Andrew McCarthy

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, National Reviewcontributing editor as of 2024, former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and bestselling author.

The Southern District of New York (Manhattan) has the largest United States Department of Justice personnel in the country, larger that DC headquarters. The presence of the United Nations leads many cases of surveillance and espionage activity. New York is also known for its organized crime elements. McCarthy joined the Manhattan SDNY as a prosecutor in 1986.

Terrorist prosecutions

Susan Rosenberg is an activist known for her terrorist associations with the May 19th Communist Organization. Rosenberg was prosecuted by Andrew McCarthy and Rudy Giuliani and sentenced to 58 years in prison on terrorism charge.[1] Rosenberg,[2] along with Democrat Rep. Karen Bass,[3] were members of the communist front organization, the Venceremos Brigade. Rosenberg was pardoned by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.[4]

In 2020 Rosenberg sat on the Board of Directors for Thousand Currents,[5] and was a fundraiser for Black Lives Matter (BLM).[6]

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

Former U.S. Attorney and National Review journalist covering national security Andrew McCarthy writes

FISA authorities are not criminal-law authorities. It is not just that FISA is not designed to ferret out evidence of crime; it is not permitted to be used for that purpose. FISA’s objective is the collection of foreign intelligence, the gathering of information about the actions and intentions of foreign powers that may threaten American interests.[7]

FISA abuse

See also: FISA abuse and FBI scandal
Polling data shows a reversal of roles of traditional support for the FBI in the Obama era after passage of the Patriot Act and expanded domestic surveillance.

On May 26, 2022 Andrew McCarthy published FBI ignored lies to get their hands on Trump.[8] McCarthy documents how FBI headquarters officials fully realized they were acting on highly political information and took steps to conceal that fact. First, a decision was made to treat Michael Sussmann, the source, as a confidential informant. This was not done to protect Sussmann’s security. It was done to protect the FBI’s reputation. The informant pretext enabled headquarters to conceal Sussmann’s identity from the line agents in Chicago who were tasked to assess the false Trump-Russia Alfa-Bank information. As good investigators, the agents wanted to know the source of the information so they could assess the purveyor’s motive and thus the data’s likely reliability. They were frustrated and annoyed that FBI Washington headquarters would not identify the source and allow him to be interviewed. If they had been told Sussmann was behind the data, they would instantly have known that the information was political. As it was, they quickly concluded that the information was nonsense, that it did not come close to establishing a Trump-Kremlin communications channel, and that it probably came from someone with an anti-Trump agenda.

Second, the FBI headquarters effort to cover up Sussmann’s identity reached such absurd heights that the FBI itself made false statements in documenting the investigation. In the “electronic communication” by which the bureau opens cases, agents claimed that the information had come not from Sussmann, not even from a confidential source, but from the US Department of Justice. This was so ridiculous that, embarrassingly, none of the agents involved could explain how that happened.

Third, the FBI’s brass was so hot to nail Trump for supposedly being a clandestine agent of Russia that the line agents’ rejection of the evidence made no difference. “People on the 7th floor to include the Director are fired up about this server,” said headquarters agent Joe Pientka in a message to one of the Chicago agents. The 7th floor houses the suite of top executive offices at FBI headquarters, including that of director James Comey. When the Chicago cyber investigators found no basis for criminal charges, they were told to keep the case open as a counterintelligence matter. “Priestap says it’s not an option — we must do it,” admonished Pientka, referring to the bureau’s top counterintelligence official.

Shawn Henry, former assistant director of the of the FBI's cyper crimes unit promoted by Robert Mueller, who then left the FBI in 2012 to become a top executive for CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the Democratic National Committee to investigate the 2016 alleged "hack" of its email system and an NBC News "national security expert", admitted under oath he had no evidence of Russia hacking the DNC, despite having originated the fake news story.


See also: Russiagate

In April, 2016, Barack Obama gave an interview in which he seemed to have foreknowledge that Hillary Clinton would be exonerated for her “carelessness” and did not “intentionally” mishandle classified emails, words that FBI director Jimmy "the Weasel" Comey would use just a few months later. In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Obama seemed to prejudge the outcome of the ongoing inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal, and he disputed the notion that any of the emails contained classified information of true importance. "She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy,” he said. “What I also know is that there’s classified and then there’s classified. There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and then there’s stuff that is being presented to the president, the secretary of state, you may not want going out over the wire.”…...we now see how Obama’s pledge that politics would not taint the investigation was a bald-faced lie. This confidence in her exoneration was shared by Mrs. Clinton, who also seemed to have foreknowledge that the fix was in: The FBI is investigating the matter, and while Mrs. Clinton has virtually promised she will not be indicted, the scandal still hangs over her presidential ambitions...“That is not going to happen,” she told NBC News when asked if she would be indicted. “There is not even the remotest chance that it’s going to happen.”[9]

Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac collusion, June 27, 2016. Phoenix airport. Lynch's long-awaited announcement on the disposition of the Hillary Clinton email investigation never occurred when she compromised herself in a secret meeting with the husband of the accused. Disgraced FBI Dir. Comey surprisingly announced days later he decided against recommending prosecution, usurping the authority of the Attorney General. The Justice Dept. immediately tried to cover up the meeting and denied it had any paper trail of its existence. While the substance of the meeting was never disclosed, Christopher Steele filed his first report days earlier, and Lynch's Justice Dept. days later was seeking FISA warrants against members of the 2016 Trump campaign.

Andrew McCarthy long argued that Obama was the ringleader in obstructing justice in the Hillary email investigation: "From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton-emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call -- not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s… The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account....If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton -- Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges."

A draft dated June 30, 2016 (i.e., five days before Comey delivered the final version), contained a passage expressly referring to a troublesome email exchange between Clinton and Obama. (The FBI’s report of its eventual interview of Clinton contains a cryptic reference to a July 1, 2012, email that Clinton sent from Russia to Obama’s email address. See report, page 2.) The passage in the June 30 draft stated: We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries. That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.

On the same day, according to a StrzokPage text, a revised draft of Comey’s remarks was circulated by Comey's chief of staff, Jim Rybicki. It replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.” So not only were edits made to Comey’s draft memo to hide Hillary’s guilt but also Obama’s involvement.

From the Strzok-Page text messages it was apparent that Loretta Lynch knew Hillary would not be prosecuted. That meeting on the tarmac was to tell Bill Clinton the fix was in, a fix whose impetus came from the White House and an occupant concerned with both his legacy being erased by a President Trump but also by his involvement in covering up Hillary’s crimes.

This was Watergate on steroids. Not only do we have one party colluding with government agencies to keep its candidate from being prosecuted for her crimes and preventing the election of the other party’s candidate, but we also have a sitting and corrupt President using the powers of his office to subvert an election and hand-pick his successor.[10] Strzok struck Comey's original finding, "grossly negligent", and inserted Obama's "extremely careless."

Michael Sussmann trial

Origins of Trump-Russia conspiracy hoax

While it was expected that special counsel John Durham would challenge the official media and establishment narrative that the Trump-Russia investigation was properly predicated and carried out, it was Perkins Coie law partner Michael Sussmann, who challenged that narrative.

In September 2021, Sussmann was indicted by special counsel John Durham investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia fraudulent claims for lying to the FBI.[11] According to the New York Times, Sussmann lied to the FBI to hide the identity of the Clinton campaign as Sussmann's client while he pushed widely discredited claims about communications between Russia's Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization in the lead-up to the 2016 election.[12]

Durham made it clear from day one of the trial that he would run with the opposite narrative, that the FBI was duped by Sussmann. Durham forced Sussmann’s legal team to attack the FBI in order to exonerate their client.

In possibly the biggest bombshell, Sussmann’s lawyers revealed an internal FBI text message that proved that the FBI leadership under James Comey and Andrew McCabe was vigorously pushing the Trump-Russia collusion hoax despite the flimsiness of Sussmann's evidence. It was the first public acknowledgment backed by documentary evidence that the FBI leadership was focused on taking out Donald Trump.[13] Andrew McCarthy noted that the FBI ignored Sussmann's lies to get their hands on Trump. FBI headquarters officials fully realized they were acting on highly political lies and information approved by Hillary Clinton and took steps to conceal that fact.

In the course of the trial, 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook fingered the boss, Hillary Clinton as having personally approved the scam and false allegations as an October Surprise.

Andrew McCarthy concluded that if Sussmann was acquitted, that will have a lot more to do with the FBI’s illegal machinations to interfere in the US 2016 presidential election than Sussmann’s innocence.[14]

Obama regime

NATO war in Syria

See also: NATO war in Syria
The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist, Andrew McCarthy, National Review, September 27, 2014.[15] The group was later blamed for the Kabul airport bombing, August 26, 2021.

Preisent Barack Obama turned to the CIA to arm rebels with the intent to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The CIA funneled massive quantities of military equipment, weapons, and ammunition from the fallen Libyan regime to Turkey, where they were used to arm a number of anti-Assad rebels operating under the umbrella of the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” or FSA. In 2013, the CIA took direct control of the arm and equip program, sending teams to Turkey and Jordan to train the FSA. This effort, known as Operation Timber Sycamore, was later supplemented with a Department of Defense (DOJ) program to provide anti-tank weapons to the Syrian opposition, so-called "moderate rebels".

On Sept. 18, 2014, U.S. officials announced that the Air Force was bombing the "Khorosan Group," a previously unknown faction. It was claimed that this group was planning terrorist action against the United States. Mushin al-Fadhli, leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, was reportedly killed in the bombing. Al-Nusra is an al-Qaeda affiliate active in Syria. The Obama administration may have created the name "Khorosan Group" for obscure reasons.[16] The term apparently refers to a group of twenty to fifty al-Qaeda members in Syria, possibly an elite unit. (It should be noted that "al-Qaeda" is also a name created by the U.S. intelligence community.) "But you have heard of the Khorasan group before. It is, to put it simply, al Qaeda," according to Thomas Joscelyn of the Weekly Standard.[17]

American efforts to create a viable armed opposition ultimately failed, with many of the weapons and equipment given to radical jihadist groups aligned with al-Qaeda and, later, ISIS.

Dinesh D'Souza indictment

Dinesh D'Souza

Andrew McCarthy noted about the Obama Justice Department indictment of Dinesh D'Souza:

"Yet there were patent mitigating circumstances, starting with the fact that few people actually get prosecuted at all for this offense. Even in the case of gargantuan violations, such as the Obama 2008 campaign’s own millions of dollars in illicit contributions, the Justice Department allows cases to be settled with an administrative fine. Furthermore, in the few cases that are pursued criminally, there is unvaryingly a corruption angle — the donor is dodging the limits in the expectation of a quid pro quo.
"In D’Souza’s case, there was nothing of the kind: He was trying to be supportive of a friend who had no chance to win."[18]

President Trump gave D'Souza a full pardon on May 31, 2018, citing D'Souza's unfair treatment by the U. S. Government.[19]

Democrat IT scandal

See also: Democrat IT scandal

On August 17, 2017 Imran Awan and his wife Hina Alvi were indicted in the Democrat IT scandal; Andrew McCarthy pointed out irregularities in indictment.[20]

2020 presidential election

See also: United States Presidential Election, 2020

Transition Integrity Project

See also: Transition Integrity Project

Democrats held a simulation in June 2020 on how to drive President Trump from office if he wins. They called it “Transition Integrity Project ” and it has nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with stealing back a lost election.

“All of our scenarios ended in both street-level violence and political impasse,” Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown law professor told the press. “The law is essentially…it’s almost helpless against a president who’s willing to ignore it.”

By “ignore” she means not bow to Democrats. By “law” she means Democrat election cheating.

Marc Elias and John Podesta. Neither one were ever prosecuted for lying to Congress about making payments to FusionGPS for the Steele dossier.[21]
“Scenario exercises don’t predict the future,” she said, adding, “They explore possible futures: some of the ‘what ifs.’ Our scenario exercises did not end in good places, but it’s important to note that this does not mean that there is something inevitable about chaos and constitutional crisis in the coming months — just that these particular exercises suggest that these are real possibilities.”

She’s training the media and the Democrats on what to say and how to react to a Trump victory or a Biden win by cheating. Her goal is to legitimize the cheating. This session also serves to prime the pump of public opinion and get America used to talking about ousting President Trump, no matter the real election result. Brooks said,

“The goal of the exercises was not to give people nightmares, but rather to identify possible inflection points to prevent or mitigate catastrophic outcomes to the 2020 presidential election. … I think the exercises led to some important insights, one being that forewarned is forearmed; in all our exercises, events unfolded very quickly in the days after the election, and those who had thought in advance about the ‘what ifs’ were better positioned to respond than those who had not.”

Through her obfuscation it is evident what this entire meeting was: Democrat election cheating and stealing boot camp. The “respond” she has in mind is to a legitimate Trump victory. The ostensible reason for the training is a scenario where Trump won’t leave office after a loss. But the actual goal of those who attended is to kill a Trump victory, with the help of the media, in any way they can.[22]

Andrew McCarthy wrote on the fake basis for the meeting: “There is no rational reason to indulge the anti-Trump hallucination of a defeated president holed up in the Oval Office refusing to leave. If ever any president were to try such an inane thing after the constitutionally mandated divestment of executive authority, he or she would be escorted from the premises — hopefully, with whatever dignity could still be mustered under the circumstances.”

2024 presidential election

Fani Willis case

See also: 2024 Presidential election interference, Fulton County cases, Georgia election fraud, Democrat election fraud, and 2020 election fraud
Political persecution of the Georgia 19.

Andrew McCarthy assessed the Georgia Fani Willis RICO case:

“Why has DA Willis invoked Georgia’s version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which is typically applied to mobsters engaged in the familiar rackets of murder, extortion, trafficking in narcotics and stolen goods, gambling, prostitution and so on?...Because there’s a giant hole in her case: the lack of a clear crime to which Trump and his co-defendants can plausibly be said to have agreed...That is what’s so strange about DA Willis’s indictment...She alleges that the 19 people named in her indictment are guilty of conspiracy because they agreed to try to keep Donald Trump in power as president — specifically, to change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump...Trying to change an election outcome is legal; the end doesn’t become illegal if pursued by illegal means — instead, those illegal means can be charged as crimes...But there is no conspiracy unless the objective itself is clearly a crime...An agreement to try to reverse the result of an election is not an agreement to commit a crime”.[23]


  3. Atzlannnet Re: [Aztlannet_News Re: Who Killed Neto Falcon: Thu May 5, 2005 8:16 am]
  4. Breaking: YouTube Takes Down Tucker Carlson’s Video Connecting Terrorist Susan Rosenberg to BLM
  5. Board of Directors, Thousand Currents
  6. Black Lives Matter fundraising handled by group with convicted terrorist on its board
  9. Barack Obama intervened into the Hillary Clinton email investigation when he publicly stated that Hillary Clinton showed “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server.
  10. Obama -- Leader of the Deep State Coup, By Daniel John Sobieski, American Thinker, January 27, 2018.
  14. The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist, By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, National Review, September 27, 2014.
  15. McCarthy, Andrew C., The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist
  16. "Misunderstanding al Qaeda"
  17. Andrew C. McCarthy (December 19, 2015). "How Dinesh D'Souza became a victim of Obama's lawless administration", National Review website.
  18. Multiple references: