Last week Politico reported on an explosive in depth investigation surrounding how the former President Obama administration allowed the terrorist group Hezbollah to continue a multinational drug running and money-laundering operation to fund terrorism in order to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran.

The DEA’s “Operation Cassandra” was intentionally blocked; while the administration allowed drug-running into the U.S., weapons procurement to kill Americans and money laundering to facilitate all the terrorist activity. Supporting Hezbollah was down-played and intentionally permitted by the Obama administration.

Under any normal circumstances, other than an Obama presidency, this entire scandal would have been explosive headlines. [Insert comparison to media coverage of “Iran-Contra” here.] However, the response from U.S. media has been essentially nothing other than to attack the intensely well-sourced author of the expose’.

Now, pause for a minute and really think about this next question.

Consider how the same U.S. media will respond to the sunlight upon President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s “Operation Trump”?

In 2016 senior leadership within the Obama FBI and Department of Justice, with direct and provable ties straight to the White House, planned and conducted a targeted political operation against a presidential candidate by weaponizing the intelligence community against Donald Trump.

Using sketchy, intentionally misleading and false information provided to a U.S. District Court Judge, the Obama FBI and DOJ colluded to present an application for wiretaps and surveillance authority to the FISA court; subsequently, they used a FISA warrant as part of an exhaustive counterintelligence operation against their political opposition.

This is no longer some pie-in-the-sky conspiracy. There is massive evidence, including statements from the co-conspirators, that highlights this exact operation in detail.

However, using the media response to the “Operation Cassandra” scandal as a baseline for expectation, how do you think the same media will respond to discoveries within “Operation Trump”?

This is the context that must be considered when concerns are raised about the methodical manner -albeit painstakingly slow- around the process of investigative sunlight from Congress, FBI, DOJ and the Inspector General’s office.

If the larger American media do not appropriately explain the enormity of the corruption, and if the American people don’t see how legal constitutional limits were dispatched by an ideological administration weaponizing the highest law enforcement agencies within our government – against their political opposition, the severity of the scheme remains hidden.

Yes, the U.S. media has become the enemy of America.

Yes, it’s that bad.

Yes, for context think about how many Americans actually believe there was some substance behind the “muh Russia collusion” narrative?

Stunning.

This reality is why the process to revealing the corruption must be apportioned with tremendous planning and prudently laid out in a logical sequence for the U.S. electorate to grasp the enormity of it all.

If, it is even possible.

We already have the hindsight understanding of how the IRS was similarly weaponized by the Obama/Holder justice department against their political enemies, us. Yet somehow, even with admissions from the participants, the average U.S. voter elected President Obama to a second term.

After paying no political price for the 2010/2011 IRS example; and with the U.S. media completely and entirely downplaying the scale of the issue; it’s no wonder the Clinton campaign and their ideological allies within the FBI and DOJ downplayed the risk during their “Trump Operation” – and simultaneously were so sloppy in leaving massive trails of evidence.

.

RESOURCES:

IG Stimulated Releases of Information:

♦Release #1 was the FBI Agent Strzok and Attorney Lisa Page story; and the repercussions from discovering their politically motivated bias in the 2015/2016 Clinton email investigation and 2016/2017 Russian Election investigation.

♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.

♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump; that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.

♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actual contract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump. Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.

♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page. The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy” against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.