Guandolo: How Muslim Brotherhood Compromised the FBI & National Security

Go to Understanding the Threat and read today’s post, How Badly is The U.S. Government Penetrated by Terrorists?

John Guandolo gave a very good talk last November for Brannon Howse on the subversive Muslim Brotherhood movement in the US:

Proof Entire Muslim World Has Admitted Human Rights Means Sharia:

Understanding What Islam Means By Peace, Freedom, Justice, Terrorism, Innocents & Human Rights:

 

#Obamagate Raises the Question: Should We Repeal FISA?

Angelo Codevilla says yes. John Guandolo says no.

Jail the Guilty, Repeal FISA, at American Greatness by Angelo Codevilla, February 6, 2018

The House Intelligence Committee’s summary memo of highly classified FBI and Justice Department documents confirms what has been public knowledge for over a year: Some of America’s highest officials used U.S. intelligence’s most intrusive espionage tools to attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and then to cripple Donald Trump politically. Being of one mind with the rest of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, these officials acted symbiotically and seamlessly with them, regardless of any cooperation that may have existed.

The party-in-power’s use of government espionage to thwart the opposition violates the Fourth Amendment and sets a ruinous precedent. Having done so under color of law—specifically, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—makes it a lot worse.

Unfortunately, the summary memo—to say nothing of the Democrats’ and their kept media’s reaction to it—focuses largely on whether the FBI and Justice Department dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s as they obtained a warrant from the FISA court to do the spying. This misrepresents high crimes as merely technical violations. Worse, it risks leaving in place a law under which those in charge of the government may violate the basic tenets of American political life with reasonable hope of impunity.

FISA’s Origins
Prior to FISA, American intelligence agencies had done national security electronic surveillance under the president’s power as commander in chief of the armed forces. The president and his agents were responsible for doing it properly. I was part of the Senate Intelligence Committee staff that drafted FISA in 1978. The legislation was meant to answer complaints from leftists who sued the FBI and the National Security Agency after learning they had been overheard working against the United States during the Vietnam War. They wanted to extend the principle that no one may be surveilled without a court order to Americans in contact with foreigners.

But the main push for FISA, in fact, came from the FBI and NSA. Wishing to preclude further lawsuits, the agencies issued Congress an ultimatum: no more national security wiretaps unless each tap has the approval of a judge (thus absolving them of responsibility). FISA established a court to review warrant applications for national security electronic surveillance, in secret and without contrary argument. It commanded the agencies to observe procedural safeguards for the Americans involved.

I opposed FISA as a Senate staffer. I also argued against the legislation in an American Bar Association debate with Antonin Scalia, who was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School at the time. My view then and now is that the FISA court creates an irresistible temptation to political abuse and that officials would interpret any procedural safeguards accordingly.

The Memo Reveals a Bigger Problem
In what is arguably the key passage of the Nunes memo, the committee states:

Neither the initial application [for surveillance of the Trump campaign] in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier [which was a basis for the application] were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

If that’s true, then the officials who signed the applications—including FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, acting Attorney General Sally Yates, then-acting Attorney General Dana Boente, and then-acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—are guilty of misrepresenting material facts to a federal court. All of them belong in the slammer—for at least a little while.

And at some level, they know this. Hence the public relations campaign to downplay the crime. For example, the New York Times on February 2 quoted David Kris, who served as President Obama’s head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. According to Kris, if the FISA application merely told the court that “Mr. Steele’s research was motivated to undermine Mr. Trump’s campaign,” then “the FISA application would be fine.” Note well what narrow distinction, subject to a wide latitude of interpretation, supposedly separates a high crime from “that’s fine” under the law.

But the FISA court’s procedures and requirements—inherently subject to self-interested interpretation as they are—are of far less importance than the fact that FISA was a big mistake to begin with. The law removed responsibility for the substance of executive judgment from the shoulders of the very people who make such judgments.

Today, Comey, Rosenstein, and others may well believe their own claims that they were merely turning government’s neutral wheels and that the judges would judge. Nonsense. They decided to become partisans in the 2016 presidential campaign because they were as convinced as were countless others of their class that they had the right and the duty to protect America (and their place in it) from unworthy challengers.

Perhaps only their failure to dot the i’s and cross the t’s may make it possible for them to be jailed for their crime. But because their successors may be similarly motivated and more careful, it behooves us to erase doubt about who is responsible for electronic surveillance by repealing FISA.

***

FISA is a Constitutional & Needed Weapon in This War, by John Guandolo, Feb. 4, 2018:

With news full of reports about the fraudulent dossier used to obtain the FISA warrant to intercept communications of Carter Paige and the release of the memo last week, the following is provided to UTT readers to help them understand what it takes to obtain a FISA warrant, that FISA is constitutional, and that FISA is needed for the national security of America.

F.I.S.A. stands for the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, and was legislated by the U.S. Congress in 1978 to ensure American citizens were protected from overzealous government intrusion into their privacy in the name of “national security.”

The FISA Court provides a means for the U.S. government to collect on subjects of sensitive/classified investigations (counterintelligence and terrorism for example) without endangering sources and means of the investigation.

FISA judges are federal judges who have been confirmed by the U.S. Senate and chosen by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Understanding the Threat’s President John Guandolo served as a Supervisor in the Counterterrorism Division at FBI Headquarters during his career in the FBI.  In that capacity, he was the affiant – one who swears to the veracity of an affidavit – in support of numerous FISA warrants.

When an FBI agent in the field needs a FISA warrant, he/she contacts their supervisor at FBI headquarters who acts as the affiant for the warrant.  The two work through the affidavit, sometimes over 100 pages long, until the FBIHQ Supervisor is satisfied the legal standard of Probable Cause is met and the facts are verified.

The FBIHQ supervisor works with a Department of Justice attorney, and the cover sheet for the affidavit must be signed off by a DOJ official.  The affidavit is also reviewed and signed off by the FBI Director or Deputy Director.

It is not unusual for the FBI supervisor and DOJ attorney to meet with the FBI Director over a weekend at his home while the Director reviews the affidavit, asks questions, and is satisfied the affidavit can go to the judge.

Then the FBI supervisor and DOJ attorney sit before the FISA judge who reads the affidavit and asks questions.  When the judge signs the affidavit, the technical process begins to intercept the subject of the investigation.

This entire process is legal, constitutional and an important tool in the national security toolbox for dedicated servants inside the government.

In the current case before us, FBI and Department of Justice leaders put forth an affidavit that – as the memo released last week makes clear – was fraudulent and the FBI knew it.  The dossier from Christopher Steele was fabricated and purchased by Hillary Clinton/DNC, and yet this information was not provided to the FISA judge during the initial application for the FISA warrant nor at any of the three times when the warrant was renewed.

In a vacuum, these actions are violations of federal law.  At a minimum, this is perjury and tampering with a federal election by those involved.

But it is much worse than that.

Robert Mueller’s investigation was predicated on a request for Special Counsel which did not allege any crime.  The FISA warrant for Paige was predicated on lies using a source known by the FBI to lack credibility (Steele).

In reality, these actions – efforts to tamper with a federal election and, now, undermine and overthrow a duly elected President of the United States – constitutes “Sedition.”

***

***

Also see:

Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

Attkisson on New Strzok-Page Texts: What’s in the 5 Months of Messages We Haven’t Seen?

Grassley-Graham Memo: Dossier Author Christopher Steele Lied to FBI, FBI Didn’t Tell FISA Court

The Other Secret Dossier

Latest FBI Texts: ‘Hillbillys,’ ‘OUR Task,’ Obama ‘Wants to Know Everything’

BREAKING: Senate Homeland Committee drops BIG document dump on FBI’s Hillary email investigation [READ THEM HERE]

Exclusive — Rep. Paul Gosar: Obama’s Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS Scandals All Connected to DOJ, FBI Corruption in Trump Probe

Outraged About The FISA Court? Maybe You Should Think About Who Is Surveilling You

Breaking: All Contacts On Anthony Weiner’s FBI Confiscated Laptop Leak Including Clinton, Soros, Gore (Updated)

Exclusive: FBI Confirms Jihadi Training Camps in America

This knife was one of the many weapons found in the Fuqra compound in Colorado (Photo: video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Jan. 31, 2018:

Newly-released FBI documents obtained by Clarion Project confirm Clarion’s reports that Jamaat ul-Fuqra is training members in isolated communes across America and Canada.

The group’s “Islamberg” headquarters in upstate New York is its most well-known “Islamic village.”

Fuqra, which now goes by the name of the Muslims of the Americas (MOA) among other titles, is a cultish Islamist group with a history of crime and terrorism. The group is led by Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani in Pakistan.

Gilani’s name appeared in headlines in 2002 when Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was abducted and beheaded on his way to interview Gilani, though the radical cleric was never accused of an involvement in those crimes.

The first FBI document is dated November 27, 2009 and labels the Muslims of the Americas, Inc. as “armed and dangerous.” It begins by summarizing the group’s consistent history of extremism, terrorism and crime:

“Jamaat ul-Fuqra, aka Muslims of the Americas (MOA), have a history of violence and/or violent acts. Use extreme caution when dealing with confirmed members or individuals who are believed to be associated with this group”

The report says that Sheikh Gilani is “thought to be supportive of al-Qaeda,” perhaps referring to the group’s links to al-Qaeda affiliates like Hizbul Mujahideen, to which Fuqra has a history of ties and publicly supports even today.

FBI documents from 2003 that Clarion released in December 2016 mentioned Fuqra’s links to al-Qaeda in Pakistan and use of fronts like security companies in America.

Another newly-released document from December 2010 explicitly refers to “the Muslims of the Americas [aka Fuqra] terrorist organization” and states:

“The MOA [Fuqra] is composed primarily of black American Muslim converts, many who converted to Islam while in prison. Many MOA members reside in rural communities (jamaats) to live and worship free from non-Muslim influence.

The MOA jamaats are located on land that has been privately owned or rented by members. Each jamaat usually has numerous trailers where members reside, a mosque, and a guard post, some with armed guards, at the entrance to the properties. These communities, similar to commune type facilities, have women and children residing in them with the children being homeschooled.

Organized training is also conducted to include weapons training, tactics, hand-to-hand combat, rappelling, and live-fire exercises.”

We have posted these declassified reports  on FuqraFiles.com, Clarion Project’s comprehensive website about the group.

Fuqra has a documented history of conducting basic paramilitary training in America and elsewhere, including more advanced training in Pakistan and Kashmir.

Gilani appeared in a secret video in the early 1990s offering to use Fuqra offices to provide guerilla training to aspiring jihadists. Clarion Project also released a video from 2001-2002 showing women in military attire getting training at Islamberg.

One of Fuqra’s terrorist-training camps, a 101-acre tract of land in Colorado, was raided in 1992. It was subsequently abandoned by the group, as reported in this recent KRDO news report with Heather Skold. You can see pictures from the investigation into the Colorado Fuqra camp on the Fuqra Fileswebsite.

Fuqra fugitives from the training camp were even the subject of an episode of America’s Most Wanted in 1994.

Although these FBI documents from 2009-2011 state that Fuqra has about a dozen “jamaats” in America, the group itself claims to have 22 “Islamic villages” in America alone. The locations for these “Islamic villages” are identified as “Islamberg” in New York, as well as other villages in VirginiaSouth CarolinaGeorgiaTennesseeTexasMichiganCanada and Trinidad and Tobago.

The group also has operations in Pakistan, Kashmir, Canada, Trinidad, Venezuela and elsewhere (Fuqra has a history of being secretive and deceptive about its locations).

FBI reports from a 2003-2007 investigation in Texas warned, “The MOA [Fuqra] is now an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.”

That infrastructure can legally operate because Fuqra is not designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. The Treasury Department has not sanctioned the group’s overseas leaders and entities, either.

Over a dozen North American Muslim groups have joined Clarion Project in asking the U.S. State Department to look at designating Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently confirmed to Clarion Project that it still has Fuqra members under investigation. ATF has prosecuted Fuqra members on firearms-related charges, including illegal possession of guns.

Clarion Project also recently reported that Fuqra’s General Counsel, Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, is running for Congress in Massachusetts.

UTT Releases Video Revealing Senior FBI Execs Defending Terrorists

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Jan. 29, 2018:

Understanding the Threat (UTT) has released a video showing the FBI Executive Assistant Director Paul Abate lauding one of the leading terrorist Islamic mosque in America – the Dar al Hijra Islamic Center – and its leaders.

The video begins by showing that the founders, imams, presidents, board members, and funders of Dar al Hijra are linked to Al Qaeda and Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood.  The video then cuts to then FBI Assistant Director for the Washington (DC) Field Office lauding the terrorist mosque and its leaders.  One of the jihadi Imams, Johari Abdul-Malik, goes on to tell the story of how FBI Director Robert Mueller called him on his phone directly – in the wake of the arrest of a muslim who was going to attack the U.S. Capitol – to tell him that he (FBI Director) knew the Dar al Hijra has nothing to do with violence.

This video is evidence of not only how incapable FBI leadership is to deal with the Islamic threat, but that what UTT has been publishing for years its true – the enemy controls the narrative about this war at the FBI.  FBI executives are Aiding and Abetting a known terrorist outpost in America and defending its leaders, which violates federal law and, one can argue, constitutes Treason.

***

Listen to Frank Gaffney interview John Guandolo on Secure Freedom Radio yesterday about  the politicization of the FBI

***

FBI takes on ‘Islamophobia’: White nationalism seen as bigger threat than jihadism

Bushra Alawie is the FBI’s outreach to the metro Detroit area and gave a training workshop for local law enforcement Jan. 10 on “cultural education” about Islam. Screenshot/WXYZ

By Leo Hohmann, at his new website, Jan. 26, 2018:

Two Michigan residents attended a BRIDGES meeting hosted by the Detroit office of the FBI recently that left them stunned by the level of Islamist infiltration at the Bureau.

BRIDGES is a quarterly FBI outreach program that stands for Building Respect in Diverse Groups to Enhance Sensitivity, whereby the FBI hosts workshops for law enforcement and various immigrant communities. They’ve been held in Boston, Detroit, Houston and Minneapolis-St. Paul and some city police departments host similar meetings on their own, without the FBI in attendance.

According to the FBI website, BRIDGES “brings together members of diverse communities and state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies to discuss issues and concerns within their communities.”

In southeastern Michigan, those diverse communities include an array of Islamic migrant enclaves, both Shia and Sunni, as well as Coptic, Chaldean and Assyrian Christians forced to flee their Middle Eastern homelands by the Islamic State and other jihadist groups.

The outreaches can sometimes go to bizarre lengths to demonstrate the FBI’s respect for Islam.

In St. Paul, for example, the FBI boasted in its Oct. 7, 2014 edition of the Law Enforcement Bulletin that the local police department “hosted its first halal cookout” with the Somali Muslim community.

The Jan. 10 BRIDGES meeting in Michigan serves as a fresh reminder of how the FBI has made a concerted effort to divert the eyes of law enforcement away from Muslim communities as potential breeding grounds for terror and refocus attention on “Islamophobic” American citizens.

The meeting, held at the Troy Police and Fire Training Center in Oakland County, an affluent suburb of Detroit, was described as “painful to watch” by two guests who attended.

Dick Manasseri, an activist with Secure Michigan and a resident of Oakland County, gained entry to the meeting by way of a guest invitation from the American Middle Eastern Christian Congress, a regular attendee. But he said he heard nothing about the plight of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians now living in Oakland County.

Instead, almost the entire hour-and-a-half meeting was spent focusing on Islamic religious and cultural practices and trying to debunk any derogatory information police officers may have received about Islamic ideology.

The FBI’s point person for this task was Bushra Alawie, a young female Muslim wearing a full head covering, or hijab. Alawie served in the Army National Guard and upon leaving the Guard in September 2016 the FBI hired her to be its “community outreach specialist” in Detroit.

The mother of four spoke confidently and without any trace of an accent during her presentation on Islamic “cultural education.”

“I get that initial look like, ‘is that really Bushra’ because of my visibly Muslim attire,” she told Detroit’s WXYZ-TV in 2016. “Immediately those rumors are dispelled and it’s business as usual.”

Alawie admitted in the WXYZ interview that her real mission at the FBI is not to ferret out tips and information useful in the apprehension of terrorists but rather it is to “combat Islamophobia.”

That just happens to be the same exact mission of the Muslim Brotherhood-offshoot Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has an entire division called the Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia. And while he did not attend the January meeting, CAIR’s Michigan chapter head, Dawud Walid, has a standing invitation to the FBI’s quarterly BRIDGES meetings in metro Detroit.

Also on the FBI’s invite list is CAIR’s former Michigan chapter leader, Muthanna Al-Hanooti, who was convicted in 2011 of conspiring to work for a foreign government, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and making false statements to the same FBI. Yes, that would be the same FBI which now courts him as a guest at its Detroit-area outreach meetings.

WATCH VIDEO: Meet Bushra Alawie, a Muslim woman working for the FBI

About that phrase “Allahu Akbar,” so frequently shouted during the commission of Islamic terrorist attacks, Alawie assured the police officers in attendance not to worry or give it a second thought.

According to her, “Allahu Akbar”:

  • Is said by Muslims 85 times a day
  • Was said by Jews and Christians before Islam began
  • Would be used to celebrate the birth of a child or in the prayer of a sick person
  • Is perfectly normal and not particularly associated with violent jihad.

She explained that “jihad” means:

  • An inner struggle – for her to “not eat cheesecake”
  • Higher jihad – inner struggle
  • Lower Jihad – to defend one’s property.

She mentioned that “Jihad” was even a name taken by Christian men on occasion and that there was an FBI employee of Palestinian descent whose name was Jihad.

According to Alawie, if we Americans understand these subtleties, then we will be well on our way to wiping out Islamophobia.

Where did the impetus for this FBI focus on Islamophobia come from? It certainly did not originate in Oakland County, Michigan, or even Washington. It’s international in scope.

“Combatting Islamophobia” has been a top priority, since at least 2005, of the United Nations and the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a 57-nation group of Muslim-majority nations that makes up the largest voting bloc at the U.N.

The OIC adopted its 10-year Strategic Action Plan to Overcome Islamophobia in 2005, calling for nations to pass new laws “including deterrent punishments” for those guilty of Islamophobia. This crime was described as any speech that counters the OIC’s statement that “Islam is the religion of moderation and tolerance.”

This 10-year plan served as the basis for the 2011 U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18, which encourages every nation in the world to adopt hate-speech laws making “defamation of religion” a crime. There is only one religion, however, that seeks to punish people for speech deemed offensive to its members – Islam. Many nations in Western Europe, including the UK, Germany and Sweden obliged, as did Canada, and passed hate-speech laws geared toward punishing these vile Islamophobes.

It was also around this same time frame – 2010 to 2012 – that lesson plans in public schools across the United States started incorporating large sections on Islam, emphasizing it as a religion of peace and tolerance. Any teacher who resisted was an Islamophobe.

In 2013 the OIC opened an office in Brussels explicitly for the purpose of combatting Islamophobia in Europe.

In February 2017 U.N. Secretary General Antonio Gutteres cited “Islamophobia” as the fuel that has ignited the rise of global terrorism. This U.N. focus on Islamophobia came during the peak offensives of ISIS, al-Nusra and other jihadist groups conducting a genocide against Christian minorities in Iraq and Syria – exposing the global body’s agenda as more concerned about speech deemed offensive to Muslims than beheadings, rapes and mass-murdering of Christians.

Philip Haney, a former Customs and Border Protection officer who became a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 and a member of the Advanced Targeting Team before retiring in July 2015, said the FBI did not get to the point of rolling out Bushra Alawie overnight.

When Haney tried to blow the whistle on Homeland Security ineptitude, he found himself the target of repeated investigations and harassment. A critical data template he developed to catch terrorists before they strike was erased from the DHS computer system. He was an Islamophobe.

Haney believes the term “Islamophobia” was created by the global Islamic movement to set up a watered-down version of the blasphemy laws that terrorize Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East.

Instead of a stern-looking mullah or sheikh enforcing the blasphemy laws under penalty of death, the Muslims in the West use people like Bushra Alawie, who deliver the same warning with a smile, under penalty of losing one’s reputation and career.

“She wouldn’t have been given that platform under the old rules,” Haney said. “These concessions to Islam have been developing for a long time, and the fact that someone like her would be endorsed by the FBI and given that platform, it would never have happened without all those previous developments at the OIC, U.N., and the fervent work of Obama holdovers in the FBI.”

Scrubbing FBI training manuals

One of the more crucial developments came in 2011 – the same year the U.N. adopted Resolution 16/18. That’s when more than 50 Muslim organizations, many with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, sent a letter to Obama’s then-deputy national security adviser John Brennan demanding he remove from FBI training manuals all references to Islam deemed offensive to Muslims. They also requested that the FBI and DHS rid themselves of all “biased experts” – people like Haney – and “immediately create an inter-agency task force to address the problem.”

Brennan and then-FBI chief Robert Mueller fell over like a stack of dominos. They immediately scrubbed the training manuals and began purging federal agencies of patriots with expert knowledge of Islamist ideology.

Instead of true terrorism experts, police would receive training from people like Bushra Alawie, the smooth-talking, hijab-wearing Muslim apologist with the contagious smile.

Since most local police chiefs get training from the FBI Academy, the same drivel that now passes for counter-terrorist instruction at the Bureau gets filtered down to police departments nationwide.

But Trump is rectifying all of this right? Unfortunately, no. All of the Muslim infiltrations of the government remain in place. Hiring a woman like Alawie to present an unrealistic view of Islam is the new normal at the FBI.

Other highlights from the BRIDGES meeting:

  • Troy Mayor Dane Slater welcomed the meeting attendees to the “most diverse city in Michigan.”
  • Troy Police Chief Gary Mayer, along with four of his senior officers, welcomed their federal counterparts from the FBI and witnessed the guidance provided by the FBI regarding the normalcy of “Allahu Akbar” and benevolent jihad.
  • Praise was offered for the Obama-appointed former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade who was fired by Trump.
  • Examples offered of domestic terrorism repeatedly focused on white supremacist groups, who are seen as more dangerous than Islamic terrorism according to the teaching of the previous administration and the United Nations-endorsed Strong Cities Network.
  • The FBI’s special agent in charge of Detroit said there remains no clear motive for the Las Vegas massacre.
  • Mental health was injected as an explanation for violent activity per the Muslim Brotherhood playbook.
  • Celebration of the long-standing civil rights partnership between the FBI and the Muslim community was marked with recognition awards.

“Everything was about welcoming, welcoming, welcoming,” Manasseri said. “It was terribly discouraging, including when they talked about domestic terrorism and they kept coming back to white supremacism and how do you protect us from white nationalism? Stunning.”

To counter the false and incomplete training being given by the FBI, Manasseri has co-founded a project called Sharia Crime Stoppers in partnership with a retired police chief.

“The Muslim Brotherhood-managed FBI and its pandering to Islam at 60-plus BRIDGES meetings since the 9/11 terrorist attacks provides ample evidence that Michigan is already living under Sharia, even while it contemplates the candidacy of Sharia-compliant and Muslim Brotherhood-groomed candidate Abdul El-Sayed for governor,” Manasseri said.

El-Sayed is running on the Democratic ticket in Michigan’s 2018 gubernatorial race. CAIR’s Dawud Walid has already said, in an article for the Detroit News, that any questions to Muslim candidates about Sharia law are off limits. For any journalist or concerned citizen to ask such a question would be Islamophobic.

Leo Hohmann is author of the 2017 book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.” Donate to this website and help support his investigative reporting on topics most journalists are afraid to touch.

‘KNOWN WOLF’ TERROR SCANDAL: CIA Knew About 9-11 Hijackers, Didn’t Provide Intel to FBI

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Sept. 11, 2017:

As I’ve recounted in more than 30 articles here at PJ Media over the past three years, virtually every Islamic terrorist who has conducted an attack in the West since 9/11 has already been known to authorities, which prompted me to coin the phrase “known wolf” terrorism.

Amidst today’s commemoration of the 16th anniversary of 9/11, it bears recalling that 9/11 itself was a “known wolf” attack too.

The fact is that the CIA had intelligence that two Saudi 9/11 hijackers were living in the United States, but they deliberately refused to share the information with the FBI who had authority to act on such information and possibly prevent the 9/11 attacks.

In many respects, the 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11 were not only the victims of Al-Qaeda terrorists, but also bureaucratic incompetence and inter-governmental turf wars.

Who among those who sat on the information were punished? Well, none were. The CIA sitting on critical intelligence until just days before the attack was couched in the larger excuse of “intelligence failures” and swept under the rug.

Some of what we known about the CIA’s pre-9/11 intelligence about the hijackers comes from a joint congressional inquiry several years after the attacks, but the most revealing information has come from former FBI agent Mark Rossini, who though a FBI agent was assigned to the CIA and prevented from sharing the information with his colleagues.

Two years ago, Jeff Stein at Newsweek detailed Rossini’s story:

Rossini is well placed to do just that. He’s been at the center of one of the enduring mysteries of 9/11: Why the CIA refused to share information with the FBI (or any other agency) about the arrival of at least two well-known Al-Qaeda operatives in the United States in 2000, even though the spy agency had been tracking them closely for years.

That the CIA did block him and Doug Miller, a fellow FBI agent assigned to the “Alec Station,” the cover name for CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, from notifying bureau headquarters about the terrorists has been told before, most notably in a 2009 Nova documentary on PBS, “The Spy Factory.” Rossini and Miller related how they learned earlier from the CIA that one of the terrorists (and future hijacker), Khalid al-Mihdhar, had multi-entry visas on a Saudi passport to enter the United States. When Miller drafted a report for FBI headquarters, a CIA manager in the top-secret unit told him to hold off. Incredulous, Miller and Rossini had to back down. The station’s rules prohibited them from talking to anyone outside their top-secret group.

The various commissions and internal agency reviews that examined the “intelligence failure” of 9/11 blamed institutional habits and personal rivalries among CIA, FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) officials for preventing them from sharing information. Out of those reviews came the creation of a new directorate of national intelligence, which stripped the CIA of its coordinating authority. But blaming “the system” sidesteps the issue of why one CIA officer in particular, Michael Anne Casey, ordered Rossini’s cohort, Miller, not to alert the FBI about al-Mihdhar. Or why the CIA’s Alec Station bosses failed to alert the FBI—or any other law enforcement agency—about the arrival of Nawaf al-Hazmi, another key Al-Qaeda operative (and future hijacker) the agency had been tracking to and from a terrorist summit in Malaysia.

Because Casey remains undercover at the CIA, Rossini does not name her in his unfinished manuscript. But he wrote, “When I confronted this person…she told me that ‘this was not a matter for the FBI. The next al-Qaeda attack is going to happen in Southeast Asia and their visas for America are just a diversion. You are not to tell the FBI about it. When and if we want the FBI to know about it, we will.’

Rossini recalled going to Miller’s cubicle right after his conversation with Casey. “He looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language.… We were both stunned and could not understand why the FBI was not going to be told about this.”

It remains a mystery. None of the post-9/11 investigating bodies were able to get to the bottom of it, in part because Rossini and Miller, who continued to work at Alec Station after the attacks, didn’t tell anyone what happened there. When congressional investigators came sniffing around, they kept their mouths shut.

“We were told not to say anything to them,” Rossini said. Who told you that? I asked. “The CIA. I can’t name names. It was just understood in the office that they were not to be trusted, that [the congressional investigators] were trying to pin this on someone, that they were trying to put someone in jail. They said [the investigators] weren’t authorized to know what was going on operationally.… When we were interviewed, the CIA had a person in the room, monitoring us.”

As a result, Rossini wasn’t interviewed by the subsequent 9/11 Commission, either. “Based on that interview, I guess the 9/11 Commission [which followed up the congressional probe] thought I didn’t have anything worthy to say.” He kept his secret, he said, from the Justice Department’s inspector general as well. “I was still in shock,” he added, and still fearful of violating Alec Station’s demand for omerta. Finally, when his own agency—the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)—came to him in late 2004, after the congressional probe and 9/11 Commission had issued their reports, he opened up.

The CIA has long insisted it shared intelligence about al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi with the FBI, but records gathered by the 9/11 Commission contradict this assertion. Indeed, the panel could find no records supporting the claim of another Alec Station supervisor, Alfreda Bikowsky, that she had hand-carried a report to the FBI.

“The FBI is telling the truth,” Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission, told Newsweek. As for why the CIA not only failed to share pre-9/11 information on Al-Qaeda operatives but forbade the FBI agents in Alec Station from sharing it, Zelikow said, “We don’t know.”

Ironically, the intelligence that the CIA was holding onto was from a lead developed by the FBI investigating the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.

The FBI had pinpointed an Al-Qaeda operative named Ahmed Al-Hada and from there mapped an extensive network, but the monitoring and intelligence gathering was the purview of the intelligence community, not the FBI.

Lawrence Wright of The New Yorker traced the intelligence the CIA developed on the 9/11 hijackers based on that FBI lead:

A conversation on the Hada phone at the end of 1999 mentioned a forthcoming meeting of Al Qaeda operatives in Malaysia. The C.I.A. learned the name of one participant, Khaled al-Mihdhar, and the first name of another: Nawaf. Both men were Saudi citizens. The C.I.A. did not pass this intelligence to the F.B.I.

However, the C.I.A. did share the information with Saudi authorities, who told the agency that Mihdhar and a man named Nawaf al-Hazmi were members of Al Qaeda. Based on this intelligence, the C.I.A. broke into a hotel room in Dubai where Mihdhar was staying, en route to Malaysia. The operatives photocopied Mihdhar’s passport and faxed it to Alec Station, the C.I.A. unit devoted to tracking bin Laden. Inside the passport was the critical information that Mihdhar had a U.S. visa. The agency did not alert the F.B.I. or the State Department so that Mihdhar’s name could be put on a terror watch list, which would have prevented him from entering the U.S.

The C.I.A. asked Malaysian authorities to provide surveillance of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, which took place on January 5, 2000, at a condominium overlooking a golf course designed by Jack Nicklaus. The condo was owned by a Malaysian businessman who had ties to Al Qaeda. The pay phone that Soufan had queried the agency about was directly in front of the condo. Khallad used it to place calls to Quso in Yemen. Although the C.I.A. later denied that it knew anything about the phone, the number was recorded in the Malaysians’ surveillance log, which was given to the agency.

At the time of the Kuala Lumpur meeting, Special Branch, the Malaysian secret service, photographed about a dozen Al Qaeda associates outside the condo and visiting nearby Internet cafés. These pictures were turned over to the C.I.A. The meeting was not wiretapped; had it been, the agency might have uncovered the plots that culminated in the bombing of the Cole and the September 11, 2001, attacks. On January 8th, Special Branch notified the C.I.A. that three of the men who had been at the meeting—Mihdhar, Hazmi, and Khallad—were travelling together to Bangkok. There Khallad met with Quso and one of the suicide bombers of the Cole. Quso gave Khallad the thirty-six thousand dollars, which was most likely used to buy tickets to Los Angeles for Mihdhar and Hazmi and provide them with living expenses in the U.S. Both men ended up on planes involved in the September 11th attacks.

In March, the C.I.A. learned that Hazmi had flown to Los Angeles two months earlier, on January 15th. Had the agency checked the flight manifest, it would have noticed that Mihdhar was traveling with him. Once again, the agency neglected to inform the F.B.I. or the State Department that at least one Al Qaeda operative was in the country.

Although the C.I.A. was legally bound to share this kind of information with the bureau, it was protective of sensitive intelligence. The agency sometimes feared that F.B.I. prosecutions resulting from such intelligence might compromise its relationships with foreign services, although there were safeguards to protect confidential information. The C.I.A. was particularly wary of O’Neill, who demanded control of any case that touched on an F.B.I. investigation. Many C.I.A. officials disliked him and feared that he could not be trusted with sensitive intelligence. “O’Neill was duplicitous,” Michael Scheuer, the official who founded Alec Station but has now left the C.I.A., told me. “He had no concerns outside of making the bureau look good.” Several of O’Neill’s subordinates suggested that the C.I.A. hid the information out of personal animosity. “They hated John,” the F.B.I. counterterrorism official assigned to Alec Station told me. “They knew that John would have marched in there and taken control of that case.”

The C.I.A. may also have been protecting an overseas operation and was afraid that the F.B.I. would expose it. Moreover, Mihdhar and Hazmi could have seemed like attractive recruitment possibilities—the C.I.A. was desperate for a source inside Al Qaeda, having failed to penetrate the inner circle or even to place someone in the training camps, even though they were largely open to anyone who showed up. However, once Mihdhar and Hazmi entered the United States they were the province of the F.B.I. The C.I.A. has no legal authority to operate inside the country.

The CIA’s turf war with the FBI, in fact, would cost John O’Neill his life on 9/11. Having retired from the FBI in July 2001, he took up a new position as director of security for the World Trade Center. He died on the job during the attacks.

Other FBI agents working leads related to the 9/11 cell have also expressed frustration at the CIA’s reluctance to share the critical intelligence regarding Mihdhar and Hazmi with the FBI.

The terrorist pair had come under the watch of San Diego FBI agent Steven Butler when they lived there, but the information about their role in the Al-Qaeda network was never shared.

Two seasoned New York FBI terror investigators, Frank Pellegrino and John Anticev, also lament that the CIA’s intelligence could have helped prevent the 9/11 attacks.

The view raised by Wright in his New Yorker article that the CIA may have planned to, or possibly unsuccessfully tried to, recruit Mihdhar and Hazmi has the support of at least one senior official.

In a video interview for a documentary, Richard Clarke, who served as counter-terrorism ‘czar’ for President Bill Clinton and then President George W. Bush, speculates that this failed CIA recruitment scenario is exactly what happened (particularly ~4:00-8:00):

As Clarke, who was directly involved in a senior role in the events before and after 9/11, notes the CIA did finally turn over the information about the presence of Mihdhar and Hazmi in the U.S. three weeks before 9/11 on August 21st, but only after they had lost contact with the pair.

Clarke also notes that the information was only shared with lower level FBI officials and never with senior management.

But at a September 4th meeting on terrorism with Cabinet-level officials at the White House, the presence of two known Al-Qaeda operatives inside the United States was curiously never mentioned, let alone discussed.

One week later, 3,000 Americans would be dead, the World Trade Center would be destroyed, the Pentagon would be heavily damaged, and the U.S. economy would lose $1 trillion in value in just a few days.

As horrific as 9/11 was – the most lethal terrorist attack in modern world history – it is compounded by the tragedy that the reasons why that attack was allowed to happen have STILL never been fully investigated, let alone revealed.

And with each subsequent terror attack in the U.S., we discover that the suspects were again known to law enforcement and intelligence officials — “known wolf” attacks — with all indications that the negligence and mistakes made prior to 9/11 are still being made costing American lives.

That scandal demeans the lives of all those lost on that terrible day.

THE FBI’S BIZARRE COVER-UP OF THE GOP BASEBALL SHOOTING

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 22, 2017:

James Hodgkinson’s assault on Republican members of Congress was the most serious political assassination in decades. And yet at the same time it was wrapped up by the Capitol Police.

There was really little for the FBI to do here. Hodgkinson’s motives were fairly clear. He had a list of names of targets. His social media was filled with rants against Republicans. A witness describes him studying the area of his future attack. According to Rep. DeSantis, he asked if the players were Republicans or Democrats.

This is about as open and shut as anything gets. All the FBi had to do was go through his laptop and phone to confirm that he hadn’t been coordinating with anyone else.

Except the FBI instead decided to treat Hodgkinson as if he were a Muslim terrorist. And by that I mean launch into a cover-up of his motives.

First, there was the odd denial of Rep. DeSantis account.

Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., told CNBC that a man came up to him and Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., at the practice and asked if the players on the field were Republicans or Democrats.

“We both agreed that that individual who came up to us and asked if it was Republicans or Democrats … is the same individual police have identified,” DeSantis said. “That picture is the same guy that we saw.”

Someone from the FBI appeared to deny that. The FBI briefing however includes it. But the briefing is bizarre in that it goes out of its way to deny the facts.

The gunman who shot a top House Republican and four other people on a Virginia baseball field didn’t have any concrete plans to inflict violence on the Republicans he loathed, FBI officials said Wednesday.

They said he acted alone and had no connections to terror groups. But they said they had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why, beyond his animus toward President Donald Trump and the Republicans he felt were ruining the country. It wasn’t even clear whether he had prior plans to attack the baseball practice or whether he just happened upon it the morning of June 14, said Tim Slater, who leads the criminal division of the FBI’s Washington field office.

“At this point in the investigation, it appears more spontaneous,” Slater said.

Hodgkinson had a piece of paper with the names of six members of Congress written on it, Slater said, but the note lacked any further context and there was no evidence from his computer, phone or other belongings that indicated he planned to target those officials. Slater declined to name the officials whose names were on the note or say whether they were Republicans or Democrats or were at the baseball practice.

In April, Hogkinson made the tourist rounds in Washington, visiting monuments, museums, the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office Building and taking pictures, the FBI said. He also took pictures of the baseball field where he would later fire more than 60 shots.

“The FBI does not believe that these photographs represented surveillance of intended targets,” the FBI said in a statement.

So the working theory here is that Hodgkinson just stocked up on firepower, for no apparent reason, took photos of the baseball field because it was so picturesque, had a list of members of Congress for no apparent reason, and then randomly and spontaneously opened fire while he happened to be carrying a rifle and touring local baseball fields?

That hit list? It’s just a piece of paper.

Timothy Slater, special agent in charge of the criminal division for the Washington field office, would not classify it as a hit list, saying it was only “a piece of paper.”

“If you look at his pattern of life and what he was doing on his laptop and social media accounts, there was no indication that that was a list to target or that there were any threats associated with those names on the list,” Slater said.

It just happened to be a piece of paper in his weapons locker.

Authorities found the list in a storage locker Hodgkinson had rented in Alexandria, Virgina, since April. Inside, they also found 200 rounds of ammunition, a laptop, a receipt from a gun purchase in November 2016 and SKS rifle components

Just a piece of paper.

That morning, Hodgkinson used Google Maps to search for a route from Alexandria to his home in Belleville. He also ran a Google search for the “2017 Republican Convention,”

Spontaneous. The official FBI release whitewashes his social media postings.

Items found on Hodgkinson included a piece of paper that contained the names of six members of Congress. No context was included on this paper, however, a review of Hodgkinson’s web searches in the months prior to the shooting revealed only a cursory search of two of those members of Congress. A second document with a rough sketch of several streets in Washington, D.C. was found on Hodgkinson; however, it was not deemed to be of investigative significance.

Not much seems to be. Also there seems to be a discrepancy here as to whether the list was on him or in his locker.

Analysis of the electronic media items recovered from Hodgkinson’s belongings assessed that Hodgkinson did not place any online posts of threats or references to members of Congress or the Congressional baseball game. Hodgkinson made numerous posts on all of his social media accounts espousing anti-Republican views, although all the posts reviewed thus far appear to be First Amendment-protected speech.

The First Amendment protects the speech of living people. It doesn’t conflict with establishing motive.

The FBI emphasizes that he didn’t threaten violence against members of Congress. But he clearly hated his targets. He had googled them at one point. And his social media included an attack on the man he shot. That’s the sort of thing that adds up to motive. Unless you’re desperately whitewashing the investigation to make it seem like this was a random act by an unstable man with financial problems.

It’s almost like Jimmy’s a Muslim terrorist. Usually they’re the ones to benefit from this treatment.

“He was running out of money. He was not employed at the time of the event, and he was looking for some local employment. He was married for 30 years, and it appears that that marriage was not going so well,” Slater said. “It was just a pattern of life where you could tell things were not going well.”

Much like the FBI investigation.

Also see:

Something is very wrong at the FBI 

And lets not forget this: