Quote:

---

Manafort Calls On DOJ To Release His Intercepted Phone Calls; Demands Investigation Of Leaks

Less than 24 hours after CNN triggered the latest outbreak of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' by relaying information from anonymous sources that Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manfort has been under surveillance by the FBI since 2014, Manafort has fired back by calling on the Department of Justice to release all transcripts of his tapped phone calls so that the American public "can come to the same conclusion as the DOJ — there is nothing there." Per the Daily Caller:

****
Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is calling on the Justice Department to release transcripts of any intercepted communications he may have had with foreigners.

Manafort, a longtime Republican political consultant, also called on the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate the leak of details of secret surveillance warrants obtained by U.S. investigators.

“Mr. Manafort requests that the Department of Justice release any intercepts involving him and any non-Americans so interested parties can come to the same conclusion as the DOJ — there is nothing there,” Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni said in a statement.
****

Manafort's spokesman goes on to demand that the DOJ launch an immediate investigation into who continues to commit federal felonies with reckless abandon by leaking details of confidential FISA warrants to the media.

****
Whether or not Manafort committed a crime — and he has not been charged with anything — the leak of information about FISA warrants is a federal crime, Maloni noted in his statement.

“If true, it is a felony to reveal the existence of a FISA warrant, regardless of the fact that no charges ever emerged,” Maloni said.

Information about FISA warrants is classified and tightly held by government officials and the federal judges that approve them. Unauthorized disclosures of FISA information is also a felony.

At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in March, then-FBI Director James Comey testified that the leak of FISA information is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

In his statement, Maloni called on the Justice Department’s watchdog to “immediately” open an investigation into the leak and to “examine the motivations behind the previous Administration’s effort to surveil a political opponent.”
****

Of course, this was all triggered by CNN's 'bombshell' story last night which revealed that Manafort has been under an ongoing wiretap, approved by the FISA courts, going back to 2014 and tied to his consulting arrangements with Ukraine's former ruling party.

That said, the interesting part of CNN's story came via the revelation that "surveillance [of Manafort] was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence" but was then restarted with a "new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year"...all of which sounds an awful lot like the Obama administration using FISA courts to spy on a political opponent.

Here are the details as presented by CNN:

****
US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.

The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.

Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team, which is leading the investigation into Russia's involvement in the election, has been provided details of these communications.

A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine's former ruling party, the sources told CNN.

The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources.

The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.
****

All of which has led many people to question throughout the day whether the Obama administration, as Trump suggested back in March, did intentionally spy on his campaign using FISA warrants.

Certainly these two tweets from CNN's Jake Tapper would seem to be somewhat contradictory:

****
Tapper's initial reaction from March 2017 to Trump's claim that the Obama administration wiretapped his campaign:

POTUS makes wild accusation w/zero evidence
****

---

Quote:

---

WH searches for evidence & cant find any WH tells Congress to find evidence/no further comment — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) March 5, 2017
***

Tapper's follow-up tweet from last night:

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman - CNNPolitics https://t.co/BY8MACKfV9 — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 18, 2017

---

Quote:

---

All Mr. Comey’s Wiretaps
WSJ Demands To Know How FBI 'Meddled' In 2016 Elections

When Donald Trump claimed in March that he’d had his “wires tapped” prior to the election, the press and Obama officials dismissed the accusation as a fantasy. We were among the skeptics, but with former director James Comey’s politicized FBI the story is getting more complicated.

---

Quote:

---

When Donald Trump claimed in March that he’d had his “wires tapped” prior to the election, the press and Obama officials dismissed the accusation as a fantasy. We were among the skeptics, but with former director James Comey’s politicized FBI the story is getting more complicated.

CNN reported Monday that the FBI obtained a warrant last year to eavesdrop on Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager from May to August in 2016. The story claims the FBI first wiretapped Mr. Manafort in 2014 while investigating his work as a lobbyist for Ukraine’s ruling party. That warrant lapsed, but the FBI convinced the court that administers the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to issue a second order as part of its probe into Russian meddling in the election.

Guess who has lived in a condo in Trump Tower since 2006? Paul Manafort.

The story suggests the monitoring started in the summer or fall, and extended into early this year.

While Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign in August, he continued to speak with Candidate Trump.

It is thus highly likely that the FBI was listening to the political and election-related conversations of a leading contender for the White House.

That’s extraordinary - and worrisome.

Mr. Comey told Congress in late March that he “had no information that supports those [Trump] tweets.”



Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was even more specific that “there was no such wiretap activity mounted against—the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.”



He denied that any such FISA order existed.

Were they lying?

The warrant’s timing may also shed light on the FBI’s relationship to the infamous “ Steele dossier.” That widely discredited dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and developed by former British spy Christopher Steele—who relied on Russian sources. But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency about his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research.

The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential campaign. Did Mr. Comey’s FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court?

All of this is reason for House and Senate investigators to keep exploring how Mr. Comey’s FBI was investigating both presidential campaigns.

Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the “integrity” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don’t cooperate in contempt.

Mr. Comey investigated both leading presidential campaigns in an election year, playing the role of supposedly impartial legal authority. But his maneuvering to get Mr. Mueller appointed, and his leaks to the press, have shown that Mr. Comey is as political and self-serving as anyone in Washington.

No investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr. Comey’s wiretaps.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okie dokie!

I haven't read thru the last page of contributions to the past thread, so when I get a chance I'll update this thread with whatever I find.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61769

---

Quote:

---

Information Provided by DHS Regarding Russian Scanning was Incorrect

SACRAMENTO – California Secretary of State Alex Padilla issued the following statement.

“Last Friday, my office was notified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that Russian cyber actors 'scanned' California’s Internet-facing systems in 2016, including Secretary of State websites. Following our request for further information, it became clear that DHS’ conclusions were wrong.”

“DHS confirmed that Russian scanning activity had actually occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network, not any Secretary of State website. Based on this additional information, California voters can further rest assured that the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.”

“Our notification from DHS last Friday was not only a year late, it also turned out to be bad information. To make matters worse, the Associated Press similarly reported that DHS has reversed itself and 'now says Russia didn’t target Wisconsin’s voter registration system,' which is contrary to previous briefings.”

“The work of our intelligence agencies is critical in defending against cyber threats. I remain committed to a partnership with DHS and other intelligence agencies, however, elections officials and the American public expect and deserve timely and accurate information.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In Stunning Reversal, DHS Says Russians Were Not Behind Attempted Wisconsin Vote Hacking
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-26/coverup-dhs-tells-wisconsin-r
ussians-werent-behind-voting-system-cybertargeting

"Evidens" is disappearing like frost at sunrise

---

Quote:

---

Germany Says It Found "No Evidence" Kaspersky Helped Russia Spy On US

US intelligence agencies are claiming that the Russian government leveraged the popularity of Kaspersky Labs’ cybersecurity software to create what is tantamount to a global spy network with the company’s explicit cooperation. However, Germany’s intelligence agencies say they’ve found “no evidence” to suggest these reports are true.

The Wall Street Journal, which last week reported that the US had identified at least one case of Kaspersky’s software improperly copying classified information, is back with another “exclusive” spoon fed to it by anonymous “senior US officials” alleging that Kaspersky allowed Russian government malware to piggy back on its software. The malware scanned for and copied files labeled “top secret,” not just in the US, but globally. Though WSJ neglects to list other countries that are suspected victims of Russian hacking.

Meanwhile, Germany's BSI federal cyber agency said on Wednesday it had found no evidence to suggest that Russian hackers had used Kaspersky’s software to spy on US authorities.

"There are no plans to warn against the use of Kaspersky products since the BSI has no evidence for misconduct by the company or weaknesses in its software," BSI said in an emailed response to questions about the latest media reports. "The BSI has no indications at this time that the process occurred as described in the media," according to Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-kaspersky-germany/germ
any-no-evidence-kaspersky-software-used-by-russians-for-hacks-idUSKBN1CG284

Germany's BSI, which also uses Kaspersky products for technical analyses, said it was in touch with U.S. officials and other security agencies about the issue so it could take action and issue a warning on short notice if required.

The Russian government used a popular antivirus software to secretly scan computers around the world for classified U.S. government documents and top-secret information, modifying the program to turn it into an espionage tool, according to current and former U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.

The software, made by the Moscow-based company Kaspersky Lab, routinely scans files of computers on which it is installed looking for viruses and other malicious software. But in an adjustment to its normal operations that the officials say could only have been made with the company’s knowledge, the program searched for terms as broad as “top secret,” which may be written on classified government documents, as well as the classified code names of U.S. government programs, these people said.

After becoming suspicious that the Kaspersky software might be concealing malicious spyware, US intelligence agencies began scrutinizing the software, searching for signs that it was unknowingly copying and transmitting sensitive information.

For many months, U.S. intelligence agencies studied the software and even set up controlled experiments to see if they could trigger Kaspersky’s software into believing it had found classified materials on a computer being monitored by U.S. spies, these people said. Those experiments persuaded officials that Kaspersky was being used to detect classified information.

Later, WSJ notes that, in fact, it was Israeli intelligence that first alerted the US to Kaspersky’s skullduggery, effectively creating a separate, parallel narrative to explain how the deception was exposed.

So, which is it? Did the Israelis tell us? Or did the US discover the breach independently in 2015?

In an ironic twist, Kaspersky exposed Israel for lying about the source of its information on Iran deal talks after WSJ reported two years ago that Israel had spied on negotiations. Israel had said it received its intelligence by other means, but it had in reality infiltrated Kaspersky’s software, a fact the company publicly acknowledged in a research paper published two years ago.

In a twist, Kaspersky appears to have known, or at least suspected, that it had been hacked by Israel. In June 2015, the company published a detailed technical analysis about malicious computer code used to break into its systems, which it dubbed Duqu 2.0. Experts believe that the original Duqu malware, on which the one inside Kaspersky’s system appears to have been based, was used to spy on officials participating in international negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, a fact that Kaspersky acknowledged in its paper.

The Journal reported in 2015 that Israel had spied on closed-door talks among the U.S. and other world powers about curtailing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israeli officials denied spying directly on U.S. negotiators and said they received their information through other means, including close surveillance of Iranian leaders receiving the latest U.S. and European offers.

Which begs the question: Is it possible that Israel was the source of the Kaspersky hack? The country has been exposed for spying on the US before – and not just during the Iran negotiations. And it has also been exposed for infiltrating Kaspersky’s systems.

Keep in mind, suspicions about the infiltration first emerged two years ago at a time of heightened tension between the Obama administration and Israel. In an unprecedented move, the Department of Homeland Security ordered all federal agencies using Kaspersky’s software to uninstall it, effectively ending Kaspersky’s relationship with one of its largest clients.

---

Quote:

---

Firm Behind "Trump Dossier" Refuses To Comply With Congressional Subpoena
The three co-founders of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm responsible for overseeing the creation of the infamous “Trump dossier”, will refuse to comply with a subpoena ordered by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, according to a letter from their attorneys originally obtained by Business Insider.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Still no evidence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Still no evidence?

---

There is evidence. Did you notice that Wilbur Ross is still on the job? That is because a Republican Congress doesn't care. Congress doesn't care that Ross paid Trump for the job. Robert Mueller will not let you or his targets know early what the evidence is. Mueller will wait until after the Republicans lose control of Congress because only then will Congress start caring about evidence.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/wilbur-ross-seems-to-have-a-ser
ious-shipping-problem/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep hearing that the 18 Clintonistas and Obamanistas that Mueller has hired are digging into 16-years-ago Trump activities.
Is that evidence that there is no evidence?
How else to prove absence of proof than the absence of pursuit of the non-evidence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep hearing that the 18 Clintonistas and Obamanistas that Mueller has hired are digging into 16-years-ago Trump activities.
Is that evidence that there is no evidence?
How else to prove absence of proof than the absence of pursuit of the non-evidence?

---

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Not seeing anything offhand to carry over from the other thread. If I do, I will add it here >>>>

---

Here you go, a link to evidence. http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61377

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Siggy/Kiki's record of "no evidence" claims:

"No evidence" of Russian special forces taking over Crimea.

---

Quote:

---

"No evidence" that pro-Russian separatists shot down MH17.

---

Quote:

---

"No evidence" that Assad gassed his own people.

---

Quote:

---

And now: "No evidence" of Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

---

Quote:

---

We'll see if this claim works out any better for them than the others.= KRAPO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Siggy/Kiki's record of "no evidence" claims:

"No evidence" of Russian special forces taking over Crimea.

---

That's not what I said. What I said was: their presence was non-violent. It's hard to "take over" a place without firing a shot.

Quote:

---

"No evidence" that pro-Russian separatists shot down MH17.

---

That's not what I said. I said (early on) that I would wait for the evidence to come in

Quote:

---

"No evidence" that Assad gassed his own people.

---

That's not what I said. I said the evidence was meager, and there was evidence pointing to a false flag.

Quote:

---

And now: "No evidence" of Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

---

So far, no evidence. Manafort had dealing with Ukraine, not Russia. Flynn is being investigated about Turkey, not Russia. The "golden showers" dossier looks like a complete fabrication. None of Trump's campaign staff got any opposition research on Hillary. Assange did not get his info from the Russians. Everything so far has been a bust.

Quote:

---

We'll see if this claim works out any better for them than the others.= KRAPO

---

Thanks for lying about what I said.

So far, there is "no evidence" that you're the teeniest bit honest. You're just a liar and a troll, incessantly repeating your propaganda to establish a "political truth".

But dood, if you really feel that there is EVIDENCE, FEEL FREE TO POST IT RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

Or STFU about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Siggy/Kiki's record of "no evidence" claims:

"No evidence" of Russian special forces taking over Crimea.

---

That's not what I said. What I said was: their presence was non-violent. It's hard to "take over" a place without firing a shot.

---

Quote:

---

So far, no evidence. Manafort had dealing with Ukraine, not Russia. Flynn is being investigated about Turkey, not Russia. The "golden showers" dossier looks like a complete fabrication. None of Trump's campaign staff got any opposition research on Hillary. Assange did not get his info from the Russians. Everything so far has been a bust.

---

Quote:

---

Any objection to me copying this to the predictions thread to see how well it fares? - KRAPO

---

Quote:

---

So far, there is "no evidence" that you're the teeniest bit honest. You're just a liar and a troll, incessantly repeating your propaganda to establish a "political truth".
But dood, if you really feel that there is EVIDENCE, FEEL FREE TO POST IT RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
Or STFU about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HEY KRAPO!

Wasn't it you who insinuated in this very thread that there WAS evidence??

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Any objection to me copying this to the predictions thread to see how well it fares? - KPO

---

Does my comment look like "prediction" to you??? Or are you applying your own twisted definitions, again?

---

Quote:

---

HEY KRAPO! Wasn't it you who insinuated in this very thread that there WAS evidence?? - SIGNY

By pointing out all the previous times you've screeched "No evidence!" only to be later proven wrong?

---

Quote:

---

... that's not insinuating there's evidence, it's insinuating you have a bad track record of reading the evidence

---

Quote:

---

Any objection to me copying this to the predictions thread to see how well it fares? - KPO

Does my comment look like "prediction" to you??? Or are you applying your own twisted definitions, again?- SIGNY

I'll take that as no objection.= KRAPO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In the meantime, in a thread devoted to evidence, nobody has brought any forward yet.

---

Quote:

---

Normally an intelligence officer would debrief sources directly, but since Steele could no longer visit Russia, this had to be done by others, or in third countries. There were intermediaries, subsources, operators – a sensitive chain. Only one of Steele’s sources on Trump knew of Steele.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
My god, what a long-winded reiteration of allegations. In the entire article, they only mention the word "evidence" twice, and one of those in in the subheading, without actually bringing any to the table. It is, literally, entirely hearsay, as the article itself makes clear:

Quote:

---

Normally an intelligence officer would debrief sources directly, but since Steele could no longer visit Russia, this had to be done by others, or in third countries. There were intermediaries, subsources, operators – a sensitive chain. Only one of Steele’s sources on Trump knew of Steele.

---

---

Actually, much of the what was in the report has been substantiated. Some has not. Mueller is very thorough. In the end all your denials about Trump, his people and Russia will be addressed in Congress and the courts.

After our elections in 2018 if the democrats do good, it's over for Russia. It's over for Trump. Right now that's the time frame. Unless the democrats do poorly.

Of course you'll still be saying there was no evidence. It's what you do.

Quote:

---

Actually, much of the what was in the report has been substantiated. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
My god, what a long-winded reiteration of allegations. In the entire article, they only mention the word "evidence" twice, and one of those in in the subheading, without actually bringing any to the table. It is, literally, entirely hearsay . .
.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So he assessed his own work. Got it.

There was a question in the article that they didn't really answer, and it was How does he know he wasn't being fed misinformation?

Other than his assessment of the reliability of his contacts .... or what he TELLS us his assessment is ... what else is there to go on?

It's still hearsay, and so far no corroborating evidence.

FOR EXAMPLE: Trump stayed at a hotel? Did he or his staff pay for it? Is there a record of payment? Maybe Mueller is ferreting out those very details now, but so far nothing has come out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Signym, have I told you today you are full of shit? Long after Trump has opened his Presidential Library at a Trump golf course, you will still be full of shit. Has Trump made public his tax returns? The ones he promised to make public? We could get the proof, the "corroborating evidence", that Trump is innocent if he would make those available, but he has not.

---

Quote:

---

As Steele told friends: “I’ve been dealing with this country for 30 years. Why would I invent this stuff?”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Signym, have I told you today you are full of shit? Long after Trump has opened his Presidential Library at a Trump golf course, you will still be full of shit. Has Trump made public his tax returns? The ones he promised to make public? We could get the proof, the "corroborating evidence", that Trump is innocent if he would make those available, but he has not.

---

He was never under any obligation to release his tax returns. We've been through all of this before. The IRS knows what is in them. They are much more qualified to assess that situation than either you or Rachel Maddow, and certainly more qualified to do so than the ignorant masses that mostly have no idea how to even do their own taxes.

Quote:

---

As Steele told friends: “I’ve been dealing with this country for 30 years. Why would I invent this stuff?”

---

I dunno, Mr. Steele. Why does anybody who works in high profile government jobs lie all the time? I'm guessing because it's in the job description.

A lot of the people are going to believe you because they want with all of their hearts to believe you. A lot of the people are going think you're full of shit because no matter what anybody says they're going to think you're full of shit.

Those of us who are truly in the middle are going to sit and watch and see how this all plays out. Welcome to the freak show.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

You have never been audited. There is an audit where the IRS takes your word, only looks at your forms. Then there is the audit where the IRS sends a team to the field and compares your word to reality. In Trump's case, he has never had a team of auditors sent to Trump's properties all over the world to see if he has told the truth because the IRS does not have a budget to do that for anyone- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And do you assume that Trump's tax returns are NOT subject to subpoena by Mueller? Because the IRS may not have the resources for a field audit, but Mueller seems to be pretty generously funded.

I mean, how stupid are you?

Mueller will spend a long time crawling up the assholes of everyone in the Trump admin. He'll probably find evidence of tax evasion or other financial crimes - yanno, like you would find if you crawled up the assholes of every politician in DC - but the "Russia collusion" story will most likely not figure into the picture.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

It's too bad Mueller can't expand his probe to EVERY DC politician; then the swamp would REALLY get drained.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
"As if" there is only one potential handler of laundered money?

Don't you think that the hot real estate markets of Vancouver, London, San Fran and NYC receive a significant flow of money from Chinese, Saudi, and Russian/ Eastern European oligarchs stashing away their stolen funds into real estate?

Basically, this is a politically-motivated with hunt. Congresspeople apparently engage in insider trading. The Clintons had an alleged pay-for-play Foundation, from which they allegedly stole hundreds of millions. Throw a stick at any DC insider or at any of the top 0.1% and you'll find offshore accounts, shady dealings, money laundering, market manipulation and insider trading, to say the least.

It's too bad Mueller can't expand his probe to EVERY DC politician; then the swamp would REALLY get drained.

Still waiting for that evidence on "Russian collusion" though. So far, nothing.

Some say that the interviews of Trump's top aides will be done by month's end. So after that, we'll see what he comes up with. I guess we'll see how focused Mueller will manage to stay.

---

Again with the Clintons and the argument that it doesn't matter if Trump is guilty of anything. He should not be bothered. Why, because others are guilty as well, and even more, because so many are getting away with it.

Your hypocrisy as you attack our democratic institutions suggesting they are all corrupt, is only out done by your own inner corruption.