The Deep State Covers for Feinstein…because there is more…Imagine if U will…


What are the FBI and the DOJ covering up?

 

You mean there is more…”
Is that a printout in your hand?


That Girl.


Explain the Chinese spy, Sen. Feinstein

By Marc Thiesen

Imagine if it emerged that the Republican chairman of the House or Senate intelligence committee had a Russian spy working on their staff. Think it would cause a political firestorm? Well, this month we learned that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had a Chinese spy on her staff who worked for her for about 20 years, was listed as an “office director” on payroll records and served as her driver when she was in San Francisco, all while reporting to China’s Ministry of State Security through China’s San Francisco Consulate. The reaction of the mainstream media? Barely a peep.

Feinstein acknowledged the infiltration but played down its significance. “Five years ago the FBI informed me it had concerns that an administrative member of my California staff was potentially being sought out by the Chinese government to provide information,” Feinstein said in a statement — which means the breach took place while Feinstein was heading the Intelligence Committee. But, Feinstein insisted, “he never had access to classified or sensitive information or legislative matters” and was immediately fired. In other words: junior staffer, no policy role, no access to secrets, quickly fired — no big deal.

But it is a big deal. I asked several former senior intelligence and law enforcement officials how serious this breach might have been. “It’s plenty serious,” one former top Justice Department official told me. “Focusing on his driver function alone, in Mafia families, the boss’s driver was among the most trusted men in the crew, because among other things he heard everything that was discussed in the car.”

A former top CIA clandestine officer explained to me what the agency would do if it had recruited the driver of a senior official such as Feinstein. “We would have the driver record on his phone all conversations that Feinstein would have with passengers and phone calls in her car. If she left her phone, iPad or laptop in the car while she went to meetings, social events, dinners, etc., we would have the driver download all her devices. If the driver drove for her for 20 years, he would probably would have had access to her office and homes. We would have had the source put down an audio device in her office or homes if the opportunity presented itself. Depending on the take from all of what the source reported, we would use the info to target others that were close to her and exhibited some type of vulnerability.”

“In short,” this officer said, “we would have had a field day.”

It seems improbable that Feinstein never once discussed anything sensitive in her car over a period of years. But let’s assume that Feinstein was extraordinarily careful and never discussed any classified information in front of her driver or on any devices to which he had access. Even so, one former top intelligence official told me, “someone in that position could give an adversary a whole bunch on atmospherics and trends and attitudes which are from time to time far more important than the things we call secrets.” He added, “It’s like [having access to her] unclassified emails.” (And we all know no one everexposes classified information on unclassified emails).

Washington is understandably focused on the threat from Russia. But according to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, “China from a counterintelligence perspective represents the broadest, most pervasive, most threatening challenge we face as a country.” It was China, after all, that hacked the Office of Personnel Management in 2015, stealing the SF-86 security clearance forms of many thousands of executive-branch employees in the most devastating cyberattack in the history of our country. Beijing has successfully recruited FBI agents and State Department employees as spies, and has used information from U.S. informants to kill more than a dozen CIA sources inside the regime. And now, we know China recruited a high-value Senate staffer who worked in immediate proximity to the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Feinstein owes the country a detailed explanation of how she let a Chinese spy into her inner sanctum. And the media should give this security breach the same attention they would if it involved Russia and the Republicans.

Marc Thiessen writes a twice-weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Article

 

How The FBI Let A Chinese Spy Skate To Protect This Powerful Democrat

“For 20 years, California Senator Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her office payroll.”

“The Prime Directive was obviously to do nothing to embarrass Feinstein and that is exactly how the FBI handled the situation. Compare and contrast it with the scorched earth policy the FBI has used in regards to the Trump campaign and administration.”

Article

Feinstein’s Ties to China Extend Beyond Chinese Spy

“According to the article, “For many years, Ms. Feinstein has tried to promote friendship and trade with China, and she has countered critics of the Chinese human-rights record by emphasizing what she described in a Senate speech last year as ‘major improvements in human rights’ there.”

“One of Feinstein’s first acts on becoming mayor of San Francisco in January 1979, was to visit Shanghai to establish sister-city relations.

The next apparent priority was re-establishing passenger airline service between China and the United States. Service was restored on Jan. 8, 1981, after a “32-year hiatus when a Boeing 747 with 139 Chinese passengers arrived exactly on time at San Francisco International Airport,” according to The New York Times.”

“According to the San Jose Mercury: “He [Jiang] once invited her and her husband to see Mao Tse-tung’s bedroom in his old residence, the first foreigners to do so. Feinstein had entertained Jiang in San Francisco, dancing with him as he sang ‘When We Were Young.’”

“This relationship proved fruitful in 1999, when President Bill Clinton was pushing to bring China into the World Trade Organization.”

Interuptus…

“A visit to Washington that year by Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji, which many had hoped would seal the deal, produced nothing. Relations got even worse after U.S. bombers accidentally destroyed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade that May.”


Beverly Hills 90210. GO figure.

Article

“How come the lights went on before he clapped.”

“What do you mean that you don’t remember the exact count?”

 

a

 

Freedom of Navigation Doctrine Challenged by James A. Lyons, Adm. USN (ret.)

 

Freedom of Navigation Doctrine Challenged

By: James A. Lyons, Admiral, United States Navy (ret.)

With all the media focus on President Trump’s recent meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, a major event took place last week in the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait, which received little notice.  The Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have acknowledged that they fired a missile supplied by Iran from the vicinity of the port city of Hodeida that hit a Saudi Aramco tanker.  In response, even though there was little damage, Saudi Arabia has suspended all its shipping from transiting the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

Clearly, the Houthi rebels have seriously challenged the internationally-recognized “Freedom of Navigation” doctrine.  The concept is that the internationally-recognized open waters of the world, including all strategic straits, should remain open and free for all commercial shipping.  By extension, this includes the peaceful transit of naval forces as well.

The Bab al-Mandab Strait, which connects the Indian Ocean/Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea, is one of the world’s key strategic straits.  Others include the Strait of Hormuz, which controls the flow of all oil and gas shipborne traffic in and out of the Persian Gulf.  Next are the Suez Canal and the Strait of Gibraltar, which connect the flow of all shipping in and out of the Mediterranean Sea.  The Strait of Malacca connects the Indian Ocean with the South China Sea.

“Freedom of Navigation” is under attack in the South China Sea, however, because China claims that almost all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters despite a ruling by an international tribunal in The Hague that China’s claim is illegal.  Of course there is also the Panama Canal, which we used to control until President Carter gave it away to Panama.  Today, it is actually under the control of China.  These key strategic choke points must remain open and free to the world’s commercial shipping traffic.

With the current war of words between the Iranian theocracy and the Trump administration, plus Iran’s recent threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, much larger issues are at stake in enforcing the “freedom of navigation” doctrine.  Iran’s role in supporting the Houthi rebels is very transparent.  It is all part of a plan to expand the Iranian Shi’ite crescent to where it becomes the dominant force in the Middle East.

Iran’s clear strategy is to physically surround the Arabian Peninsula with proxy forces supported with its own forces and materiel.  This classic Iranian ploy extends its geo-strategic reach and positions it to attack its arch-enemy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, indirectly, with the ultimate objective of seizing control of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.  Further, by backing the Houthi rebels in Yemen, it gives Iran the means to gain control of the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait and threaten not just Saudi shipping but all international shipping.  It cannot be overlooked that more than one-third of the world’s oil in transit passes through this Strait on a daily basis.  Success would give Iran direct control of two of the world’s strategic straits and de facto control of a third, the Suez Canal.  This cannot be allowed to happen.

We cannot forget President Trump’s historic visit to Riyadh in May 2017, nor the links he forged with Sunni partners during that visit.  As a result, we have a Saudi Arabia-led coalition consisting of Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with US assistance, confronting the Houthi rebels and Iran.  With this impressive alliance, the question becomes, why is it taking so long for the alliance to take back control of the port city of Hodeida?  Such action would isolate the Houthi rebels in the south, and keep them from their bases in the Yemeni highlands.  It would also facilitate the recapture of the capital Sanaa and its airport.  Further, it would be a tremendous psychological blow to the rebels and Iran, and a major step in cutting off a key access point for Iranian support to the rebels.

Preventing Iran’s hegemonic objectives throughout the Middle East and beyond, which include encircling the entire Arabian Peninsula with its oil and gas resources, as well as the ultimate seizure of Islam’s two most holy cities, Mecca and Medina, must be a top Trump administration objective.  It appears that the administration has initiated a staged take-down of the Iranian regime.  Our withdrawal from the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was the first step.  Re-imposing economic sanctions is having a drastic effect on the Iranian regime’s ability to operate.  The Iranian currency, the rial, is in total free fall—even a full week before even more stringent sanctions are scheduled to take hold.  Revamping our Voice of America Farsi language broadcast would be another positive signal to the Iranian freedom fighters.   We must continue other covert support to the Iranian people who are taking to the streets day after day.  And to further complicate matters for the criminal Iranian theocracy we should support an independent Kurdistan.

If, as increasingly seems apparent, the Trump administration has decided on a gradual ratcheting up of measures intended to bring maximum pressure to bear on the Tehran regime, then such steps are necessary parts of the mix.  But even above and beyond these coercive means aimed at collapsing the mullahs’ rule, with the most powerful blue water navy in the world, the U.S. has a unique responsibility to ensure freedom of the seas when threatened by Iran or any other hostile actor.  The de facto threat to shipping through the Bab al-Mandab must not be allowed to stand.

Article

 

James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

 


 

Iran deploys 50 small boats to Strait of Hormuz for large-scale ‘swarming’ exercise

Article

a

THE LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN: AN ADMIRAL’S LAMENT

 

 

 

THE LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN: AN ADMIRAL’S LAMENT

By: John Pruder

November 3, 2017

Adm. (Ret.) James “Ace” Lyons recalls the military plan that could have changed the course of history — and who sabotaged it.

 

The debate on the future of the Iran nuclear deal has had two overriding views, that of President Trump who is inclined to scrap it, and that of his close advisors who caution against it.  Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. has an altogether different approach:  “a regime change in Iran.”

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons Jr. was the keynote speaker at a memorial service held at the Bergen County Court House in Hackensack, NJ, for the 241 U.S. Marine peacekeepers, killed in Beirut, Lebanon on October 23, 1983 by terrorists, on orders from the Ayatollahs regime in Tehran.  Beirut native Joseph Hakim, President of the International Christian Union, is the founder of the annual memorial service.

Adm. (Ret.) Lyons, the 90-year old naval hero, though frail in body, used his booming voice to enumerate the opportunities and failures of various U.S. administrations to depose the radical Islamist regime that was responsible for the death of numerous U.S. Marines and other U.S. servicemen in Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere throughout the world.  He also reminded the audience of 200, mostly U.S. Marine veterans, of his personal plans of action to eliminate the oppressive Iranian regime.

As an officer of the U.S. Navy for thirty-six years, most recently as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the largest single military command in the world, his initiatives contributed directly to the economic stability and humanitarian understanding in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, and brought the U.S. Navy Fleet back to China.  He also served as Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations.  As deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983-1985, he was principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters, and was the father of the Navy Red Cell, an anti-terrorism group comprised of Navy Seals. He established this in response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut.

Admiral Lyons was also Commander of the U.S. Second Fleet and Commander of the NATO Striking Fleet, which were the principle fleets for implementing of the U.S. Maritime Strategy.  Admiral Lyons has represented U.S. interests with the military and civilian leadership worldwide – including China, Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, the European continent and Russia.  As Fleet Commander, he managed a budget of over $5 billion and controlled a force of 250,000 personnel.  Key assignments preceding Flag rank included Chief of Staff, Commander Carrier Group Four, Commanding Officer, USS Richmond K, Turner (CG-20), and Commanding Officer, USS Charles S. Sperry (DD697).

Admiral Lyons has been recognized for his distinguished service by the United States, and several foreign governments.  He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, and has received post graduate degrees from the U.S. Naval War College, and U.S. National Defense University.  Currently Admiral Lyons is President/CEO of LION Associates LLC, a premier global consultancy providing technical expertise in the areas of international marketing and trade, enterprise risk including anti-terrorism, site and port security, foreign policy and security affairs along with defense and commercial procurement.

This reporter used the occasion to interview Admiral Lyons, nicknamed “Ace”.

Joseph Puder (JP): You had a plan of action in 1979 that would have done away with the Ayatollahs regime in Tehran. Please describe how it was derailed and by whom?

Admiral James Lyons, Jr. (JLJ): When the Ayatollah goons took over our Tehran embassy in November, 1979, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) called me up (I was the Director of political Military Affairs for the JCS at the time) and asked me what options do we have.  I said our only good option was to take Kharg Island, Iran’s main exporting oil depot up in the Persian Gulf.  I was probably the only senior officer that had been there and I knew what we could do.  My plan involved taking control of the main control facilities building with a detachment of U.S. Navy Seals.  I was going to give the Iranians 24 hours to get out of our embassy and release our diplomats or they were going to have the biggest ashtray in the Middle East.  President Carter rejected the plan when I was told National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski brought it up to him.  I attributed this to the influence of the powerful Washington Iran lobby group.

One of the members of the Iran lobby group, Gary Sick, was the Iranian desk officer at the National Security Council (NSC).  According to reports, Sick leaked a story to the Boston Globe that there would be no military response to the atrocious action taken against our U.S. Embassy in Tehran, which is sovereign U.S. territory.  Unbelievable!

JP: What was the role of Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in thwarting your plan of retaliation against the Iranian directed Shiite Amal terrorist bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut?

JLJ: We had proof positive the orders for the bombing came from Tehran based on a National Security Agency intercept of the Iranian Ambassador in Damascus reporting back to the Foreign Ministry in Tehran.  The orders he gave to the terrorists’ leadership (which he previously received from Tehran) were to concentrate the attack on the Multi-National Force, and specifically to take “spectacular action” against the U.S. Marines.  That intercept was dated September 27, 1983, almost 4 weeks before the bombing.  At the time, I was the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, and did not see that message until two days after the bombing, on October 25, 1983.  I had the GAO do an investigation on where was that message.  I never got a satisfactory answer.  I personally talked to Colonel Gerrity, the Commanding Officer of the U.S. Marines Peacekeeping Force, and he said he never saw it either, nor did the Carrier Task Group Commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet.

Once the terrorists were located at the Sheik Abdullah Barracks above Baalbek, we made up a four plane A-6 attack aircraft strike plan (to be modified by the Carrier Task Group Commander as necessary) that was going to make the Lebanese Sheik Abdullah Barracks look like a plowed cornfield in Kansas.  I personally briefed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Vessey, and then the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, who all approved.  I then briefed Secretary Weinberger in his office.  The day of the NSC meeting with President Reagan, John McMann, Deputy CIA Director called me and said, “Casey is back from his trip and insists on taking the meeting.”  I asked if it was going to get screwed up.  He said there is nothing he could do about it.  I was not invited to the meeting.

At the meeting, Secretary Weinberger told the President that he thought there were Lebanese army troops in those barracks.  The President turned to Bill Casey and asked, “What about it?” Casey, just back from a trip, couldn’t answer. President Reagan told both of them to sort it out.  Earlier, I had called the Sixth Fleet Commander, and had him load the planes because it was going to be a first light strike.

At the next meeting with the President, it was ascertained that there were no Lebanese Army troops in the barracks.  Bud McFarlane, National Security Advisor, told me that Weinberger said that if we go ahead with the strike, we are going to lose all our Arab friends.  He threw enough “dust” in the air to confuse the President so that we couldn’t get an “execute order.”  In short, he sabotaged the strike.  We could have changed the course of history.  We are now living with that failed decision.

JP: What is your opinion of the Iran Nuclear Deal, and how should the Trump administration deal with it?

JLJ: The first thing you have to know is that it is an “unsigned” agreement.  It should be immediately cancelled.  The agreement, in my view, borders on treason.  Further, the total Iranian infrastructure must be dismantled or destroyed. There can be no negotiating with the apocalyptic mindset of the Khamenei regime.  There will be no sense of stability in the Middle East until there is a regime change in Iran.

Article

 

a