Another Example Of How The U.S. Intelligence Community Attempts To Control U.S. Politicians & Destroys The Careers Of Those Whom It Can't
There are quite literally a myriad of instances in which the U.S. Intelligence community has in the past attempted to blackmail U.S. politicians in efforts to control how they vote on issues which are of importance to this community.
More than a few people have publicly testified to their knowledge of FBI/CIA collusion in using Brownstone operations (sex - blackmail stings) in which to control U.S. politicians. This proves that the U.S. Intelligence community has a system in place in which to spy on any politician in the United States, who may be of use to Intel, in an attempt to find something which can be used in order to blackmail these men and women, for the express purpose of controlling them.
And any politicians or for that matter judges (the Intel community has attempted to blackmail their share of judges as well) who refuse to be subjected to such blackmail schemes, will find themselves targeted by the Intel community in order to either find a way in which to control them, or to destroy their political careers, if Intel deems that these people cannot be utilized for its own political agenda.
This author has in the past cited several politicians who became the subjects of such subterfuge in their own political careers for not only refusing to be manipulated by the Intel community, but also challenging crimes committed by certain Intel agencies.
One of the better known instances in which a politician was targeted for the destruction of their political career was former New Jersey Senator, Robert Torricelli.
The reasons for the FBI's sabotage of Torricelli's reelection campaign, involved his being furtively punished by the U.S. Intelligence community for Torricelli's attempt to expose an Intel cover up regarding the murder of a U.S. citizen by the name of Michael DeVine, as well as Torricelli's insistence that there be a formal commission created to investigate the Intelligence community's failure to prevent the terrorist attacks on 9-11-2001.
The FBI's attack on Torricelli serves as further evidence that the U.S. Intelligence community is intent on controlling American politicians, and destroying those who challenge the Intelligence community's operations, or who refuse to acquiesce to Intel's attempts to control what these politicians do while in office.
This is why there are no longer any legitimate *investigations conducted by the U.S. Congress or the White House in regard to criminal allegations being made against the U.S. Intelligence community.
Former Representative, Cynthia McKinney, learned about this the hard way after drafting legislation which would have been used to initiate a modern day version of the Church Committee Hearings, only to be setup in a minor skirmish which the media blew completely out of proportion, and for the express purpose of demonizing McKinney with her constituents. McKinney was not reelected to office, and her legislation was quickly removed from consideration by her former colleagues.
One will note that after Bill Clinton ordered the investigation of the Intelligence community in 1995, based on the allegations made by Robert Torricelli, that Clinton was also setup in the now infamous Lewinsky phone sex scandal, which resulted in his impeachment by the House of Representatives - even though Clinton was allowed to serve out his term in office.
Had Clinton refused Torricelli's request to investigate the U.S Intelligence community, his relationship with Monica Lewinsky would have likely been concealed from the media by the Intel community (who have the power to do so), and the entire scandal which resulted in the House's impeachment of his person, would never had taken place.
Instead, Clinton was treated by Intel as someone they could not trust, and as such they attempted to destroy his political career for it. Yet another example of what the Intel community in the United States does to politicians whom they cannot control.
"On March 23, 1995, Rep. Robert Torricelli, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, charged that the CIA had been withholding from Congress information it had obtained regarding the deaths of Michael DeVine, an American innkeeper living in Guatemala, and Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, a Guatemalan guerrilla leader and husband of an American lawyer. Both murders, according to Torricelli, were linked to a Guatemalan army colonel, Julio Roberto Alpírez, a paid intelligence asset of the CIA.11
The revelations set off a firestorm of criticism and caused the Clinton administration to order a government-wide investigation over these and other cases of torture and murder attributed to Guatemalan security forces. While the CIA was the main target of such criticism, Torricelli had also reportedly received an anonymous fax from someone inside the NSA alleging that documents pertaining to the Bámaca and DeVine cases were being destroyed.
This Top Secret NSA position paper responds to these allegations. NSA claims that SIGINT reporting related to these cases is limited to "Guatemalan government reaction to U.S. and international human rights concerns," and does not include specific information regarding the circumstances of death or the involvement of Colonel Alpírez. The document is one of only a handful of declassified records in which the NSA even acknowledges specific SIGINT activities or reports."
Editor's Note: As a target of the NSA's SIGNIT EMF Scanning Network, this author is interested in knowing exactly what the term (found in the above document) NSA SIGNIT product report of a person means.
Does it mean information gained by the NSA through its electronic tracking and surveillance of this person via the NSA's Signals Intelligence EMF Scanning Network?
And if so, how is the person being tracked? By way of their brain's own unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment frequencies?
Computer to brain interface deployed via a national or perhaps even international brain fingerprinting network? And if so, how candid is the NSA being in regard to the information it obtains? Is it presenting the information accurately, or misrepresenting the information for its own agenda?