Thursday, February 27, 2020

THE BRIBES SUCKING DEMOCRAT PARTY DEPLOYS A NEW RUSSIAN MEDDLING SMEAR AGAINST SANDERS - BUT IT WAS HILLARY AND THE OBOMB WHO WERE THE REAL SERVANTS OF PUTIN - "Victorious Democrats would also end congressional investigations into the Hillary-Deep State-DNC-Russian-Clinton Foundation collusion and corruption. All the players in these massive, sordid affairs will be deemed “too big to jail” – and too closely tied to the Democratic Party to be investigated further." Paul Driessen

The list of predicate crimes is extensive and includes bribery, embezzlement, fraud, theft, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. 




Judicial Watch: Only Crimes in Russia Scandal Are from ‘Obama Gang’

 

THE MAN WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR

 

Barack Obama’s Russia Connection

 

https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/06/barack-obamas-russian-connection-who.html

 

 

If Obama was a fully recruited agent of Moscow, tasked with giving Russia a significant military advantage over the United States, and economically weakening and socially dividing the nation, how would he have conducted his presidency (or his post-presidency) any differently? TREVOR LOUDON

We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election

Democratic Party deploys Russian meddling smear against Sanders

24 February 2020
The victory of Bernie Sanders in the Nevada caucuses has escalated the anti-Sanders hysteria of the Democratic Party establishment and Democratic-aligned media outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC. This has taken the form of fabricated allegations of Russian intervention into the 2020 elections to support Sanders’ candidacy.
This fable is elaborated on the front page of Sunday’s New York Times in a lengthy article by David Sanger, the newspaper’s most reliable stenographer for whatever story the military-intelligence apparatus wants floated in the newspaper. Under the headline, “Seeking Chaos, Moscow Places Its Bets in US,” Sanger smears Sanders as the beneficiary of supposed Russian support in the 2020 elections.
Sanger has a long record of fraudulent “analyses.” Stories that appear under his byline are generally based on unnamed intelligence sources whose allegations are presented as unimpeachable. The hallmark of a typical Sanger analysis is that it lacks any identifiable factual basis. He is less a reporter than a frustrated writer of third-rate spy stories with poorly constructed plots.
Bernie Sanders speaks Friday at a campaign rally at Springs Preserve in Las Vegas [Credit: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky]
In this latest thriller, Sanger does not produce a single fact in support of the contention that Russian President Vladimir Putin backs Sanders or has done anything to assist his campaign.
Besides numerous unnamed “outside experts” and “intelligence analysts,” Sanger quotes three current and former intelligence officials by name, including Angela Stent, national intelligence officer for Russia, now a professor at Georgetown University and author of Putin’s World: Russia Against the West and With the Rest, who actually says nothing about Sanders.
Victoria Nuland is also cited. Nuland is certainly an expert on foreign subversion of elections, having played, as she boasted, a central role in 2014 in the $5 billion US effort to destabilize and oust the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine.
Nuland does not present any evidence to support Sanger’s storyline, beyond asserting, “Any figures that radicalize politics and do harm to center views and unity in the United States are good for Putin’s Russia.” In other words, Sanders is functioning as a Putin stooge because his policies are to the left of the Democratic Party candidates favored by the CIA.
Sanger finds the hand of Putin in Sanders’ support for “a drastic expansion of taxes and government programs like Medicare,” claiming that this divides American society in a way favorable to Moscow.
Also named by Sanger is Christopher Krebs, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the Department of Homeland Security. Sanger cites his role in “documenting how Russian operatives are becoming stealthier, learning from the mistakes they made in 2016.” These Russki agents are so devilishly clever that they successfully conceal all traces of their insidious manipulation of American elections.
In Sanger’s make-believe world, the very absence of evidence of Russian interference is proof of their subversion. His story line is a modern-day version of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anticommunist invocations of a “conspiracy so vast.”
No American is safe from Putin’s tentacles. Sanger claims that Russia is “feeding disinformation to unsuspecting Americans on Facebook and other social media." He continues: "By seeding conspiracy theories and baseless claims on the platforms, Russians hope everyday Americans will retransmit those falsehoods from their own accounts.”
He concludes, with apparent regret over the existence of freedom of speech, “It is much harder to ban the words of real Americans, who may be parroting a Russian story line, even unintentionally.”
The anti-Russia narrative has the most ominous implications for the democratic rights of the American people. The New York Times implies that any expression of social discontent in the United States, and, above all, the growing anger over mounting social inequality, can be delegitimized as “parroting a Russian story line” and outlawed.
The claims by the intelligence agencies that Sanders is the beneficiary of Russian support have been taken up by leading figures in the Democratic Party establishment. Appearing on the ABC News Sunday interview program “This Week,” former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who served as chief of staff in the Obama White House, said that Sanders’ rise in the Democratic presidential contest was a case of Putin and Trump picking the weakest possible opponent in order to ensure Trump’s reelection.
These reactions are not merely the expression of the virulent hatred of socialism on the part of the Democratic leadership, even in the watered-down and entirely passive version that Sanders advances under the label “democratic socialism.” A Sanders campaign, with its emphasis on economic inequality and appeals to popular hostility to billionaires and corporate America, would cut across the political agenda of the Democratic leadership.
The Democratic Party establishment has long wanted to conduct the 2020 election campaign against Trump as a continuation of the anti-Russia campaign that produced the Mueller Report and then the impeachment of Trump for delaying military aid to Ukraine for its war with Russia, which ended in his acquittal in the Senate. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi never tires of repeating, “All roads lead to Russia.”
The Democratic Party wants to center the 2020 presidential campaign on the claim that Trump is an agent or stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin and to present the Democrats as the defenders of “our” intelligence agencies and “our” diplomats and generals against the interference of Moscow in American politics.
In the event that such a campaign succeeded in ousting Trump, the result would be portrayed as a popular mandate for military escalation against Russia, as well as China, threatening the prospect of open warfare between the world’s main nuclear powers. Regardless of the outcome, however, a campaign focused on anti-Russian hysteria would serve to suppress the mounting social tensions in America and block any political expression of the seething anger in the working class.
The reaction of the party establishment to the rise of Sanders only underscores the central political reality that the Democratic Party is controlled by the intelligence agencies and the financial elites, not the millions who vote in primaries and caucuses. The Democratic Party is a capitalist party, the oldest in America, an institution the ruling class will fight to retain control of, using all the methods at its disposal, from media propaganda and dirty tricks to outright violence.
The response of the Democratic Party establishment demonstrates the bankruptcy of Sanders’ political strategy. The party Sanders identifies as a vehicle for social change is actually a political straitjacket, notorious for smothering and destroying every popular challenge from below.
As is his invariable practice, Sanders has responded to the onslaught of Russia-baiting against him by validating the baseless allegation that Russia has actually engaged in significant interference in US politics. At the same time, he is responding to his new “front-runner” status by seeking to reassure the Democratic Party establishment.
In his interview Sunday night on the CBS program “60 Minutes,” he dismissed with a mocking tone the identification of his campaign with calls for “revolution,” saying he did not want to focus on that slogan.
He went on to tell his interviewer, Anderson Cooper, that he would “absolutely” be willing to use military force if he were elected president, and boasted that “we have the best military in the world.”
Sanders is already making the concessions and adjustments that will frustrate his many supporters, who view him as an apostle of radical political change. This is the inevitable outcome of his efforts to keep popular opposition within the framework of the Democratic Party. While claiming to change the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is rapidly changing him.

Pretending Hunter Biden Is Irrelevant

The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump should begin with an indictment of the media. The alleged crime committed by Trump revolves around his request that the president of Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden's shady business dealings with a corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company when Joe Biden was vice president.
That investigation might have been unnecessary had the news media chosen to do what they're supposed to do: investigative journalism.
Why would Trump have to ask a foreign official for an investigation into Biden sleaze? Because when politicians have a D next to their name, the idea of the press holding people accountable goes out the window.
It is unfathomable that the American news media would choose not to investigate the activities of the vice president of the United States. Joe Biden used his portfolio of experience running then-President Barack Obama's policies in Ukraine to get his son a "consulting" job for which he was wholly unqualified but that reportedly paid him a cool 50 grand a month. Then Biden bragged in public that he demanded Ukraine's top prosecutor be removed under threat of America pulling its military aid. The whole thing was stained by his son's business connection.
Maybe somehow they all just missed it. Except they didn't. They knew it was happening.
Then-New York Times investigative reporter James Risen published the story of Hunter Biden and the oil company, Burisma Holdings, in December 2015. But The Times buried it by putting it on page A-22. The national media yawned. In their political calculations, Joe Biden wasn't running for president, and since it was Lame Duck season, why make the Obama-Biden White House look bad?
Ever since Trump's asking about Hunter Biden in a phone call to Kiev became a scandal, our Accountability Police have routinely repeated like a dancing line of puppets that there is "no evidence the Bidens did anything wrong."
Democrats and their media friends also play dumb when Republicans insist Hunter Biden should be part of the Senate impeachment trial. On the Sunday network news shows, moderators asked Democrats for their feelings about Biden being a witness in the trial. Their answers needed a laugh track.
On ABC, Sen. Cory Booker told George Stephanopoulos with a straight face, "These assaults on the Biden family are not relevant to what's at issue in this case." On CNN, Sen. Sherrod Brown sounded like he had a low IQ. "I don't know what Hunter Biden has to do with the phone call," he said.
It's not that he doesn't know. It's that he, like Booker, doesn't want to know.
This entire impeachment is about protecting the Biden family from any scrutiny or criticism. So asking questions about the Bidens becomes a scandal and is somehow a massive attempt to despoil the 2020 election. Democracy dies when the Bidens are asked questions?
At least Rep Jerry Nadler tried a slightly different spin on CBS, and it was even more brazen. He insisted, "Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president." How exactly does Nadler know that? Has Hunter Biden been living in a cave for the last few months? Nadler's whopper set up his next statement: "Their asking for Hunter Biden is just more of a smear of Hunter Biden that the president is trying to get the Ukraine to do."
No one can question Hunter Biden on anything. This is not the way the media and the Democrats have treated Donald Trump Jr., or Eric Trump, or Ivanka Trump.
The first lesson of this impeachment charade? The double standards for politicians and their children are breathtaking.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. 


Secretary Hillary Clinton and the Deep State: A RICO Criminal Conspiracy


We who elected President Trump understood our elected officials and the Deep State were sandbagging Trump and self-dealing public funds. It was no secret that President Trump is no angel, unpresidential, blunt, and crude, and a disruptor. Trump was hired to drain the swamp.
I watched this kabuki theater unfold over the last several years. Through my eyes as a shopworn gumshoe, I will explain what is happening. My investigative curiosity was first piqued by the ATF Fast and Furious scandal and continues through the recent House impeachment show trial. There is a common element running through all of these cons — the actions of an organized crime conspiracy.   A group of people either acting alone or in concert with others committed crimes with a common purpose - a criminal enterprise as described in "CRIMINAL RICO: 18 USC. §§1961-1968 A Manual For Federal Prosecutors."
The players acted together – in the usurpation of power, the abuse of power by public officials, bribery, thefts by fraud including federal funds, money laundering, perjury and the obstruction of justice, the violations of fundamental of civil rights, aided and abetted in the commission of these crimes and or to conceal these crimes. Criminals will lie and can't keep their lies straight. Their methods and behaviors are the same, whether engaging in street crimes or elaborate white-collar financial schemes. The only difference is when more money is involved, the perps are more adept in concealing, covering up their sins, and hiding where the money went. Many of these scandals are well known to the American Thinker readers. I will focus my comments on Hillary's home brew sever and the Clinton Foundation as an example of how RICO can be used to prosecute the players.
FBI Director James Comey indicted Hillary Clinton for her home brew server at his press conference. Comey then egregiously concluded that there was no evidence of criminal intent purportedly “required” to prosecute. Comey bastardized the Federal Espionage Act in absolving Hillary Clinton. FBI's investigation of Clinton's emails was low-balled. There was never a real search for the truth. The outcome was preordained. My jaw dropped wide open. I knew the fix was in. FBI Director Comey lied to the people with a straight face. Why?
The chance meeting of Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac was no mere coincidence. This chat was not about the grandkids. Bill Clinton was there to convey a specific message to Lynch that there would be no indictment of Hillary. Hillary Clinton's email case must tank. This would have constituted bribery, if AG Lynch was assured she would continue as AG in  Clinton Administration. This meeting took place only weeks before Comey's press conference dumping Hillary Clinton's email case.
The Deep State needed Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election, or the dike holding back the truth would burst. Trump, the disruptor, was an immediate threat to both the Republicans, Democrats, and the Deep State. If the truth were laid bare, it would expose the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Senate and House, and many executive departments for these abuses of power, corruption, bribery, frauds, and thefts of public funds.
High-level government officials and the Deep State committed many serious felonies either in furtherance of or to conceal the crimes committed in the pay to play scam. In exchange for favorable consideration by Secretary Clinton, those who benefited would donate to the Clinton Foundation. The FBI started and stopped investigations into the Clinton Foundation at least twice as reported by the Washington Post. Peter Schweizer's book, Clinton Cash, is the most damning. Dinesh D'Souza slammed the Foundation in the National Review, as did The Federalist.
The status of the investigation of the Foundation by US Attorney John Huber's is unknown. Rudy Giuliani said there was enough to pursue "Clinton Inc" as racketeering under RICO. The Foundation and its affiliated nonprofits require a real investigation with an in-depth forensic audit to determine where the money went. In financial crimes investigation, the prime rule is "follow the money, honey." Illicit nonprofits have many ways to divert funds by inflating salaries, expenses, and money laundering.
Illegal nonprofit schemes are difficult to prosecute without hard evidence and the testimony of insiders. The motive of Hillary Clinton's use of the home brew server was to conceal emails from FOIA requests that would provide the hard evidence. Hillary Clinton destroyed the data on her server and cell phones with the knowledge of the FBI. It took years for Judicial Watch and others to pry and recover some of these damning emails from the foot-dragging executive departments that were complicit and knew what was going on.
RICO initially was used to target mob families. RICO is also a useful tool to fight white collar conspiracies. They both have the same hierarchy of low-level crooks led by the top players, linked together with a common purpose. RICO has tools to squeeze the low-level operatives to gather evidence to prosecute, jail, and seize assets of the conspirators. The critical element required is a pattern of criminal or racketeering activity. This pattern is proved by showing two predicate crimes were committed within ten years. The list of predicate crimes is extensive and includes bribery, embezzlement, fraud, theft, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. The typical five-year statute of limitations for most federal felonies is extended to ten years from the last criminal act or acts committed to conceal the conspiracy, i.e., lying under oath and similar actions to obstruct justice. The prison sentences are steep. The effect is to cut off the head of the organization and not just the low-level players.
The criminal activity extends back to the ATF's Fast and Furious program through the House impeachment show trial to cover up the illegal acts of the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Department of State, the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA. A telltale sign that the DOJ under US Attorney General Barr is willing to play hardball and may use RICO, came when he spoke to the Federalist Society: "Barr accuses liberal 'resistance' of trying to 'sabotage' Trump." AG Barr said this, "shows FBI launched Trump campaign investigation on the 'thinnest of suspicions." AG Barr is the new sheriff in town, he wears a badge, has guns and will travel, can impanel grand juries, indict and arrest people, and is not limited in his jurisdiction, like DOJ IG Horowitz.
The collective actions of the Deep State are and were a silent coup to delegitimize a Presidential candidate. Once elected to impede and resist the duly elected President. The President's law enforcement and intel agencies were corrupted at the highest level and went rogue.
Organized crime can't exist without corrupt law enforcement. As I wrote in a letter to President Trump earlier this year:
. . . I believe you understand the gravity of the situation and of its importance to the very survival of our Country as we know it. If the people involved are not held accountable for their actions, we will be no different than some Third World Banana Republic.
Failure to act will destroy our founding principle of the Rule of Law as stated by President John Adams, "We Are a Nation of Laws, Not of Men" and we cannot allow a two-tiered justice system to prevail.
Ron Wright is a retired detective from Riverside PD, CA. BA in political science CSUF, M. Adm. University of Cal, Riverside. Facebook at Ron T. Cop.

Obama or Trump: Who's the Real Russian Stooge?

A sobering -- and telling -- look at the historical record.
December 12, 2019 
Ari Lieberman
Democrats and their socialist allies have been quick to portray President Donald Trump as a tool of the Russians. Pejoratives like "Putin's puppet" and "Russian asset" are terms routinely employed by Trump's shrillest critics with banal regularity.
The Mueller Report, compiled by a team largely composed of Trump antagonists, conclusively established that neither Trump nor members of his campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. That fact, established after wasting $32 million in taxpayer funds, has not stopped Democrats and their echo-chamber puppets in the establishment media, from regurgitating tired tropes and talking points steeped in Alice in Wonderland-like fantasy.
Democrats and elements within the leftist media have absurdly attempted to portray Trump’s efforts to establish good, working relations with Russia as an attempt to undermine the republic. However, no such criticism was ever leveled against Barack Obama when he attempted his farcical Russia re-set, which ended in disaster. It’s a tired double standard that Trump and his supporters have become accustomed to.
Despite cautious efforts to foster good relations, the Trump administration’s foreign and domestic policies have adversely impacted Russia and its imperialistic designs. In fact, even a cursory review of Trump's record on Russia reveals that he is anything but Russia's stooge and can more accurately be characterized as its worst nightmare. I’ve compiled a list of seven significant actions undertaken during the Trump administration, which unequivocally supports this assertion.
Energy: In September 2019 the United States exported more crude oil and petroleum products than it imported, marking the first time that the U.S. was a net petroleum exporter since monthly records were initiated in 1973. This startling development occurred under Trump’s watch. Trump reversed his predecessor’s deleterious energy policies, which were viewed by the energy industry as hostile. In fact, Obama, who nixed Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL pipeline, banned offshore drilling in the Arctic and enacted harsh regulations on the fossil fuel industry, developed a reputation of being anti-energy. Instead of shoring up U.S. energy interests, Obama did everything he could to thwart the fossil fuel industry while providing taxpayer subsidies to failed solar energy companies like Solyndra. By contrast, U.S. fossil fuel development and production under Trump is now surging. This not only strengthens America’s national security, it harms Russian economic interests.
Ukraine: Despite the Democratic narrative, it was the Trump administration and not the Obama administration that provided lethal aid to the Ukrainian army to repel Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the Russian-backed proxy takeover of two provinces in eastern Ukraine was met by tepid action by the Obama administration. Ukraine had asked the United States for lethal military assistance, but that request was rebuffed by Obama. Trump reversed Obama’s pro-Russian policy and authorized the release of military assistance to Ukraine, which included delivery of highly effective Javelin anti-tank guided missiles.
Poland: Shortly after taking office, the Obama administration announced that it would be scrapping a missile defense agreement that the Bush administration had negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic. By 2013, Obama had completely dismantled the concept of a Europe-based missile defense system, leaving the Poles and Czechs embittered. By contrast, the Kremlin was ecstatic. Putin had to concede nothing and received a windfall. In 2012, Obama was infamously caught on hot mic telling Russian president Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to capitulate on missile defense after the November presidential election. In 2017, Trump partially reversed Obama’s Russia cave-in by signing a memorandum of understanding with Polish president Andrzej Duda in which the U.S. agreed to sell Poland Patriot missile defense systems. The MoU signals to both America’s friends and foes that America does not abandon allies.
Rebuilding the military: It is no secret that the U.S. military – which endured severe budget slashings under Obama – was compromised during the Obama years. U.S. overseas military obligations coupled with sequestrations put an enormous strain on the military and its ability to perform its mission. Military personnel did not have a favorable view of Obama, who saw climate change and not Russia as America’s main threat. A joint poll conducted by the Military Times and the Institute for Veterans and Military Families found that more than 50% of those polled maintained an unfavorable view of Obama while only 36% registered approval. But the toxic situation existing under Obama was reversed under Trump. The latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by Trump, ensures that the US. Military maintains its qualitative and quantitative edge over its adversaries, which include Russia and China. Equally important, morale among America’s military personnel has surged under Trump.
Syria: When Bashar Assad used poison gas against his own citizens in 2013, killing nearly 1,500 people including 400 children, Obama declared that such use of chemical weapons crossed all red lines and warranted a severe military response. Within a month, Obama reversed course and allowed Putin to orchestrate a scheme compelling Assad to give up his WMDs. Despite the deal, Assad was still able to retain some of his chemical weapons and the means of manufacturing them. Worse yet, Obama permitted Putin, as interlocutor, to gain a substantial foothold in Syria. Under Trump, Assad’s use of chemical weapons was met with an overwhelming U.S. military response signaling to both friend and foe that the U.S. would not tolerate the use of WMDs by rogue regimes. Trump also ensured that Putin did not extend his reach beyond the so-called de-confliction zone. In February 2018, a Syrian army column backed by Russian mercenaries from CHVK Wagner attempted to seize an oil refinery near the Syrian city of Deir Ezzor. They were stopped cold in their tracks by U.S. military personnel who called in air and artillery strikes. The entire enemy force was wiped out and the Russians lost an estimated 200 to 300 men. The action signaled to Russia that the U.S. would not tolerate violations of prior understandings.
INF Treaty:  Under Obama, the Russians flagrantly developed and deployed ground-based missiles with ranges of between 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Obama likely ignored the transgressions in a misguided effort to get the Russians on board with the JCPOA, colloquially known as the Iran deal. In 2019 the Trump administration formally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) citing blatant Russian violations of the accord.
Venezuela: In 2009, Obama warmly greeted Venezuela’s authoritarian leader Hugo Chavez at the opening ceremony of the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad. A smiling Nicholas Maduro, Chavez’s successor, was standing nearby and appeared amused by the encounter. Obama later defended his warm embrace of one of America’s top enemies by claiming that the U.S. must engage other countries through humanitarian gestures. During Obama’s tenure, Venezuela became a center for nefarious Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Hezbollah activity. Despite the presence of such pernicious actors right on America’s doorstep, Obama actively opposed sanctions against the Venezuelan regime even when there was wide bipartisan support for such measures. Russia maintains a large economic stake in Venezuela to the tune of over $15 billion. In an effort to prop up the regime and secure its investments, it dispatched troops to Venezuela several times this year. When Trump took office, he reversed the pusillanimous policies of his predecessor by immediately imposing sanctions on Venezuela and key Venezuelan officials. Trump continues to ratchet up the pressure against Venezuela by initiating a relentless economic and diplomatic offensive against its ruling junta. The Trump administration also sternly warned the Kremlin not to deploy military assets in the region referring to such deployments as a direct threat to international peace and security in the region. Thanks to Trump’s relentless pressure campaign, Maduro’s days are almost certainly numbered and when he inevitably falls, Moscow stands to lose a bundle.
During his tenure, Obama pandered to the Russians. He allowed them to violate missile treaties, gave them a twenty percent interest in America’s uranium mining capacity in the now infamous Uranium One deal, transferred sensitive technology to Russian companies that would later end up in the hands of the Russian military, dismantled missile defense shields in eastern Europe, eroded the U.S. military, prevented lethal aid from reaching Ukraine and stifled the fossil fuel industry. If the Democrats want to find a Russian stooge, they need look no further than Barack Obama.  

 

Victorious Democrats would also end congressional investigations into the Hillary-Deep State-DNC-Russian-Clinton Foundation collusion and corruption. All the players in these massive, sordid affairs will be deemed “too big to jail” – and too closely tied to the Democratic Party to be investigated further.  Paul Driessen

 

Hillary Clinton's Russia collusion IOU: The answers she owes America

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446736-hillary-clintons-russia-collusion-iou-the-answers-she-owes-america

 


During the combined two decades she served as a U.S. senator and secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s patrons regularly donated to her family charity when they had official business pending before America’s most powerful political woman.
The pattern of political IOUs paid to the Clinton Foundation was so pernicious that the State Department even tried to execute a special agreement with the charity to avoid the overt appearance of “pay-to-play” policy.
Still, the money continued to flow by the millions of dollars, from foreigners and Americans alike who were perceived to be indebted to the Clinton machine or in need of its help.
It’s time for the American public to call in their own IOU on political transparency.
The reason? Never before — until 2016 — had the apparatus of a U.S. presidential candidate managed to sic the weight of the FBI and U.S. intelligence community on a rival nominee during an election, and by using a foreign-fed, uncorroborated political opposition research document.
But Clinton’s campaign, in concert with the Democratic Party and through their shared law firm, funded Christopher Steele’s unverified dossierwhich, it turns out, falsely portrayed Republican Donald Trump as a treasonous asset colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin to hijack the U.S. election.
Steele went to the FBI to get an investigation started and then leaked the existence of the investigation, with the hope of sinking Trump’s presidential aspirations.
On its face, it is arguably the most devious political dirty trick in American history and one of the most overt intrusions of a foreigner into a U.S. election.
It appears the Clinton machine knew that what it was doing was controversial. That’s why it did backflips to disguise the operation from Congress and the public, and in its Federal Election Commission (FEC) spending reports.
Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) used the law firm of Perkins Coie to hire Glenn Simpson’s research firm, Fusion GPS, which then hired Steele — several layers that obfuscated transparency, kept the operation off the campaign’s public FEC reports and gave the Clintons plausible deniability.
But Steele’s first overture on July 5, 2016, failed to capture the FBI’s imagination. So the Clinton machine escalated. Steele, a British national, went to senior Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr — whose wife, Nellie, also worked for Fusion — to push his Trump dirt to the top of the FBI.
Nellie Ohr likewise sent some of her own anti-Trump research augmenting Steele’s dossier to the FBI through her husband. Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann used his connection to former FBI general counsel James Baker to dump Trump dirt at the FBI, too.
Then Steele and, separately, longtime Clinton protégé Cody Shearer went to the State Department to get the story out, increasing pressure on the FBI.
In short, the Clinton machine flooded the FBI with pressure — and bad intel — until an investigation of Trump was started. The bureau and its hapless sheriff at the time, James Comey, eventually acquiesced with the help of such Clinton fans as then-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
To finish the mission, Simpson and Steele leaked the existence of the FBI investigation to the news media to ensure it would hurt Trump politically. Simpson even called the leaks a “hail Mary” that failed.
Trump won, however. And now, thanks to special counsel Robert Mueller, we know the Russia-collusion allegations relentlessly peddled by Team Clinton were bogus. But not before the FBI used the Clinton-funded, foreign-created research to get a total of four warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, transition and presidency from October 2016 through the following autumn.
The Clinton team’s dirty trick was as diabolical as it was brilliant. It literally used house money and a large part of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to carry out its political hit job on Trump.
After two years of American discomfort, and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent, it’s time for the house to call in its IOU.
Hillary Clinton owes us answers — lots of them. So far, she has ducked them, even while doing many high-profile media interviews.
I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Longtime Clinton adviser Douglas Schoen said Friday night on Fox News that it’s time for Clinton to answer what she knew and when she knew it.
Here are 10 essential questions:
1.    In January 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a formal investigative request for documents and written answers from your campaign. Do you plan to comply?
2.    Please identify each person in your campaign who was involved with, or aware of, hiring Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele.

3.    Please identify each person in your campaign, including Perkins Coie lawyers, who were aware that Steele provided information to the FBI or State Department, and when they learned it.

4.    Describe any information you and your campaign staff received, or were briefed on, before Election Day that was derived from the work of Simpson, Steele, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr or Perkins Coie and that tried to connect Trump, his campaign or his business empire with Russia.

5.    Please describe all contacts your campaign had before Election Day with or about the following individuals: Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, former foreign policy scholar Stefan Halper and Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud.

6.    Did you or any senior members of your campaign, including lawyers such as Michael Sussmann, have any contact with the CIA, its former Director John Brennan, current Director Gina Haspel, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page or former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe?

7.    Describe all contacts your campaign had with Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal concerning Trump, Russia and Ukraine.

8.    Describe all contacts you and your campaign had with DNC contractorAlexandra Chalupa, the Ukraine government, the Ukraine Embassy in the United States or the U.S. Embassy in Kiev concerning Trump, Russia or former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

9.    Why did your campaign and the Democratic Party make a concerted effort to portray Trump as a Russian asset?

10.                      Given that investigations by a House committee, a Senate committee and a special prosecutor all have concluded there isn’t evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, do you regret the actions by your campaign and by Steele, Simpson and Sussmann to inject these unfounded allegations into the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community and the news media?
Hillary Clinton owes us answers to each of these questions. She should skip the lawyer-speak and answer them with the candor worthy of an elder American stateswoman.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports.

Top State Official Sounded Alarm About ‘Conflict of Interest’ Linked to Hunter Biden’s Work in Ukraine 

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, Pool
 7 Nov 2019Washington, DC115
4:13

The Obama administration allowed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter to continue working for Ukrainian company Burisma, even after learning that the firm and its owner were corrupt, top U.S. State Department official George Kent testified, according to transcripts released Thursday.

Hunter served on Burisma’s board of directors from 2014 until April of this year.
In 2014, the U.S. spent hundreds of thousands in American taxpayer funds on assisting an investigation into corrupt activities linked to Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky, Kent revealed.
During his closed-door deposition on October 15, Kent told House impeachment investigators that he raised concerns about Biden’s lucrative position in 2015.
According to the transcripts, Kent, a deputy assistant secretary charged with overseeing U.S. policy towards Ukraine, testified:
The first time I was in Ukraine as acting deputy chief of mission in the period of mid-January to mid-February 2015, subsequent to me going into the deputy prosecutor general on February 3rd and demanding who took the bribe and how much was it to shut the case against Zlochevsky I became aware that Hunter Biden was on the board. I did not know that at the time.
And when I was on a call with somebody on the vice president’s staff and I cannot recall who it was, just briefing on what was happening into Ukraine I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest.
The United States spent “roughly half a million dollars” in support of a Zlochevsky-linked investigation in 2014 — the year Burisma hired Hunter, Kent revealed.
Kent indicated that then-VP Biden’s staff dismissed his concerns about Hunter’s work in Ukraine.
“The message that I recall hearing back was that the vice president’s son Beau Biden was dying of cancer and that there was no further bandwidth to deal with family related issues at that time,” he testified.
“That was the end of that conversation” about Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest in Ukraine, Kent later added.
Kent said he first visited the U.S. embassy in Ukraine in mid-January 2015. He indicated that he soon learned Burisma was corrupt.
“Burisma had a reputation for being, first of all, one of the largest private producers of natural gas in Ukraine but also had a reputation for not being the sort of corporate, cleanest member of the business community,” the top State official said.
He testified that he was so concerned about Burisma’s reputation that he put the breaks on coordinated activity between the company and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
House Democrats pursuing the impeachment probe have accused Trump of abusing his power by pressuring his Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July 25 call to investigate corruption allegations against the Bidens, allegedly in exchange for aid.
Trump, Zelensky, and some impeachment probe witnesses, including Kent, have denied the claim. Other witnesses, however, have presumed that a quid pro quo took place in which Trump leveraged U.S. aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
Kent testified that he had no “direct knowledge” of the alleged link between America’s security assistance to Ukraine and the Eastern European country opening of new investigations.
He also told investigators that it is appropriate for the Trump administration to “look at the level of corruption” in foreign countries like Ukraine when determining whether to provide or withhold aid.
The former vice president threatened to withhold aid himself to Ukraine to force the Eastern European country to fire its top prosecutor in 2016, who had investigated the owner of Burisma for possible corruption.
Until recently, Hunter served on the board of Burisma for up to $83,000 per month despite having no background in energy. His position prompted allegations of corruption.
Hunter admitted to ABC News last weekend that his father’s political position helped him secure the lucrative appointment to Burisma’s board of directors.
Based on Kent’s testimony, Trump had reason to be concerned about corruption linked to Hunter Biden’s position.


Fast-forward to today's still vocal Obama gang.  Why no indictments?  Mum's the word.  Can anyone hold to the faith in American justice?  Those who support the rule of law feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football.  It's coming — oh, wait, it's coming...oh, wait... GORDON WYSON

 




believe in our free and fair election

 

 

Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their Party Across the Nation




“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
*
“Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.”
*
We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.



 

 

Will We Ever Prosecute?


Imagine that the local cops know that a gang member, named William, broke into the pawn shop and stole guns, jewelry, and money.  William's fingerprints, film image, and DNA add to the hard evidence log.  The owner knows it; the prosecutor knows it; William's gang associates know it.  But he is not arrested.  Nearby shopkeepers and neighborhood mothers are asking why he is walking the street.  No one explains it; mum's the word.  Could it be there is a grand plan to take out the gang's leaders?  No one knows; mum's the word.  Shopkeepers and residents are about to give up and start moving away from the area, and no one asks them to stay the course.
Fast-forward to today's still vocal Obama gang.  Why no indictments?  Mum's the word.  Can anyone hold to the faith in American justice?  Those who support the rule of law feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football.  It's coming — oh, wait, it's coming...oh, wait...
Without doubt, a criminal cabal is an extraordinarily complex organization, and understanding who did what, why, when, and how is a challenge to the mental faculties of anyone.  But, what happens if the full scope of activities is never clear?  Does everyone get off?  Does complexity confer immunity?
In engineering, there is no perfect answer to anything, so changes are made incrementally, addressing the problems as they are recognized.  Each step brings a clearer view of remaining problems, which are then addressed, each in its turn.  The completed project is still flawed, but the solution is practical and productive.
So it should be with a grandiose scheme like the Russia Hoax.  The ringleaders don't have to be handled with kid gloves.  They don't even have to be handled at all.  Just start with the low-hanging fruit, and get as far as possible.
Those old enough to remember My Lai, Vietnam, know that Lt. Calley and Cpt. Medina were not alone in their actions.  However, their prosecution forever changed the game of passing the buck on war crimes.
So, too, can rabid prosecution of bit players in the Russian Hoax forever change the landscape in plots involving treason.  Those who would participate at the lower levels must know they are subject to prosecution, so they remain circumspect in such a re-enactment of the coup attempt.  This would be the Achilles heel of another cabal — those who are intimidated by the prospect of prison.  Those who realize they don't have sufficient rank to escape punishment will be loath to participate in such a scheme.  Without them, there will be no operational viability to an unlawful coup.
Admittedly, there are always problems in pursuing a criminal case.  It must be so under our Constitution, but it cannot be impossible!
Prosecutors don't get all the information, but at a certain point, for each criminal, evidence accumulates that there is a real and provable crime.  It may not include every transgression of that person, nor is it the magic revelation, untangling the Gordian knot of the conspirators.  It is a simple criminal act.  It is what it appears, and it need not be put in the context of the big picture — it is as plain as the nose on your face.
That stage is the stimulus for a prosecutor.  It is the time to move.  If the DOJ acts, many of the sins can never be prosecuted, because the prosecution of their lesser crimes may foreclose pursuit of other crimes under double jeopardy protection.  However, failure to move puts evidence and witnesses at risk of being lost.  This point has passed for so many of the coup conspirators that it seems there will be no justice for many of them, like Lois Lerner.
Why?
A full recounting of all that is already known would be tedious, and to expound on the criminal conduct yet again seems shrill.  It is not necessary to understand the intertwining of all the crimes before simply bringing the charges that are facially obvious.  But the deferral of prosecution, for whatever reason it is done, allows many of the cabal to walk free when they shouldn't.  In fact, the indication is that they are continuing the very conduct for which they should be prosecuted.
Why has McCabe not been charged with lying to the FBI, lying under oath?  Nothing more is needed to start the dominos falling.  Who will step forward to exonerate him?  No one can, and no one will.  That omission — of a vigorously supported defense — will send a message to the others in the coup conspiracy.
Why has Samantha Power not been indicted for violating national security requirements in unmasking or transferring her unmasking authority to others?  It doesn't pass the smell test that she is too important to be prosecuted.
Why is Huma Abedin strolling around, free as a bird?  She forwarded classified emails to Anthony Weiner's laptop.  What else is needed to demonstrate a crime?
Did Strzok do anything?  Did Page?   Which one lied to Congress?  Their contradictory accounts mean at least one is a perjurer.  Sure, there is more "there" there, but it isn't necessary to keelhaul them; just send them to jail, and send others a message.
Listing all the cabal members, who are quite obviously criminal, is not easy — in fact, it is not doable.  It need not be the aim.  A public that finds this whole thing partisan or tedious will not be easily impressed if a 2,000-count indictment naming 43 people is suddenly dropped.  Bringing along the public is certainly part of sending the message for future conspirators.  It probably is better done gradually.
 Removing the context and simply prosecuting crimes is the method to educate both today's and tomorrow's citizens.
Selecting single actors, and naming obvious crimes, will have a chance to convince even skeptical partisans that something is wrong.  The lack of support from other participants will indeed remove most doubt.
The full scope of what has gone on will never be known, but the lessons for future participants in such a scheme is essential.  The next time, the prosecution will be more severe, more certain, and more expedient.  Protecting the Constitution is more important than perfect justice.  Some miscreants will escape, but they will never sleep well again.  The lesson must be taught.
A DOJ that fails to move loses its credibility and its honor.  The foundation of the Republic is placed at risk.  Without the rule of law, what do we have?
At some point, deferral of prosecution is dereliction or abetting.  Has it reached that point?

Gordon Wysong is an engineer and entrepreneur who has served as a county commissioner in Cobb County, Ga.
Victorious Democrats would also end congressional investigations into the Hillary-Deep State-DNC-Russian-Clinton Foundation collusion and corruption. All the players in these massive, sordid affairs will be deemed “too big to jail” – and too closely tied to the Democratic Party to be investigated further.  Paul Driessen

No comments: