He didn't have an attorney with him, and I've read reports that he was not allowed.
To summon an attorney, to get an attorney in this situation.
So the former US intelligence official told the reporter, quote, with the recent revelation that Strzok was removed from the special counsel investigation for making anti-Trump text messages, it seems likely that the accuracy and veracity of the 302, that's the report, of Flynn's interview as a whole should be reviewed and called into question.
The most logical thing to happen would be to call the other FBI special agent present during Flynn's interview before the grand jury to recount his version.
Now, you may ask, why on earth wouldn't you just record the interview?
Well, it doesn't usually work that way.
It doesn't seem to work that way. So what happens is you have this long-ranging interview and then the agents say, well, this contradicted that and therefore charged and it's your word against theirs.
It does not seem to be recorded, so why wouldn't you just listen to the recording?
It's a very important legal thing.
Now McCabe, the guy we were just talking about, McCabe appointed to deputy director by Comey and headed up the Hillary Clinton private server email investigation.
As a brand new political candidate, McCabe's wife received up to $675,000.
In political donations from a Democrat political action committee, which was run by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
McAuliffe, longtime close associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton and one-time chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Now this connection is so troubling that members of the Congressional Oversight Committee have asked McCabe to supply documents detailing his wife's financial dealings with her campaign.
According to the Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chavitz, he says, It seems like an obscene amount of money for a losing race.
There are outstanding questions regarding a possible conflict of interest into this case.
So, this FBI supervisor, Peter Strunk, changed the description, Comey's description, of Hillary Clinton's actions.
And he also conducted the interviews with Uma Aberdeen and Cheryl Mills.
In which, during those interviews, they falsely claimed they didn't know about Hillary's email server when she was Secretary of State, yet they were given immunity.
Huh. Interesting.
There seems to be a lot of people who have been proven to have lied to the FBI, but nothing seems to happen as long as they're Democrats.
Now, FBI supervisor Peter Strzok softened statements about Hillary to avoid the legal implications.
Interviewed Uma and Cheryl Mills with no repercussions and signed off on the Trump-Russia investigation before being fired for his anti-Trump bias.
Now, this is kind of a political nightmare for Mueller.
Now, of course, you know, FBI agents, they're adults, they have their political perspectives and opinions, but if it's this central and the bias is this strong and documentation requested was withheld, that seems like a whole Different situation.
Now, Mike Cernovich has said, Mueller failed to disclose exculpatory material about a corrupt federal agent investigating Flynn.
The plea deal was obtained via fraud, and Flynn should seek to have it avoided.
And it seems interesting to me that the plea deal was kind of muscled last week, and then, of course, this came out over the last day or two, and I wonder if maybe Mueller knew about it.
Maybe Strzok knew about it.
And that seems pretty, pretty important.
Now, from here, who knows what's going to happen, but there are some very powerful things.
Of course, this does look like the cover up of somebody who has a significant conflict of interest regarding this investigation.
And that is very, very important.
Now, The question that I think is really interesting here is it's sort of a big picture thing.
You can get these details most places, but I want to try and give you a bigger picture.
Now if you look at this overall pattern over the last two years or so.
So the Republicans attack and condemn Trump.
He's a pretend Republican.
But now they've kind of changed their tune.
A lot of them say, well, he's governing as a pretty strong Republican, right?
I mean, he just got his travel ban Approved by the Supreme Court so everyone in the lower courts and everyone in the media who said all the Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional It's illegal.
It's wrong. It's right Well, the Supreme Court I think it was seven to two like strongly affirmed the Trump had the right to do this and it was fully constitutional legal.
So how many people? Who said it was unconstitutional, illegal, are going to retract, are going to recant, are going to apologize, and are going to find out some damn way to do a better job in the future.
Well, my guess is a big fat bagel slash goose egg slash zero of them are going to do that.
But even the Republicans are now saying, well, you know, he got Gursuk in, he's lowering taxes on the way to lowering taxes, got a travel ban, you know, there's stuff that he's doing that's kind of on the nose of what the Republican voters want.
The rhinos, the Republicans in name only, initially condemned Trump.
Oh, he's a pretend Republican.
And then the rhinos themselves are exposed as pretend Republicans.
If you look at the media and Hollywood, they all smeared Trump as a sexual predator.
Do you remember? There were all these women who were alleging that Trump did all these terrible things and then poof, they vanished.
So the media and Hollywood smearing Trump as a sexual predator.
And now the media and Hollywood are themselves.
Revealed as infested with sexual predation.
The FBI investigates Trump for corruption and now it is emerging as a sort of hellish, bottom Dantian layer of hell Atlantis rising from the sea so it can finally be seen.
The FBI investigates Trump for corruption and now itself is revealed as corrupt.
I guess it's called projection, and if you notice this pattern, we can look forward to more attacks on Trump because they think they're shining a light on an evil outside their own halls, outside their own hallways, outside their own buildings,
