CROSSFIRE-HURRICANE: My Experience With It Before The Investigation Even Had A Name

[BonzaiDuck]

I don't know if it's "latest news", since I just now saw a clip dated in July from that shameless twit, Karoline Leavitt, acting as the Criminal's Press Secretary. Her lies are even more absurd than Trump's. But now Trump is blaming Obama for "Crossfire Hurricane", intending to attach criminality to it. Let me tell you what I know about that, or how Obama may actually "know" me. I'm sure his staff handled much or most of his correspondence, so I'm really skeptical in this assertion.

Forget about Obama and me, but for this following composition, prepare yourself with the first two paragraphs of my thread on "Trump's Schooling" and American education. You have to understand the CSI concept of "knowing" versus the successful prosecutor's version of the concept, or the difference between "knowing" and "believing". Pure belief doesn't require any fact. With only so much in facts, you may have to "believe" that you "know". I am easily confident about a sense of intelligence I derived from the experience I'm about to explain here. Consider some types of intelligence as arising between those two extremes.

Back in late 2015, there was a terror hoax threatening to blow up schools in LA USD and NYC districts. It was proliferated in e-mail generated in eastern Germany, as much as the FBI soon thereafter ascertained. Of course, eastern Germany -- East Germany -- had been Putin's base of operations as a KGB official. And it became known that adolescents in eastern Germany had been operating on Putin's behalf, manufacturing fake stories and posting them on the internet. I think the news suggested that he was paying those youngsters.

Because I'd become an armchair scholar of psy-war and propaganda, I became suspicious immediately, because this first hoax with the two big city targets -- each within 25 miles of real serious terror attacks (9/11 and San Bernardino) -- occurred just 36 hours prior to the first Republican television debate. The urban areas were both "blue" or Democratic strongholds. The debate gave us the first sample of Trump's boisterous and inflammatory palaver. Basically he was really stirring the terror pot during that debate.

Psy-war campaigns have elements that include manufactured events which can nevertheless be real in addition to stories, fictional media and propaganda more likely to be of the "gray" or "black" varieties. I'm not going to give you a dissertation about all of these aspects, but consider a psy-war or propaganda operation which involves sequencing and timing. One might conceivably intend to prepare a mass audience with the first part of the operation, putting a terror attack in their thoughts, and then follow through with another event like the debate where those thoughts can be further amplified. Do you remember the original late October 1962 release of "The Manchurian Candidate"? What happened, and what was done just over a year following that?

I suspected a Russian psy-war operation on Trump's behalf. Then, in January 2016, the very same type of terror hoax threatening schools in LA and NYC occurred about 36 hours before the "Democratic Town Hall" in New England with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. So two successive instances of the same sequence had occurred, contrasted by different treatment by debate or town-hall participants.

I sent a short e-mail to the White House, insinuating my suspicions, noting my knowledge about psy-war and suggesting that "I knew more with greater certainty than Oliver Stone and Jim DiEugenio" about a certain topic already hinted for your guess, but I didn't mention that topic in my e-mail outright, and I'm not going to belabor it here. You can look up an intersection of the names of the film director and historical researcher, and you will find the book they published together during the previous decade.

That was in January 2016. I soon thereafter received an amazing e-mail from the Obama White House, and I'm sorry I didn't choose to keep it. This was an e-mail which had the presidential seal in blue on a manila background, and it was at least a page and a half long. It said all sorts of wonderful things, thanking me effusively for my e-mail letter, promising Obama's commitment to protecting National Security and so forth, but in the end -- it didn't say anything in answer to my main questions: "Who had sent the terror hoax e-mails?" and "What did the FBI know?" There was no information in this lengthy e-mail beyond assurances that the White House was keenly focused on National Security. Yet the e-mail content was the length I've already described.

The White House was telling me something that they couldn't tell me outright -- by not telling me anything and sending me a polite and notably prolix response on singularly eye-catching digital stationery. Please slowly try and process that. It seemed that they were communicating to me that I'd hit the nail on the head, but they couldn't confirm in words what that nail was. In my interpretation, it was intelligence not yet intended for public consumption. Following that, we had what is now known as the FBI Crossfire-Hurricane investigation, only slightly revealed through Obama's CIA revelation just at the time of the 2016 election -- the Russians were interfering in our election, and the Russians were intervening on Trump's behalf.

Can you grasp what I had observed, and its implications? Obama's White House staff might simply have written a ten line paragraph of appreciation in response in a standard black-on-white e-mail, telling me they didn't yet know who generated those terror hoaxes, but FBI was looking into it. They might have ended in thanking me for my interest in the matter.

I'm sorry that I moved that response e-mail to the Trash folder not long thereafter. My interpretation of it did not arise right away. It was weeks before I figured it out -- I was already developing a senior's slow wit. And because I can't show you that very stunning e-mail, you might conclude that I could also easily assert having seen alien space invaders at Roswell, NM or Area 51. Or that I've seen JFK with James Dean and Elvis Presley at the local Applebee's Restaurant this very summer. Or you could say I made it all up to create fake news as Trump accuses the media.

But I had already guessed at the project known as Crossfire-Hurricane, before it was formally moving forward with a name attached to it. That is, the basis for creating a more organized investigation was already evident to me in early 2016.

People can say "you're just speculating!" or "there's not enough fact to confirm", or any such response as if I'd asserted the other stories above. But -- really -- if you actually believed the facts I presented at least to entertain my interpretation, does it make sense to you?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

A FOOTNOTE

Since I had thoughtlessly deleted the e-mail from the White House probably sent February or March of 2016, I thought perhaps I could post links in the above thread-starter showing the two e-mail terror hoaxes I remember that preceded a major late 2015 GOP Presidential Primary debate and a Democratic Town Hall featuring Clinton and Sanders of January 26, 2016.

Now you all know me here going back many years. I also know myself -- that I don't imagine things or confuse or confound my memories of events. If I distinctly remember front-page LA Times headlines preceding high-profile political events of the 2015 to 2016 period, I would not have made it up. I would trust my memory of these particular events I described. Further, I would emphasize with animation that I succinctly remember counting the relevant delays in both days and hours. I did it both times for which I described the sequences of events.

I find GOP debates in web archives occurred on August 6, 2015, September 15, 2015 (CNN debate), October 28, 2015 and November 10 respectively. The first Democratic debate had apparently aired on October 13, 2015 in Las Vegas, followed by another November 14. The Town Halls reported for January 5 in New York and January 25 in Iowa.

Searching for news about an e-mail school district terror hoax in latter months of 2015, I find the major hit in AI and news archive material for December 15, 2015. Google AI returns acknowledgement of a "January 2016 threat" which was "a hoax e-mail which caused school closures in major cities like Los Angeles and New York" but "determined not to be credible by authorities like the FBI." [My quotes for precision.]

I suppose I would search again and more persistently to find the date of the second hoax. So I have pursued an attempt at scientific precision to question my own understanding of these matters. It makes me better than any spokesperson, apologist or the Criminal-in-Chief himself for their deliberate lies and distortions.

But I remember the first terror hoax preceding a GOP debate within a span of 3 days, and the second one preceding a Democratic Town Hall by about the same amount of time in days or hours.

It struck me as profound, because I wrote the letter to the Obama White House in 2016, maybe noting the sequence of events. They definitely sent me a verbose e-mail with the blue print on manila-colored e-mail background, and it was exactly as I described.

They thought my short e-mail, statements and assertions were interesting. How and why else would I receive the response I've described? I have had paper mail from John McCain only possibly signed by an autopen -- and lengthy. The signature might just as well have been applied personally. Most responses I get from politicians simply come back as short black-on-white acknowledgements.

That's my best understanding of it.

So I offer this challenge. If Trump wants to promote his idea about tariffs as if he's the only one who ever had such a ground-breaking discovery for his Great Genius, he should give us a serious review, even a brief one, of the history of tariff policy in the 20th and 21st century preceding his own grand experiment, and lecture us at length on the scholarly work or media remarks of such Nobel winners as Paul Krugman, or notables such as Samuelson, Becker, Stigler or Stiglitz. His discussion of policy should extend from Nixon through Obama, referring also to the Smoot-Hawley experience in the 1930s. And he should do all this impromptu, without the help of his cerebrally-crippled staff and cabinet. The news should ask him out of the blue! Watch him, in his brilliance, make a further Ass of himself, or simply shrink away from an intelligent response with desperately aggressive palaver.

He should be able to do it without preparation, because he is such a marvelous expert on the subject, and his blinding intellect would make the entire scholarly Economics community seized with apoplexy and spasms.

Because -- if he can't do that on his own (like he couldn't write his book on his own), then I wouldn't trust asking him directions in downtown Manhattan. He would assure that I got lost there as a certain outcome. The man is so addle-brained in his mean-spirited rants, it is my witness to these other indications which leaves me in awe. Not his understanding of his own policy interests.