HAVE LOOTED THE COUNTRY AS MUCH AS THE
BUSH CRIME FAMILY!
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/12/bush-family-mourns-hw-bush-man-who-did.html
The
perilous ramifications of the September 11 attacks on the United States are
only now beginning to unfold. They will undoubtedly be felt for generations to
come. This is one of many sad conclusions readers will draw from Craig Unger's
exceptional book House of Bush House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the
World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties. As
Unger claims in this incisive study, the seeds for the "Age of
Terrorism" and September 11 were planted nearly 30 years ago in what, at
the time, appeared to be savvy business transactions that subsequently translated
into political currency and the union between the Saudi royal family and the
extended political family of George H. W. Bush.
One topic that Hillary is quick to criticize President Trump on is his relationship with Saudia Arabia. It’s ironic given the Clinton Foundation’s refusal to state that they will no longer accept financial donations from The Kingdom as others have.
Tulsi Gabbard: U.S.
Government ‘Is Hiding the
Truth’ on 9/11 Terror Attacks
4:22
Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, reacted to the difficulties Chris Ganci and Brett Eagleson, two relatives of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were having in their quest to obtain more information about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11.
Gabbard accused the federal government of undermining efforts of achieving more transparency, which she said was being done at the behest of Saudi Arabia.
Partial transcript as follows:
CARLSON: This is one of those issues I don’t think is partisan. It doesn’t need to be. It shouldn’t be partisan in any sense.GABBARD: Absolutely not.CARLSON: It’s an American issue. Why would the U.S. government ever side with the Saudi Kingdom of all countries against our citizens?GABBARD: This is the real question that’s at stake. This story that we’re hearing from the families of those who were killed on 9/11 pushes this issue to the forefront where, for so long, leaders in our government have said, well, Saudi Arabia is our great ally. They’re a partner in counterterrorism, turning a blind eye or completely walking away from the reality that Saudi Arabia time and again, has proven to be the opposite.CARLSON: Yes.GABBARD: They’re undermining our National Security interests. They are — as you said, they are the number one exporter of this Wahhabi extremist ideology.CARLSON: Yes.GABBARD: They’re a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists, like al Qaeda and ISIS around the world. They’re directly providing arms and assistance to al Qaeda, in places like Yemen, and in Syria.And as we are seeing here, it is our government, our own government that is hiding the truth from Chris and Brett and the many other families of those who were killed on 9/11. For what? Where do the loyalties really lie?CARLSON: So I was thinking in the commercial break that of the number of people I know personally, not abstractly, but have had lunch with in this city who are taking currently money from the Saudi Kingdom or their allies in the Emirates, the Gulf States, and I wonder if that maybe play some role, like a lot of people on their payroll here.GABBARD: Yes. We talk about the foreign policy establishment in Washington.CARLSON: Yes.GABBARD: We talk about the political elite, the military-industrial complex. We hear things from some of those people, well, you know, hey, we sell a lot of weapons to Saudi Arabia. So you know, if we burn bridges with them, then who are we going to sell our weapons to? Where are we going to get that money from?All of these excuses that have nothing to do with the interests of the American people, with our national security interests. And that’s — I’m proud and honored to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with these 9/11 families in demanding this truth because, yes, it is about truth and justice and closure for all of them now as we approach 20 years since that attack on 9/11. It’s also about our National Security.CARLSON: Yes.GABBARD: Safety and security of the American people.CARLSON: I’ll never forget right after 9/11, living here in the City of Washington, our airports were closed. All airports were closed in this country.GABBARD: Yes.CARLSON: And learning that chartered flights of Saudi citizens had been allowed with U.S. government approval to take off and run back to Saudi Arabia without being questioned by authorities here and thinking you know, if I tried to do that, I’d be in prison. Why are we giving preference to Saudi citizens over our own citizens?GABBARD: Exactly. It makes no sense if you think about what would happen if we actually had leaders who were putting the interests of our country above all else. You follow the money trail. It goes back to the military-industrial complex.You look at how many of the think tanks here in Washington who send so-called experts to go and testify before Congress who are funded by Saudi Arabia to spout their talking points.You saw how the legislation that we passed in Congress. I was proud to vote for legislation that allowed families like Chris and Brett’s to sue Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia trotted out all of their lobbyists to say why that would be so dangerous, so dangerous for our interests, for them to be allowed to seek justice for their families.This is about standing up for our country. This is about standing up for our principles and our freedoms and for the truth.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Obama-Clinton Fundraiser
Imaad Zuberi Cops a Plea
Clinton foundation
contributor was conduit for Saudi sugardaddy Mohammed Al Rahbani.
October 31, 2019
Lloyd
Billingsley
Since his
election to the presidency in 2016, the Democrat-Deep State-Media axis has
targeted Donald Trump for foreign entanglements they claim should remove him
from office. Now comes news of foreign entanglements and foreign cash for the
previous president.
“Middleman helped
Saudi give to Obama inaugural,” proclaims the headline on the October 29
report by Alan Suderman and Jim Mustian, billed as an Associated
Press exclusive. As the authors explain, U.S. election law prohibits foreign
nationals from making contributions to the inaugural celebrations of American
presidents. As it turns out, the law was violated.
A “Saudi tycoon,” Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani, routed hundreds of
thousands of dollars for the Obama inaugural through an “intermediary,”
Imaad Zuberi. He, in turn, is a “jet-setting fundraiser and venture
capitalist,” who has “raised millions of dollars for Democrats and Republicans
alike over the years.” Despite the appearance of bipartisanship, Zuberi is more
narrowly tailored.
Imaad Zuberi “served
as a top fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton during their
presidential runs, including stints on both of their campaign finance
committees.” One campaign, not identified, took donations “in the name of one
of Zuberi’s dead relatives” and a political committee, also unidentified, “took
donations from a person Zuberi invented.” As the DOJ charged, Zuberi pleaded
guilty to “falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while
lobbying high-level U.S. government officials,” and it was hardly his first
brush with the law.
“Elite Fundraiser
for Obama and Clinton Linked to Justice Department Probe,” read the headline
on Bill Allison’s
August 28, 2015 exclusive in Foreign
Policy. The calling card of the elite political fundraiser are
photographs, “bumping fists with President Barack Obama in front of a Christmas
tree at a White House reception. Sharing a belly laugh with Vice President Joe
Biden at a formal luncheon,” and posing “cheek to cheek with Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Not only is
Zuberi a major fundraiser for her campaign, notes Allison, “he also donated
between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which has already come
under fire for accepting money from donors — many of them foreign — with
interests before the U.S. government while she was secretary of state.” And as
Allison learned, Hillary’s 2008 campaign benefitted from “straw donors” set up
by Sant Singh Chatwal and Norman Hsu, both convicted of election law violations.
Zuberi also used
straw donors in more recent illegal activity. As to the affiliation of those
mysterious campaigns and committees, the AP writers provide a hint.
Sheikh Mohammed
Al Rahbani has “talked about his support of Obama. He posted pictures on his
website of himself and his wife standing with Obama, former Vice President Joe
Biden and their spouses at a 2013 inaugural event.” Alas, “the website was
taken down shortly after Zuberi’s plea was made public.”
As Paul Delacourt
of the FBI’s Los Angeles office explains, “American influence is not for sale.”
Mr. Zuberi “lured individuals who were seeking political influence in violation
of U.S. law, and in the process, enriched himself by defrauding those with whom
he interacted.” According to the DOJ, that “could send him to prison for a
lengthy period of time.”
According to
Suderman and Mustian, “Zuberi’s case raises questions about the degree to which
political committees vet donors.” And as FEC boss Ellen Weintraub told the
writers, “I’m deeply concerned about foreigners trying to intervene in
our elections, and I don’t think we’re doing enough to try to stop it.” They
might start by looking in the right place.
Unconventional
candidate Donald Trump, a man of considerable means, financed his own campaign.
Trump had no need to consort with the likes of Zuberi or his dead relatives and
those he invents. And because Trump financed his own campaign, he owes nothing
to anybody, foreign or domestic.
Adam “sack of”
Schiff, as Judge Jeanine Pirro respectfully calls him, claimed he had evidence
in plain sight that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from
Hillary Clinton. Two years and a Mueller investigation later, such evidence is
nowhere in sight. Schiff’s current inquisition, perhaps more bogus than the
Mueller probe, is best seen a diversion from John Durham’s criminal
investigation of those who launched the Russia hoax. That is where DOJ and
election officials should be looking.
Did Clinton
Foundation donor Imaad Zerubi turn up on any of those 30,000 subpoenaed emails
Hillary Clinton deleted? Did Zerubi see any classified material? Were there any
texts from Zerubi and his foreign clients on the cell phones Hillary’s squad
smashed up with hammers? Was Clinton grossly negligent, or just extremely
careless? And so on. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton also enjoyed other foreign
intervention, right out in the open.
Mexican foreign
minister Marcelo Ebrard, a former mayor of Mexico City, had worked with
voter-registration and participation groups in California, Arizona, Florida,
Chicago, and elsewhere. As Ebrard told Francisco
Goldman of the New
Yorker, in 2016 he “decided to get more
involved” by working on get-out-the-vote campaigns on behalf of Hillary
Clinton.
A powerful
foreign national openly interferes in an American election, and nobody calls
him on it. Now that Clinton Foundation lackey Imaad Zuberi has copped a plea,
the FEC and DOJ should look into it.
Congress
overrides Obama veto of bill allowing 9/11 lawsuits
By
Tom Carter
On Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of
legislation that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and their
families to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year confirm
the involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding, organization, and
planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years by the Bush and
Obama administrations.
The vote, 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House of
Representatives, represents the first and only congressional override of
Obama’s presidency. Under the US Constitution, the president’s veto can be
overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress.
The Obama administration and the military and intelligence
agencies, backed by sections of the media, including the New York Times, have
vigorously denounced the legislation. Obama personally, together with Central
Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford among others, have all
publicly opposed the bill.
In a letter to Congress opposing the legislation, Obama warned
that the bill would “threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the
United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.”
In a lead editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times similarly
warned that “if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar
legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no
country is more engaged in the world than the United States—with military
bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs—the Obama
administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.”
In other words, the bill would set a precedent for families of
victims of American aggression abroad—such as the tens of thousands of victims
of “targeted killings” ordered by Obama personally—to file lawsuits against US
war criminal in their own countries’ courts.
Obama denounced the vote with unusual warmth on Wednesday. “It's
an example of why sometimes you have to do what's hard. And, frankly, I wish
Congress here had done what's hard,” Obama declared. “If you’re perceived as
voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's
a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do
... And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” Sir Walter Scott famously
wrote, “When first we practice to deceive!” As the tangled web of lies
surrounding the September 11 attacks continue to unravel, one senses that the
American ruling class and its representatives do not see a clear way out of the
dilemma.
Openly torpedoing the legislation is tantamount to an admission of
guilt. Indeed, the Obama administration, the military and intelligence
agencies, and theNew York Times are publicly working to cover up a crime
perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its backers in Saudi Arabia, which in turn is an
ally of the United States. The mere fact that Obama vetoed this bill
constitutes an admission that the US government is hiding something with
respect to the September 11 attacks.
The alternative, from the standpoint of the American ruling class,
is also fraught with risks. Court proceedings initiated by the families of
September 11 victims will inevitably expose the role played by the Saudi
monarchy, an ally of both Al Qaeda and the United States, in the September 11
attacks. This, in turn, will highlight long and sordid history of American
support for Islamic fundamentalism in the
Middle East, which continues to the present day in Syria and
Libya.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, a full public accounting of
the roles of Saudi intelligence agents in the September 11 attacks
will once again raise questions about the role of the American state in the
attacks. Why did US intelligence
agencies ignore the activities of Saudi agents before the attacks,
based on Saudi Arabia’s supposed status as a US ally?
Why did the US government deliberately cover up the Saudi
connection after the fact, instead claiming that Afghanistan was a “state
sponsor of terrorism” and that Iraq was developing “weapons of mass
destruction?” Why was nobody
prosecuted?
The New York Times, for its part, simply lied about the evidence
of Saudi complicity. “The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11
families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19
hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis,” the editors wrote. “But
the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no
evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the
terrorists.”
In fact, at least two of the hijackers received aid from Omar
al-Bayoumi, who was identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a
Saudi intelligence agent with “ties to terrorist elements.” Some of the
hijackers were paid for work in fictitious jobs from companies affiliated with
the Saudi Defense Ministry, with which Al-Bayoumi was in close contact. The
night before the attacks, three of the hijackers stayed at the same hotel as
Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official.
These and other facts were confirmed by the infamous 28-page
suppressed chapter of the 2002 report issued by the Joint Inquiry into
Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of
September 11, 2001. After 14 years of stalling, the document was finally
released to the public this summer.
Yet the New York Times continues to describe the Saudi monarchy,
the principal financier and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout
the world, as “a partner in combating terrorism.”
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed Wednesday,
is a direct reaction to these revelations of Saudi complicity in the September
11 attacks, under pressure from organizations of survivors and families of
victims. The law amends the federal judicial code to allow US courts “to hear cases
involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that
occur inside the United States as a result of. .. an act of terrorism,
committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”
Although the bill nowhere names Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government
has threatened massive retaliation, including by moving $750 billion in
assets out of the country before they can be seized in American legal
proceedings. This reaction alone confirms the monarchy’s guilt.
During Wednesday’s session, many of the statements on the floor of
the Senate were nervous and apprehensive. Casting his vote in favor of the
bill, Republican Senator Bob Corker declared, “I have tremendous concerns about
the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries
as a result of this vote.” More than one legislator noted that if the bill had
unintended consequences, it would be modified or repealed.
The anxious comments of legislators and the crisscrossing
denunciations within the ruling elite reflect the significance of this
controversy for the entire American political establishment. For 15 years, the
American population has been relentlessly told that the events of September 11,
2001 “changed everything,” warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the
militarization of the police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian
levels of spying, death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions
of dollars of expenditures.
The collapse of the official version of that day’s events shows that
American politics for 15 years has been based on a lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment