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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
THESE CORRUPT DEMO POLS LOVE THEIR BANKSTERS' "SPEECH FEES" BRIBES!
“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.
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
2:10
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.”
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.
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!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/02/incest-case-of-bankster-owned-barack.html
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.”
SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON
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 - AMERICANTHINKER.com
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
- AMERICANTHINKER.com
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.
GEORGE
SOROS AND THE CLINTON GLOBALIST AGENDA FOR BANKSTERS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS
*
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?”
THE PHONY
CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY slush fund
*
*
“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.
CLINTON
MAFIA AND THEIR BANKSTERS AT GOLDMAN SACHS
WHO IS
TIGHTER WITH THE PLUNDERING BANKSTERS? CLINTON, OBAMA or TRUMP?
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."
THE FINAL DAYS OF HILLARY CLINTON:
MISTRESS of the SWAMP, GLOBAL BRIBES SUCKER and LOOTER OF THE POOR
“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.”
FOLLOWING THE CRIMES OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON BECOMES AMERICA’S
ROAD TO REVOLUTION
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’