Sunday, January 28, 2024

Pelosi Calls for FBI Probe into Russia Funding Anti-Israel Protests in U.S. - WHY NOT AN FBI PROBE OF NANCY PELOSI'S INSIDE STOCK TRADING THAT MADE HER $150 MILLION OFF OF ELECTED OFFICE?

IS EVERYONE IN S.F. ON DRUGS (almost!) SO THAT THEY KEEP REELECTING THIS POS NANCY???


IT'S INTERESTING THAT LYING PELOSI OF MELTDOWN SAN FRANCISCO NEVER CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE OBAMA - CLINTON RUSSIA HOAX!

In other words, the Durham investigation is almost certainly just another cover-up. The Russia Hoax is a huge infection in the American body politic. It was Mueller’s responsibility, and it’s now Durham’s, to hide that infection. To that end, Durham is going to focus America’s attention on a few hangnails and scratches, in the hope it deflects us from the fact that the American political system is dying from sepsis. I would love to see Durham expose the whole festering mess, and I’d happily eat my words, but I don’t see that happening.

Pelosi Calls for FBI Probe into Russia Funding Anti-Israel Protests in U.S.

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the FBI should investigate if Russia is funding some anti-Israel protestors in the United States.

Anchor Dana Bash said, “One of the challenges that Democrats might have in organizing is some anger in some corners of the progressive movement over Biden’s support for Israel in its war against Hamas terrorists. How concerned are you, especially since we have seen protesters over and over and over? How concerned are you that young Americans, progressives? I’m not suggesting they might vote for Donald Trump, but how concerned are you they might stay home?”

Pelosi said, “I’ve been the recipient of their exuberance as recently as in Seattle on Thursday, unfortunately, wanting to disrupt our very exciting Democratic meeting there. They are in front of my house all the time. I have a feeling for what feelings they have. We have to think about what we’re doing. What we have to do is try to stop the suffering in Gaza. This is women and children and people who don’t have a place to go, so let’s address that. For them to call for a cease-fire is Mr. Putin’s message, Mr. Putin’s message. Make no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see. Same thing with Ukraine. It’s about Putin’s message. I think some of these protesters are spontaneous and, organic and sincere. Some are connected to Russia. I say that having looked at this for a long time.”

Bash said, “You think some are Russian plants?”

Pelosi said, “I think some financing should be investigated. I want to ask the FBI to investigate that.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN



 

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

 

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

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/06/judicial-watch-only-crimes-in-russia-scandal-are-from-obama-gang/

 

THE MAN WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR

 

Barack Obama’s Russia Connection

 

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

 

 

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

*

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

 

 

Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their Party Across the Nation

 

https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/06/obamas-lackey-judge-blakey-hands-obomb.html

 

 

“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”

*

“Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.”

*

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


 Bill Clinton’s Corrupt Love Affair With Putin

 https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/bill-clintons-corrupt-love-affair-putin-daniel-greenfield/

 

The last thing the Clintons wanted was democracy and an end to the corruption.

Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Bill Clinton, once the youngest governor in the country, now only four years younger than Biden, came out of the shadows with a defensive op-ed, titled, “I Tried to Put Russia on Another Path”.

While the Clintons, like Obama, fashionably embraced Putin-bashing when it served their agenda of inventing a Russia scandal as a pretext for discrediting the 2016 presidential election and spying on their Republican political opponents, Bill’s history tells a very different story.

In My Life, his 2004 memoir, Bill Clinton praises Putin and uses him to attack Republicans.

After his first meeting with Putin, Bill Clinton wrote that he came away believing “Yeltsin had picked a successor who had the skills and capacity for hard work necessary to manage Russia’s turbulent political and economic life" and the "toughness to defend Russia’s interests". He called Putin's appointment, which helped end democracy in Russia, a "wise and shrewd move".

After Putin was elected, Bill Clinton recollects that he "hung up the phone thinking he was tough enough to hold Russia together." Soon Clinton is using Putin to bash Republicans, sneering that "even the Russian Duma was more progressive on arms control than the U.S. Senate" and supporting Putin's refusal to hold off on the anti-ballistic missile treaty because "Republicans had been enamored of missile defense since the Reagan era, and many of them wouldn’t hesitate to abrogate the ABM Treaty in order to deploy it." Putin good, Republicans bad.

Why was Bill Clinton flattering Putin in his autobiography?

The memoir was published in 2004. In 2005, Bill Clinton and uranium tycoon Frank Giustra visited Kazakhstan and cut a deal for the company that would become Uranium One to buy into the country's state-owned uranium mines. Clinton foundations picked up over $100 million while Uranium One gobbled up uranium assets to eventually resell to Russia.

The deal that allowed Russia's state-owned Rosatom to buy Uranium One was lubricated by millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian investment bank for Bill Clinton during which the former president met with Putin.

This was Clinton’s actual corrupt vision for Russia. The Russiagate dirty tricks operation came out of a network of business interests plugged into the Kremlin. The executive at the heart of Russiagate was a Clinton aide who “frequently interacted with senior Russian Federation leadership" and “set up meetings with senior Russian government officials” The dossier was touted by a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch close to Putin who had also employed both Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS: the tools for the attack on the 2016 election.

While we’ve heard about this often enough in the context of domestic corruption, the Clintons and their inner and outer circles were enthusiastic participants in the corruption of Russia.

Putin was not an unfortunate detour from democracy, as Bill Clinton insists, but exactly the sort of man to perpetuate the corrupt system that the Clintons and their special interests wanted.

The last thing the Clintons wanted for Russia was democracy and an end to the corruption.

Bill Clinton complains that Putin “could have used Russia’s prodigious skills in information technology to create a competitor for Silicon Valley and build a strong, diversified economy. Instead he decided to monopolize and weaponize those abilities to promote authoritarianism at home and wreak havoc abroad, including by interfering in the politics of Europe and the U.S.”

The Clintons didn’t want a strong, diversified economy for America, let alone Russia.

And it was the Clintons who got Putin involved in interfering in American politics. The millions funneled into Clinton foundations helped maintain staff and cultivate donors for Hillary’s presidential campaigns. And then Clintonworld figures used their Kremlin links to manufacture Russiagate and create the false narrative that Bill Clinton is still trying to keep alive.

In his op-ed, Bill Clinton touts the role of former Defense Secretary William Cohen. He neglects to mention that the Cohen Group, aside from its notorious ties to China, has boasted of "decades of experience working with officials in Moscow", and "building relationships with government decision makers". Two years ago, Cohen was claiming that "President Putin is going to try and step in and be the peacemaker here” between America and Iran.

Bill Clinton defends former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Once again her Albright Stonebridge Group promised to advise clients how to do business in Russia by enlisting politically connected former Russian government officials. This is typical of Clintonworld.

Under Bill Clinton and his wife, Putin's regime became wealthier and more powerful as donors moved money into Russia and into the various Clinton enterprises including from a Putin-linked billionaire who was sanctioned under Trump and has been sanctioned now yet again.

The Clintons were complicit in enabling the dumping of cheap Russian uranium in America, thereby destroying our domestic mining industry and funding Russia’s military industries.

Bill and Hillary Clinton did not try to “democratize” Russia, rather political and business interests in both countries joined forces to cash in while corrupting both America and Russia. Democracy had made it difficult for foreign companies to pursue business interests in Russia. With Putin in power, surrounded by his ‘siloviki’, it was easy to know who to bribe in order to make a deal.

And the Clintons, with their connections, were a conduit for donors looking to make a deal.

The problems only began when Putin, unsatisfied with controlling Russia’s economy, and those of a few allied former republics, began to expand his sphere of economic influence by force.

Even at this late date, Bill Clinton is pretending that he was a benevolent public servant who was only thinking of what would be best for America, Russia, and the world, not the Clintons.

The ugly truth is that the Clintons led the way in corrupting and making the world less democratic. The fall of the Soviet Union had opened up opportunities to change the world that the Clintons transmuted into corrupt deals with oligarchies that swiftly became tyrannies. The springtime of the world that millions of Americans had struggled and fought for during the Cold War instead became an opportunity for our political class to score a few million here and there.

Not only didn’t Russia and China become more democratic, but America came to resemble them. The corrupt entanglements of Hunter and James Biden, like those of the families of John Kerry, Harry Reid, Neil Bush, and other political class players sold out democracy for corruption.

Hunter Biden with his prostitutes, Chinese billionaires, and crack habit is just the latest incarnation of the Clinton model in which our oligarchs and theirs do dirty deals together.

And the world is a worse place for it.

"Before I left Moscow, Putin hosted a small dinner in the Kremlin with a jazz concert afterward," Bill Clinton recalled in My Life. "John Podesta, who loved jazz as much as I did, agreed with me that we had never heard a finer live performance."

John Podesta's brother, Tony and his Podesta Group, went on to work for a Putin puppet and were shut down when they were caught up in a Russiagate investigation. Tony Podesta has since been paid $1 million to lobby the Biden administration by China's Huawei which is now also playing a major role in Putin’s Russia.

It’s a hell of a live performance. And they’ve got a hell of a band.

  

Durham makes allegations that make Watergate look like small potatoes

By Andrea Widburg

On Friday, Special Counsel John Durham filed with the D.C. Federal District Court a what should have been a boring conflict of interest motion, but it hid a surprise: The Clinton campaign, through Perkins Coie, spied on Trump both before and after he was president. The following is a plain English-language summary of relevant parts of the motion:

Michael Sussman was a partner at Law Firm-1 (i.e., Perkins Coie). He met with the FBI General Counsel (i.e., James Baker), and offered data and “white papers” purporting to show that Trump was communicating covertly with a Russia-based bank (i.e., Alfa-Bank). Mueller, incidentally, had to admit this was untrue.

Durham indicted Sussman because he allegedly told Baker that he was not divulging this information for a client. In fact, he was acting for at least two clients: the Clinton campaign and “Tech Executive-1” (i.e., Rodney Joffe), who worked at a “U.S.-based internet company” (i.e., Neustar Inc., a federal contractor).

As part of his work on the Clinton campaign, Sussman repeatedly met and communicated both with Joffe and with “another law partner” who was “Campaign Lawyer-1.” (I guess we can await that indictment soon....)

Beginning in July 2016, Joffe began to work with (1) Sussman, (2) an investigation firm that Perkins Coie hired for the Clinton campaign, (3) cyber researchers, and (4) “employees at multiple Internet companies” to assemble the data handed to James Baker. To do so, Joffe exploited access to private and/or proprietary internet data. He even coopted researchers at a U.S. university who were receiving lots of internet data as part of a cybersecurity research contract that was pending with the feds. (The Conservative Treehouse says the university is Georgia Tech and it was a DARPA contract.)

Durham alleges that Joffe was accessing internet traffic for “a particular healthcare provider” (speculated to be Spectrum Health), Trump Tower, Donald Trump's Central Park West apartment building, and “the Executive Office of the President of the United States (‘EOP’).” (Emphasis mine.)

Joffe had a very specific assignment for the people working for him: He wanted them to mine internet data (and again, this was not public data) to “establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’” that would tie then-candidate Trump to Russia. He told people that he was “seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,” meaning both Perkins Coie and the Hillary campaign.

Much of the motion is concerned with allegations already familiar to you from the indictment against Sussman. Thus, after talking to Baker, Sussman also talked to another government agency, telling its employees that DNS data (that is “Domain Name System” info, which is like an internet telephone directory) revealed that Trump or his team had looked up Russian contacts millions of times.

Sussman neglected to add that these DNS lookups were for Trump Tower as a whole, which is a massive business center. More importantly, when reporting about lookups from the “EOP” (that is, the White House server), Sussman didn’t mention that many of those DNS lookups went back to 2014—that is, when Obama was in the White House.

 

Image: Man with binoculars by lookstudioWhite House by Rob Young (CC BY 2.0).

So again: Durham just let everyone know that the Hillary campaign, acting through Perkins Coie and its attorneys, engaged a tech-savvy executive to spy on Trump internet searches. This executive exploited his connections to obtain private and proprietary data (including federal government data) to review internet searches originating in Trump Tower, Trump’s home, and the White House. Moreover, this spying, which began when Trump was still a candidate, continued once he became president.

Trump, obviously, trumpeted the fact that he was right all along, as well as making clear the enormity of what happened:

 

Obviously, it’s nice to be proven correct. However, I agree with Conservative Treehouse that there are a few glaring problems here. Preliminarily,

The obvious question is: If Rodney Joffe is spying on the office of the president, why hasn’t he been indicted?

That’s just one question, though. The real problem, which Sundance places at the head of his post, is this:

CTH begins every outline of the ongoing Durham investigation with the following disclaimer: How is John Durham going to reveal everything that is possible about the deep state Trump targeting operation, and simultaneously handle the involvement of Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and the Special Counsel team who were specifically appointed to cover it up?

The short answer is, Durham can’t. The ramifications would collapse the U.S. government; yes, all three collaborating branches.

As a consequence, some of these revelations are only valuable insofar as they will be needed by historians who look upon the scattered rubble of this once great republic and seek to explain to future generations how it all went wrong.

In other words, the Durham investigation is almost certainly just another cover-up. The Russia Hoax is a huge infection in the American body politic. It was Mueller’s responsibility, and it’s now Durham’s, to hide that infection. To that end, Durham is going to focus America’s attention on a few hangnails and scratches, in the hope it deflects us from the fact that the American political system is dying from sepsis. I would love to see Durham expose the whole festering mess, and I’d happily eat my words, but I don’t see that happening.

 

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

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, Pool

EDWIN MORA

 7 Nov 2019Washington, DC115

4:13

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

Hunter served on Burisma’s board of directors from 2014 until April of this year.

In 2014, the U.S. spent hundreds of thousands in American taxpayer funds on assisting an investigation into corrupt activities linked to Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky, Kent revealed.

During his closed-door deposition on October 15, Kent told House impeachment investigators that he raised concerns about Biden’s lucrative position in 2015.

According to the transcripts, Kent, a deputy assistant secretary charged with overseeing U.S. policy towards Ukraine, testified:

The first time I was in Ukraine as acting deputy chief of mission in the period of mid-January to mid-February 2015, subsequent to me going into the deputy prosecutor general on February 3rd and demanding who took the bribe and how much was it to shut the case against Zlochevsky I became aware that Hunter Biden was on the board. I did not know that at the time.

And when I was on a call with somebody on the vice president’s staff and I cannot recall who it was, just briefing on what was happening into Ukraine I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest.

The United States spent “roughly half a million dollars” in support of a Zlochevsky-linked investigation in 2014 — the year Burisma hired Hunter, Kent revealed.

Kent indicated that then-VP Biden’s staff dismissed his concerns about Hunter’s work in Ukraine.

“The message that I recall hearing back was that the vice president’s son Beau Biden was dying of cancer and that there was no further bandwidth to deal with family related issues at that time,” he testified.

“That was the end of that conversation” about Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest in Ukraine, Kent later added.

Kent said he first visited the U.S. embassy in Ukraine in mid-January 2015. He indicated that he soon learned Burisma was corrupt.

“Burisma had a reputation for being, first of all, one of the largest private producers of natural gas in Ukraine but also had a reputation for not being the sort of corporate, cleanest member of the business community,” the top State official said.

He testified that he was so concerned about Burisma’s reputation that he put the breaks on coordinated activity between the company and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

House Democrats pursuing the impeachment probe have accused Trump of abusing his power by pressuring his Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July 25 call to investigate corruption allegations against the Bidens, allegedly in exchange for aid.

Trump, Zelensky, and some impeachment probe witnesses, including Kent, have denied the claim. Other witnesses, however, have presumed that a quid pro quo took place in which Trump leveraged U.S. aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

Kent testified that he had no “direct knowledge” of the alleged link between America’s security assistance to Ukraine and the Eastern European country opening of new investigations.

He also told investigators that it is appropriate for the Trump administration to “look at the level of corruption” in foreign countries like Ukraine when determining whether to provide or withhold aid.

The former vice president threatened to withhold aid himself to Ukraine to force the Eastern European country to fire its top prosecutor in 2016, who had investigated the owner of Burisma for possible corruption.

Until recently, Hunter served on the board of Burisma for up to $83,000 per month despite having no background in energy. His position prompted allegations of corruption.

Hunter admitted to ABC News last weekend that his father’s political position helped him secure the lucrative appointment to Burisma’s board of directors.

Based on Kent’s testimony, Trump had reason to be concerned about corruption linked to Hunter Biden’s position.

 Will We Ever Prosecute?

By Gordon Wysong

 

Imagine that the local cops know that a gang member, named William, broke into the pawn shop and stole guns, jewelry, and money.  William's fingerprints, film image, and DNA add to the hard evidence log.  The owner knows it; the prosecutor knows it; William's gang associates know it.  But he is not arrested.  Nearby shopkeepers and neighborhood mothers are asking why he is walking the street.  No one explains it; mum's the word.  Could it be there is a grand plan to take out the gang's leaders?  No one knows; mum's the word.  Shopkeepers and residents are about to give up and start moving away from the area, and no one asks them to stay the course.

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

Without doubt, a criminal cabal is an extraordinarily complex organization, and understanding who did what, why, when, and how is a challenge to the mental faculties of anyone.  But, what happens if the full scope of activities is never clear?  Does everyone get off?  Does complexity confer immunity?

In engineering, there is no perfect answer to anything, so changes are made incrementally, addressing the problems as they are recognized.  Each step brings a clearer view of remaining problems, which are then addressed, each in its turn.  The completed project is still flawed, but the solution is practical and productive.

So it should be with a grandiose scheme like the Russia Hoax.  The ringleaders don't have to be handled with kid gloves.  They don't even have to be handled at all.  Just start with the low-hanging fruit, and get as far as possible.

Those old enough to remember My Lai, Vietnam, know that Lt. Calley and Cpt. Medina were not alone in their actions.  However, their prosecution forever changed the game of passing the buck on war crimes.

So, too, can rabid prosecution of bit players in the Russian Hoax forever change the landscape in plots involving treason.  Those who would participate at the lower levels must know they are subject to prosecution, so they remain circumspect in such a re-enactment of the coup attempt.  This would be the Achilles heel of another cabal — those who are intimidated by the prospect of prison.  Those who realize they don't have sufficient rank to escape punishment will be loath to participate in such a scheme.  Without them, there will be no operational viability to an unlawful coup.

Admittedly, there are always problems in pursuing a criminal case.  It must be so under our Constitution, but it cannot be impossible!

Prosecutors don't get all the information, but at a certain point, for each criminal, evidence accumulates that there is a real and provable crime.  It may not include every transgression of that person, nor is it the magic revelation, untangling the Gordian knot of the conspirators.  It is a simple criminal act.  It is what it appears, and it need not be put in the context of the big picture — it is as plain as the nose on your face.

That stage is the stimulus for a prosecutor.  It is the time to move.  If the DOJ acts, many of the sins can never be prosecuted, because the prosecution of their lesser crimes may foreclose pursuit of other crimes under double jeopardy protection.  However, failure to move puts evidence and witnesses at risk of being lost.  This point has passed for so many of the coup conspirators that it seems there will be no justice for many of them, like Lois Lerner.

Why?

A full recounting of all that is already known would be tedious, and to expound on the criminal conduct yet again seems shrill.  It is not necessary to understand the intertwining of all the crimes before simply bringing the charges that are facially obvious.  But the deferral of prosecution, for whatever reason it is done, allows many of the cabal to walk free when they shouldn't.  In fact, the indication is that they are continuing the very conduct for which they should be prosecuted.

Why has McCabe not been charged with lying to the FBI, lying under oath?  Nothing more is needed to start the dominos falling.  Who will step forward to exonerate him?  No one can, and no one will.  That omission — of a vigorously supported defense — will send a message to the others in the coup conspiracy.

Why has Samantha Power not been indicted for violating national security requirements in unmasking or transferring her unmasking authority to others?  It doesn't pass the smell test that she is too important to be prosecuted.

Why is Huma Abedin strolling around, free as a bird?  She forwarded classified emails to Anthony Weiner's laptop.  What else is needed to demonstrate a crime?

Did Strzok do anything?  Did Page?   Which one lied to Congress?  Their contradictory accounts mean at least one is a perjurer.  Sure, there is more "there" there, but it isn't necessary to keelhaul them; just send them to jail, and send others a message.

Listing all the cabal members, who are quite obviously criminal, is not easy — in fact, it is not doable.  It need not be the aim.  A public that finds this whole thing partisan or tedious will not be easily impressed if a 2,000-count indictment naming 43 people is suddenly dropped.  Bringing along the public is certainly part of sending the message for future conspirators.  It probably is better done gradually.

 Removing the context and simply prosecuting crimes is the method to educate both today's and tomorrow's citizens.

Selecting single actors, and naming obvious crimes, will have a chance to convince even skeptical partisans that something is wrong.  The lack of support from other participants will indeed remove most doubt.

The full scope of what has gone on will never be known, but the lessons for future participants in such a scheme is essential.  The next time, the prosecution will be more severe, more certain, and more expedient.  Protecting the Constitution is more important than perfect justice.  Some miscreants will escape, but they will never sleep well again.  The lesson must be taught.

A DOJ that fails to move loses its credibility and its honor.  The foundation of the Republic is placed at risk.  Without the rule of law, what do we have?

At some point, deferral of prosecution is dereliction or abetting.  Has it reached that point?

 

Gordon Wysong is an engineer and entrepreneur who has served as a county commissioner in Cobb County, Ga.

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

 

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

 

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

 

BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION

 

During the combined two decades she served as a U.S. senator and secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s patrons regularly donated to her family charity when they had official business pending before America’s most powerful political woman.

The pattern of political IOUs paid to the Clinton Foundation was so pernicious that the State Department even tried to execute a special agreement with the charity to avoid the overt appearance of “pay-to-play” policy.

Still, the money continued to flow by the millions of dollars, from foreigners and Americans alike who were perceived to be indebted to the Clinton machine or in need of its help.

It’s time for the American public to call in their own IOU on political transparency.

The reason? Never before — until 2016 — had the apparatus of a U.S. presidential candidate managed to sic the weight of the FBI and U.S. intelligence community on a rival nominee during an election, and by using a foreign-fed, uncorroborated political opposition research document.

But Clinton’s campaign, in concert with the Democratic Party and through their shared law firm, funded Christopher Steele’s unverified dossierwhich, it turns out, falsely portrayed Republican Donald Trump as a treasonous asset colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin to hijack the U.S. election.

Steele went to the FBI to get an investigation started and then leaked the existence of the investigation, with the hope of sinking Trump’s presidential aspirations.

On its face, it is arguably the most devious political dirty trick in American history and one of the most overt intrusions of a foreigner into a U.S. election.

It appears the Clinton machine knew that what it was doing was controversial. That’s why it did backflips to disguise the operation from Congress and the public, and in its Federal Election Commission (FEC) spending reports.

Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) used the law firm of Perkins Coie to hire Glenn Simpson’s research firm, Fusion GPS, which then hired Steele — several layers that obfuscated transparency, kept the operation off the campaign’s public FEC reports and gave the Clintons plausible deniability.

But Steele’s first overture on July 5, 2016, failed to capture the FBI’s imagination. So the Clinton machine escalated. Steele, a British national, went to senior Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr — whose wife, Nellie, also worked for Fusion — to push his Trump dirt to the top of the FBI.

Nellie Ohr likewise sent some of her own anti-Trump research augmenting Steele’s dossier to the FBI through her husband. Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann used his connection to former FBI general counsel James Baker to dump Trump dirt at the FBI, too.

Then Steele and, separately, longtime Clinton protégé Cody Shearer went to the State Department to get the story out, increasing pressure on the FBI.

In short, the Clinton machine flooded the FBI with pressure — and bad intel — until an investigation of Trump was started. The bureau and its hapless sheriff at the time, James Comey, eventually acquiesced with the help of such Clinton fans as then-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

To finish the mission, Simpson and Steele leaked the existence of the FBI investigation to the news media to ensure it would hurt Trump politically. Simpson even called the leaks a “hail Mary” that failed.

Trump won, however. And now, thanks to special counsel Robert Mueller, we know the Russia-collusion allegations relentlessly peddled by Team Clinton were bogus. But not before the FBI used the Clinton-funded, foreign-created research to get a total of four warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, transition and presidency from October 2016 through the following autumn.

The Clinton team’s dirty trick was as diabolical as it was brilliant. It literally used house money and a large part of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to carry out its political hit job on Trump.

After two years of American discomfort, and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent, it’s time for the house to call in its IOU.

Hillary Clinton owes us answers — lots of them. So far, she has ducked them, even while doing many high-profile media interviews.

I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Longtime Clinton adviser Douglas Schoen said Friday night on Fox News that it’s time for Clinton to answer what she knew and when she knew it.

Here are 10 essential questions:

1. In January 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a formal investigative request for documents and written answers from your campaign. Do you plan to comply?

2. Please identify each person in your campaign who was involved with, or aware of, hiring Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Given that investigations by a House committee, a Senate committee and a special prosecutor all have concluded there isn’t evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, do you regret the actions by your campaign and by Steele, Simpson and Sussmann to inject these unfounded allegations into the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community and the news media?

Hillary Clinton owes us answers to each of these questions. She should skip the lawyer-speak and answer them with the candor worthy of an elder American stateswoman.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports.

 

 

ALL REVOLUTIONS START OUT MESSY AND UNFOCUSED. THE BEST IS YET TO COME!

 

The Party of Antifa Fascists?

https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2018/10/20/the-party-of-antifa-fascists-n2530342?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2

 

 

Paul Driessen

  

Who are the “Antifa” mobs? What are they doing to our country? How long will we tolerate them? 

The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings were their latest excuse for tantrums and intolerance. Dismissing fairness, propriety and due process, they screamed that mere allegations of misconduct were enough to bar him from the Supreme Court, despite no corroborating evidence or witnesses. 

Vicious harassment of senators and White House officials in restaurants, streets, grocery stores, and Senate offices and elevators was matched by ambush tactics and despicable behavior by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. If Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings were “an electronic lynching,” those hearings were an electronic assault on a respected jurist, his wife and young daughters. 

When Kavanaugh fought back, the same Senators and their media friends said he “lacked the proper temperament” to be on the Court. (Apparently, he should have just tried to enjoy the experience.) 

The fact is, Democrats and their allies had said in lockstep and from the outset that they intended to keep any Trump nominee off our highest court. The Women’s March mistakenly released a statement saying it opposed the “nomination of XX” to the Court. (They forgot to fill in the blank.) They view the Court as their supreme state and national legislature: it’s far easier to get 5 votes than 5 million or 50 million. 

In reality, this ongoing attempted rule by mob (with Portland, Oregon a prime example) goes back to the 2016 elections that put Donald Trump in the White House. The mobs weren’t just disappointed that Hillary Clinton had not won. They were enraged. And they’ve remained so ever since. 

In fact, their furor goes back even further – to mounds of excrement they left behind in North Dakota, for instance, where they tried to block the Dakota Access Pipeline, by burning and bombing bridges, threatening local residents and killing cattle. One “peaceful protester” tried to shoot a deputy sheriff. 

In another example, they enlisted state attorneys general, universities, wealthy leftwing foundations and private law firms (on a contingency fee basis) to bring RICO and other actions against scientists and think tanks that voice skepticism about “cataclysmic manmade climate change.” On college campuses they have banned, disinvited, mobbed, harassed or just plain screamed over 300 conservative speakers into silence. Being a Republican or wearing a Trump MAGA hat can get you beaten, or worse

They forget President Obama’s dictum: “Elections have consequences.” One is the President’s right to nominate Federal judges. But from their perspective, “consequences” must never apply when they lose – and the Electoral College must be abolished when it works as our Founding Fathers intended: to keep populous urban areas from dominating presidential elections and imposing a tyranny of the majority. (The fact that 85% of all US counties voted for Donald Trump illustrates this principle in action.) 

In most of these cases, “they” are the Antifa mobs. Antifa being short for “anti-fascist.” Don’t be conned. 

The Antifa mobs are fascists! And they have become the ski-masked thug wing of the Democratic Party. 

They (and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kyrsten Sinema, Andrew Gillum, Bernie Sanders and other favored candidates) certainly espouse socialism as their vehicle for wealth redistribution. However, in almost every other respect, their philosophies and actions reflect fascism, which is generally defined as: 

A political system in which an authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries, but strictly regulates and controls their actions, output and rights – while forcibly controlling and suppressing citizens and their thought and speech via stringent laws, intimidation and even violence. 

Sadly, the Democratic Party is slipping further into these tendencies, becoming ever more closely aligned with these radicals. It relies on Antifa thugs to “rally the base,” intimidate and abuse Republican voters and candidates, and get Democrat (and “undocumented”) voters to the polls. Like too many in the “mainstream” news media, Democrats refuse to condemn the mob behavior – and say it’s wrong to even call them mobs. They’re just concerned citizens, peaceably assembling and seeking redress of their grievances. Right. (Hint: You don’t like being called fascist mobs? Stop behaving like fascist mobs.) 

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Hillary Clinton said recently. So instead of civil debates we’re to have civil war over whose vision and agenda will rule? Is there something wrong, antiquated or “threatening” about debating issues

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said, when Republicans “go low” with their rhetoric, “we kick them.” Rep. Maxine Waters (R-CA) incites Antifa mobs by ranting, “If you see anybody from the Trump Administration in a restaurant, in a department store, tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” 

Now on top of the speech codes, trigger warnings, boycotts, censorship, groupthink and identity politics, Google, Facebook and Twitter control and restrict access to conservative views; crowd funding sites prevent conservative groups from raising money; and the Obama IRS prevented Tea Party groups from getting the tax status needed to operate. When all that fails, we’re supposed to tolerate mobs and riots. 

On campuses, LGBTQ diversity is virtuous. Diversity of viewpoints or political affiliation is intolerable. Some say Republicans want to control what you do in your bedroom. But Democrats want to control everything you do anywhere outside your bedroom. And Antifa mobs will keep you quiet and in line

Antifa thugs fire-bombed a North Carolina Republican office and trashed another one in New York City, where they left a note that said, “This is just the beginning.”Others knocked a 71-year-old female congressional staffer unconscious! It even reached the point where a rabid Bernie Sanders supporter tried to gun down Republican legislatorsand staffers who were practicing for a charity baseball event. 

Indeed, death on a large scale, to serve state or other “higher interests,” is another aspect of fascism. We see that with millions of people dying every year in Africa and Asia, because pressure groups deny them access to energy, insect control, water purification, agricultural and other modern technologies, in the name of protecting the environment from dangerous climate change, chemicals and biotechnology. 

There are crazy ironies, too. Google helps the Chinese Communist Government prevent its citizens from accessing “forbidden” knowledge and ideas – but then claims helping the US Defense Department with Cloud computing or artificial intelligence surveillance would “violate its principles.” 

Around many neighborhoods, signs proclaim “Hate has no home here,” in multiple languages, with an American flag heart logo reminiscent of the Obama campaign logo – in liberals’ yards. The signs are part of a project that “promotes just and inclusive communities.” Trump supporters need not apply. 

Democrats appear to be depending on all of this to counter a possible “red wave” – and regain control of the House of Representatives and maybe even the Senate. If they succeed even with just the House, Democrat congressional committees will investigate, interrogate and try to impeach Trump, Kavanaugh and other officials. They will impede and obstruct everything the Trump Administration tries to do. 

They’ll also try to abolish ICE, block the Wall, pack the Supreme Court, take our guns, bash Israel – and replace the fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy with “100% renewable energy” that is so expensive and unreliable it will bring our industries, economy and nation to its knees, while blanketing rural and habitat land, damaging people’s health and property rights, and butchering birds and bats by the millions. 

Our rebounding energy, employment, economy, markets and living standards would get rolled back. 

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

Some say the Antifa-Schumer-Pelosi-Clinton-Holder-Waters strategy will backfire. I hope that happens, because it would be disastrous if these people run Congress, America and our lives. But I won’t bank on it. 

If you’re worried too (and you should be), get inspired and involved. Above all, VOTE! Vote to preserve our democratic Republic, our freedoms, our booming economy, reliable and affordable energy for all Americans – and equal justice for all, based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. 

Paul Driessen writes books and articles on energy, environmental, human rights and political issues.

 

 

No comments: