Monday, February 3, 2020


Zogby: Bloomberg threat real, only Democrat leading Trump

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s million-dollar TV ad campaign for his 2020 presidential bid is working.
While the media has been focused on Monday’s Iowa caucus pitting all the other top Democrats against each other, Bloomberg has emerged as the only one beating President Trump in a new national poll.
Zogby Analytics told Secrets exclusively that in a national head-to-head battle, Bloomberg is leading Trump 45% to 43%.
Only former Vice President Joe Biden comes closest, at 46%-46%. Sen. Bernie Sanders is next at 45% to Trump’s 47%.
Screen Shot 2020-01-31 at 7.21.00 AM.png
“Bloomberg does surprisingly well against Trump beating the president by two percentage points 45% to 43%. Bloomberg, unlike his Democratic rivals, performs well with independents (Bloomberg leads 39% to 35%), suburban voters (both tied at 43%), suburban women (Bloomberg leads 42% to 41%), Catholics (Bloomberg leads 47% to 46%), and small city voters (Bloomberg leads 52% to 38%). All of these voting blocs are important in the upcoming election and to the reelection hopes of the president,” said Jonathan Zogby in his analysis.
“Bloomberg also blunts Trump’s gains with some younger voters: those aged 25-34 (Bloomberg leads 50% to 33%) and aged 30-49 (Bloomberg leads 46% to 41%),” he added.
While Bloomberg, dubbed “mini-Mike” by Trump, entered the race too late to make a play in the four early primary and caucus states, he is spending $100 million on media ads to score a major upset in Super Tuesday elections on March 3 to surge to the front of the race.
He is even planning a major Super Bowl ad, just like Trump.
In the Democratic race, however, Zogby said that Biden and Sanders lead Bloomberg by double digits.
Screen Shot 2020-01-31 at 7.23.56 AM.png
“When it comes to the 2020 Democratic Primary, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden have really separated themselves and are in a dead heat with nearly a quarter of primary voters supporting each candidate. Michael Bloomberg has now jumped to double-digit support and tied for second with Elizabeth Warren (both 11%). Pete Buttigieg (8%) and Andrew Yang (6%) represent the next tier; each receives below double-digit support but remains relevant,” he said.

HARVARD CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR CHARLES LIEBER SERVED RED CHINA FOR YEARS - BUT HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN'S BACKROOM DEALS WITH RED CHINA? - “All in all, it was an incredible victory for the Chinese government. Feinstein has done more for Red China than other any serving U.S. politician. “ Trevor Loudon

Renowned Harvard chemistry professor charged with lying about ties to China

World-renowned Harvard University chemistry professor Charles Lieber appeared in court on Thursday in handcuffs, ankle chains and an orange jumpsuit as he was charged with lying about his ties to China.
The bail for Lieber, head of Harvard’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department, was set at $1 million as he was formally accused, along with two Chinese nationals, of illegally “aiding the People’s Republic of China” by the US Justice Department.
A DOJ press release issued on Tuesday, the day the 60-year-old Lieber was arrested at his office, said that the Harvard department chair was being criminally charged “with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement.”
Harvard University professor Charles Lieber, right, follows his attorney Peter Gelhaar (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
The cases against the Chinese nationals are separate from Lieber’s. Yanqing Ye, 29, currently in China, was charged with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Zaosong Zheng, 30, was arrested on December 10, 2019 at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged with attempting to smuggle vials of biological research into China. On January 21, 2020, Zheng was also indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the US and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been held in jail since December 30, 2019.
The crux of the case against Lieber is the claim that he lied about his involvement with a program called the Thousand Talents Plan, a program that is alleged to be aimed at luring people with knowledge of foreign technology and intellectual property to China.
The DOJ statement says “Unbeknownst to Harvard University beginning in 2011, Lieber became a ‘Strategic Scientist’ at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and was a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017. … Under the terms of Lieber’s three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT.”
The DOJ document states further that Lieber, during an interview with investigators in April 2018, stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but “wasn’t sure” how China categorized him. Oddly, the criminal complaint also states that, in November 2018, Lieber caused Harvard to “falsely tell NIH that Lieber ‘had no formal association with WUT’ after 2012, that ‘WUT continued to falsely exaggerate’ his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber ‘is not and has never been a participant in’ China’s Thousand Talents Plan.”
If convicted, Lieber faces up to five years in federal prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. The university has placed him on paid administrative leave.
A sense of the political motivations behind the aggressive treatment of Lieber was provided by US attorney Andrew Lelling who called the charges against the professor a, “small sample of China’s ongoing campaign to siphon off America’s technology and know-how for its country’s gain.”
Boston FBI agent Joseph Bonavolonta provided further insight into the motivation for the charges against the Harvard professor, “No country poses a greater, more severe or long-term threat to our national security and economic prosperity than China. China’s communist government’s goal, simply put, is to replace the US as the world superpower, and they are breaking the law to get there.”
The New York Times reported in November 2019 that there were at that time 180 open investigations at 71 universities across the US into potential intellectual property theft, including most of the top medical schools. Almost all of the individuals targeted are of Chinese descent, including naturalized American citizens.
Dr. Lieber’s biography shows that he is a leading international authority on nanoscience and nanotechnology with over 400 papers published on these topics. Nanotechnology deals with the manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular level and it is a new scientific frontier with vast implications for the future of multiple disciplines and across industries. Lieber is the principle inventor on over fifty US patents and applications of nanotechnology and nanodevices in materials and biology.
Additionally, a review of the top nanotechnology research organizations in the world shows that the US--at the University of California, Berkeley--ranks at number seven behind China, Russia, France and Japan in this area of study and far behind South Korea and Japan in the category of commercial patents.
The arrest and charges against Dr. Lieber come in the context of the Trump administration’s trade war Beijing and preparations for open war with the second largest economy in the world. The DOJ case against Lieber bears unmistakable characteristics of an extreme response by the American ruling elite to its declining position in relation to significant areas of scientific research and development internationally. There can be no question that the case against Lieber is intended to intimidate American scientists from engaging in any way with their Chinese colleagues on scientific projects.


IN THE November 2006 election, the voters demanded congressional ethics reform. And so, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the ethical behavior of her colleagues. But for many years, Feinstein has been beset by her own ethical conflict of interest, say congressional ethics experts.

“All in all, it was an incredible victory for the Chinese government. Feinstein has done more for Red China than other any serving U.S. politician. “ Trevor Loudon

“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan  AMERICAN

Senator Who Employed 

Chinese Spy Endorses Joe 

Biden for President

Win McNamee/Getty Images
  9 Oct 20192,419

A high-profile U.S. senator with professional and personal ties to China — including once employing one of its spies — is backing former Vice President Joe Biden amid mounting questions over his son’s business dealings with the communist regime.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a former chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, announced her endorsement of the former vice president on Tuesday, claiming to have witnessed Biden’s “fortitude” and leadership during their overlapping tenures in Congress.
Feinstein said in a statement:
I’ve worked closely with Vice President Biden and I’ve seen firsthand his legislative ability, his statesmanship, and most importantly his moral fortitud. During his time in Congress and in the White House, Joe Biden has been a tireless fighter for hard working American families.
The endorsement comes as Biden’s presidential campaign is besieged by scandal regarding the lucrative business dealings his youngest son, Hunter, had with foreign governments.
Only hours before Feinstein’s endorsement, the Chinese government announced it would not investigate how Hunter Biden ended up at the center of one its top private equity firms. The Chinese foreign ministry made the decision after President Donald Trump publicly called for a probe of Hunter Biden’s dealings with Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). In particular, Trump has noted that the circumstances surrounding BHR’s creation could have posed a conflict of interest for Joe Biden.
As Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News, revealed in his bestselling book Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Hunter Biden inked the multibillion-dollar deal that created BHR with a subsidiary of the state-owned Bank of China in 2013.
The timing of the lucrative deal has been brought into question as it came only 12 days after Hunter visited China with his father aboard Air Force Two. Officially, the then-vice president was visiting the country amid escalating tensions over islands in the South China Sea and decided to bring his granddaughter and son along. In a March 2018 interview with Breitbart News Tonight, however, Schweizer detailed the political machinations that preceded Hunter Biden’s $1.5 billion venture with China:
In December of 2013, Vice President Joe Biden flies to Asia for a trip, and the centerpiece for that trip is a visit to Beijing, China. To put this into context, in 2013, the Chinese have just exerted air rights over the South Pacific, the South China Sea. They basically have said, ‘If you want to fly in this area, you have to get Chinese approval. We are claiming sovereignty over this territory.’ Highly controversial in Japan, in the Philippines, and in other countries. Joe Biden is supposed to be going there to confront the Chinese. Well, he gets widely criticized on that trip for going soft on China. For basically not challenging them, and Japan and other countries are quite upset about this.
Since its creation, BHR has invested heavily in energy and defense projects across the globe. As of June, Hunter Biden was still involved with BHR, sitting on its board of directors and owning a minority stake of the fund estimated to be worth more than $430,000.
Such dealings at the center of politics and business, while perhaps not illegal, are not exclusive to the Biden family alone. As a few noted at the time of Feinstein’s endorsement, the senator and her husband have their own close ties to the communist country.
During her tenure as mayor of San Francisco in the late-1970s and early-1980s, Feinstein took advantage of the newly normalized diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China by establishing one of the first sister city partnership between San Francisco and Shanghai. Through that partnership, Feinstein led trade delegations to China in which she and her husband, Richard Blum, became acquainted with some of the country’s most prominent political leaders.
As the Federalist noted in August 2018, Feinstein and her husband leveraged those relationships to boost their own wealth. In 1986, Feinstein and Jiang Zemin — the then-mayor of Shanghai, who would later ascend to the presidency of the People’s Republic of China — “designated several corporate entities for fostering commercial relations.” One of those firms was Shanghai Pacific Partners, which employed Blum as a director. Blum reportedly had an interest of upwards of $500,000 in a project backed by Shanghai Pacific Partners.
After Feinstein was elected to the Senate in 1992, Blum continued profiting off their ties to China. A the same time, the freshman lawmaker was pitching herself as a “China hand” to colleagues, even once claiming “that in my last life maybe I was Chinese.” Through her seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Feinstein led the fight on a number of initiatives seen as being favorable to China, including granting the country permanent most-favored-nation trading status in 2000.
Despite Feinstein and her husband having a close relationship with Jiang, the Chinese government targeted the senator as part of its espionage operations. In the early 2000s, the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) recruited a longtime employee of the senator to gather information about the inner workings of her congressional and district offices. Feinstein only learned of the staffer’s duplicity in 2013, after he’d already been on her payroll for more than 20 years.
“While this person, who was a liaison to the local Chinese community, was fired, charges were never filed against him,” Politico reported in 2018, speculating that because “the staffer was providing political intelligence and not classified information—making prosecution far more difficult.”
Apart from the convoluted history of the senator’s ties to China, the political timing of Feinstein’s endorsement also caught many off guard. The California Democrat, who hosted a fundraiser on Biden’s behalf last week alongside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) daughter, is only the most recent figure from the Democrat establishment to openly pledge support for the former vice president. Feinstein’s endorsement, however, was not totally expected, especially since her seamate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), is mounting a bid of her own for the Democrat nomination. In fact, earlier this year, Feinsten flirted with the notion of remaining neutral in the 2020 contest out of respect for Harris.
Compounding the political picture is that most polls show Biden no longer the favorite to win California, having fallen behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Feinstein, however, did not address any of that when endorsing the former vice president on Tuesday. Instead, the senator offered platitudes about Biden’s work to enhance gun control and how his campaign was a “fight to restore the soul of the nation.”


Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has a troubling pattern of introducing legislation favored by major institutions in corporate America around the same they make large contributions to her campaign. 
The revelations are detailed in Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite—a new book by Peter Schweizer, a senior contributor at Breitbart News and president of the Government Accountability Institute.

These multiple crimes by serial lawbreakers have had very real and very destructive consequences. The entire world has been plunged into an economic slump that has already lasted more than five years and shows no signs of abating. Tens of millions of families have lost their homes as a result of predatory mortgages pushed by JPMorgan and other Wall Street banks.

On eve of Iowa caucuses

Corporate media and Democratic establishment target Sanders

On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, where the first votes will be cast in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, the corporate media and the Democratic Party establishment are mounting increasingly desperate and reactionary attacks on Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
With polls showing Sanders holding a narrow lead over former Vice President Joe Biden and a half dozen other rivals in Iowa, and tied with Biden nationally, the media barrage has become, in all but name, a stop-Sanders campaign.
Bernies Sanders
No less than five separate commentaries, including op-eds and articles purporting to be news reports, appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post alone over the weekend, all of them proclaiming that the nomination of a self-described “democratic socialist” would be a disaster for the Democrats and guarantee the reelection of President Donald Trump.
At the same time, defeated 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton stepped up her attack on Sanders, while other leading Democratic Party insiders joined the effort. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced Friday a rule change in determining eligibility for the debates that would open the door to billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and some DNC members were openly discussing proposed rules changes at the Democratic nominating convention to block Sanders.
The actual outcome of the Iowa caucuses remains highly uncertain, but Sanders continues to draw by far the largest crowds—more than 3,000 for a rally Saturday night in Cedar Rapids—and registers the widest support among youth and working people. One poll showed that among voters under the age of 50, Sanders led with 44 percent. Senator Elizabeth Warren followed with 10 percent, and no other candidate, including Biden, reached double digits.
Sanders was expected to place first in the final Des Moines Register/CNN poll, set to be published Saturday night, but the poll was unexpectedly canceled after objections from the campaign of former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, which said that some callers in the telephone survey had omitted their candidate’s name.
Perhaps the most open display of media hostility to Sanders came in the Sunday edition of the Washington Post—owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon and a frequent target of Sanders’ criticism. The front page of the newspaper carried the unsubtle headline, “Sanders and the specter of socialism” The central thrust of the article was that Trump would make mincemeat of Sanders in the general election by means of red-baiting vilification of “radical socialist Democrats.”
A lengthy commentary inside the newspaper, written by Dartmouth Professor Brendan Nyhan, bemoaned the fact that the Democratic rivals of Sanders weren’t “going negative” on him in the way that Trump inevitably would. Summing up the red-baiting that he claimed the Vermont senator deserved, Nyhan asked:
How many Americans know that Sanders is not just an avowed democratic socialist but a former supporter of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, which wanted to abolish the federal defense budget and supported “solidarity” with revolutionary regimes like Iran’s and Cuba’s? Do people know that he spoke positively about Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution (“a very profound and very deep revolution”) and even praised the Soviet Union and criticized the United States during a honeymoon trip to the USSR?
Op-ed columnists in the New York Times were equally McCarthyite. Timothy Egan argued, under the headline “Bernie Sanders Can’t Win,” that what he called “class loathing” of the billionaires was not a viable electoral appeal. Echoing Nyhan, Egan wrote:
The next month presents the last chance for serious scrutiny of Sanders, who is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire. After that, Republicans will rip the bark off him. When they’re done, you will not recognize the aging, mouth-frothing, business-destroying commie from Ben and Jerry’s dystopian dairy. Demagogy is what Republicans do best. And Sanders is ripe for caricature.
Egan’s stablemate at the Times Bret Stephens—a neoconservative publicist for US military aggression throughout the Middle East—claimed, under the headline “Bernie’s Angry Bros,” that online supporters of Sanders were akin to the right-wing mobs assembled by Trump. He wrote that “no other Democratic candidate has so many venomous followers … The only real analog in US politics today to the Bernie nasties are the Trump nasties. They resemble each other in ways neither side cares to admit.”


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising  the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson- Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for 
sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’

On Friday, Hillary Clinton redoubled her attack on Sanders, which began last week in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, in which she indicated she was not committed to supporting the Democratic presidential nominee if Sanders won the contest. She claimed in a much-publicized podcast that many top Sanders supporters had urged support for third-party candidates in 2016 after she won the nomination, although she could give no examples. In fact, all of Sanders’ closest aides followed the senator’s lead in giving groveling support to Clinton, the choice of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus, in the general election.
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, a Biden endorser, told Politico that Sanders as the presidential candidate would be harmful to other Democrats. “I think there’s a concern among some, and I think it’s fairly widespread,” he said, “that if Bernie is the nominee he may well lose and take other Democrats down with him.”
In his final public statement as he withdrew from the presidential race, former Representative John Delaney, a multimillionaire businessman, said he was supportive of candidates like Biden and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. “People like Bernie Sanders who are running on throwing the whole US economy out the window and starting from scratch,” he said, “I just think that makes our job so much harder, in terms of beating Trump.”
Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, an also-ran in the contest for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, issued a vicious diatribe against Sanders that was published in the US edition of the British daily Guardian. He described Sanders’ appeal to youth as a “scam” and compared it to Nigerian conmen on the internet.
Echoing Clinton, O’Malley said of Sanders: “He’s a man who never has accomplished anything in public office, who has I believe demonstrated his inability to forge a governing consensus, let alone hold a governing consensus. And I think he’d be an awful choice as our party’s nominee.”
There was even a report by NBC News that former Secretary of State John Kerry, the defeated Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 against George W. Bush, was overheard Sunday on the phone at a Des Moines hotel discussing entering the presidential race himself because of “the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party—down whole.”
Kerry reportedly expressed regret that he would have to resign from the board of Bank of America and give up lucrative paid speeches, but could expect wealthy donors to provide backing because they “now have the reality of Bernie.”
What really alarms the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media is not the prospect that Sanders might lead the party to defeat, but that his capture of the nomination, would contribute—despite the Vermont senator’s own efforts—to a radicalization of American working people and youth that Sanders would not be able to contain.
The response of Sanders himself to this deluge of negative attacks is revealing.
At a Sanders rally Friday night, Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan responded to Clinton’s attack by booing the mention of her name. By the next day, Tlaib had been compelled to issue a statement of regret and she was left off the speakers list at the next Sanders rally.
The candidate himself, as one report described it, “went out of his way to be deferential to his opponents,” and reiterated that he would support whoever won the Democratic nomination contest.
“Certainly, I hope that we’re going to win,” Sanders said, “but if we do not win, we will support the winner and I know that every other candidate will do the same. We are united in understanding that we must defeat Donald Trump.”
Despite Sanders’ claims, however, the Democratic establishment is in no way reconciled to the prospect of a Sanders nomination. The rule change on eligibility for future debates announced Friday by the DNC drops the requirement that candidates have a minimum number of contributors, an action that would allow billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who has only one contributor, himself, to qualify. Sanders’ campaign adviser Jeff Weaver denounced the move, saying, “Now, at this late hour, to change the rules to accommodate a billionaire who wants to buy his way into the party would be unconscionable.”
There was a report in Politico that members of the DNC have begun privately discussing a change in the convention rules to allow so-called super-delegates—elected officials and members of the DNC—to vote on the first ballot of the presidential nomination. Under current rules, they have no vote on the first ballot, which is reserved to delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses, and can vote only if no candidate has an initial majority and the contest goes to a second ballot. Such a change would be transparently aimed at blocking a first-ballot win by Sanders.


“But the largest financial fraud by far in her jurisdiction involved a massive conspiracy that she never even appeared to investigate, despite plenty of warning signs,” Schweizer writes. “It involved the second-largest Ponzi scheme in American history to date.”

Amy Klobuchar, endorsed by New York Times, denounced for railroading black teenager to prison for life

3 February 2020
Amy Klobuchar is the senior US senator from Minnesota and a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, having received the endorsement in January of the New York Times (along with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts).
The Times praised Klobuchar as someone “with an empathy that connects to voters’ lived experiences, especially in the middle of the country.” The newspaper has relentlessly promoted identity politics, an obvious factor in its endorsement of the two female candidates.
In fact, like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris and, for that matter, Warren herself, Klobuchar personifies the manner in which gender and racial politics provides a phony “progressive” veneer to the malicious ambitions of middle class reactionaries of all colors, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations.
Amy Klobuchar speaking in Iowa [Credit: Gage Skidmore]
Various polls currently place Klobuchar fifth behind Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Warren in the Democratic primary race, but she has enjoyed a certain “surge” recently, the product of considerable promotion by the US media. As a result, some surveys put her in third place in Iowa on the eve of that state’s Democratic Party caucuses on Monday.
Now, a well-researched Associated Press (AP) story suggests that Klobuchar used the railroading of a black teenager, Myon Burrell, to prison for life as a springboard for her political career. Klobuchar was then the prosecutor in Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis.
Various organizations, including the Minneapolis NAACP, the Racial Justice Network, Black Lives Matter Twin Cities, and Communities United Against Police Brutality, have called for Klobuchar to suspend her campaign for president.
In themselves, the allegations concerning Klobuchar are not astonishing. The Democratic Party teems with former prosecutors, CIA agents and military officers, enemies of the working class and the oppressed at home and abroad.
But there is something special and appropriate about the exposure and possible downfall of the wretched Klobuchar, recently described by the Times, in its inimical pompous jargon of deceit and dishonesty, as “the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness.”
Klobuchar has made the death of Tyesha Edwards, an 11-year-old girl killed by a stray bullet in 2002, and the subsequent conviction of Burrell, central to her campaign, proving supposedly both her toughness on crime and her sensitivity to the African American community and the problem of gun violence.
In regard to the Edwards-Burrell case, the AP explains that it went through more than 1,000 pages of police records, court transcripts and other documents, and interviewed dozens of inmates, witnesses, and family members.
Summing up, the AP notes that the case relied heavily “on a teen rival of Burrell’s who gave conflicting accounts when identifying the shooter, who was largely obscured behind a wall 120 feet away.” With no other eyewitnesses, the story continues, “police turned to multiple jailhouse snitches. Some have since recanted, saying they were coached or coerced. Others were given reduced time, raising questions about their credibility. And the lead homicide detective offered ‘major dollars’ for names, even if it was hearsay.”
The AP goes on: “There was no gun, fingerprints, or DNA. Alibis were never seriously pursued. Key evidence has gone missing or was never obtained, including a convenience store surveillance tape that Burrell and others say would have cleared him.” Burrell, now 33, has rejected all plea deals and insisted on his innocence.
A co-defendant, Ike Tyson, insists he was the triggerman: “I already shot an innocent girl,” said Tyson, serving a 45-year sentence. “Now an innocent guy—at the time he was a kid—is locked up for something he didn’t do. So, it’s like I’m carrying two burdens.”
To be blunt, the conviction and jailing of Burrell was a scandalous state frame-up, organized by the police and the prosecutors, including, centrally, Klobuchar.
Adding insult to injury, Klobuchar has since attempted to reap political gain out of the destruction of Burrell and his family. At the Democratic Party candidates’ debate in Houston in September, Klobuchar bragged about finding and putting in jail “the killer of a little girl named Tyesha Edwards who was doing her homework at her kitchen table and was shot through the window.” Zak Cheney-Rice in New York magazine suggested that Klobuchar in advertising Burrell’s case “as a special victory for black safety in Minneapolis … plumbs new depths.”
Both Burrell’s father, Michael Toussaint, and Tyesha Edwards’ stepfather, Leonard Winborn, see through Myon Burrell’s railroading. Toussaint expressed sympathy for Tyesha: “She didn't deserve to die … This is a child, studying at her table.” But he also wanted justice for his son, “a young man, just 16 years old ... convicted of a case that he didn't do.”
Explaining why he and others were demanding that Klobuchar suspend her presidential effort, Toussaint argued that “Amy used my son’s case” in her campaign. Toussaint said Klobuchar wanted a political advantage.
Winborn told the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder: “If that man [Burrell] hasn’t done nothing, then he doesn’t need to be in there at all … Whatever happens, I would never want to see somebody do some time for somebody else’s wrongdoing.”
Perceptively, Winborn also pointed to prosecutor Klobuchar’s political ambitions at the time: “Looking at it right now, it was an elevation thing … I know all the players. I think my family got hoodwinked.”
One publication notes that Klobuchar “is the most unapologetic hawk of the senators in the [Democratic Party] race.” It adds: “She has voted for all but one, or 95 percent, of the military spending bills since 2013… Klobuchar supported the US-NATO-led regime change war in Libya in 2011, and her public statements suggest that her main condition for the US use of military force anywhere is that US allies also take part, as in Libya … Klobuchar received $17,704 in ‘defense’ industry contributions for her 2018 reelection campaign.”
The Minnesota senator is a slavish supporter of Israeli violence against the Palestinians and an eager participant in the McCarthyite anti-Russia campaign, being one of six Democratic senators who introduced legislation in 2017 that would have created an independent counsel with the ability to probe potential Russian cyber attacks on political systems and investigate efforts by Russians to “interfere” in American elections.
The New York Times did not endorse her despite this reactionary record, but because of it. This “standard bearer for the Democratic center,” lyricized the Times, whose “vision goes beyond the incremental,” had “the best chance to enact many progressive plans.”
Given the most recent turn of events, the Times ’ observation that Klobuchar’s “more recent legislative accomplishments are narrower but meaningful to those affected, especially the legislation aimed at helping crime victims,” which “is not surprising given her background as the chief prosecutor in Minnesota’s most populous county,” is especially cynical.
The notion that Klobuchar must represent something progressive because of her gender should be an insult to the public intelligence by now. In April 2019, the New Republic, one of the unpleasant voices of self-satisfied, upper-middle class public opinion in the US, described the then-group of Democratic female presidential candidates, including Klobuchar—who were “already making history” and who represented “a profound shift in the political landscape”—as “Women of Substance.”
In fact, Klobuchar is something well known and horribly insubstantial  an unscrupulous big business politician, who, like Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party hierarchy, would think nothing of climbing over heaps of bodies to make her career.
Hypocritical, conventional and cruel, Klobuchar might well step out of the pages of Main Street, Babbitt, It Can’t Happen Here or another of the novels of Sinclair Lewis, the Minnesota-born American author and social critic.
But in her role as ruthless and striving prosecutor, she may most closely resemble Orville W. Mason, the district attorney in Theodore Dreiser’s An American Tragedy, who anticipates a murder trial in the light of the “prominence and publicity with which his own activities in connection with this were very likely to be laden!”
Dreiser continues: “At once he got up, energetically stirred. If he could only catch such a reptilian criminal, and that in the face of all the sentiment that such a brutal murder was likely to inspire! The August convention and nominations. The fall election.”
This is the Democratic Party. This is contemporary American politics, including its utterly fraudulent “identity politics” wing, which has nothing remotely progressive about it.

This is the Democratic Party. This is contemporary American politics, including its utterly fraudulent “identity politics” wing, which has nothing remotely progressive about it.


Klobuchar Received Thousands from 

Corporations While Introducing 

Legislation That Benefitted Them

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has a troubling pattern of introducing legislation favored by major institutions in corporate America around the same they make large contributions to her campaign. 
The revelations are detailed in Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite—a new book by Peter Schweizer, a senior contributor at Breitbart News and president of the Government Accountability Institute.
As a senior member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Klobuchar is uniquely situated to impact the bottomline of corporate interests. Unlike her more progressive rivals, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Klobuchar has not been reflexively opposed to such interests. Rather, as Schweizer details, the Minnesota Democrat has become particularly adept at using her legislative powers not only to benefit corporate institutions, but herself as well. 
A prime example of this occurred in May 2011 when Klobuchar introduced legislation to deter internet piracy. Although Klobuchar was first-term senator mainly known her being “Minnesota nice,” the bill sparked widespread controversy
The legislation’s critics alleged it was draconian, pointing to a provision in the bill that made it a felony to illegally stream TV shows or films off the internet. One of the most prominent critics, the pop star Justin Bieber, even suggested that Klobuchar was the one who deserved to be “locked up” for proposing such a strict law.
The response from the entertainment industry, though, was exactly the opposite. Many industry executives not only lined up behind the bill, but it seems that many had already begun favoring Klobuchar even before its introduction. 
“In the ninety days before she introduced the bill, something unusual started happening,” Schweizer writes. “Over a one-week period in February, seven executives from 20th Century Fox sent her donations. Three more wrote her checks in March.”
Other entertainment industry giants quickly followed suit. Warner Bros., which would have reaped huge benefits from the proposed anti-piracy law, donated $20,000 through its political action committee. Soon afterwards, no fewer than 15 of its executives donated thousands to Klobuchar. Individuals associated with the Motion Picture Association of America and Comcast similarly made large-scale donations in the weeks leading up to the bill’s introduction.
“In all, the entertainment industry sent her more than $80,000, a flow of cash she had not experienced before; all of it was collected in the brief period before she introduced the bill,” Schweizer notes.
That troubling pattern has been on display throughout most of Klobuchar’s tenure in the United States Senate. In 2011 and 2017, respectively, Klobuchar’s campaign coffers saw a flood of incoming donations from Xcel Energy, a Minnesota-based utility holding company.
The money would not have drawn much scrutiny if not for it arriving in what appeared to be a coordinated fashion.
“At the end of September 2011, over a six-day period, no fewer than twenty-one executives from Xcel Energy wrote campaign checks to Klobuchar,” Schweizer writes. “Weeks earlier, Klobuchar introduced legislation … to give a ‘renewable electricity integration’ [tax] credit to utility companies.
If enacted, the legislation would have allowed companies like Excel to claim thousands if not millions of dollars in federal tax credits for producing renewable energy.
Likewise, Klobuchar’s decision to co-sponsor the Clean Energy for America Act in May 2017, coincided with another surge of campaign donations from Exel’s executives.
“Beginning at the end of May 2017 over a ten-day period, twenty-eight executives from Xcel Energy sent her contributions totaling $12,500,” Schweizer writes.
The bill, if passed, would have extensively expanded the tax credits available to energy companies.
Klobuchar’s intermingling of legislative prowess and campaign finance has made her a powerhouse fundraiser among Senate Democrats. In her most recent reelection in 2018, she raised more than $17 million—thirty-eight times the amount brought in by her Republican opponent. The astronomical sum was made possible by Klobuchar’s strong backing from corporate America and their special interest representatives in Washington, D.C.
“She took in donations from the CEOs of eleven of Minnesota’s twenty-five largest corporations,” Schweizer writes. Klobuchar “has done particularly well with law firms and lobbyists—they have donated more than $3 million to her three Senate races.”
The revelations posed in Profiles in Corruption emerge as Kolobuchar’s 2020 campaign picks up steam, buoyed by a high-profile endorsement by The New York Times.
In announcing its endorsement the Times lauded Klobuchar for her legislative accomplishments, arguing she was “most productive senator among the Democratic field in terms of bills passed with bipartisan support.”
As Schweizer shows, however, those accomplishments often resulted in mutual benefit for the senator as well as the corporations donating to her campaign.


Schweizer: Warren, Klobuchar Have ‘Cashed in’ from Corruption

 21 Jan 202023
Author Peter Schweizer on Tuesday’s “Fox & Friends” discussed his new book, Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite, which offers a look into some of the shady dealings of the United States’ political leaders.
After detailing the corruption seen among former Vice President Joe Biden and his family, Schweizer described how his fellow 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) had “cashed in” from corruption.
Schweizer said there is a “three-layer cake of corruption” with Warren.
“[Warren] was actually a government consultant paid by the U.S. Congress in the 1990s to rewrite our bankruptcy laws,” Schweizer outlined. “OK, that’s all fine and good, but she did the typical Washington crony move: She cashed in. After she rewrote those laws, what did she do? She went to the corporations who would benefit from the law and said, ‘Hire me, and I will help you interpret the law that I myself wrote.’ And she made millions of dollars doing that.”
He continued, “She’s also got a daughter who set up a business. She was setting up that business while Elizabeth Warren was head of the TARP Oversight Committee, and what ends up happening is the daughter gets her business financed and gets advisors from the very investment banks that Elizabeth Warren’s TARP Committee was bailing out.”
Schweizer said Klobuchar has “mastered the art of shaking down contributors and then pushing their legislation.”
He stated, “[Klobuchar] was a prosecutor before she was a U.S. Senator — very selective, did not go after people that were donors of hers, who were clearly engaged in corruption. And as a U.S. Senator, she has mastered the art of shaking down contributors and then pushing their legislation. There are instances where dozens of executives from a corporation over a three-day period will give her the donation, and then literally a few days later, she introduces legislation on their behalf.”
Follow Trent Baker on Twitter @MagnifiTrent

Amy Klobuchar Selectively Prosecuted White-Collar Crimes, Failed to Pursue Massive Ponzi Scheme—Despite Evidence

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) selectively enforced the law regarding financial crimes as a local prosecutor, often to the benefit of friends and political allies.
The bombshell revelations are detailed in Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite—a new book by Peter Schweizer, a senior contributor at Breitbart News and president of the Government Accountability Institute.
Klobuchar cut a profile as a tough-on-crime prosecutor during her tenure as the chief legal officer of Minnesota’s most populous county in the early 2000s. Not only did she push for locking up more juvenile offenders, but she was also a leading exponent of the “broken windows” theory of policing.
“What I’ve heard again and again is that no crime is a small crime and that we must enforce the law down the line,” she wrote in a policy paper at the time.
Left unsaid, though, is that certain “small” crimes were more likely to warrant prosecution than others, especially depending on one’s personal connection to Klobuchar. As Profiles in Corruption notes, that inequitable approach was nowhere more apparent than “white-collar” crimes.
While Klobuchar aggressively pursued small actors, like airline pilots not paying state income taxes or a home remodeler upcharging his clients, bigger and more nefarious financial crimes were ignored.
“But the largest financial fraud by far in her 

jurisdiction involved a massive conspiracy 

that she never even appeared to investigate, 

despite plenty of warning signs,” Schweizer 

writes. “It involved the second-largest Ponzi 

scheme in American history to date.”
The man at the center of the crime was Tom Petters, a Minnesota philanthropist and longtime Democrat campaign donor. Petters, who counted among his friends not only Klobuchar, but also former Vice President Walter Mondale, operated a series of shady investment funds.
Between 1998 and 2008, roughly the years spanning Klobuchar’s tenure as prosecutor, Petters raised nearly $4 billion for his hedge funds. More of than not, individuals entrusting him with their money would never see a penny of their investment returned.
As Schweizer elaborates, there were plenty of warning signs that something was off. Petters was consistently facing legal troubles, either from clients he had failed to repay or from his own improper conduct, like writing bad checks. More troubling, however, was the fact that his business associates kept getting convicted of wrongdoing, often by Klobuchar herself.
“In January 1999, just weeks into her tenure, potential evidence of the Ponzi scheme began to cross her desk,” Schweizer writes. “Officers from her office raided the home of Richard Hettler and Ruth Kahn. They were Petters investors.”
Documents seized during the raid reportedly implicated Petters in a “mutually beneficial and highly illegal financial scheme.” Despite securing convictions for both Hettler and Khan, Klobuchar seemed to make no attempt to move against Petters or “apparently even investigate” his part in the matter.
Klobuchar’s unwillingness to look into Petters coincided with a time their professional relationship was flourishing.
When Klobuchar first ran for county attorney in 1998, Petters and his associates only donated $8,500 to her campaign. By the time she was running for the United States Senate in 2006, Petters had emerged as one of Klobuchar’s most prolific financial backers. During that campaign alone, the Ponzi scheme operator donated more than $120,000, earning him the designation of being one of Klobuchar’s single largest campaign contributors.
The donations also seemed to signal a strong personal relationship. When the FBI finally caught up to the illegal operation and raided Petters’ office and home in 2008, he admitted on a wire-tap recording that Klobuchar had called him in the aftermath. Even though the confines of that conversation were never made public, the events that followed seemed to indicate Klobuchar was sympathetic to the plight of her longtime donor.
“Reportedly Klobuchar’s aides suggested a close family friend, Doug Kelley … provide legal help,” Schweizer writes. “Kelley had been a longtime friend of Klobuchar’s father, both as a lawyer to help him with legal issues and as a mountain-climbing partner.”
Ultimately, Kelley was unable to make much of a difference. Petters’ fate seemed to be sealed as soon as court proceedings began, especially when law enforcement and judicial officers expressed disbelief that he was able to operate for so long with so many red flags.
“But, it looks to me like [Petters] had friends in high places,” Garrett Vail, an attorney who initially worked on case against Kuhn in 1999, told the Daily Caller. “The only way he ran a $3 billion Ponzi scheme was [that] he had politicians in his pocket.”
In December 2009, Petters was convicted on 20 different counts of mail fraud, money laundering, and wire fraud. He was sentenced to more than 50 years in prison for defrauding investors of more than $3.7 billion.
Klobuchar, for her part, escaped the situation relatively unscathed. The senator was reelected overwhelmingly in 2012, despite attempts by her Republican challenger to make Petters an issue. Reelected again in 2018, Klobuchar is now vying for the Democrat presidential nomination on a platform that relies heavily on her accomplishments in public office.
Those accomplishments, however, only underscore Klobuchar’s selective approach to exercising political power, as Profiles in Corruption exposes.

Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.

“Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”

Why aren’t the Wall Street criminals prosecuted? 
In May 2012, only days after JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon revealed that his bank had lost billions of dollars in speculative bets, President Barack Obama publicly defended the multi-millionaire CEO, calling him “one of the smartest bankers we’ve got.” What Obama did not mention is that Dimon is a criminal. 
JPMorgan is not the exception; it is the rule. Virtually every major bank that operates on Wall Street has settled charges of fraud and criminality on a staggering scale. In 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a 630-page report on the financial crash of 2008 documenting what the committee chairman called “a financial snake pit rife with greed, conflicts of interest and wrongdoing.” 
These multiple crimes by serial lawbreakers have had very real and very destructive consequences. The entire world has been plunged into an economic slump that has already lasted more than five years and shows no signs of abating. Tens of millions of families have lost their homes as a result of predatory mortgages pushed by JPMorgan and other Wall Street banks.

INCEST! The case of bankster-owned Barack

Obama and crony Jamie Dimon of JP

MORGAN… their looting continues!

The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”

“Clinton also failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street bankers.”



Leaked Julian Assange Message:


Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected, Sadistic, Sociopath’


"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -

Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List Of Suspicious ‘Charities’

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -

Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange
A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange “colluded” with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of leaked emails from the DNC was “illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the entire media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from the New York Times (which buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to “alternative” outlets such as the Intercept, the television evening news programs and the publications of the pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of the slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared Assange as a “Russian agent” and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy hatched in Moscow to deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the presidency in the 2016 US elections.
Now that their claims have been subjected to judicial review and exposed as a tissue of lies and fabrications, they have adopted a policy of radio silence. There is no question that if the court ruling had been in favour of the DNC, it would have been greeted with banner headlines and wall-to-wall coverage.
The response exposes these publications as state propagandists and active participants in the campaign by the Democratic Party, the Trump administration and the entire ruling elite to condemn Assange for the rest of his life to an American prison for the “crime” of publishing the truth.
The editors and senior writers at these outlets, such as New York Timeseditorial page editor James Bennet, are in constant contact with the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Behind the scenes, they work out an editorial line that will advance the interests of the Wall Street banks and the military-intelligence apparatus. At the same time, they decide what news and information they will hide from the American and world population.
The efforts by the mainstream news outlets to bury the ruling presents a clear example of the type of media manipulation that has led millions of people to seek alternative sources of news on the internet, of which WikiLeaks is itself an example.
Judge Koeltl’s decision made plain the anti-democratic and dictatorial logic of the DNC case against Assange. He warned: “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political, financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.” This, he stated, would “override the First Amendment” protection to freedom of the press mandated by the US Constitution.
Koeltl’s finding was an absolute vindication of Assange and WikiLeaks’ 2016 publications exposing the attempts by the DNC to rig the Democratic Party primaries against self-declared “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”
Koeltl, moreover, found there was no evidence to justify the DNC’s assertion that WikiLeaks had colluded with the Russian state to obtain the material. Assange and WikiLeaks have always maintained that the documents were not provided to them by the Putin regime.
The ruling demonstrated the flagrant illegality of the US vendetta against Assange. The slander that he was operating as a “Russian agent” to “interfere” in US politics was used by the American government and its intelligence agencies to pressure the Ecuadorian regime to sever Assange’s internet access in 2016, and again in 2018. It served as a central pretext for its illegal termination in April of his political asylum in the embassy building.
The judgment was also an implicit exposure of the lawlessness of the attempts by the Trump administration, with the full support of the Democrats, to extradite Assange from Britain, so that he can be prosecuted on 18 US charges, including 17 espionage counts, carrying a maximum sentence of 175 years’ imprisonment.
The Trump administration and the Justice Department are claiming that it was illegal for WikiLeaks and Assange to publish US army war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other documents exposing US war crimes and intrigues, provided by the courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Koeltl’s ruling, however, reasserted the fundamental democratic principle that WikiLeaks had a right to publish the 2016 DNC documents, even if they had been obtained by the Russian government, or any other entity, illegally.
The clear implication is that even if Manning’s decision to leak US military and diplomatic documents was a violation of the law, WikiLeaks’ publication of them was not. The publication of both the 2010 and the 2016 leaks was constitutionally protected journalistic activity.
Koeltl further undermined the claims of the Trump administration, the Democrats and the media that Assange is a “hacker,” undeserving of First Amendment protections. The judge repeatedly referred to Assange as a “journalist” and WikiLeaks as a “publisher.”
In other words, the attempt to extradite Assange to the US and prosecute him is a frontal assault on the US Constitution and press freedom. In its disregard for domestic and international law, it can be described only as an extraordinary rendition operation, similar to the kidnappings and torture operations conducted by the CIA.
The hostile response to Koeltl’s ruling on the part of the entire political and media establishment, in the US and internationally, demonstrates that this conspiracy will not be defeated by plaintive appeals to the governments, political parties and media corporations that have spearheaded the assault on Assange’s legal and democratic rights.
All of them are using the persecution of Assange as a test case for the imposition of ever-more authoritarian measures, aimed at suppressing mounting popular hostility to war, social inequality and an assault on democratic rights.
What is required is the development of a mass movement from below, to mobilise the immense social and political power of the working class internationally to secure Assange’s liberty and to defend all democratic rights.

NEW YORK — Demand Justice, an organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by billionaire activist George S oros, is raising money for an eventual court fight against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist, unnecessary wall.”
“Obama would declare himself president for life with S oros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
“Hillary was always small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in the event that Hillary became disabled?”


“There is no controlling Bill Clinton. He does whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds,” states a separate interview memo attached to the submission.

“Bill Clinton mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation. Many people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he does not listen, and there really is no talking to him,” the memo added.


The Clinton White House famously abolished the Glass–Steagall legislation, which separated commercial and investment banking. The move was a boon for Wall Street firms and led to major bank mergers that 

some analysts say helped contribute to the 

2008 financial crisis.

Bill and Hillary Clinton raked in massive speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, with CNN documenting a total of at least $7.7 million in paid speeches to big financial firms, including Goldman Sachs and UBS. Hillary Clinton made $675,000 from speeches to Goldman Sachs specifically, and her husband secured more than $1,550,000 from Goldman speeches. In 2005 alone, Bill Clinton collected over $500,000 from three Goldman Sachs events.

Hillary Clinton is simply the epitome of the rabid self – a whirlpool of selfishness, greed, and malignance.

It may well be true that Donald Trump has made his greatest contribution to the nation before even taking office:  the political destruction of Hillary Clinton and her infinitely corrupt machine. J.R. Dunn

"Hillary will do anything to distract you from her reckless record and the damage to the Democratic Party and the America she and The Obama's have created."

“If the Constitution did not forbid cruel and unusual punishment, the sentence I would like to see imposed would place both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the same 8-by-12 cell.”    ROBERT ARVAY – AMERICAN THINKER com

 The Clinton Looting of the Poor of Haiti

“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in
the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic
components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and
Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the
ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”

IT WAS BILL CLINTON WHO UNLEASHED WALL STREET’S BIGGEST CRIMINAL BANKSTERS…. And haven’t they sucked up the banksters’ gratuities since?

Only Barack Obama has serviced banksters more than Hillary and Billary!

“Clinton also failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his presidential tenure to  make themselves multimillionaires, in part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street bankers.”


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising  the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson- Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’