in ,

Russiagate II bounty claim attempt began with Shifty Adam Schiff [Video]

Unverified claim that Russia was offering the Taliban bounties for killing American soldiers appeares to be a “timed release” event

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

We would like to congratulate The Western Journal and its writers and editorial staff for creating an excellent news source that appears to have extremely insightful reporting and a nose for fact-finding that is among the best in the business. We refer to their piece dated July 2, by Elise Ehrhard, showing how a report claims that the currently “popular” MSM question about whether or not agencies in the Russian government were giving the Taliban bounty payments for the killing of American soldiers was actually a report California crazy representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat, knew about several months ago.

To outline the present story, a July 1st piece from The New York Times created a great deal of MSM buzz by making this claim:

…Rahmatullah Azizi stands as a central piece of a puzzle rocking Washington, named in American intelligence reports and confirmed by Afghan officials as a key middleman who for years handed out money from a Russian military intelligence unit to reward Taliban-linked fighters for targeting American troops in Afghanistan, according to American and Afghan officials.

As security agencies connected the dots of the bounty scheme and narrowed in on him, they carried out sweeping raids to arrest dozens of his relatives and associates about six months ago, but discovered that Mr. Azizi had sneaked out of Afghanistan and was likely back in Russia. What they did find in one of his homes, in Kabul, was about half a million dollars in cash…

And so the story goes, written much like a modern techno-fiction military novel that suggests yet again that something dastardly about Russia has gone by ignored by President Trump (or abetted by him, is where the MSM wants to go), and this issue was what the MSM heckling squad peppered White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany with for three days running. The press secretary was clearly up to the job, but the media onslaught strategy was to have just about everybody there ask the same question with hundreds of variations, ostensibly to either get McEnany to crack and “reveal” something, and / or to paint the narrative for their broadcasts later in the day. As usual, the MSM underestimated Secretary McEnany.

While this sort of “pile-on” move is frustrating to watch (how many times did she have to say this is an unverified report?), the Western Journal offered an interesting and possibly vital connection to the overall not-so-silent coup d’etat that continues to be deployed against President Trump. From Mrs. Erhard’s piece:

A new report raises serious questions regarding what House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff knew about bounties allegedly paid by Russia to Taliban-linked terrorists for killing American soldiers, and when he knew it.

The report from The Federalist is based on anonymous “intelligence sources,” and The Western Journal is unable to independently verify the outlet’s sourcing or the accuracy of those sources’ claims. However, we are providing this commentary due to the pertinence of the report and the past reliability of one of its authors, Mollie Hemingway.

Sources told the outlet that top committee staff for Schiff were briefed all the way back in February on intelligence about a Russian military intelligence unit covertly offering the bounties to militants. But the California Democrat “took no action in response,” the outlet reported, citing those sources.

The New York Times was the first outlet to report on the bounties, and notably, the outlet claimed President Donald Trump had been briefed on the matter…

It is notable that The Western Journal admits it is presently unable to verify the sourcing, but goes with the story anyway, in light of the pertinence of the report. Given the MSM’s pile-on, this seems justified.

The Trump Administration categorically denies this, and The Donald himself, of course, weighed in:

The Federalist, in their piece, offers more detail:

Top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan, but he took no action in response to the briefing, multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing told The Federalist. The intelligence was briefed to Schiff’s staff during a congressional delegation, or CODEL, trip to Afghanistan in February.

Schiff, who has acknowledged President Donald Trump was never briefed on the so-called intelligence, has thus far refused to disclose that his staff was personally briefed. The revelation raises serious questions that Schiff is once again politicizing, and perhaps even deliberately misrepresenting, key data for partisan gain.

Schiff’s recent complaints that Trump took no action against Russia in response to rumors of Russian bounties are curious given that Schiff himself took no action after his top staff were briefed by intelligence officials. As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had the authority to immediately brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter. Schiff, however, did nothing. He did not brief his committee on the matter, nor did he brief the gang of 8, which consists of top congressional leadership in both chambers.

Schiff is demanding that the Trump administration brief all of Congress about the unverified allegations, yet he himself did not ask for a briefing of the Intelligence Committee following the February briefing of his own staff.

This kind or reporting, by the way, is probably why The Federalist is now on the list of “banned” newsmedia, because they expose the rottenness of the Democrat operatives in their coup attempts.

It is astoundingly clear that the coup attempt continues. The New York Times overstepped, as they often do, but it is important to remember that the editorial board of the Times and The Washington Post both committed themselves to doing whatever it took, including fabrication and promotion of completely spurious stories, to remove President Trump from office.

There is more to this story. I have sources which will remain anonymous who work in close proximity with the government of the Russia Federation. While not defense experts, one comment was superbly insightful and, in my opinion, goes a long way towards debunking this bounty claim.

The source noted that in any effective adminstration, it is important to look objectively at the benefits or liabilites of any policy. Russia has been fighting a major war against drugs, far more intensely prosecuted than it is in the United States. One major drug is heroin, along with other opiate drugs, which cause havoc among Russia drug users. Clearly it is in the interests of the Russian Federation to thwart any trafficking of these substances into Russia. To that extent, the thought was that the American troops in Afghanistan serve a constructive purpose, not only to the American interests in the region, but to the Russians as well, by interfering with the opium trade coming out of Afghanistan. It is helpful to the Russians that the Americans are there, went the the thought. This thought was a response to the discussion of the allegation of bounties, for this news is known about in Russia as well, and while it is certainly not an “official statement” of any kind, it is a reasoned response by someone whose job is to create reasoned responses to problems to help the Russian Federation grow and prosper.

The efforts to paint Mr. Trump as a traitor are unsuccessful with his base – they will not be convinced of anything except that they were right to support someone who is being attacked so consistently and vehemently. But the effort here is aimed at those who are not part of the “base”, who have only a passing relationship with the news, and who easily pick up sensational narratives and parrot them without verifying them. In this, the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party is very successful, or at least it seems to be.

Given the astounding weakness of Joe Biden, it may be that the strategy is to simply reduce the number of people who vote: It is difficult for me to understand how Joe Biden can look attractive to anyone as a presidential candidate. While he can advertise what he is not (Trump), he cannot make coherent arguments or advertisements about what he is. It is very sad to see this, more than anything, for he is literally a shell of a man, and the worst possible candidate for the DNC to field. Yet, he could win the election if the MSM’s attempts to at least get would-be Trump supporters to not vote at all work. I believe this is the goal.


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

-10 Points
Upvote Downvote
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 4, 2020

Perhaps the author has not read that the US helped to start poppy farming back up so that heroin and opiates COULD flood into and de-stabilize Russia with drug use….intentionally….not a partner in combating it.

Olivia Kroth
Reply to  Tjoe
July 5, 2020

The author is a master of shallow common places, citing anonymous sources, as per usual. His stuff is not worth while reading at all.

July 4, 2020

Shifty Schiff is in good company .They are all liars and propagandists .Simply no sanity in US politics and looking good for possible riots in the streets as they pile on more idiotic stories .The insane are now in control of the asylum .

Olivia Kroth
July 5, 2020

On another note, regarding the layout of this text: I find the alternation between bold print and normal print rather irritating. It destroys the flow, it is hard to read. Do we really need that? We readers are not children, we know how to distinguish between important and less important passages of a text. The author as pedagogue, trying to tell us what is important? We are not under age, we are all grown-ups. Let us make our own choice how we want to read and judge a text. Thank you.

Olivia Kroth
July 5, 2020

What a laughing stock! I laughed loudly at this passage: “I have sources which will remain anonymous who work in close proximity with the government of the Russia Federation.” Has the author advanced into the inner circle of President Vladimir Putin? Wow! Congratulations. Will the author take Dmitry Peskov’s place as speaker of the Russian President soon? Double Wow! Triple Wow! Now this is a steep career, if ever there was one …. Dear author, let me add my two cents worth. I also have source which will remain anonymous. My grandmother’s neighbour has friends in close proximity to Taliban… Read more »

Olivia Kroth
July 6, 2020

“We would like to congratulate The Western Journal …” Who is “we”? Is the Archangel Seraphim writing in ‘pluralis majestatis’ now? Advanced to Duran Royalty? Or has the Archangel multiplied? It is known that angels can produce miracles. A whole swarm of angels has published this here?

Brooklyn U.S. attorney heads to top DOJ role

Australia is sending spies to China