Daily Archives: September 15, 2018

In the Russia Probe, It’s ‘Qui S’excuse S’accuse’

In the Russia Probe, It’s ‘Qui S’excuse S’accuse’


Unseal the FISA redactions? We should be alarmed by what’s already disclosedWill this be the week? With bated breath, we wait to find out whether we’ve reached the moment, after the Labor Day end of summer, just as the critical midterm races heat up, when President Trump will follow through on his threat to declassify and publicize key FISA-gate documents — in particular, the redacted portions of the Carter Page surveillance-warrant applications.
I hope the president follows through, at least to the extent he can do so without putting intelligence methods and sources at risk. Accountability is essential here.
The FBI and the Obama Justice Department launched an investigation of the Democrats’ political adversaries, and they used Clinton-campaign-generated, foreign-provided innuendo to do it. They strained to make a case on Donald Trump even as they were burying a daunting criminal case on Mrs. Clinton. As I have previously explained, moreover, the president was misled about his status: not only was he a suspect in the investigation, he was the main suspect.
The main suspect in an investigation with no crime.
Before we unwind that, let’s dispense with the tired claim that the Obama administration did not really spy on Trump and his campaign. Every one of the four FISA warrant applications, after describing Russia’s cyberespionage attack on the 2016 election, makes the following assertion (after two redacted lines):

the FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts to influence the 2016 election were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.

“Candidate #1” is Trump. See, the upper hierarchies of the FBI and the Justice Department believed the Steele dossier — or at least they said they did. The operating assumption of the Obama administration in the months before the 2016 election was that the Trump campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking conspiracy. Otherwise, the FBI would not have made this representation to the FISA court four times, including twice after President Trump was already in office.
Did they say this because they believed it was true? Because they wanted to believe it was true? Because they had misplaced confidence in Christopher Steele, the former British spy who shared their anti-Trump contempt? Probably a bit of all those things. But the point is: You must always bear in mind that the incumbent leadership of the intelligence community had convinced itself that the Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Kremlin. Based on that belief, the FBI and Obama’s DOJ took bold risks because they’d further convinced themselves that there was no risk at all: Everything was in the black box of classified intelligence and, besides, Hillary was a shoo-in to win. No one would ever be any the wiser.
FISA Collection Will Be “Evaluated by Prosecutive Authorities”
Let’s shift our attention to the redacted Carter Page FISA warrant applications. While we anticipate that the president is poised to force disclosure of currently blacked-out information, not enough attention has been lavished on the applications in their present state — figuring out what’s been blacked out and, more significantly, grasping the ramifications of what has been disclosed.
I have dealt with the redactions in a separate column. The vast majority of them — the bulk of the 412 largely duplicative pages of FISA warrant documents — are really not that hard to figure out. More importantly, most of the redactions have nothing to do with what really matters: the evidence on which the FBI relied to claim that there was probable cause that Carter Page was an agent of Russia.
Here, let’s stick with the essential point: The use of counterintelligence authorities to conduct a criminal investigation of Donald Trump in the absence of a predicate crime.
We’ve had a lot to say about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s failure to comply with federal regulations that require showing a factual basis for a criminal investigation — i.e., reason to believe that a crime was committed — before appointing a special counsel, Robert Mueller. But Rosenstein was just riding the tide. The FISA warrants show that this practice of launching a criminal investigation in the absence of a crime long predated Rosenstein and Mueller. It was the modus operandi of the Trump-Russia investigation from Day One, when Obama’s Justice Department and the FBI first targeted the Trump campaign.
This raises a question that should gnaw at those of us (like moi) who have championed robust national-security powers in an era dominated by international terrorism: Is this pretextual use of FISA something that the Justice Department and FBI designed specifically for the Trump-Russia investigation, or is it standard operating procedure in all counterintelligence cases? (We can’t answer that question at the moment. FISA warrant documents are highly classified, which is why it’s been so hard to get even partial disclosure regarding the Trump-Russia investigation; we do not know if FISA warrants in other cases mirror the ones we’ve been permitted to see.)
Let’s cut to the chase. Every one of the four Page warrant applications makes the following assertion (the italics are mine):

The Purpose of the Authorities Requested
The FBI’s foreign intelligence goals for this investigation are set forth in the certification of the Executive Branch official contained herein. However, the authorities requested in this application may produce information and material which might, when evaluated by prosecutive authorities, constitute evidence of a violation of United States law, and this investigation may result in an eventual criminal prosecution of the target. Nevertheless, as discussed in the certification, at least a significant purpose of this request for [REDACTED] is to collect foreign intelligence information as part of the FBI’s investigation of this target.

This is so matter-of-factly brazen, buried on page 41 of the 54-page application, that we can easily miss its significance.
Exception for Inadvertent Discovery of Criminal Evidence
FISA authorities are not criminal-law authorities. It is not just that FISA is not designed to ferret out evidence of crime; it is not permitted to be used for that purpose. FISA’s objective is the collection of foreign intelligence, the gathering of information about the actions and intentions of foreign powers that may threaten American interests.

The Page warrant application implies that it is a standard part of the process that “prosecutive authorities” — i.e., prosecutors, criminal investigators, grand juries — peruse FISA evidence to determine whether crimes have been committed. Not true. Prosecutors normally have nothing to do with FISA. Counterintelligence is not “prosecutive”; it aims to gather information about other countries and their operatives, not make criminal cases.
There is an exception. It is not unique to FISA; it is a common-sense exception that applies across the board in federal law: If investigators are conducting a legitimate investigation, and they unexpectedly stumble upon evidence of a crime, they are not required to ignore it even if it wasn’t what they were looking for in the first place.
Some examples. If a federal agency is soliciting contract bids and a bid comes in that is patently fraudulent, it can be referred to criminal investigators. If the FBI is doing a background check for a woman who has applied for a federal job, and agents discover she has committed bank fraud, the Bureau will refer that for prosecution. If an FBI agent is executing a search warrant permitting him to seize guns with obliterated serial numbers, and he happens to find a bag of cocaine on the premises, he may seize the drugs and the culprit will be prosecuted on narcotics charges. And if, while conducting a lawful FISA surveillance, the FBI discovers that the suspected agents of a foreign power are plotting to blow up a building, that evidence may be handed over to criminal investigators for a terrorism prosecution.
There is nothing remarkable about this exception. Everybody knows about it. It would never be spelled out in a normal search warrant. Prosecutors and agents do not write in their warrant applications, “If the premises contain incriminating materials other than that which the court has authorized seizure of, the FBI may seize those materials”; if they wrote this, it would be suggestive of an unconstitutional “general warrant” — it would intimate that the government’s real agenda was to find evidence beyond what they had probable cause to search for. Similarly, it is not necessary in a FISA warrant application to spell out the exception for good-faith, unintended discovery of criminal evidence. Doing so strongly suggests the FBI and DOJ realize that they are conducting a de facto criminal investigation. It suggests that they are pretextually using FISA, because they either lack grounds to justify a criminal wiretap application (which requires probable cause of a crime), or desire to conceal their criminal probe under the cover of classified intelligence. It suggests that the overarching objective is to make a criminal case, not to collect foreign intelligence.
Using Counterintelligence to “Assess Whether Crimes Were Committed”
It is worth noting that we don’t just find this wayward approach in the FISA applications. It sings aloud in the breathtaking testimony of the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017 (my italics):

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

Put aside that it is against Justice Department and FBI protocols to confirm the existence of an investigation and to identify as suspects uncharged persons or entities (“individuals associated with the Trump campaign”). It is simply not the case that every counterintelligence investigation includes “an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.” Most counterintelligence investigations have no interest in crimes. Rather, in any random investigation, if evidence of a crime the investigators were not looking for happens to turn up, an assessment is then made of whether it should be referred for prosecution. This assessment is not supposed to be built into the process because it is extraordinary — the purpose of FISA is not supposed to be to build a criminal case. That’s why very few criminal cases include FISA evidence.
Director Comey’s testimony echoes the assertion in the FISA warrants about having “prosecutive authorities” weigh in. And Comey’s testimony was expressly incorporated in Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller. The special counsel was given the counterintelligence investigation of Russia. That investigation itself was real, but its assignment to Mueller was camouflage, because a counterintelligence investigation does not need a prosecutor. For Mueller, the Russia counterintelligence probe was cover to conduct a criminal investigation of Trump in the absence of grounds to believe a crime had occurred.
The Wall: Preventing Abusive Pretextual Use of FISA
Maybe this seems like a hypertechnical point. It is not — certainly not if you lived through the 1990s.

Back then, in the eight years between the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and 9/11, al-Qaeda repeatedly attacked the United States. The government struggled to decide whether international terrorism was strictly a criminal matter, to be investigated with such techniques as criminal wiretaps, or a national-security matter, to be investigated under FISA and other intelligence-gathering procedures.
Obviously, it was both. But that caused the Clinton Justice Department sleepless nights over what seemed — to me, among other terrorism prosecutors and investigators — to be overwrought fears of hypothetical abuses remote from real-world experience.
I guess I owe Jamie Gorelick an apology.
The then–deputy attorney general and other Clinton DOJ officials were worried about FISA. What if you had a rogue agent who was predisposed to believe a suspect was guilty, but couldn’t prove it? The rogue agent did not have enough evidence to seek a regular wiretap or search warrant. Mightn’t the rogue be tempted to use FISA? He’d just need to claim that there was some vague national-security aspect to the case; to pretend that his investigation was connected to a broader counterintelligence investigation of a foreign power. The rogue agent could then seek a FISA warrant to surveil the suspect. He would call it “counterintelligence,” but in reality he’d be conducting a criminal investigation — eavesdropping and searching suspects — even though he did not have probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.
Based on this fear that FISA could be used pretextually to conduct criminal investigations, the Clinton Justice Department imposed “The Wall.” To prevent investigators from exploiting FISA to steer criminal investigations, a barrier was imposed between the FBI’s counterintelligence agents, on one side, and criminal investigators and prosecutors, on the other. It became practically impossible for the two sides to cooperate and share information.
One result was the desired clamping down on potential FISA abuse. But the cure proved worse than the disease. With counterintelligence and criminal investigators unable to build a mosaic of intelligence, the left hand no longer knew what the right hand was doing. This enabled terrorists to escape detection. Inevitably, catastrophes would occur, such as 9/11.
After 9/11, The Wall came down. Its razing was endorsed by such experienced hands as your humble correspondent. We argued that it was ridiculous to believe the FBI would pretextually use FISA to conduct a criminal investigation. Many times I posited that, even if we assume a rogue agent, it would be far easier for the rogue to fabricate the evidence needed to get a criminal wiretap than to fabricate a national-security angle so he could use FISA. I insisted that if the rogue tried to go the FISA route, he’d never get away with it. FISA requires too many levels of scrutiny in the upper ranks of the FBI and the Justice Department — responsible superiors who would stop the rogue in his tracks.
I was wrong.
What I didn’t factor in was the possibility that, for political reasons, the upper ranks of the FBI and Justice Department would do an investigation by themselves. That should never happen. The bosses are supposed to be the cooler heads, with detachment from on-the-ground investigation. They are there to enforce guidelines and prevent abuse, to police investigations, not conduct them.
But in the Trump investigation, headquarters became the investigator. And just as an investigator is tempted to keep his supervisors in the dark when he is doing something he shouldn’t do, the Obama Justice Department and FBI withheld information about the Trump investigation from Congress — even though the “Gang of Eight” was supposed to receive quarterly briefings on sensitive matters. They withheld essential information from the FISA court about the source of their information (the Clinton campaign), and about the apparent dishonesty and deep bias of their main witness (Christopher Steele), even as they presented unverified allegations to the FISA court, flouting FBI guidelines. Headquarters exists to prevent investigators, who sometimes get too invested in their cases, from cutting such corners. But here, headquarters was its own supervisor. Such arrangements tend not to end well.
Do They Do This All the Time, or Just for the Trump Investigation?
The Wall was removed to promote information-sharing and thus prevent terrorist attacks. Yet its removal did not change the fundamental rules. If agents have a factual basis to believe a crime has been or is being committed, the FBI opens a criminal investigation and uses criminal authorities. If, instead, the main purpose of the investigation is to gather foreign intelligence, the FBI opens a counterintelligence investigation and may use FISA. It remains improper to make pretextual use of FISA to conduct a criminal investigation when there is no factual basis to believe a crime has been committed. Yes, if agents conducting a good-faith FISA investigation incidentally discover evidence of a crime, they are not required to ignore it; but this sensible rule is not a license to conduct a FISA investigation with the objective of unearthing criminal evidence.

Yet, that is what happened in the Trump probe. The FBI has been investigating for well over two years, and for nine months of that time it expressly told the FISA court it believed the Trump campaign was engaged in a corrupt conspiracy with Russia. No one, though, has ever been charged with such a heinous offense. Meanwhile, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein persists in his refusal to identify any crime for which there was such a strong basis to believe Trump could be guilty that a special counsel had to be appointed.
If there were such a crime, we would have been told about it by now. The “factual” basis for suspecting Trump of an espionage conspiracy with Russia was the uncorroborated, unverifiable Steele dossier. The Obama Justice Department and the FBI used the dossier to get FISA warrants, and in so doing told the court that “prosecutive authorities” would “evaluate” the “foreign intelligence” in a hunt for crimes.
The Justice Department and the FBI know they are not permitted to use FISA as a pretext. If I were a member of Congress, I’d be asking them whether this promise of “prosecutive” review in the Page warrant application (a) was unique to the Trump investigation or (b) is invoked whenever the FBI seeks a FISA warrant.
Either way, it’s a problem. Either way, it harms the country. If the public becomes convinced that national-security powers, such as those in FISA, are being employed to monitor Americans when there is insufficient evidence to justify a criminal investigation, there will be demands to strip these powers. And those of us who have insisted through the years that, with responsible supervision by the top tiers of the Justice Department and the Bureau, the government can be trusted not to abuse these powers, will have nothing to say.

Mark Levin: ‘Shameless’ Media ‘Started’ Hurricane Aftermath Issue and ‘Then They Attack’ Trump

By Michael Morris | September 14, 2018 | 1:22 PM EDT


On his nationally syndicated radio talk show Thursday, host Mark Levin called out the “shameless” media whom Levin said “started” the issue about the hurricane Maria aftermath and suggested the media did so just so they could “attack” President Trump.
“And you can watch cable TV as I speak, and it’s all about Donald Trump,” stated Mark Levin. “‘Donald Trump said 3,000 people didn’t die. Donald Trump said this. Donald Trump said that.’ And I think to myself, ‘How did all of this start? Did Donald Trump just send a tweet out there about Puerto Rico?’ No, that’s not how it all started. The media started it. The media starts these issues. The president responds to them because he’s not going to be George W. Bush in Katrina, and then they attack him.”
Mark Levin’s remarks came as the “shameless” media, as he calls them, were attacking President Donald Trump for his handling of Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. NewsBusters.org posted several stories pointing to the media’s bias leading up to Hurricane Florence’s strike on the east coast here, here, here, here and here.
President Trump responded to media criticism in a couple of tweets, suggesting first that “3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico” and then suggesting that the 3,000 death toll statistic “was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico.”

Below is a transcript of Levin’s comments from his show Thursday evening:

 “It is so shameless out there. The media are so shameless. The Democrats are so shameless.
“Before this Hurricane Florence, they’re laying the foundation to trash the president of the United States. They argue that he failed in Puerto Rico where 3,000 people died.
“Luis Gutiérrez is out there. Others are out there – just outrageous comments.
“We have men and women all across the country – some of whom volunteer, some of whom are first-line responders – who put their lives on the line to swing into action when there is a disaster, natural or man-made.
“And you can watch cable TV as I speak, and it’s all about Donald Trump. ‘Donald Trump said 3,000 people didn’t die. Donald Trump said this. Donald Trump said that.’ And I think to myself, ‘How did all of this start? Did Donald Trump just send a tweet out there about Puerto Rico?’ No, that’s not how it all started. The media started it. The media starts these issues. The president responds to them because he’s not going to be George W. Bush in Katrina, and then they attack him.

“Meanwhile, you got Republicans refuting the president of the United States.
“But who started this?
“Moreover, the media, having started this, what about the people right now who are facing death, who are facing destruction?
“I’m telling you, I’m watching a newscast – our favorite newscast – and they do the obligatory news, which is really news, the obligatory news as it relates to the hurricane, right? And having done so, they then follow it up with all the ‘Trump said this and Trump said that. And Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump.

“Now, that’s outrageous.
“As I said the other day, you could see it coming. The issue is trust.
“We have fellow Americans who are losing everything, fellow Americans who may die. Does it sound like Washington D.C. and the media, does it sound like New York City and the media there, does it sound like they really give a d—?
“It’s politics all the time, and left-wing politics all of the time. It is shameless – absolutely shameless!”

Think This Can't Happen Here?!

White British girl held prisoner by Muslim grooming gang for 12 years and forced to have 8 abortions


Sarah was abducted as a teen from her local Tesco’s car park and held prisoner for 12 YEARS. Repeatedly raped, beaten, forced into marriage and EIGHT forced abortions whilst police did nothing.

Police forces were more worried of being called a name, racist, than of protecting the children they pledged and promised to at their passing out ceremonies”

Sarah is a white English girl and as a shy 15-year-old was studying at college hoping to train as a midwife. Never even having had a boyfriend, she was forced to marry and was raped minutes later by a man she’d only met a half hour earlier.
Sarah was held captive and abused for 12 years whilst her family pleaded for help from police to find her.
House of Lords cross bencher Baroness Caroline Cox has taken up Sarah’s case. The Baroness describes her case as the most serious example of sex grooming yet to emerge in this country.
“I know Sarah and her family,” explains Baroness Cox. “Every sex grooming case is terrible. But the length and cruelty of her abduction make it the worst I have known.”
Sarah’s family begged police for help. They were ignored by a police force that refused to even list her as missing. Her family continued to search for her on their own after she went missing from Tesco’s. “The police kept saying leave it a few days, she’ll come back,” says her mother Janet today. “But she never did.”

Besides the rapes and beatings, Sarah fell pregnant eight times, each time she was forced to have an abortion

The Daily Mail’s article describes the entire 12 year ordeal in great detail, though they are unable to use Sarah’s real name, or identify where she was kidnapped, held or where she currently lives, for legal reasons and for her safety. She was forced to marry two different men during her time in captivity.
Sarah was seized five years before the 2010 revelations from investigations by the Daily Mail, and later by the Government, of sexual abuse of young white girls by grooming gangs.
Political correctness kept Sarah’s captors hidden and protected just as it did the decades of gangs, most often by men of Pakistani heritage, as police forces were more worried of being called a name, racist, than of protecting the children they pledged and promised to at their passing out ceremonies.

Her captors forced her to learn the Koran in Arabic and she was only allowed to speak in the Pakistani languages of Urdu and Punjabi

The grooming gang’s intent was to make Sarah completely dependent upon them. She was hidden in several different houses over the years whilst she was refused any contact with the outside world. She had no phone nor computer. She was raped and beaten whilst forced to take strong sedatives daily to keep her compliant.
Besides the rapes and beatings, Sarah fell pregnant eight times, each time she was forced to have an abortion. Five of them overseen by the same NHS doctor/hospital, the others in illegal backstreet clinics.
Her captors forced her to learn the Koran in Arabic and she was only allowed to speak in the Pakistani languages of Urdu and Punjabi. She was being held by a Muslim child rape gang.
As we learned in July’s published Whitehall-commissioned independent review, this failure to act in cases like Sarah’s was the norm. The report investigated the police and Home Office’s reaction to sex grooming in the late 1990s and well into the 2000s.
The police’s response to parents has been to relinquish responsibility for finding the children onto the parents. Parents being disregarded by police as hysterical time wasters, whilst their daughters were merely considered ‘silly girls’ who had ‘asked for it’.
In Sarah’s case, her parents and her brother searched for her, even at risk of harm, as her brother actually found the house they were keeping her. She heard him demanding to know if she was there only to be told he couldn’t enter the premises and forced to leave. She was moved after this but thankfully no harm came to her brother.
Incredulously, some of the mothers of the girls abducted by Muslim rape gangs went to gang houses to search for their daughters at their own personal risk, since police wouldn’t help. These mothers were then threatened by police with harassment offences, the July review revealed.
The harsh reality is that we have allowed the false ideology of political correctness to overturn how our police forces and authorities govern and protect us. Or shall I say, do not protect us?
As court cases are revealing, cases finally bringing convictions for Muslim rape gang members, girls were being abused for two decades whilst family cries for help were ignored.


The 'Bitter Clingers'

Hanoi John, Iran Co-Conspirator, Compares the President to an 8-Year Old

Hanoi John, Iran Co-Conspirator, Compares the President to an 8-Year Old

John Kerry has betrayed the United States time and again, for decades. He is very far-left and never met a U.S. enemy he disagrees with. Once known as Hanoi John, a term explained later in this article, he is now Ayatollah’s John.


Unfazed by his own duplicity, the former secretary of state undermined the President on Bill Maher’s hard-left HBO show last night, comparing Donald Trump to an 8-year old boy and girl. The former secretary of state gives new meaning to the words “arrogant”, “affected”, and “pompous ass”. Let’s not forget John Kerry is the person who parked his yacht in Rhode Island to pay cheaper taxes while running on a platform of higher taxes in Massachusetts.


Former secretary of state John Kerry is conspiring with the terror state of Iran by his own admission and he is undermining the United States. Yesterday, The actual Secretary of State Nick Pompeo addressed it, calling it “unseemly and unprecedented”. The Secretary said, “It’s literally unheard of.”
“This is a former secretary of state engaged with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and according to him,” Pompeo said, “you don’t have to take my word for it, these are his answers, he was telling them to ‘wait out this administration’.
He continued: “You can’t find precedent for this in U.S. history and a secretary ought not to engage in that kind of behavior. It’s inconsistent with what foreign policy in the United States is as directed by this President and it is beyond inappropriate for him…”
Pompeo said he saw Kerry in Munich with “former secretary Moniz and Wendy Sherman, the troika” and he is “confident they met with their troika counterparts”. He wasn’t in the meeting but he’s “reasonably confident that he was not there in support of U.S. policy with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, who, this week, fired Katyusha rockets towards the United States embassy in Baghdad, and took action against our consulate in Basra.”

Some of us would call him a traitor for conspiring with the enemy.

At the end of April 2014, according to a Daily Beast exclusive, if there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting. It was Yom Hashoah — Holocaust Remembrance Day, making his betrayal of Israel so much worse. He suggested the administration would support the anti-Israel BDS movement.
Kerry wanted Israel to agree to a deal that would have destroyed them.
In 2006, he said that our troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children when Iraqis should be doing that. He’s a non-stop anti-American operative.


John Kerry betrays America and America’s allies at every opportunity in favor of terrorists. He did so during the Vietnam War, betraying our soldiers with blatant lies, giving aid to the enemy. Jane Fonda was Hanoi Jane and he was a greater threat as Hanoi John.
While painting himself as a war hero in later years, he was, in the 1970s, betraying his fellow soldiers in Vietnam while the war raged. This is the man who dramatically threw out his questionably-awarded war medals as a gesture of hate and contempt.
Few cases of abuse by U.S. troops were uncovered during and after the Vietnam war. John Kerry lied and said that war crimes were a routine occurrence. He didn’t just lie. He lied viciously.

John Kerry won personal acclaim from his communist and domestic terrorist friends, including Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, at the expense of our military heroes:


The only Vets who threw their medals away were the ones who were suffering from PTSD or who became hard-left radicals. These protesters used the war as an excuse to create mayhem. Their real goal was and is to infuse communism into our society. They could not have cared less about our military. They called soldiers who risked their lives for their country baby killers among other things.
John Kerry was a radical who took part in a staged media event with the likes of Jane Fonda called the Winter Soldier Investigation. The war horror stories they told were almost all debunked.
Soldiers who risked their lives and fought for their country in Vietnam had to remove their uniforms before leaving the plane on their return home so they wouldn’t be called “murderers” and have tomatoes pelted at them. John Kerry’s contribution to these acts of betrayal was enormous.
He likes to lie and brag about his war service when he is, in fact, a traitor and self-serving narcissist. Here he is lying:

The sacrifice that our military men and women make is a debt we can never repay. They do it in the name of freedom. Kerry betrayed them and all that our country used to stand for. He is doing it again. He doesn’t care who he has to hurt. His far-left friends love him.