Not sure what Osborne is crowing about…he spent the election stabbing May in the back and it was his austerity policies what won Labour so many votes according to Corbyn…..


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Mr Bombastic…ready to serve

‘Deluded!’ Jeremy Corbyn mocked for claiming election victory – ‘He thinks he’s WON’

The Labour leader shocked many by starting an interview with Sky News by saying: “We have been elected to…”

He continued by outlining his plans for a Labour government and admitted he was ready to form a coalition with fellow Westminster parties.

He then reiterated “it’s pretty clear” Labour won the election.

Corbyn suggested that because labour had increased its share of the vote and the Tories had dropped seats he had in essence won the election….Abbott doing the count?

On that basis the LibDems should be the governing party as their percentage increase in seats far outstrips Labours…and indeed the Scottish Conservatives must be in power in Scotland….in fact judging by the Scottish Conservative vote they should run the whole UK…hmmm….not a bad idea having Ruth Davidson in charge….come the next leadership election?

Speaking of which…

Ruth Davidson prime minister Conservative leade

Ruth Davidson and Scotland saved the Tories: Britons call for Ruth Davidson to oust May





Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

All about the Brexit?



Labour didn’t campaign on Brexit going for the NHS, the economy, social justice, equality, and care issues….and opportunistically, and hilariously, anti-terrorism.  Corbyn rarely mentioned Brexit unless pushed to in an interview…..Labour’s key policies?   Brexit not mentioned in this list from the BBC….

Key policies

Scrap student tuition fees

Nationalisation of England’s nine water companies.

Re-introduce the 50p rate of tax on the highest earners (above £123,000)

Income tax rate 45p on £80,000 and above

More free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds

Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes

End to zero hours contracts

Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters

Moves to charge companies a levy on salaries above £330,000

Deliver rail electrification “including in Wales and the South West”.


The BBC told us this was the Labour campaign direction…

The party will be keen to move the focus of the campaign away from Brexit, and on to domestic issues, such as the NHS, which has come under intense pressure in recent months.

Labour also believes it can score big with voters who feel the economic system is “rigged” against them, with one law for super rich tax avoiders and another for ordinary working people.

After the terror attacks I think it was Kuenssberg who said May wanted to talk about Brexit but that was not the main issue now of the election, security and terrorism were…indeed the FT agrees saying…

Terror attacks shaped UK election but failed to lift May, experts say

So odd that tuning in to the Today show it’s all now about the Brexit….Brexit will now have to be reshaped due to the outcome of the election…the election that they had just told us was not about Brexit.

They packed the programme with pro-Remain people….a Tory MP who suggested we must now change our approach to the negotiations, then Labour spinner Tom Baldwin, ex-BBC Cameron PR guru Craig Oliver and someone from the Economist…all against ‘Hard Brexit’…that is all against Brexit.

May’s campaign was not about the legitimacy of Brexit but who was best to lead the negotiations….it was not a rerun of the referendum though you’d have thought it was listening to Nick Robinson.

Essentially we had Muslim terrorists altering the outcome of our election and a man who is a career long supporter of terrorism and an opponent of every piece of anti-terror legislation still managing to become the champion of British national security.  How so?

Corbyn was practically given a blank sheet by the BBC, a new start, his support for terrorism, his hard-line Marxism, his ‘look-away’ attitude towards anti-Semitism in his Party, his ruinous economic policies all were somehow forgotten or downplayed.  Two senior BBC journalists both came out for Corbyn, Robinson and Dimbleby, both warning their colleagues not to write anything too harsh about him.  Guess they listened.

Stephen Glover in the Mail hits the nail on the head…we did not see the real Corbyn….

Meanwhile, Corbyn was for the most part successful in concealing his extremism, and looked cuddly and unthreatening. He also seemed, unlike Mrs May, relaxed and happy in his own skin. One might say that he has appeared genuine.

Something strange is going on in this country. The British pride themselves on their moderation and common sense. Yet millions of perfectly sane people will today vote for a half-competent extremist whose policies would impoverish this country and make it vulnerable to its enemies.

One way and another, the political centre of gravity in British life has swung appreciably to the Left.

As for the BBC, it has seemed more powerful than ever during this election, probably because of the relative decline of the printed Press. Scornful of Jeremy Corbyn during his two Labour leadership contests, Auntie has treated him indulgently as a mainstream left-of-centre politician rather than the dangerous revolutionary he really is.

We also had that Mishal Husain ‘interview’ wth Boris in which she told him to stop talking…or stop saying  things she didn’t like…she actually ‘made the case’ for Corbyn telling us he was  now all for ‘shoot to kill’ and was uterly opposed to terrorism…absolutely no idea that this was a highly opportunistic u-turn by Corbyn that was a complete denial of his decades old principles…Husain just wanted to shut Boris up as he made his points….

Day the BBC’s golden girl became a spokesman for Corbyn

Despite misgivings in the Beeb over Husain’s lightweight performance in the debate, she was handed the prize interview at 8.10am with Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on Radio 4’s Today programme.

Adopting an aggressive, even menacing tone, Husain constantly cut across the increasingly exasperated Foreign Secretary with little evidence of the impartiality the BBC claims it is so proud of in its journalists. It seemed all too clear where her sympathies lay.

In an extraordinary exchange, Mr Johnson laid into Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for his consistent refusal to back counter-terrorist measures over three decades. But Husain insisted on breaking in to ‘set the record straight’, parroting exactly what Corbyn said in the aftermath of London Bridge and ignoring his previous position.

This has prompted criticism that she was acting as ‘Corbyn’s spokesperson.’

The low point came when Johnson scorned the idea Diane Abbott, as home secretary in a Labour government, would have the skills to deal with a major terrorist attack.

It was too much for Husain, 44, who jumped in with a good impression of a teacher disciplining an unruly child, saying: ‘No, no, please stop talking.’ Johnson, clearly taken aback, said: ‘But you have invited me on your show to talk.’


Any wonder that Corbyn managed to poll so high as the major news organisation provided him with a smokescreen to cover up his extremism and present him as a reasonable and moderate statesman….the BBC far outstripping the  rest of the media as the trusted source of news..lol…. ‘According to a new ICM survey of over 2,000 Britons, 45 per cent trust the BBC as a reliable source for general election news, compared to only 27 per cent who trust the daily newspapers.’

Other polls give them even more power…

Given a choice of seven different news organisations including Sky News, ITV News and Channel 4 News, 58% of respondents ranked the BBC first for balanced and unbiased reporting. Sky News was second, with 15%.


Of those polled in the UK, 62% believed the BBC to be accurate and reliable as news, and almost half of those polled found them to be unbiased.

Contrast of course how they treat Trump whose main sin seems to be that he wants to control immigration.  perhaps if he supported Muslim terrorism instead of wanting to stop it the BBC would back him as they do Corbyn.

That terrorism has altered the course of the election is without doubt…curious that the BBC is now saying it was all about Brexit, especially as Labour didn’t campaign on that.





Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Silver Lining?


Ex-Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg loses


Note Dimbleby claims Clegg and Libdems ‘paid the price’ for going into coalition with Tories…no….they paid the price because Clegg u-turned on his tuition fee promise…and now because they are useless whinging Remoaners.

Sadly missed…but oh no…the rather sinister lying old goat……

Vince Cable’s back


Image result for vince cable

You can’t keep a good man down.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The BBC Coverup for Obama’s attempt to interfere in Clinton email investigation


The BBC headlines its report on Comey’s testimony with this..

Comey: Trump White House ‘lied’ about the FBI

Oh really…in what way?

Ex-FBI chief James Comey told Congress that the Trump administration’s comments about him and the FBI were “lies plain and simple”.

Mr Comey told a Senate committee they were wrong to denigrate the agency and its leadership.

He told the panel that the White House “chose to defame me, and more importantly the FBI” by claiming the agency was “poorly led”.

“Those were lies, plain and simple. And I’m so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them,” he continued.

Hmmm…that’s purely subjective and the angry view of someone sacked from his job…someone who was pilloried for his behaviour by both sides of the House.

So why does the BBC headline with such a line?  After all isn’t the big story that Obama tried to downplay or stop the investigation into Clinton’s email scandal?  Was this not ‘obstruction of justice’?  After all Comey admitted he was very troubled by pressure put on him by the Democrats, so much so he had to step away …and we know it was subsequently canned….Clinton remarkably exonerated.

“The attorney general was looking to align campaign language with our language, which… gave me a queasy feeling.” said Comey.

Loretta Lynch, the former attorney general under Barack Obama, pressured former FBI Director James Comey to downplay the Clinton email server investigation and only refer to it as a “matter,” Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

Comey said that when he asked Lynch if she was going to authorize him to confirm the existence of the Clinton email investigation, her answer was, “Yes but don’t call it that. Call it a matter.” When Comey asked why, he said, Lynch wouldn’t give him an explanation. “Just call it a matter,” she said.

I don’t know whether it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general [Lynch] was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way the political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate,” Comey added.

Comey complied, in his words, because it “wasn’t a hill worth dying on.” In February 2016, the FBI confirmed in a letter that the agency was “working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Comey cited that pressure from Lynch to downplay the investigation as one of the reasons he held a press conference to recommend the Department of Justice not seek to indict Clinton.

Comey also cited Lynch’s secret tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton as a reason he chose to hold the press conference, he said, as he was concerned about preserving the independence of the FBI.

Obama tries to interfere in an investigation, Comey is worried about the independence of the FBI and nothing from the BBC, but Trump is claimed to have tried to stop one, despite in the testimony Comey admitting he hadn’t, it was merely his own interpretation, and memory, of Trump’s words, and the BBC is talking up impeachment.

Even Comey himself says that his claim that Trump ‘ordered’ him to drop the investigation is questionable as based solely on his own interpetation…

Comey: I don’t know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying his words is, I took it as a direction.

Risch: Right.

Comey: I mean, it’s the President of the United States with me alone, saying, “I hope this.” I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that, but that’s the way I took it.

Risch: You may have taken it as a direction, but that’s not what he said.

Comey: Correct.

Look at this from Zurcher…..

‘Staggering blow’ for Trump – Anthony Zurcher, BBC News

For Donald Trump the good news from James Comey’s testimony is that the former FBI director clearly said the president was not directly under FBI investigation at the time he was fired. The bad news was, well, everything else.

The White House may claim today’s testimony is a technical exoneration. Politically, however, it’s a staggering blow. And when it comes to the presidency, politics is everything.

That’s just nonsense, utter, utter bilge...as we showed yesterday after reading Comey’s written testimony.  If anything the testimony backs Trump and damns both Comey and the Democrats….and it is clear now that it was Comey, not some independent witness, who leaked the memo written by himself from memory about Trump’s alleged attempt to stop the investigation into Flynn.

Compare the BBC’s effort to this one by the Wall Street journal which takes a more nuanced and critical look at Comey as the BBC turns Comey into a heroic seeker of justice…‘He stood before a Senate committee not just to defend himself, but also the honour of the FBI.’….From the WSJ….

The ‘Independent’ Mr. Comey

His prepared testimony shows why he deserved to be fired.

The BBC tries to spin its story even more by suggesting Trump may be under investigation now…despite Comey saying he hadn’t been…and  no evidence to suggest he is…pure BBC speculation and mud-flinging….

Since Mr Comey is no longer in charge of the FBI, and the investigation has now been passed to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it is possible that Mr Trump is now being investigated after all.

As for the accuracy and truthfulness of the anti-Trump press that the BBC relies upon for its anti-Trump ‘scoops’?….

New York Times report titled, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.”

Sen.  James Risch (R-Idaho) on Thursday asked Comey if he remembered the article.

Comey said he did; “It was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance,” he said.

Risch noted that after the report came out, Comey “sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don’t know where this is coming from, but this is not factual.”

Risch told Comey: “So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?”

“In the main – it was not true,” Comey said. “The challenge — and I’m not picking on reporters — about writing stories about classified information is that people talking about it often don’t really know what is going on. And those of us who actually know what’s going on aren’t talking about it. And we don’t call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic. We just have to leave it there.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Spoof of BBC Bias

A BBC short, aired on the eve of the general election, shows Theresa May pulling out a 'bloodied knife'

BBC accused of ‘disgraceful’ bias over spoof video showing Theresa May wielding a ‘bloodied knife’ – just five days after the London Bridge terror attack

Yesterday, politicians and licence fee lambasted the BBC’s poor judgement.

Conservative candidate Andrew Bridgen said: ‘It’s appallingly bad taste for the BBC to show this at any time, and particularly after the killings at London Bridge. To depict Theresa May as some mad knifeman, particularly in the wake of the terror attacks, is disgraceful.

‘What on earth are the BBC thinking to authorise this?’

The BBC defended the video as satire, and said that the ‘blade’ is in actual fact a comb.

A spokesman said: ‘No blades are shown in this video – Theresa May wields a comb. There’s a long history of satire in this country and the audience for this clip will know it’s nothing more than that,’ a spokesman said.

However, many viewers clearly thought the comb was a bloodied blade – not least because it was mounted on a knife handle and opened up like a flick knife.

Bizarre video from BBC 3…and you have to look really hard not to think that is a knife in May’s hand…even in the photo above it’s not immediately clear….



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Open Thread Thursday


Looks like we’re on overtime today so here’s another open thread to tide us over to the weekend when you can fill it with all those tales of BBC tears and temper tantrums as the Corbyn bandwagon goes off track big style [that may be tempting fate].

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Lessons learned or spurned?


“Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) hath Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,” Quran Chapter 4: The Women, verse 95.  [From MPACUK]


Lesser jihad

Most Muslims are not pacifists, and believe it is justifiable to struggle to defend Islam, for justice, or in self-defence, and to use force if necessary. If all peaceful means fail, a Muslim should be ready to fight to defend the ummah against aggression, to defend the oppressed, or to combat injustice. This is lesser jihad.

BBC Bitesize


Are ISIS members, or indeed any Muslim so-called ‘extremists’ or ‘radicals’, ‘perverting’ the true religion of Islam?

You may argue about the way they kill people, or their choice of target,  but you cannot argue that they are not following the teachings and obligations of Islam as they attack Western countries.

The ‘extremists’ say that they are defending Islam and Muslims from attack by the West….how do we know that Muslims and Islam are under attack?  Because the likes of the BBC also promote that very narrative.  We had the BBC’s very own Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, deliberately saying exactly that in the last couple of weeks in a series on the Middle East.  He blamed Western interference in Muslim countries for creating the chaotic catastrophe that is so much of the Middle East today.  This is the extremists’ and the terrorists’ own narrative.  It is of course, as just a little knowledge of history would show, a completely false narrative….but the BBC continues to peddle it in a continuation of its lefty 1960’s white guilt cringe about the supposed evils of the British Empire…the Muslim empire seems to get a bye on this though…it apparently has been entirely benign and the consequences of its creation are not relevant apparently…other than of course its magnificent contribution to science and Western development!

Here is a perfect example of the narrative in action...from the extremist group MPACUK [one of those ‘goto’ voices the BBC uses to comment on Muslim affairs!]…

Muslims in Palestine are being oppressed and are unable to resist this oppression. In this case, the obligation falls upon the countries next to and around Palestine. However, non of the neighbouring countries are fulfilling their duty to protect this section of the Ummah. Therefore, this obligation becomes a Fardh Ayn and it now becomes obligatory on every man, woman and child to protect the Ummah from oppression. In this sense, Jihad is an obligation upon us all.

The Prophet (pbuh) has said, “He who dies without having fought in the way of Allah or without having felt it to be his duty, will die having a trait of hypocrisy”. [Sahih Muslim]

This powerful hadeeth leaves no question that to be a Muslim today, one should be ready to do everything it takes in the cause of Allah. Thus, we cannot actually call ourselves “practising Muslims” unless we are taking an active part in Jihad.


Then you have to ask what is meant by ‘Jihad’…..yes it can mean some sort of inner struggle to improve yourself but it does also mean Holy War…in defence of Islam and Muslims…’defence’ can be interpreted as when under actual attack…or as a pre-emptive attack on someone you think is about to attack you…and that again can be stretched to include anyone who isn’t Muslim and therefore is a threat to Islam, their mere existence being a potential threat…thus ‘defence’ can in fact be an excuse for attack…hence Muhammed’s ‘defensive wars’ managed to conquer so much territory that was in no way Muslim to start with.  It’s the same tactical excuse Hitler used and the same one Putin uses as he ‘defends’ Russians living in the Crimea or Ukraine.

The BBC generously provides us with the definition and the proof that these Jihadists are not ‘perverting’ Islam…they are following its commands as they believe, as told to them by the BBC itself, that Islam and Muslims are under attack by the West….this is what the BBC is teaching Muslim children in its GCSE Bitesize….

Lesser jihad

Most Muslims are not pacifists, and believe it is justifiable to struggle to defend Islam, for justice, or in self-defence, and to use force if necessary. If all peaceful means fail, a Muslim should be ready to fight to defend the ummah against aggression, to defend the oppressed, or to combat injustice. This is lesser jihad.


So when you have politicians grandstanding after events like London Bridge telling us how the attackers do not represent Islam, theirs is a perversion, a poisonous version, of Islam, they are mistaken, or lying.  Which is unfortunate because it means they will never come to grips with the threat if they do not , or refuse to, understand it….and blaming the internet companies for the attacks is beyond parody…Khan knows full well the origins of the Jihad ideology and that it is rampant within the Muslim community…a heady mixture of the Koran and dangerous and dishonest tales spun about Western foreign policy and Israel.  May also blames the internet companies also ignoring the truth…both ignore one of the major sources of the extremist narrative, one which gives it so much credibility to it and neuters any effective response to it… the BBC.

Sidiq Khan:

We need to work with communities, the Government and others to tackle extremism in our midst. This perverse ideology is overwhelmingly despised by every community across London — of all faiths and none. By working together we must deprive extremism of its oxygen and not exaggerate its support or alienate communities in the process. Followers of a perverse ideology who murder innocent Londoners and visitors are an utter desecration of Ramadan and a rejection of the true values of Islam. I want to send a crystal-clear message around the world: the sick and wicked ideology of these evil extremists is no form of Islam that I recognise. I unequivocally denounce them and their twisted beliefs.

We have to make it harder for extremists to radicalise young people online. It is too easy for people to access extremist propaganda on the internet — with websites and videos glorifying their evil ideology just a click away. After every terrorist attack we rightly say that the internet providers and social media companies need to act and restrict access to these poisonous materials.


Theresa May:

First, while the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.

It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.

Defeating this ideology is one of the great challenges of our time, but it cannot be defeated by military intervention alone. It will not be defeated by the maintenance of a permanent defensive counter-terrorism operation, however skillful its leaders and practitioners.

It will only be defeated when we turn people’s minds away from this violence and make them understand that our values – pluralistic British values – are superior to anything offered by the preachers and supporters of hate.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Abbott is black and female…so naturally everything she says is stupid


The Left can’t handle the truth…Diane Abbott is a disaster waiting to happen….even her boss knows it which is why she was pulled from public appearances.

Thus her boss must be racist and sexist…despite having Diane on his pillion so many years ago on their tour of Eastern Europe…lol.

Image result for corbyn and abbott motorbike eastern europe

Diane Abbott expects to be Home Secretary, one of the most important and powerful jobs in government.  She needs to be on top of her brief, be able to respond to and tackle unexpected crises on the fly, and master the enormous amounts of information and detail that crosses her desk every day.  Do Abbott’s media performances inspire us with confidence that she could handle a rapidly unfolding terrorist attack or the complex reformation of the police, the prison service or the legal system ?  No.  This stuff matters, it’s not some student game of posturing about equality and social justice…it’s peoples’ lives and livings….that’s why the Osborne tweeted joke is in fact a deadly serious comment…what it isn’t is racism or sexism…however the below is…inverse racism and sexism…the usual Lefty playing the race card or any other card rather than engage in the actual argument.

From the New Statesman:

All politicians expect criticism. But has the treatment of Diane Abbott crossed a line?

Is the Conservative and media mockery of Jeremy Corbyn’s close ally motivated by racism and sexism – or part of the rough and tumble of politics?

There is simple press cynicism at play here, but also “overt or dogwhistle racist coverage” underpinning the media’s obsession with lampooning Abbott, as one insider close to Jeremy Corbyn’s inner circle puts it. “Everything Diane does is amplified a hundred times more than anyone else because of that. No one should forget that.”

We look at Boris Johnson flounder at a press conference, and we laugh because he looks like a fool. We watch Theresa May squirm during an interview about her manifesto unravelling, and we laugh because she is being caught out.

The difference is – when we see Diane Abbott make a mistake, we laugh because that’s what we expect.

Yep…we laugh because we expect her to cock-up….because she does…nothing to do with skin colour or having a heaving bosom.

As for Boris…he is savagely torn into all the time…remember the BBC’s Mair calling him a ‘nasty piece of work’?   He gets attacked just because of who he is and how he presents himself and the comments he makes, as does Trump.  Look at how the BBC et al reacted to his comment about the EU and those throughout history who wanted to unite Europe under one banner…he was  vilified for apparently ‘comparing the EU to the Nazis’.  Rubbish of course but OK because it is Boris who supported Leave.

And was not Corbyn monstered for his own cock-up on Woman’s Hour recently as he failed to remember the cost of his flagship childcare policy?  Didn’t realise Corbyn was actually black and a woman.

Oh yes…let’s not forget…can’t call Osborne a racist or a sexist for his criticism of Abbott…..seems quite at home with a black female…..and that’s not white power…it’s white powder…..


Image result for george osborne natalie rowe

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


Image result for muhammad drinking


Just thought I’d pre-empt the BBC and save them the bother of stretching their imagination beyond the realms of the credible.

A nice brew is the greatest invention ever

Ask the British to name the most important inventions of all time and you can rely on them agreeing on one answer in particular.

Taking its place in the top ten alongside such essentials as the wheel, the clock and penicillin is … the teabag.

Little wonder, perhaps, in a nation so addicted to the cuppa that we are said to brew 60billion a year.



Muhammed invented the teabag as his troops couldn’t stomach any more milk and camel urine [I mean the Jews had milk and honey!!!!  bastards…aaahhh…that’s where it all went wrong].   Tea was the answer but loose tea was so messy, sand got into it, the troops tried stuffing it up their noses like snuff and it was just so inconvenient to carry loose tea around with him on his Arabian stallion [another Muslim invention] in the desert winds as he invaded, conquered and colonised so much of the Middle East.  Much easier to just fling a bag into a pot of water and away you go…he invented the travel mug as well….no spillage as you pillage, no slops as you chops…off heads.

Top Islamic 7th century travel tips…

Bring a thermos [jeez…did they invent that as well??!!] with lemon, camel’s urine, and your own tea bag. Then have the Yazidi sex slave fill it with hot water to make your own special “sunnah” beverage! 

Is there nothing ‘Islam’ didn’t invent?  Redbull?  It gives you wings.

Image result for muhammad teabag


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Really…is that it?



The full text of Former FBI Director James Comey‘s statement to the US Senate committee on intelligence.

The BBC has long presented the case for the prosecution against Trump declaring him a Russian agent who has tried to force the ex-FBI director to stop his investigations in to Trump’s Russia links…thus ‘obstructing justice’…impeach him!!!!

The BBC declared that the dodgy dossier on Trump was pretty much the genuine article ‘verified’ by the security services…no.

The BBC claimed that Trump wanted to stop the Russia investigation because it would lift the pressure off him…interpreted by the BBC as a sign that he was guilty.  No.

The BBC gave the impression Trump himself was under investigation.  No.

The BBC also told us he was possibly suffering from dementia….in a firewalled deniable article written by their US correspondent Paul Wood in the Spectator.  No

This is typical of the BBC’s reporting on Trump…..

My sources say the President often fails to attend his daily intelligence briefing; when he does, his attention span is disastrously short; he’ll read only documents a page or two long which ‘must have pictures’. Some believe Twitter’s time stamps even show him tweeting during these briefings.

Trump’s critics paint a picture of the President as rambling, confused, irritable and prone to tantrums: the madness of King Donald.

Some of those critics have an explanation for this: not porphyria — the ‘blue urine’ disease that afflicted George III — but dementia.

From the same journo, Paul Wood, who produced this early biased assessment…

Will Donald Trump be assassinated, ousted in a coup or just impeached?


So did the FBI brief the President and Trump on the dodgy dossier because it was credible and ‘verified’?  Not at all, the complete opposite in fact…and they did so because muck-raking journalists would publish regardless of fact in an attempt to compromise Trump….

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

Was Trump under investigation?  No.

I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

Did Trump try to stop the investigation into General Flynn?  No.  He hoped Comey could let it go…but that’s a different order of things to ordering or requesting Comey to do so…it’s a hope that the investigation would come to nothing…and Comey’s account seems conveniently convenient…no witnesses, he only told people in the FBI of what was said and did not tell his ultimate boss, the Attorney General, whom he normally reports to…so again no independent witness.  Note Comey sets the scene by building a case that Trump was trying to manipulate him….complete speculation and subjective conclusions…

My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

Note that Trump in fact asked for an investigation into the dodgy dossier…

The President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative.

On Flynn we  are told…

The President began by saying, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”

Remember this was written up after the event with no other corroborating evidence [unless Trump taped it] and can be read subjectively depending on how you want to read it.  It is not conclusive by any means that Trump was intent on ordering Comey to stop the investigation even by suggestion.

Comey has his own interpretation…

I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December….Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President’s concerns about leaks. …I did not mention that the President broached the FBI’s potential investigation of General Flynn.

Did Trump cheer the sacking of Comey because it meant the end of the investigation [it didn’t and Trump never said it would] and that it lifted the pressure off him due to that?…the BBC intepreting this as meaning he was guilty, or his team were guilty, and now wouldn’t face investigation.   That’s a completely false interpretation as countered by the Whitehouse when first made…they saying that Trump was referring to his ability to conduct national affairs being marred by Comey’s behaviour not the investigation itself [not something the BBC bothered to report]….

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Spicer told The Times. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

Another government official who spoke to The Times said Trump was using a “negotiating tactic” with Lavrov when he explained the “pressure” he faced.

The Times wrote: “The idea, the official suggested, was to create a sense of obligation with Russian officials and to coax concessions out of Mr. Lavrov — on Syria, Ukraine, and other issues — by saying that Russian meddling in last year’s election had created enormous political problems for Mr. Trump.”

Comey reveals…

On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to “lift the cloud.” I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.

Is Trump looking to close down investigations?  We already know he wanted the dodgy dossier investigated and now Comey admits Trump was happy for his team to be investigated…..obstructing justice?…

The President went on to say that if there were some “satellite” associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.

Far from being the Sword of Damocles this has turned out to be not even a pointy stick, just mud-slinging……if the Democrats, and the BBC, can make a case out if this I’d be surprised.

The BBC’s reporting has been entirely one-sided and highly partisan against Trump declaring him guilty without any evidence whatsoever.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone