Russia threatens to wipe U.S. off map with four ‘Satan 2’ nuclear missiles for meddling in Ukraine

Share:

MOSCOW – “Four missiles, and there will be nothing left.” That’s the chilling vision of the United States’ future, according to the hosts of Russia’s flagship propaganda show as they issued yet another threat of a world-ending nuclear war against the West.

Alexei Zhuravlev, a member of Russia’s parliament, proclaimed Monday on the state TV channel Russia-1 that the country has the capability to launch a devastating nuclear attack on the United States over its support of Ukraine.

President Vladimir Putin could wipe out the east and west coasts with just four nuclear missiles, the pro-Kremlin pundit said of Russia’s new Sarmat “Satan 2” intercontinental ballistic missiles. He proclaimed:

“I will tell you absolutely, competently that to destroy the entire East Coast of the United States, two Sarmat missiles are needed. And the same goes for the West Coast. Four missiles, and there will be nothing left.”

Zhuravlev also labeled two million Ukrainians as “incurable” and said they should be killed.

 

Zhuravlev was joined on the talk show by fellow MP and Russian-state mouthpiece Yevgeny Popov, the host of the Rossiya 1 channel show, where he animatedly described the ominous scenario.

They were discussing a CBS News segment from April that explored what a nuclear strike on New York City would entail.

In the program, CBS reporter Tony Dokoupil said that an attack comparable to the one that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945 would wipe out much of Manhattan and produce a mushroom cloud that would rise above the Empire State Building.

Zhuravlev scoffed at the assessment and said:

“They think the mushroom cloud will be taller than a high rise. That mushroom cloud will be visible from Mexico.”

Each one of the Sarmat missile’s 15 nuclear warheads is more than 100 times as powerful as the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II, officials say, and it is able to break through all modern anti-missile defenses.

Zhuravlev did say that in case this conflict arises to the level of a nuclear war, no one should have a false sense of security. He said:

“No one will be fine, but you have to calculate correctly.”

The discussion was no less unsettling as the hosts reiterated Russia’s ostensible reason for the invasion of Ukraine, repeating the Kremlin line that about 5 percent of the neighboring country’s people, about two million Ukrainians, are “incurable” Nazis. Zhuravlev said:

“These 2 million people either should have left Ukraine, or they should be de-nazified, in other words, destroyed.”

The talk show hosts employed a calculated attempt to dehumanize Ukrainians who have turned their backs on Russia. They cited a study that found 40% of Ukrainians do not support the tearing down of Soviet-era statues, a political move in which some Ukrainians, presumably the two million who need to be “de-nazified,” are engaging.

Zhuravlev suggested that the 36% of Ukrainians who registered “no opinion” on the matter were actually too afraid to share their opinion and claimed that “three quarters of Ukrainians are against tearing down monuments; only 19 percent support it.” The Russian lawmaker facetiously noted:

“If we reinstall their brains correctly, 12-15 percent will also believe it shouldn’t be done. So the maximum of 5 percent are incurable.”

He added that those 5 percent must be “destroyed.”

Zhuravlev, who, like many in Moscow, views Ukraine as a breakaway territory of Russia, said the ongoing war — officially dubbed a “special military operation” by the Kremlin — is a “civil war.” He said:

“It hurts my heart because Russians are fighting Russians.”

 

Zhuravlev wrapped up his tirade on live TV by claiming that Western nations plan to divide Russia into “10 to 15 countries so it never poses any more problems for them.” He proclaimed:

“They will not succeed.”

This is not the first time that Zhuravlev has threatened pro-Ukraine Western countries with destruction. A month ago, he went on state TV and boasted:

“One Sarmat and the British Isles are gone.”

Others in Putin’s inner circle have made similar threats, including Dmitry Rogozin, head of Russia’s state space agency, Roscosmos. He tweeted a week ago that 50 Sarmat-2 intercontinental ballistic missiles would soon be combat-ready. Rogozin said:

“I suggest that aggressors speak to us more politely.”

After a successful test launch of Sarmat, or Satan-2, last month, Putin himself said in a televised address that the missile had no competition and would make Russia’s enemies “think twice” before issuing threats.

Former police chief: Sussmann acquittal proves that the Washington, DC swamp is alive and well, but also proved Hillary is dirty

The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the writer, a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

WASHINGTON, DC- The swamp is alive and well and still residing in Washington, DC. Despite a mountain of evidence, former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann managed to get himself acquitted of lying to the FBI, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the depth of the slime that oozes from our nation’s capital knew would happen.

Yet despite that, the Sussmann trial proved once and for all that Hillary Clinton is as dirty as the sludge that gathers in your average sewer treatment plant. It also shone a light on the sheer incompetence of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who spent three years investigating former President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia while he was running for president.

The trial proved that the allegations against Trump originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign and begs the question as to why Mueller, with three years to do so, never was able to put the pieces together.

During Sussmann’s trial, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook testified that the old windbag herself Hillary Clinton “approved the dissemination of unproven and subsequently debunked information to the media” which attempted to paint a pattern of “covert communications” between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Russia-based financial institution, Fox News reported.

Those allegations became a key component of the Sussmann trial, as his charges came as a result of his making a false statement to FBI General Counsel James Baker on Sept. 19, 2016. Sussmann approached Baker and claimed that he was not working on behalf of any client, but instead was merely a concerned citizen worried about national security.

Durham’s investigators alleged Sussmann was working not only for the Clinton campaign but also for technology executive Rodney Joffe. After meeting with Baker, Durham alleged Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for his work.

That directly tied him into approaching Baker not as a “concerned citizen” but on behalf of Clinton. That proved he lied to the FBI, yet still the Washington, DC-based jury saw fit to find him not guilty.

The FBI opened an investigation into Sussmann’s information, and according to testimony given by Baker last week, the FBI found after weeks of investigating “there was nothing there.”

Other FBI agents and officials told the jury they were “unable to substantiate any of the allegations.”

The Alfa Bank tale wasn’t the only claim coming out of the Clinton campaign in an attempt to get Trump.

On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into so-called collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, an operation called “Crossfire Hurricane.”

That whole sordid mess was coordinated from within the Obama administration, with then-CIA Director John Brennan briefing Obama on July 28, 2016 about an alleged proposal emanating from within the Clinton campaign to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

Fox News was able to obtain Brennan’s handwritten notes which memorialized the briefing:

“They are investigating an alleged Russian connection with Trump, and just weeks before the investigation began, the President and Vice President, the FBI leadership, and Strzok had bene put on notice by the CIA of the fact that Hillary was going to implement a false flag operation that specifically focused on Trump and Russia,” Ty Cobb, former White House Special Counsel responsible for the Trump White House’s response to the Mueller investigation related to Fox News.

“The Strzok link to the Clinton intel is undeniable, and requires further investigation which Special Counsel Durham is likely pursuing. Perhaps the DOJ IG, Mr. Horowitz, who like Durham is someone I respect greatly, is as well.”

According to Cobb, the “plan” was serious enough that it caused Brennan to “brief the president [Obama] and national security advisor.” Then-national security advisor Susan Rice is said to have been in that July 2016 briefing.

“That is much more unusual than merely referring the matter to the FBI,” Cobb said.

Only ten days before Sussman’s visit to Baker at the FBI, Sept. 9, 2016, the CIA forwarded that information through a Counterintelligence Operational Lead (CIOL) to then-FBI Director James Comey and then Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, with the subject line: “Crossfire Hurricane,” Fox reported.

https://fundourpolice.com/

Fox News obtained and reported on the CIOL, the first news outlet to do so, which read: “The following information is provided for the exclusive use of your bureau for background investigative action or lead purposes as appropriate.”

“Per verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date,” the memo read. “An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

That memo was heavily redacted, Fox noted.

“The memo regarding Clinton’s false Trump/Russia scheme goes to the FBI, goes specifically to Comey and Strzok—Strzok became the lead investigator for first the DOJ and later the Mueller team and hand-picked many of the other investigators,” Cobb told Fox News. “It is certain he knew, and, because he knew, it is stunning that the investigation didn’t wrap up sooner and that the final report doesn’t mention the actual undeniable genesis of the original DOJ investigation that morphed into the Mueller effort.”

“If Strzok had shared that information with Mueller, which is suspect he did not, it would have taken the investigation in a different direction and spared the nation two-plus years of press fueled divisiveness and lies,” Cobb continued.

The anti-Trump dossier meanwhile was also linked to Hillary Clinton.

During the Sussmann trial, Clinton campaign general counsel and slip-and-fall attorney Marc Elias testified that he had personally hired Fusion GPS, the opposition research team that commissioned the bogus anti-Trump dossier.

According to that dossier, it alleged coordination between Trump and the Russian government and was authored by disgraced ex-British spy Christopher Steele. That dossier was funded through the ambulance-chasing law firm Perkins Coie on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Sussmann and Elias were employed by Perkins Coie at the time.

That dossier was the basis for a series of bogus Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

The Steele dossier has since been widely discredited.

In May 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the baton from the FBI, however Mueller and his team completely ignored the ties between the allegations and the Clinton team.

According to former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, he told Fox News that the Mueller team could “suggest that it was outside their scope to look at the origins of the Russian collusion story.”

“However, by not highlighting that the story was created by the Clinton campaign and prompted by the Clinton campaign, it calls into question their entire investigation,” Whitaker surmised.

President Trump slammed Mueller’s team, who referred to them as “angry Democrats.”

“As a former DOJ prosecutor myself, it is clear they lost their impartiality and violated the oath we all take as prosecutors,” former chief investigator for the House Intelligence Committee’s Trump-Russia probe, Kash Patel told Fox News.

“Not to mention, Andrew Weismann was the general counsel at the FBI. He knows how to investigate, obtain FISAs, and check the credibility of witnesses if he wanted to. He never wanted to, and hid behind the fake news media wall, who all covered for Mueller.”

Patel added, “They didn’t even need to dig, they just needed to abide by their oaths of office.”

Trump probably wasn’t too far off in his description of the Mueller team. Of 15 attorneys on the staff, at least seven had donated to Democratic candidates, including that of Clinton.

For example, James Quarles donated $2,700 to Clinton’s 2016 bid, Jeannie Rhee donated a total of $5400 to Clinton and Elizabeth Prelogar and Rush Atkinson donated smaller amounts. In addition, Mueller’s top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, along with Andrew Goldstein and Brandon Van Grack also donated to Democrats.

“Because of what appeared to be political biases, they should have had a more fulsome description as to how this investigation even came out,” Whitaker said.

“And so, it would’ve been smart on their part to cover their bases on that, but they left the door open, and, rightfully, should be criticized for not fully explaining this.”

Whitaker continued, telling Fox News it was “disappointing that the FBI had rejected these stories,” including the Alfa Bank and the secret server with the Trump Organization, as well as the dossier which the FBI initially “reviewed and rejected as legitimate.”

Yet some way, the dossier “found a home as it traveled up the hierarchy at the FBI and ultimately led to the appointment of Mueller,” Whitaker told Fox.

“It is extraordinarily disappointing and it shouldn’t happen like this,” Whitaker said.

Mueller’s probe, lasting nearly two years and costing over $30 million in taxpayer funds found zero evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election.

“The country has a right to know the answer to this question, ‘ How is it that after $30 million, the fact that the Clinton campaign falsely initiated the investigation was omitted from their report?” Cobb asked.

“The simple, but incomplete answer is Peter Strzok who didn’t share the information with his FBI colleagues on the investigation he initiated and approved.”

Cobb referenced the initial 2016 briefing held for Obama and his top aides.

“You don’t have to be partisan to find that scary,” Cobb said. “This needs to be pursued so a soft coup of this type can never happen again under any future administrations.”

“It’s just not going to age well,” Whitaker said.

To make matters worse, Congress got involved, led by the bug-eyed fraud from California, Adam Schiff. Both the House Permanent Select Committee, led by Schiff, as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee opened investigations into the alleged collusion between Trump and Russia.

Schiff was eventually forced to release transcripts of thousands of pages from House Intelligence Committee interviews which showed that top Obama administration officials acknowledged they had no “empirical evidence” of collusion or conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

The Russia collusion hoax sidetracked the Trump administration for the first two years when they had a Republican Congress.

“This is one of the greatest political scandals in history, Trump told Fox News.

“For three years, I had to fight her off, and fight those crooked people off, and you’ll never get your reputation fully back.”

“Where do I get my reputation back? Trump asked.

Durham was tapped by then-Attorney General Bill Bar to investigate the origins of the Russia collusion hoax against the Trump campaign in 2019.

In October 2020, Barr appointed Durham as special counsel in order to make sure he could continue his investigative work irrespective of the outcome of the November 2020 election.

Durham has indicted two other individuals beside Sussmann—Igor Danchenko in November of last year, and Kevin Clinesmith in August 2020.


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Share:
Submit a Correction
Related Posts