Uncovered FBI/DOJ Coverup of Clinton Foundation and Russian/China Related Crimes – PART I


If you are an American devoted to the very Founding Principles to which this nation came into existence, you have be very fed up with Dems that have committed obvious crimes getting a pass for very egregious wrongs while Conservatives are prosecuted and often forced into a guilty plea-deal to prevent further financial ruination. I KNOW I AM getting fed up!

 

Here’s a lengthy exposé from The Gateway Pundit that highlights the mere recent crimes of Bill and Crooked Hillary Clinton. Will there be criminal accountability? My first reaction is, “DOUBT IT!” Yet I always hold out hope our government  has not been so corrupted as to prevent jury trials or at least some crooked Dems experiencing their own guilty plea-deal.

 

JRH 2/20/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Gateway Pundit Exclusive: Uncovered FBI/DOJ Coverup of Clinton Foundation and Russian/China Related Crimes – PART I

 

By Joe Hoft

February 20, 2019

The Gateway Pundit

 

Crooked Hillary & Bill at Clinton-Foundation (Global Initiative)

 

A 2016 DOJ criminal investigation was suppressed and buried by the DOJ/FBI that involved a major NY Democratic power broker, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

 

The investigation revolved around the illegal sale of controlled US Homeland Security technology to Russia and China in the years before the 2016 election.

 

The DOJ terminated its internal investigation despite clear and irrefutable evidence of criminal activity and hid it from the public!

 

The Gateway Pundit will expose this scandal in a series of posts this week.


Today is our initial report on this egregious scandal and coverup.

 

This story begins with the Clintons and their Clinton Foundation.  It includes Russia and China, and ends with another FBI/DOJ cover-up of Clinton crimes. The FBI did such a good job covering this up, that it has not been reported – until today.

 

This story started before the 2016 Presidential election. In and around 2007, Martin L. Edelman a New York attorney with Paul Hastings LLP, a Bill and Hillary Clinton close friend, and one of their largest donor bundlers met Mati Kochavi, who reportedly made his fortune in NYC real estate market. They came up with the idea of forming a group of companies and purchasing other companies that would develop and sell Homeland Security and intelligence solutions in the US and world-wide.

 

Edelman (below) became the Chairman of the Board and Kochavi the CEO of their company named AGT International.

 

 

Martin L. Edelman

 

AGT International – the firm that the Clintons helped create did all it could to generate revenues, even if it meant flagrantly breaking US law. In 2014, AGT described itself on its website as the following:

 

Today’s world has more devices and sources of information than ever before, but are they truly interconnected? AGT International is revolutionizing public safety and security by connecting previously unlinked devices and data, making relevant information accessible and actionable for decision-makers and citizens alike.

 

We use our deep domain expertise to collect, analyze and identify the most relevant data; and our solutions provide enhanced visibility to empower people, governments and businesses to predict, visualize and manage cities and other complex environments.

 

Since its launch in 2007, AGT ($1B annual revenues) has been a pioneer, making the world safer by leading the integration of devices and new information sources. In the last five years we have connected a greater variety of sensors than anyone else in our industry while successfully delivering some of the world’s largest and most sophisticated public safety and security projects.

 

AGT International leverages three of the most compelling current technology trends to revolutionize public safety and security: the Internet of Things, Big Data Analytics and Cloud Computing. Our advanced proprietary software powers cloud-based knowledge solutions that make connected sensors and data accessible and delivers services that aid complex problem solving.

 

AGT is privately held with headquarters in Switzerland. The company is proud of its diversity: more than 50 nationalities are represented among its 2,400 employees.

 

AGT’s International Management Team

 

 

AGT International incurred massive growth and went from $0 to over $8 billion in contracts and $1 billion in revenues in about 5 years. The Clintons were compensated for their support and endorsement by Kochavi and Edelman through payments to the Clinton Foundation. These payments totaled millions of dollars.

 

NATIONWIDE POLL: Does President Trump Have Your Vote In 2020?

 

AGT Statistics from company presentations –

 

AGT Introduction – slide detailing company offering and experience –

 

In 2016 at the time when there was a DOJ investigation into AGT and its illegal actions related to selling its highly sensitive defense and Homeland Security products to Russia and China, AGT updated its website and purged some references to the sensitive nature of its products.  The company also shutdown most of its operations in the US.

 

Edelman and Kochavi were both involved in the business. For example, an AGT Management Meeting that includes executives from all of its business units, included Martin Edelman from Paul Hastings at the top of the list –

 

Subject –  1300 Management Meeting

AGT’s flagship platform was called “Wisdom” and “Urban Shield”.  The C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence) system and some of the other derivatives technologies were ITAR regulated.

 

VOTER POLL: Should Hillary Be In Jail?

 

Former President Bill Clinton endorsed AGT CEO Kochavi through public appearances and by using himself and Hillary to help the venture with political clout and support in the US.  For example, in July 2012 President Clinton joined Kochavi and Maria Bartiromo on Wall Street Journal Review promoting Kochavi’s business venture –

 

 

VIDEO: President Bill Clinton and Mati Kochavi CNBC Interview

 

[Posted by AGTInternationalComm

Published on Jun 15, 2012

 

http://www.agtinternational.com/leadership/mati-kochavi

 

CNBC interview with President Bill Clinton and AGT International CEO Mati Kochavi on the impact rapidly-changing technology has on the security of the global economy.

 

Mati Kochavi is founder and CEO of AGT International, a global provider of advanced public safety and security solutions.

 

AGT International

One of the fastest-growing public safety and security solutions organizations in the world, AGT International has operations across the globe.

 

Utilizing systems capable of translating billions of bytes of live data into one unified ‘language,’ AGT International combines cutting-edge data-gathering hardware, proprietary analytics, and advanced modeling and simulation programs to deliver solutions that manage and secure nations, cities, and corporations.

 

AGT International offers innovative solutions in the areas of critical infrastructure and border protection, urban management, cyber security, transportation, law enforcement, and natural disaster preparedness, helping unlock the world’s potential by enabling the free flow of goods, services, people, and ideas.

 

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, AGT International employs 2,300 people worldwide, representing more than 50 nationalities. The organization was founded in 2007, and within five years achieved $1 billion in annual revenues, while managing $8 billion in projects. AGT International is led by Founder and CEO Mati Kochavi.

 

READ THE REST]

 

Emails released by WikiLeaks show the significance of the relationship between Edelman and Kochavi and the Clintons. In an email dated November 18, 2011, describing the various donors to the Clinton Foundation there is a paragraph describing their relationships –

 

Mati Kochavi
President Clinton recently turned down a 2 year, $8 million offer to become Honorary Chairman of Mati Kochavi’s new media business venture. Mati is a former client of Teneo who we were referred to through Marty Edelman. I went back to Mati and proposed a new structure without any business connectivity other than 4 speeches for $1 million and $250k to the foundation should President Clinton choose to accept it. That would also include any broadcasting of foundation events or anything President Clinton would like exposure for on his website. This offer will be presented to President Clinton in Walker speech invitations which he can choose to decline or accept with no role or relationship with the company.

 

The email lists over $50 million in donations to the Clintons in return for personal work and lists $66 million more in expected future donations from various sources, including Edelman and Kochavi.

 

In another email released by WikiLeaks, Edelman sent an email to Hillary Clinton and shared the message that a Middle East Shiek was coming to Washington, D.C. –

 

Sheikh Muhammid apparently coming 1st week in may. List of visits includes secstate, sectreas. Just heard. Marty

 

The Sheikh most likely referred to by Edelman, is Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan from the Abu Dhabi Royal family. It’s suspected that the Sheikh provided capital through the Mubadala investment Company to Edelman and Kochavi to start up their AGT venture. Not surprisingly, the Clinton Foundation also received millions in donations from related entities in the Middle East –

 

Former US President Bill Clinton has been paid $5.625 million since 2011 by Dubai’s GEMS Education to lead the company’s charity arm, according to tax returns released in the US this month [August 2015].

 

Many Americans are aware of the stories of corruption surrounding the Clinton Foundation since the 2016 election. The Foundation received millions in return for the sale of a significant portion of US uranium to the Russians. Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton denied any wrong doing during the 2016 debates and even spoke of the Clinton Foundation as a superb philanthropic venture.

 

Future President Donald Trump disagreed with Hillary and stated that the Foundation was a fraud – the people of Haiti, for example, whom the Clintons had ‘helped’, didn’t want the Clintons back –

 

VIDEO: Clinton Denies ‘Pay-to-Play’ Allegations About Clinton Foundation

 

[Posted by Wall Street Journal

Published on Oct 20, 2016

 

At the final presidential debate Wednesday, Hillary Clinton defended the work of the Clinton Foundation which Donald Trump called a “criminal enterprise.” Photo: Reuters

 

READ THE REST]

 

Hillary denied “pay to play” involving the Clinton Foundation where the Clintons would demand donations to their ‘Foundation’ and in return promise to perform agreed upon actions for these payments. Hillary was not honest.

 

The Clintons took in millions from Edelman, Kochavi and Sheikhs in the Middle East. In return the Clintons made promises and performed actions for a price. Unfortunately, the actions taken by the Clintons and the companies and individuals who donated to them were often illegal.

 

In our next post we’ll discuss these actions that the family of companies known as AGT International took in order to build their business worldwide.

 

In a third post we’ll discuss how the FBI/DOJ got involved but then suppressed and eventually terminated their investigation shortly before the 2016 Presidential election.

_____________________

© 2019 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

About TGP

 

In late 2004 I started The Gateway Pundit blog after the presidential election. At that time I had my twin brother Joe and my buddy Chris as regular readers. A lot has changed since then.

 

Today The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. The Gateway Pundit has 15 million visits each month (Stat Counter – Google Analytics). It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.

 

READ THE REST

 

Kavanaugh Great SCOTUS Conservative Credentials, BUT…


John R. Houk

© July 6, 2018

Cliff Kincaid has been using his political pulpit to warn Conservatives that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a bad choice for a nomination to SCOTUS. On a personal level I say further investigation is warranted before I join Kincaid’s warning.

 

Kincaid’s warning centers around Kavanaugh’s association in the death of Vince Foster. Officially Foster death was ruled a suicide. Detractors of the suicide label believe Foster was murdered to look like a suicide to protect the Crooked Clintons.

 

Here is an excerpt on Vince Foster’s death written by Cliff Kincaid for AIM in 2016:

 

Donald J. Trump has brought up the case of the mysterious death of former Clinton aide Vincent Foster, calling it “fishy.” Trump is right. Foster is the man who knew too much. He had knowledge of various Clinton scandals, including Travelgate, the Waco tragedy, and possibly some illegal activities involving national security. His body was found in a Virginia park on July 20, 1993, and the media accepted the verdict of suicide.

 

But as AIM founder and late chairman Reed Irvine and I reported on the case, there were so many anomalies that the Special Division of the Court of Appeals ordered an appendix added to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on the death of Vincent Foster. The appendix exposed serious flaws in the report that cast strong doubt on the suicide finding. These anomalies included:

 

  • No bullet was ever found in Fort Marcy Park, even though Foster supposedly shot himself there.

 

  • The gun that was found in his hand has never been positively identified as his.

 

  • Foster’s fingerprints were not found on the gun.

 

Many people in the media claim that numerous investigations confirmed it was a suicide. Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post says there were “five official investigations into Foster’s death, conducted by professional investigators, forensic experts, psychologists, doctors and independent prosecutors with unlimited resources.” CNN’s Jake Tapper says it is “shameful” for Trump to question these findings.

 

But the official government investigations, including the one run by ardent “Republican” Kenneth Starr, were flawed. Nobody knew this better than Miguel Rodriguez, the lead investigator of Foster’s death for Independent Counsel Starr. He uncovered evidence that Foster had not committed suicide. However, Rodriguez, the prosecutor in charge of the grand jury investigation of Foster’s death, resigned because of interference with his investigation. As Irvine noted, “If he had been permitted to complete the grand jury investigation, he would have exposed the many lies that were told to cover up Foster’s murder.” Irvine exposed many of these lies in a 2001 edition of the AIM Report.

 

 

Some other critical facts:

 

  • Foster’s car, a 1989 gray Honda, was not at Ft. Marcy Park when he died.

 

  • The .38 revolver found in his hand was not the gun that killed him. It was not his gun. The caliber of the gun was too large to be consistent with the small hole in the side of Foster’s neck. A memo by Rodriguez found at the National Archives stated that “the corpse was staged with the revolver brought by” investigators.

 

  • Foster’s so-called suicide note was a forgery. It said nothing about suicide. Handwriting experts say the note, which had no fingerprints on it, wasn’t even written by Foster. The note was found in a briefcase that had previously been searched.

 

Yes, something was, and is, very fishy in the case of the death of Vincent Foster. READ ENTIRETY (Something Stinks: The “Fishy” Vince Foster Case; By Cliff Kincaid; AIM; 5/26/16)

 

Kavanaugh was on a SCOTUS list in 2017 that eventually went to Justice Gorsuch. Joseph Farah wrote a report then about Kavanaugh’s link to a cover-up in the Foster death:

 

 

… the White House noted the following credentials: “Brett M. Kavanaugh is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before his appointment in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, and was a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office and in the Solicitor General’s Office. Judge Kavanaugh also served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States, to Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh is a cum laude graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.”

 

Conspicuously not mentioned in that biography is Kavanaugh’s role in leading the badly flawed investigation into the death of Vincent Foster in July 1993.

 

In fact, Kavanaugh took over that investigation when his predecessor, attorney Miguel Rodriguez, resigned, saying in a letter to Kenneth Starr dated Jan. 17, 1995, because evidence was being overlooked in a rush to judgment in favor of suicide and closing the grand-jury investigation, WND reported last year.

 

The smoking-gun information was reported by WND exclusively early in the 2016 presidential campaign in the form of two documents: a two-page letter of resignation and a 31-page memo both written by Rodriguez, Starr’s original lead prosecutor.

 

 

Rodriguez refers in his letter to photographs showing a wound on Foster’s neck – a wound that did not exist according to accounts in Starr’s official government report.

 

The obvious questions: How could a suicide victim be found with two wounds – a .38-caliber gunshot into the mouth that exited through his head and another wound on the right side of his neck that one of the paramedics described as a small-caliber bullet hole? And why would government investigators go to great lengths to cover it up?

 

 

The Rodriguez letter blows holes in the government’s conclusion that Foster’s body had a single self-inflicted gunshot wound.

 

 

Rodriguez went on to cite 12 ways the investigation was compromised.

 

Witness statements had not been accurately reflected in official FBI reports, he told Starr.

 

Even more troubling was the treatment of death-scene photographs.

 

 

Rodriguez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.” Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

 

Rodriguez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.” Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

 

READ ENTIRETY (IS TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING ‘VERY FISHY’ IN FOSTER DEATH? By JOSEPH FARAH; WND; 11/20/17 7:42 PM)

 

Kavanaugh took over the Vince Foster death investigation after Rodriguez’s resignation:

 

 

The press publicized the search of Fort Marcy Park for the fatal bullet to give the public the impression Starr was doing a thorough investigation.  The bullet was never found because it remained in Foster’s head.  Rodriguez discovered that the FBI, with the assistance of Doctor James Beyer, had destroyed the evidence that showed the bullet remained in Foster’s brain.  People asked Rodriguez if exhuming Foster’s body for an X-ray could reveal the bullet trajectory.

 

THE GREY HONDA

 

The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

 

Supreme court candidate Brett Kavanaugh previously of the Independent Counsel discussed the problem with the brown car with Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media.

 

Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh admitted that “all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described [the car] as brown.”  Vincent Foster’s car was NOT BROWN.

Foster did not drive to the crime scene at Fort Marcy Park, contrary to press reports. On October 10, 1997, when the 137-page official report, vol 1vol 2, was released to the public, the American press concealed the evidence of the cover-up, and only reported on the existence of the first 114 pages of the report.

 

Narrator

 

Kavanaugh’s statement that people clearly saw Foster’s car is not true.  Descriptions of a brown car are not descriptions of Foster’s gray car.  How does Kavanaugh resolve the problem?

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

So, people were screwed up on the colors, period.

 

Narrator

 

Brett Kavanaugh called eyewitnesses “screwed up” because what they saw did not agree with the desired result.

 

But Kavanaugh slipped up.  He admitted that all of the police and medical personnel saw a brown car.

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

Well it all comes down to that brown car issue, right?   Ah, all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described it as brown.

 

Narrator

 

The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

 

Reed Irvine asks Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh what evidence he has that Vince Foster’s car was at Fort Marcy Park when Foster was already dead.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Supreme candidate Kavanaugh, from the deep state, led murdered Vince Foster coverup; By Bunkerville; BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades! 7/3/18)

 

Now for the Cliff Kincaid email where I place the video he refers to at the bottom.

 

JRH 7/6/18

Please Support NCCR

**********************

The Kavanaugh Cover-Up

 

By Cliff Kincaid

Sent July 5, 2018, 2:06 PM

Sent via America’s Survival

 

To ASI Supporters:

 

Watch the media closely. If you see no coverage of the Foster case, then you can safely assume who is calling the shots. Pardon the pun.

 

Kavanaugh Still Favored For Supreme Court

 

Time is running out. My old friend, John Gizzi, one of the best political journalists in the country, says President Trump is on the verge of naming Foster cover-up artist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

 

Brett Kavanaugh & Murder of Vincent Foster

 

Here’s what John is reporting:

 

With barely four days to go before President Trump makes official his choice to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, the favorite remains D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has an advantage because he has the most consistent conservative judicial track record of the known candidates — one that mirrors Trump’s views on several key issues, including immigration, trade deals, abortion and gun rights, according to two sources familiar with the current White House selection.

 

This would be a major catastrophe. What my old friend leaves out of his piece is Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Foster cover-up.

 

If Kavanaugh is nominated, the Deep State wins. Our video explains how Kavanaugh went along with the cover-up because he wanted to play ball and be a member of the team, so he could move “up the ladder.” This is how the Swamp operates.

 

Remember that President Reagan was tricked into nominating Anthony Kennedy. And Kavanaugh was a law clerk for Kennedy!

 

Everywhere you turn in the “conservative media,” you are getting endorsements of Kavanaugh – without any mention whatsoever of the Foster case.

 

We have also learned that Kavanaugh is the preferred choice of White House counsel Don McGahn. He is pushing Trump to nominate him for the Supreme Court. “McGahn’s backing helped Kavanaugh secure a spot on Trump’s existing Supreme Court list last November, when the president added five names,” Politico said.

 

Watch our video. Decide for yourselves. Everything we have is documented.

 

Official FBI photograph of the black gun placed in Foster’s hand at Fort Marcy Park to stage the crime scene.

 

Thanks to those of you who have responded with donations. But we need your help more than ever.  If you haven’t helped, please consider a donation.

 

Rather than nominate Kavanaugh, Trump should order a new investigation of the “fishy” Foster death. That’s the way to get to the bottom of the way the Deep State operates.

 

If Trump wants to save his presidency, he must investigate the Deep State, not capitulate to it.

 

Give me your thoughts at: Kincaid@comcast.net

 

For America’s Survival,

Cliff Kincaid, President

 

Donate to America’s Survival

 

VIDEO: Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the Murder of Vincent Foster

 

Posted USA Survival

Published on Jul 4, 2018

 

Possible Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “is part of the ongoing cover-up of the murder of the [Clinton] White House deputy counsel” Vincent Foster. So charges researcher and journalist Hugh Turley. In this explosive video, learn how the Swamp operates in bipartisan fashion to cover up crimes, including murder, and how Deep State agents are deployed to intimidate witnesses and alter evidence. Turley worked with AIM’s Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid on this case for years, only to face a cover-up from the liberal AND conservative media.

__________________

Kavanaugh Great SCOTUS Conservative Credentials, BUT…

John R. Houk

© July 6, 2018

_________________

The Kavanaugh Cover-Up

 

© America’s Survival, Inc

 

About America’s Survival

 

America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) is recognized as a 501 (C) 3 educational organization. ASI President Cliff Kincaid is editor of the ASI web sites www.usasurvival.orgwww.leninandsharia.com  and www.religiousleftexposed.com ASI  is on Facebook and Twitter and has a YouTube channel featuring videos from ASI conferences and other events. We have an app for smart phones and operate a TV channel on Roku called “America’s Survival TV.”

 

ASI specializes in exposing the United Nations, international organizations and extremist movements.

 

Office telephone: 443-964-8208

Email: Kincaid@comcast.net

 

Mailing Address:
America’s Survival. Inc.
P.O. Box 146
Owings, MD 20736

 

Gohmert Exposes Mueller & Comrades


John R. Houk

© May 4, 2018

 

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01) wrote a post I found at Noisy Room that paints a profile of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller as a Crooked DOJ attorney (at various levels of promotion) and as a Crooked FBI Director. EXTREMELY well worth the read!

 

I recall watching Gohmert on Fox News stating it is a huge mistake appointing Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor. It seems I recollect Gohmert replying stating something to the effect, “You will regret the day Mueller is a Special Prosecutor.” (A recollection of several months ago, so I doubt my quote is word for word. It’s my memory of the intended meaning.)

 

At the time other Conservative pundits and politicians praised the Mueller appointment because of a reputation of an integrity but tough. At the time it seemed to me Gohmert was as a lone voice in the wilderness proclaiming the truth about Mueller. Even now there are way too many Republicans calling Mueller a man of integrity. After you read Gohmert’s profile of Mueller (which is commonly known history and not fake news), if you still think Mueller has integrity you are a blind Dem or just a gullible idiot.

 

The Gohmert article is lengthy, because Mueller’s corruption is legion. I suggest you bookmark this blog post or the Noisy Room post to keep going back to read its entirety. Know the truth.

 

Just as a teaser here are the subject headings from Gohmert’s exposé:

 

  • MONUMENTAL: The Naked Truth About Robert Mueller

 

  • ROBERT MUELLER – BACKGROUND

 

  • MUELLER: THE WHITEY BULGER AFFAIR

 

  • CURT WELDON ATTACKED AND CRUSHED BY ROBERT MUELLER

 

  • ROD ROSENSTEIN

 

  • AN ILLEGAL RAID ON CONGRESS BY MUELLER

 

  • MUELLER’S 5-YEAR UP-OUR-OUT

 

  • NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER ABUSES

 

  • SENATOR TED STEVENS

 

  • Unfortunately for Ted Stevens, his conviction came only eight days before his election, which tipped the scales on a close election.

 

  • THE DISGUSTING TREATMENT OF DR. STEVEN HATFILL

 

  • THE FRAMING OF SCOOTER LIBBY

 

  • MUELLER’S EMBRACE OF THE FRIENDS OF ISLAMIC TERROR

 

  • PURGING THE FBI OF ANTI-TERROR INFORMATION

 

  • PURGING COUNTER-TERRORISM TRAINING MATERIALS

 

  • MUELLER’S UNETHICAL ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

 

  • SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MUELLER’S TROUBLINGLY BIASED HIRES

 

  • GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN

 

  • FISA ABUSE

 

  • MUELLER IGNORES PROVABLE CRIMES BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THE FBI, THE FISC, ETC.

 

JRH 5/4/18

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

MONUMENTAL: The Naked Truth About Robert Mueller

 

Posted on May 3, 2018 11:00 am by TMH

By Rep. Louis Gohmert 

From Doug Ross @ Journal

Noisy Room

 

Mueller & Comey

 

Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people. His many actions are a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.

 

I do not make these statements lightly. Each time I prepared to question Mueller during Congressional hearings, the more concerned I became about his ethics and behavior. As I went back to begin compiling all of that information in order to recount personal interactions with Mueller, the more clearly the big picture began to come into focus.

 

At one point I had to make the decision to stop adding to this compilation or it would turn into a far too lengthy project. My goal was to share some firsthand experiences with Mueller — as other Republican Members of Congress had requested — adding, “You seem to know so much about him.”

 

This article is prepared from my viewpoint to help better inform the reader about the Special Prosecutor leading the effort to railroad President Donald J. Trump through whatever manufactured charge he can allege.

 

Judging by Mueller’s history, it doesn’t matter who he has to threaten, harass, prosecute or bankrupt to get to allege something or, for that matter, anything. It certainly appears Mueller will do whatever it takes to bring down his target — ethically or unethically — based on my findings.

 

What does former Attorney General Eric Holder say? Sounds like much the same thing I just said. Holder has stated, “I’ve known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years; my guess is he’s just trying to make the case as good as he possibly can.”

 

Holder does know him. He has seen Mueller at work when Holder was obstructing justice and was therefore held in Contempt of Congress. He knows Mueller’s FBI framed innocent people and had no remorse in doing so.

 

Mueller Wicked Green-Face

Let’s look at what we know. What I have accumulated here is absolutely shocking upon the realization that Mueller’s disreputable, twisted history speaks to the character of the man placed in a position to attempt to legalize a coup against a lawfully-elected President. Any Republican who says anything resembling, “Bob Mueller will do a good job as Special Counsel,” “Bob Mueller has a great reputation for being fair,” or anything similar; either (a) wants President Trump indicted for something and removed from office regardless of his innocence; (b) is intentionally ignorant of the myriad of outrageous problems permeating Mueller’s professional history; or (c) is cultivating future Democrat votes when he or she comes before the Senate someday for a confirmation hearing.

 

There is simply too much clear and convincing evicdence [sic] to the contrary. Where other writers have set out information succinctly, I have quoted them, with proper attribution. My goal is to help you understand what I have found.

 

ROBERT MUELLER – BACKGROUND

 

In his early years as FBI Director, most Republican members of Congress gave Mueller a pass in oversight hearings, allowing him to avoid tough questions. After all, we were continually told, “Bush appointed him.” I gave him easy questions the first time I questioned him in 2005 out of deference to his Vietnam service. Yet, the longer I was in Congress, the more conspicuous the problems became. As I have said before of another Vietnam veteran, just because someone deserves our respect for service or our sympathy for things that happened to them in the military, that does not give them the right to harm our country later. As glaring problems came to light, I toughened up my questions in the oversight hearings. But first, let’s cover a little of Mueller’s history.

 

MUELLER: THE WHITEY BULGER AFFAIR

 

Looney Hillary & Mueller

The Boston Globe noted Robert Mueller’s connection with the Whitey Bulger case in an article entitled, “One Lingering Question for FBI Director Robert Mueller.” The Globe said this: “[Mike] Albano [former Parole Board Member who was threatened by two FBI agents for considering parole for the men imprisoned for a crime they did not commit] was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting U.S. attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies. Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset…”

 

Mueller was the head of the Criminal Division as Assistant U.S. Attorney, then as Acting U.S. Attorney. I could not find any explanation online by Mueller as to why he insisted on keeping the defendants in prison that FBI agents—in the pocket of Whitey Bulger— had framed for a murder they did not commit. Make no mistake: these were not honorable people he had incarcerated. But it was part of a pattern that eventually became quite clear that Mueller was more concerned with convicting and putting people in jail he disliked, even if they were innocent of the charges, than he was with ferreting out the truth. I found no explanation as to why he did not bear any responsibility for the $100 million paid to the defendants who were framed by FBI agents under his control. The Boston Globe said, “Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.”

 

The New York Times explained the relationship this way: “In the 1980’s, while [FBI Agent] Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a ’top echelon informant.’

 

Officials of the Massachusetts State Police and the Boston Police Department had long wondered why their investigations of Mr. Bulger were always compromised before they could gather evidence against him, and they suspected that the FBI was protecting him.”

 

If Mr. Mueller had no knowledge that the FBI agents he used were engaged in criminal activity, then he certainly was so incredibly blind that he should never be allowed back into any type of criminal case supervision. He certainly helped continue contributing to the damages of the framed individuals by working relentlessly to prevent them from being paroled out of prison even as their charges were in the process of being completely thrown out.

 

Notice also the evidence of a pattern throughout Mueller’s career: the leaking of information to disparage Mueller’s targets. In the Whitey Bulger case, the leaks were to organized crime — the Mafia.

 

One of the basic, most bedrock tenets of our Republic is that we never imprison people for being “bad” people. Anyone imprisoned has to have committed a specific crime for which they are found guilty. Not in Mueller’s world. He has the anti-Santa Claus list; and, if you are on his list, you get punished even if you are framed.

 

He never apologizes when the truth is learned, no matter how wrong or potentially criminal or malicious the prosecution was. In his book, you deserve what you get even if you did not commit the crime for which he helped put you away. This is but one example, though — as Al Pacino once famously said — “I’m just getting warmed up!”

 

REP. CURT WELDON ATTACKED AND CRUSHED BY ROBERT MUELLER

 

Strzok-Mueller caricatures

During my first term in Congress, 2005 to 2006, Congressman Curt Weldon delivered some powerful and relentless allegations about the FBI having prior knowledge that 9/11 was coming. He repeatedly alleged that there was documentary evidence to show that 9/11 could have been prevented and thousands of lives saved if the FBI had done its job. He held up documents at times while making these claims in speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives.

 

I was surprised that FBI Director Mueller seemed to largely ignore these allegations. It seemed to me that he should either admit the FBI made significant mistakes or refute the allegations. Little did I know Mueller’s FBI was preparing a response, but it certainly was not the kind of response that I would have expected if an honorable man had been running that once hallowed institution.

 

You can read two of Congressman Weldon’s speeches on the House floor that are linked below. After reading the excerpts I have provided, you may get a window into the mind of the FBI Director or someone under Mueller’s control at the FBI. The FBI literally destroyed Congressman Weldon’s public service life, which then foreclosed his ability to use a national platform to expose what he believed were major problems in the FBI fostered under the Clinton administration. Here is but one such excerpt of a speech wherein he spoke of the failure of FBI leadership, then under the direction of the Clinton administration and as came within Mueller’s control just before 9/11. Shockingly, the Mueller FBI failed to even accept from the military any information on the very terrorists who would later go on to commit the atrocities of 9/11, much less act upon it.

 

The U.S. gleaned this information through development of a surveillance technology called Able Danger. On October 19, 2005, Rep. Curt Weldon delivered the following statement on the House floor.

 

Mr. Speaker, back in 1999 when I was Chair of the Defense Research Subcommittee, the Army was doing cutting-edge work on a new type of technology to allow us to understand and predict emerging transnational terrorist threats. That technology was being done at several locations but was being led by our Special Forces Command. The work that they were doing was unprecedented. And because of what I saw there, I supported the development of a national capability of a collaborative center that the CIA would just not accept.

In fact, in November 4 of 1999, two years before 9-11, in a meeting in my office with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of the CIA, Deputy Director of the FBI, we presented a nine-page proposal to create a national collaborative center.

When we finished the brief, the CIA said we did not need that capability, and so before 9/11 we did not have it. When President Bush came in after a year of research, he announced the formation of the Terrorism Threat Integration Center, exactly what I had proposed in 1999. Today it is known as the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center.

But, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me is not the fact that we did not take those steps. What troubles me is that I now have learned in the last four months that one of the tasks that was being done in 1999 and 2000 was a Top Secret program organized at the request of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, carried out by the General in charge of our Special Forces Command, a very elite unit focusing on information regarding al Qaeda. It was a military language effort to allow us to identify the key cells of al Qaeda around the world and to give the military the capability to plan actions against those cells, so they could not attack us as they did in 1993 at the Trade Center, at the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole attack, and the African embassy bombings.

What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that this secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over one year before 9/11 ever happened.

In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9-11 attack.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over one year before 9-11, that [the] Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Louis Freeh, FBI Director at the time, was interviewed by Tim Russert. The first question to Louis Freeh was in regard to the FBI’s ability to ferret out the terrorists. Louis Freeh’s response, which can be obtained by anyone in this country as a part of the official record, was, ‘Well, Tim, we are now finding out that a top-secret program of the military called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta over a year before 9/11.’

And what Louis Freeh said, Mr. Speaker, is that that kind of actionable data could have allowed us to prevent the hijackings that occurred on September 11.

So now we know, Mr. Speaker, that military intelligence officers working in a program authorized by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the General in charge of Special Forces Command, identified Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9/11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI [and] were denied; and [that] the FBI Director has now said publicly if he would have had that information, the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings that struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the plane that landed in Pennsylvania and perhaps saved 3,000 lives and changed the course of world history.

 

Curt Weldon gave a series of speeches, recounting what he saw and what he knew, regarding the failures of the FBI and the Clinton administration to share information that could have prevented 9/11.

 

Congressman Weldon tried to hold those accountable in the FBI and CIA that he felt had mishandled actionable intelligence which he said could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks. He recounted many examples of similar intelligence failures.

 

In 2006, the Robert Mueller-led FBI took horrendously unjust actions to derail Curt Weldon’s reelection bid just weeks before the vote—actions that were later described as a “hit job”: “Each of Weldon’s 10 previous re-elections had been by sizable margins. Polls showed he was up by 5-7 points [in the fall of 2006]. Three weeks prior to the election, however, a national story ran about Weldon based upon anonymous sources that an investigation was underway against him and his daughter, alleging illegal activities involving his congressional work. Weldon had received no prior notification of any such investigation and was dumbfounded that such a story would run especially since he regularly briefed the FBI and intelligence agencies on his work.

 

A week after the news story broke, alleging a need to act quickly because of the leak, FBI agents from Washington raided the home of Weldon’s daughter at 7:00AM on a Monday morning… Local TV and print media had all been alerted to the raid in advance and were already in position to cover the story. Editor’s note: Sound familiar?

 

Within hours, Democratic protesters were waving “Caught Red-Handed” signs outside Weldon’s district office in Upper Darby. In the ensuing two weeks, local and national media ran multiple stories implying that Weldon must also have been under investigation. Given the coverage, Weldon lost the election… To this day, incredibly, no one in authority has asked Weldon or his daughter about the raid or the investigation. There was no follow up, no questions, no grand jury interrogation, nothing.

 

One year after the raid the local FBI office called Weldon’s daughter to have her come get the property that had been removed from her home. That was it…The raid ruined the career of Weldon and his daughter.”

 

Though some blamed the Clintons and Sandy Berger for orchestrating the FBI “hit job,” we can’t lose sight of the fact that the head of the FBI at the time was Robert Mueller. Please understand what former FBI officials have told me: the FBI would never go after a member of Congress, House or Senate, without the full disclosure to and the blessing of the FBI Director. Even if the idea on how to silence Curt Weldon did not come from Director Mueller himself, it surely had his approval and encouragement.

 

The early morning raid by Mueller’s FBI — with all the media outside — who had obviously been alerted by the FBI, achieved its goal of abusing the U.S. Justice system to silence Curt Weldon by ending his political career. Mueller’s tactics worked. If the Clintons and Berger manipulated Weldon’s reelection to assure his defeat, they did it with the artful aid of Mueller, all while George W. Bush was President. Does any of this sound familiar?

 

People say those kinds of things just don’t happen in America. They certainly seemed to when Mueller was in charge of the FBI and they certainly seem to happen now during his tenure as Special Counsel. It appears clear that President Obama and his adjutants knew of Mueller’s reputation and that he could be used to take out their political opponents should such extra-legal actions become politically necessary.

 

To the great dismay of the many good, decent and patriotic FBI agents, Obama begged Mueller to stay on for two years past the 10 years the law allowed. Obama then asked Congress to approve Mueller’s waiver allowing him to stay on for two extra years. Perhaps the leaders in Congress did not realize what they were doing in approving it. I did. It was a major mistake, and I said so at the time. This is also why I objected strenuously the moment I heard Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed his old friend Bob Mueller to be Special Counsel to go after President Trump.

 

ROD ROSENSTEIN

 

I was one of the few who were NOT surprised when Mueller started selecting his assistants in the Special Counsel’s office. Many had reputations for being bullies, for indicting people who were not guilty of the charges, for forcing people toward bankruptcy by running up their legal fees (while the bullies in the Special Counsel’s office enjoy an apparently endless government budget), or by threatening innocent family members with prosecution so the Special Counsel’s victim would agree to pleading guilty to anything to prevent the Kafka-esque prosecutors from doing more harm to their families.

 

AN ILLEGAL RAID ON CONGRESS BY MUELLER

 

 

Comey-Mueller with Kremlin backdrop

There is a doctrine in our governmental system that mandates each part of government must have oversight to prevent power from corrupting — and absolute power from corrupting absolutely. The Congress and Senate are accountable to the voters as is the President. Our massive and bloated bureaucracy is supposed to be accountable to the Congress.

 

A good example would be complaints against the Department of Justice or, specifically, the FBI.

 

If constituents or whistleblowers within those entities have complaints, a Congressman’s office is a good place to contact. Our conversations or information from constituents or whistleblowers are normally privileged from review by anyone within the Executive Branch. It must be so.

 

If the FBI could raid our offices anytime an FBI agent were to complain to us, no FBI agent could ever afford to come forward, no matter how egregious the conduct they sought to disclose.

 

Whistleblowers in the FBI must know they are protected. They always have known that in the past. As I learned from talking with attorneys who had helped the House previously with this issue, if the FBI or another law enforcement entity needed to search something on the House side of the Capitol or House office buildings, they contacted the House Counsel, whether with a warrant or request. The House Counsel with approval of the Speaker, would go through the Congress Members’ documents, computers, flash drives, or anything that might have any bearing on what was being sought as part of the investigation.

 

They would honestly determine what was relevant and what was not, and what was both irrelevant and privileged from Executive Branch review. Normally, if there were a dispute or question, it could be presented to a federal judge for a private in-chamber review to determine if it were privileged or relevant. If the DOJ or FBI were to get a warrant and gather all of the computers and documents in a Congressman’s office without the recovered items being screened to insure they are not privileged from DOJ seizure, the DOJ would be risking that an entire case might be thrown out because of things improperly recovered and “fruit of the poisonous tree,” preventing the use of even things that were not privileged.

 

FBI Director Mueller, however, seemed determined to throw over 200 years of Constitutional restraints to the wind so he could let Congress know he was the unstoppable government bully who could potentially waltz into our offices whenever he wished.

 

In the case of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, Mueller was willing to risk a reversal of a slam dunk criminal case just to send a message to the rest of Congress: you don’t mess with Mueller. That Congressman Jefferson was guilty of something did not surprise most observers when, amidst swirling allegations, $90,000 in cold hard cash was found in his freezer. As we understood it, the FBI had a witness who was wired and basically got Jefferson on tape taking money. They had mountains of indisputable evidence to prove their case. They had gotten an entirely appropriate warrant to search his home and had even more mountains of evidence to nail the lid on his coffin, figuratively speaking.

 

The FBI certainly did not need to conduct an unsupervised search of a Congressman’s office to put their unbeatable case at risk. Apparently, the risk was worth it to Mueller — he could now show the members of Congress who was in charge. Apparently, the FBI knew just the right federal judge who would disregard the Constitution and allow Mueller’s minions to do their dirty work.

 

I read the Application for Warrant and the accompanying Affidavit for Warrant to raid Jefferson’s office, as I did so many times as a judge.

 

I simply could not believe they would risk such a high-profile case just to try to intimidate Members of Congress.

 

In the opinion of this former prosecutor, felony judge and Appellate Court Chief Justice, they could have gotten a conviction based on what they had already spelled out in the very lengthy affidavit. The official attorneys representing the House, knowing my background, allowed me to sit in on the extremely heated discussions between attorneys for the House, DOJ attorneys, and, to my recollection, an attorney from the Bush White House, after Jefferson’s office was raided.

 

The FBI had gathered up virtually every kind of record, computerized or otherwise, and carted them off. I was not aware of the times that the DOJ and House attorneys, with the Speaker’s permission, had cooperated over the years. No Congressman is above the law nor is any above having search warrants issued against them which is why Jefferson’s home was searched without protest.

 

However, when the material is in a Congressional office, there is a critical and centuries’ old balance of power that must be preserved.

 

The Mueller FBI, along with the DOJ, assured everyone that all was copacetic. They would ask some of the DOJ’s attorneys review all of the material and give back anything that was privileged and unlawful for the DOJ to see. Then they would make sure none of the DOJ attorneys who participated in the review of materials (that were privileged from the DOJ’s viewing) would be allowed to be prosecutors in Jefferson’s case.

 

If you find that kind of thinking terribly flawed and constitutionally appalling, you would be in agreement with the former Speakers of the House, the Vice President at the time, and ultimately, the final decisions of our federal appellate court system. They found the search to be illegal and inappropriate. Fortunately for the DOJ, they did not throw the entire case out. In retrospect, we did not know at the time what a farce a DOJ “firewall” would have been. Now we do!

 

MUELLER’S 5-YEAR UP-OUR-OUT

 

Mueller Art

In federal law enforcement, it takes a new federal agent or supervisor about five years or so after arriving at a newly assigned office to gain the trust and respect of local law enforcement officers. That trust and respect is absolutely critical to doing the best job possible. Yet new FBI Director Robert Mueller came up with a new personnel policy that would rid the FBI of thousands of years of its most invaluable experience.

 

In a nutshell, after an FBI employee was in any type of supervisory position for five years, he or she had to either come to Washington to sit at a desk or get out of the FBI.

 

In the myriad of FBI offices around the country, most agents love what they do in actively enforcing the law. They have families involved in the community; their kids enjoy their schools; and they do not want to move to the high cost of living in Washington, DC, and especially not to an inside desk job. What occurred around the country was that agents in charge of their local offices got out of the FBI and did something more lucrative. Though they really wanted to stay in, they were not allowed to do so if they were not moving to DC. Agents told me that it was not unusual for the Special Agent in Charge of a field office to have well over 20 years of experience before the policy change. Under Mueller’s policy that changed to new Special Agents in Charge having five to ten years of experience when they took over.

 

If the FBI Director wanted nothing but “yes” men and women around the country working for him, this was a great policy. Newer agents are more likely to unquestioningly salute the FBI figurehead in Washington, but never boldly offer a suggestion to fix a bad idea and Mueller had plenty of them.

 

Whether it was wasting millions of dollars on a software boondoggle or questionable personnel preferences, agents tell me Mueller did not want to hear from more experienced people voicing their concerns about his ideas or policies. An NPR report December 13, 2007, entitled, “FBI’S ‘Five-And-Out’ Transfer Policy Draws Criticism” dealt with the Mueller controversial policy: “From the beginning of this year (2007) until the end of September (2007), 576 agents found themselves in the five-and-out pool. Less than half of them — just 286 — opted to go to headquarters; 150 decided to take a pay cut and a lesser job to stay put; 135 retired; and five resigned outright.”

 

In the period of nine months accounted for in this report, the FBI ran off a massive amount of absolutely priceless law enforcement experience vested in 140 invaluable agents. For the vast part, those are the agents who have seen the mistakes, learned lessons, could advise newer agents on unseen pitfalls of investigations and pursuit of justice.

 

So many of these had at least 20-30 years of experience or more. The lessons learned by such seasoned agents were lost as the agents carried it with them when they left. In the 2007 NPR report, the FBI Agents Association indicated that the Five-Year-Up-or-Out program hobbles field offices and takes relationships forged there for granted. In other words, it was a terrible idea.

 

The incalculable experience loss damages the FBI by eliminating those in the field in a position to advise the FBI Director against his many judgment errors, which were listed in the NPR article. But this was not the only damage done.

 

If an FBI Director has inappropriate personal vengeance in mind or holds an inappropriate prejudice such as those that infamously motivated Director J. Edgar Hoover, then the older, wiser, experienced agents were not around with the confidence to question or guide the Director away from potential misjudgment. I also cannot help but wonder: if Mueller had not run off the more experienced agents, would they have been able to advise against and stop the kind of Obama-era abuses and corruption being unearthed right now?

 

Rather than admit that his 5-Year program was a mistake, Mueller eventually changed the policy to a Seven-Year-Up-or-Out Program. I once pointed out to him at a hearing that if he had applied the Five Year Up-or-Out Policy to literally everyone in a supervisory position, he himself would have had to leave the FBI by September of 2006. He did not seem to be amused.

 

One other problem remained that will be discussed in more detail later in this article. Before Mueller became Director, FBI agents were trained to identify certain Muslims who had become radicalized and dangerous. Mueller purged and even eliminated training that would have helped identify radical Islamic killers. By running off the more experienced agents who had better training on radical Islam before Mueller, “blinded us of the ability to identify our enemy,” as I was told by some of them, Mueller put victims in harm’s way in cities like Boston, San Diego and elsewhere.

 

NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER ABUSES

 

Mueller (green) & Comey

National Security Letters (NSL) are a tool that allows the DOJ to bypass the formality of subpoenas, applications for warrants with affidavits in support, and instead simply send a letter to an individual, business or any entity they so choose to demand that records or documents of any kind must be produced and provided to the sender.

 

The letter also informs the recipient that if the he or she reveals to anyone that the letter was received or what it requires to be produced, then the recipient has committed a federal felony and will be prosecuted.

 

It is a rather dramatic event to receive such a letter and then realize that this simple letter could have such profound power and consequences.

 

The Committee in the House of Representatives that has oversight jurisdiction over the DOJ is the Judiciary Committee of which I am a member. We have grilled DOJ personnel in the past over the potential for NSL abuse, but both the House and Senate Committees were reassured that there were no known abuses of this extra-constitutional power.

 

Unfortunately, the day came when we learned that there had been an extraordinary number of abuses.

 

Apparently, some of Mueller’s FBI agents had just been sending out demands for records or documents without any probable cause, which the Fourth Amendment requires. Some agents were on outright fishing expeditions just to find out what different people were doing. We were told that there may have even been thousands of NSL’s dispatched to demand documents without following either the Constitutional requirements or the DOJ’s own policy requirements.

 

When the Inspector General’s report revealed such absolutely outrageous conduct by FBI agents, some in Congress were absolutely livid. An NBC News report on March 9, 2007, had this headline and sub-headline: “Justice Department: FBI acted illegally on data; Audit finds agency misused Patriot Act to obtain information on citizens.”

 

The report went on to say, “FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was to blame for not putting more safeguards into place. ‘I am to be held accountable,’ Mueller said. He told reporters he would correct the problems and did not plan to resign. ‘The inspector general went and did the audit that I should have put in place many years ago,’ Mueller said.” Some Republicans wanted to completely eliminate such an extraordinary power that was so widely abused. Nonetheless, I could not help but wonder that if Mueller had not run off thousands of years of experience though his “Five Year Up-or-Out Policy,” perhaps young, inexperienced agents would not have been so tempted to vastly abuse the power of the NSL.

 

In fact, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lost his job over the widespread, pervasive abuses under Mueller’s supervision. In retrospect, Mueller probably should have been gone first. It was his people, his lack of oversight, his atmosphere that encouraged it, and his FBI that did virtually nothing to hold people accountable.

 

SENATOR TED STEVENS

 

With Mueller as his mentor and confidant, is it any surprise that we’re now finding James Comey’s FBI found additional ways to monitor Americans and plot with Democrat loyalists in an attempt to oust a duly-elected President?

 

Ted Stevens had served in the U.S. Senate since 1968 and was indicted in 2008 by the U.S. Justice Department. One would think before the U.S. government would seek to destroy a sitting U.S. Senator, there would be no question whatsoever of his guilt. One would be completely wrong, at least when the FBI Director is Robert Mueller. Roll Call provides us with General Colin Powell’s take on Ted Stevens.

 

“According to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had worked closely with the senator since his days as President Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser, the senator was ‘a trusted individual … someone whose word you could rely on. I never heard in all of those years a single dissenting voice with respect to his integrity, with respect to his forthrightness, and with respect to the fact that when you shook hands with Ted Stevens, or made a deal with Ted Stevens, it was going to be a deal that benefited the nation in the long run, one that he would stick with.’”

 

Such a glowing reputation certainly did not inhibit Mueller’s FBI from putting Stevens in its cross-hairs, pushing to get an indictment that came 100 days before his election, and engaging in third world dictator-type tactics to help an innocent man lose his election, after which he lost his life. As reported by NPR, after the conviction and all truth came rolling out of the framing and conviction of Senator Stevens, the new Attorney General Eric Holder, had no choice. He “abandoned the Stevens case in April 2009 after uncovering new and ‘disturbing’ details about the prosecution…”

 

Unfortunately for Ted Stevens, his conviction came only eight days before his election, which tipped the scales on a close election. [Blog Editor: Prosecutorial misconduct & FBI sex with prosecution’s star witness had conviction tossed – CFP]

 

Does this sound familiar yet? The allegation was that Senator Stevens had not paid full price for improvements to his Alaska cabin. As Roll Call reported, he had actually overpaid for the improvements by over twenty percent. Roll Call went on to state:

 

“But relying on false records and fueled by testimony from a richly rewarded ‘cooperating’ witness… government prosecutors convinced jurors to find him guilty just eight days before the general election which he lost by less than 2 percent of the vote.”

 

After a report substantiated massive improprieties by the FBI and DOJ in the investigation and prosecution of Senator Stevens, the result was ultimately a complete dismissal of the conviction.

 

At the time there was no direct evidence that Director Mueller was aware of the tactics of concealing exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated Stevens, and the creation of evidence that convicted him in 2008. Nearly four years later, in 2012, the Alaska Dispatch News concluded:

 

“Bottom line: Kepner (the lead FBI investigator accused of wrongdoing by Agent Joy) is still working for the FBI and is still investigating cases, including criminal probes. Joy, the whistleblower (who was the FBI agent who disclosed the FBI’s vast wrongdoing, especially of Kepner), has left the agency.”

 

Director Mueller either did control or could have controlled what happened to the lead FBI agent that destroyed a well-respected U.S. Senator. That U.S. Senator was not only completely innocent of the manufactured case against him, he was an honest and honorable man. Under Director Mueller’s overriding supervision, the wrongdoer who helped manufacture the case stayed on and the whistleblower was punished. Obviously, the FBI Director wanted his FBI agents to understand that honesty would be punished if it revealed wrongdoing within Mueller’s organization. Further, not only was evidentiary proof of Senator Stevens’ innocence concealed from the Senator’s defense attorneys by the FBI, there was also a witness that provided compelling testimony that Stevens’ had done everything appropriately. That witness, however, was who agents sent back to Alaska by FBI Agents, unbeknownst to the Senator’s defense attorneys. This key exonerating testimony was placed out of reach for Senator Stevens’ defense. Someone should have gone to jail for this illegality within the nation’s top law enforcement agency. Instead, Senator Stevens lost his seat, and surprise, surprise, Mueller’s FBI helped another elected Republican bite the dust. Unfortunately, I am not speaking figuratively.

 

In August of 2010, former Senator Stevens boarded his doomed plane. But for the heinous, twisted and corrupt investigation by the FBI, and inappropriate prosecution by the DOJ, he would have still been a sitting U.S. Senator.

 

Don’t forget, one vote in the Senate was critical to ObamaCare becoming law. If Senator Stevens was still there, it would not have become law. In the following month after Senator Stevens’ untimely death, in September of 2010, a young DOJ lawyer, Nicholas Marsh — who had been involved in the Stevens case — committed suicide at his home as the investigation into the fraudulent case continued. The report expressed, “no conclusion as to his (Marsh’s) conduct,” given his untimely death. Robert Luskin, an attorney for Marsh, said, “he tried to do the right thing.”

 

If you’re wondering what happened to the valuable FBI agent who was an upstanding whistleblower with a conscience, you should know that inside Mueller’s FBI, Special Agent Joy was terribly mistreated.

 

Orders came down from on high that he was not to participate in any criminal investigation again, which is the FBI management’s way of forcing an agent out of the FBI. On the other hand, the FBI agent who was said to have manufactured evidence against Senator Stevens — while hiding evidence of his innocence — was treated wonderfully and continued to work important criminal cases for Director Mueller.

 

If you wonder if mistreatment of an FBI agent who exposed impropriety was an anomaly in Mueller’s FBI, the Alaska Dispatch noted this about another case:

 

“Former FBI agent Jane Turner was treated much like Joy (the whistleblower agent in the Stevens case) after she blew the whistle on fellow agents who had taken valuable mementos from Ground Zero following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. She took the FBI to court over her treatment and ended up winning her case against the agency after a jury trial. When you blow the whistle on the FBI, ‘it’s death by a million paper cuts,’ she told Alaska Dispatch. Turner said that agents who violate the FBI’s omerta — those who internally challenge the agency — are undercut and isolated. ‘They (Mueller’s FBI supervisors) do everything they can to get you to quit’ she said.”

 

THE DISGUSTING TREATMENT OF DR. STEVEN HATFILL

 

Here is how Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist described this combined Mueller-Comey debacle:

 

“The FBI absolutely bungled its investigation into the Anthrax attacker who struck after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Carl Cannon goes through this story well, and it’s worth reading for how it involves both Comey and his dear ‘friend’ and current special counsel Robert Mueller. The FBI tried — in the media — its case against Hatfill. Their actual case ended up being thrown out by the courts: Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure. More from the Carl Cannon cited above, recounting how disastrous the attempt to convict Dr. Steven Hatfill for a crime he didn’t commit was: In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency threw a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

 

Unfortunately, both Mueller and Comey were absolutely and totally convinced of the innocent man’s guilt. They ruined his life, his relationship with friends, neighbors and potential employers. And from Carl Cannon, Real Clear Politics:

 

You’d think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who’d been convicted — and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who’d tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution’s dog handler “as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.” Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, and personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill, the bureau had its man… Mueller didn’t exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill – and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement ($2.82+150,000/yr. for 20 yrs) – Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. “I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” he said, adding that it would be erroneous “to say there were mistakes.”

 

Though FBI jurisdiction has its limitations, Mueller’s ego does not. Mueller and Comey’s next target in the Anthrax case was Dr. Bruce Ivins. As the FBI was closing in and preparing to give him the ultimate Hatfill treatment, Dr. Ivins took his own life. Though Mueller and Comey were every bit as convinced that Dr. Ivins was the Anthrax culprit as they were that Dr. Hatfill was, there are lingering questions about whether or not there was a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Dr. Ivins is deceased, we are expected to simply accept that he was definitely the Anthrax killer and drop the whole matter. That’s a difficult ask after taxpayer money paid off Mueller’s previous victim. Mueller had relentlessly dogged Dr. Hatfill using life destroying, Orwellian tactics. Either Mueller was wrong when he said it would be a mistake, “to say there were mistakes,” in the railroading of Hatfill or Mueller did intentionally and knowingly persecute an innocent man.

 

THE FRAMING OF SCOOTER LIBBY

 

In 2003, there was yet another fabricated and politically-charged FBI investigation: this one “searching” for the leak of CIA agent Valery Plame’s identity to the media. Robert Mueller’s close friend James Comey was at the time serving as the Deputy Attorney General. Comey convinced then Attorney General John Ashcroft that he should recuse himself from the Plame investigation while Ashcroft was in the hospital.

 

After Deputy A.G. Comey was successful in securing Ashcroft’s recusal, Comey then got to choose the Special Counsel. He then looked about for someone who was completely independent of any relationships that might affect his independence and settled upon his own child’s godfather, nameing [sic] Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the source of the leak. So much for the independence of the Special Counsel.

 

The entire episode was further revealed as a fraud when it was later made public that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, FBI Director Mueller, and Deputy Attorney Comey had very early on learned that the source of Plame’s identity leak came from Richard Armitage. But neither Comey nor Mueller nor Fitzgerald wanted Armitage’s scalp. Oh no. These so-called apolitical, fair-minded pursuers of their own brand of justice were after a bigger name in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Yet they knew from the beginning that these two men were not guilty of anything.

 

Mueller Caricatures

Nonetheless, Fitzgerald, Mueller and Comey pursued Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, as a path to ensnare the Vice President. According to multiple reports, Fitzgerald had twice offered to drop all charges against Libby if he would ‘deliver’ Cheney to him. There was nothing to deliver. Is any of this sounding familiar? Could it be that these same tactics have been used against an innocent Gen. Mike Flynn? Could it be that Flynn only agreed to plead guilty to prevent any family members from being unjustly prosecuted and to also prevent going completely broke from attorneys’ fees? That’s the apparent Mueller-Comey Special Counsel distinctive modus-operandi. Libby would not lie about Cheney, so he was prosecuted for obstruction of justice, perjury, making a false statement. This Spectator report from 2015 sums up this particularly egregious element of the railroading.

 

“… By the time Scooter Libby was tried in 2007 it wasn’t for anything to do with the Plame leak — everyone then knew Armitage had taken responsibility for that — but for lying to federal officials about what he had said to three reporters, including Miller. It is relating to this part of the story that an extraordinary new piece of information has come to light. After her spell in prison, and with her job on the line, Miller was eventually worn down to agree to hand over some redacted portions of notes of her few conversations with Libby. Several years on, she could no longer recall where she had first heard of Plame’s CIA identity, but her notes included a reference to Wilson alongside which the journalist had added in brackets ‘wife works in Bureau?’

 

After Fitzgerald went through these notes it was put to Miller that this showed that the CIA identity of Plame had been raised by Libby during the noted meeting. At Libby’s trial Miller was the only reporter to state that Libby had discussed Plame. His conviction and his sentencing to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine, rested on this piece of evidence. But Miller has just published her memoirs. One detail in particular stands out. Since the Libby trial, Miller has read Plame’s own memoir and there discovered that Plame had worked at a State Department bureau as cover for her real CIA role. The discovery, in Miller’s words, ‘left her cold’. The idea that the ‘Bureau’ in her notebook meant ‘CIA’ had been planted in her head by Fitzgerald. It was a strange word to use for the CIA. Reading Plame’s memoir, Miller realized that ‘Bureau’ was in brackets because it related to her working at State Department. (Emphasis added)

 

What that means is that Scooter Libby had not lied as she originally thought and testified. He was innocent of everything including the contrived offense. For his honesty and innocence, Scooter Libby spent time behind bars, and still has a federal felony conviction he carries like an albatross. The real culprit of the allegation for which the Special Counsel was appointed, and massive amounts of tax payer dollars expended was Richard Armitage. A similar technique was used against Martha Stewart. After all, Mueller’s FBI developed both cases. If the desired crime to be prosecuted was never committed, then talk to someone you want to convict until you find something that others are willing to say was not true. Then you can convict them of lying to the FBI. Martha Stewart found out about Mueller’s FBI the hard way. Unfortunately, Mueller has left a wake of innocent people whom he has crowned with criminal records. History does seem to repeat itself when it is recording the same people using the same tactics. Can anyone who has ever actually looked at Robert Mueller’s history honestly say that Mueller deserves a sterling reputation in law enforcement? One part of his reputation he does apparently deserve is the reputation for being James Comey’s mentor.

 

MUELLER’S EMBRACE OF THE FRIENDS OF ISLAMIC TERROR

 

In 2011, in one of the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight hearings, FBI Director Mueller repeatedly testified during questioning by various Members about how the Muslim community was just like every other religious community in the United States. He also referenced an “Outreach Program” the FBI had with the Muslim community.

 

When it was my turn to question, I could not help but put the two points of his testimony together for a purge question:

 

GOHMERT: Thank you, Director. I see you had mentioned earlier, and it’s in your written statement, that the FBI’s developed extensive outreach to Muslim communities and in answer to an earlier question I understood you to say that you know Muslim communities were like all other communities, so I’m curious as the result of the extensive outreach program the FBI’s had to the Muslim community, how is your outreach program going with the Baptists and the Catholics?

 

MUELLER: I’m not certain of, necessarily the rest of that, the question I would say — there are outreach to all segments of a particular city or county or society is good.

 

GOHMERT: Well do you have a particular program of outreach to Hindus, Buddhists, Jewish community, agnostics or is it just an extensive outreach program to –

 

MUELLER: We have outreach to every one of those communities.

 

GOHMERT: And how do you do that?

 

MUELLER: Every one of those communities can be affected can be affected by facts or circumstance.

 

GOHMERT: I’ve looked extensively, and I haven’t seen anywhere in any one from the FBI’s letters, information that there’s been an extensive outreach program to any other community trying to develop trust in this kind of relationship and it makes me wonder if there is an issue of trust or some problem like that that the FBI has seen in that particular community.

 

MUELLER: I would say if you look at one of our more effective tools or what we call citizens academies where we bring in individuals from a variety of segments of the territory in which the office operates . . . look at the citizens’ academy, the persons here, they are a crosssection [sic] of the community, they can be Muslim, could be Indian, they can be Baptists – GOHMERT: Okay but no specific programs to any of those. You have extensive outreach to the Muslim community and then you have a program of outreach to communities in general is what it sounds like.

 

We went further in the questioning. The 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, linked the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Because of this affiliation, the FBI issued policy and guidance to restrict its non-investigative interactions with CAIR in an effort to limit CAIR’s ability to exploit contacts with the FBI. As a result, FBI field offices were instructed to cut ties with all local branches of CAIR across the country.

 

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the evidence in the Holy Land Foundation case that linked the Council on American-Islamic relations, CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and the North America Islamic Trust to the Holy Land Foundation?

 

MUELLER: I’m not going to speak to specific information in a particular case. I would tell you on the other hand that we do not –

 

GOHMERT: Are you aware of the case, Director?

 

[CROSSTALK] MUELLER: – relationship with CAIR because of concerns –

 

GOHMERT: Well I’ve got the letter from the Assistant Director Richard Powers that says in light of the evidence – talking about during the trial – evidence was introduced that demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, including its current president emeritus and executive director and the Palestine committee, evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine committee and Hamas, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995.

 

In light of that evidence, he says, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and FBI. Well now it’s my understanding, and I’ve got documentation, and I hope you’ve seen this kind of documentation before, it’s public record, and also the memo order from the judge in turning down a request that the unindicted co-conspirators be eliminated from the list, and he says the FBI’s information is clear there is a tie here, and I’m not going to grant the deletion of these particular parties as unindicted coconspirators.

 

So, I’m a little surprised that you’re reluctant to discuss something that’s already been set out in an order, that’s already been in a letter saying we cut ties in light of the evidence at this trial. I’m just surprised it took the evidence that the FBI had, being introduced at the trial in order to sever the relationships with CAIR that it (the FBI) had that showed going back to the 1993 meeting in Philadelphia, what was tied to a terrorist organization. So, I welcome your comments about that.

 

MUELLER: As I told you before, we have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership on that.

 

What Director Mueller was intentionally deceptive about was that the FBI had apparently maintained a relationship and even “community partnership” instigated on his watch with CAIR and other groups and individuals that his FBI had evidence showing they were co-conspirators to terrorism. That, of course, is consistent with his misrepresentation that Mueller’s FBI had outreach programs to other religious communities just like they did with the Muslim community. They did not. He was not honest about it. In a March 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) questioned Mueller over the FBI move to cut off contact with CAIR. Mueller responded to Kyl’s pressing over how the policy was to be handled by FBI field offices and headquarters with the following:

 

MUELLER: We try to adapt, when we have situations where we have an issue with one or more individuals, as opposed to institution, or an institution, large, to identify the specificity of those particular individuals or issues that need to be addressed. We will generally have — individuals may have some maybe leaders in the community who we have no reason to believe whatsoever are involved in terrorism, but may be affiliated, in some way, shape or form, with an institution about which there is some concern, and which we have to work out a separate arrangement. We have to be sensitive to both the individuals, as well as the organization, and try to resolve the issues that may prevent us from working with a particular organization.

 

KYL: They try to “adapt” with members of terror-related groups? Are they as “sensitive” with other organizations? Do they work out “separate arrangements” with members of, say, the Mafia or the Ku Klux Klan for “community outreach”? Why the special treatment for radical Islamic terrorism?

 

A March 2012 review of FBI field office compliance with this policy by the Office of Inspector General found a discrepancy between the FBI’s enforcement policy restricting contact and interaction with CAIR and its resulting actions. Rather than FBI headquarters enforcing the rules, they hedged. Mueller set up a separate cover through the Office of Public Affairs and allowed them to work together, despite the terrorist connections.

 

That was the cultivated atmosphere of Mueller’s FBI. The DOJ actually set out in writing in an indictment that CAIR and some of the people Mueller was coddling were supporters of terrorism. I had understood that the plan by the Bush Justice Department was that if they got convictions of the principals in the Holy Land Foundation trial, they would come right back after the co-conspirators who were named in the indictment as co-conspirators but who were not formally indicted. In late 2008, the DOJ got convictions against all those formally indicted, so DOJ could then move forward with formally indicting and convicting the rest—EXCEPT that the November 2008 election meant it was now going to be the OBAMA DOJ with Eric Holder leading. The newly-named but not confirmed Attorney General apparently made clear they were not going to pursue any of the named co-conspirators. That itself was a major loss for the United States in its war against terrorism in the Obama administration. It was a self-inflicted refusal to go after and defeat our enemies. All of the named co-conspirators would not likely have been formally indicted, but certainly there was evidence to support the allegations against some of them, as the federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had formally found. One of the problems with FBI Director Mueller is that he had already been cozying up to named co-conspirators with evidence in hand of their collusion with terrorists. That probably was an assurance to President Obama and Attorney General Holder that Mueller would fit right in to the Obama administration. He did. It also helps explain why President Obama and AG Holder wanted him to serve and extra two years as FBI Director. Mueller was their kind of guy. Unfortunately for America, he truly was!

 

PURGING THE FBI OF ANTI-TERROR INFORMATION

 

We repeatedly see cases where people were radicalized, emerge on the FBI’s radar, but federal agents are instead looking for Islamophobes, not the terrorists standing in front of them. That is because Mueller’s demand of his FBI Agents, in the New Age to which he brought them, was to look for Islamophobes.

 

If a Mueller-trained FBI agent got a complaint about a potential radical Islamist who may pose a threat, the agent must immediately recognize that the one complaining is most likely an Islamophobe. That means the agent should first investigate whether the complainant is guilty of a hate crime. Too often it was after an attack occurred that Mueller-trained FBI agents would decide that there really was a radical Islamic threat to the United States.

 

The blinding of our FBI agents to the domestic threat of radical Islam is part of the beguiling damage Robert Mueller did as FBI Director. That is also the kind of damage that got Americans killed, even though Mueller may have avoided offending the radical Islamists who were killing Americans. As terrorism expert Patrick Poole continually points out in his “Known Wolf” series, the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are committed by those the FBI has interviewed and dismissed as a threat. Here are three of the more high-profile cases:

 

ORLANDO: The mass killer who attacked the Pulse nightclub in June 2016, Omar Mateen, had been interviewed by the FBI on three separate occasions. The open preliminary investigation in 2013 lasted 10 months, after Mateen had told others about mutual acquaintances he shared with the Boston bombers and had made extremist statements. He was investigated again in 2014 for his contacts with a suicide bomber who attended the same mosque. At one point, Mateen was placed on TWO separate terrorism databases. He was later removed from them.

 

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Detroit bound Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 with 289 other passengers wearing an underwear bomb intended to murder them all. He was well-known to U.S. intelligence officials before he boarded.

 

Only one month before the attempted bombing, Abdulmutallab’s father had actually gone to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and met with two CIA officers. He directly told the CIA that he was concerned about his son’s extremism. Abdulmutallab’s name was added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database. However, his name was not added the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database. Or even the no-fly list. So, he boarded a plane. When asked about the near-takedown of the flight and these missteps, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano remarkably told CNN that “the system worked.” The only “system” that worked in this incident: a culture that values bravery, already instilled in the passengers who acted.

 

BOSTON: Prior to the bombing of the Boston Marathon by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in April 2013 that killed three people and injured 264 others, the FBI had been tipped off. Twice. Russian intelligence warned that Tamerlan was “a follower of radical Islam.” Initially, the FBI denied ever meeting with Tamerlan. They later claimed that they followed up on the lead, couldn’t find anything in their databases linking him to terrorism, and quickly closed the case. After the second Russian warning, Tamerlan’s file was flagged by federal authorities demanding “mandatory” detention if he attempted to leave or re-enter the United States. But Tsarnaev’s name was misspelled when it was entered into the database.

 

An internal FBI report of the handling of the Tsarnaev’s case -unsurprisingly — saw the FBI exonerate itself. When I asked at yet another House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, Mueller himself admitted in response to my questioning, that the FBI had indeed gone to the Boston mosque the bombers attended. Of course, The FBI did not go to investigate the Tsarnaevs. The bombers’ mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston, was incorporated by known and convicted terrorists. The incorporation papers were signed by none other than Abduram Al-Amoudi who is currently serving 23 years in a federal prison for funding terrorism. One of the members of the Board of Trustees included a leader of the International Muslim Brotherhood, Yusef al-Qawadari, who is barred from entering the United States due to his terrorist ties. Did Mueller’s FBI go to the Boston bombers’ mosque to investigate the Tsarnaevs? This is from the House Judiciary oversight hearing transcript:

 

GOHMERT: The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks. If the Russians tell you that someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosque that they went to, then you get the articles of incorporation, as I have, for the group that created the Boston mosque where these Tsarnaevs attended, and you find out the name Al-Amoudi, which you will remember, because while you were FBI Director this man who was so helpful to the Clinton administration with so many big things, he gets arrested at Dulles Airport by the FBI and he is now doing over 20 years for supporting terrorism. This is the guy that started the mosque where the Tsarnaevs were attending, and you didn’t even bother to go check about the mosque? And then when you have the pictures, why did no one go to the mosque and say, who are these guys? They may attend here. Why was that not done since such a thorough job was done?

 

MUELLER: Your facts are not altogether——

 

GOHMERT: Point out specifically. MUELLER: May I finish my——

 

GOHMERT: Point out specifically. Sir, if you’re going to call me a liar, you need to point out specifically where any facts are wrong.

 

MUELLER: We went to the mosque prior to Boston.

 

GOHMERT: Prior to Boston?

 

MUELLER: Prior to Boston happening, we were in that mosque talking to the imam several months beforehand as part of our outreach efforts. “Outreach efforts”? Yes. That is apparently Mueller’s efforts to play figurative pattycake with the leaders and tell them how wonderful they are and how crazy all those Islamaphobes out there are, but they surely got assurance that Mueller’s FBI is after those bigots. Maybe they sat around on the floor and had a really nice meal together. One thing for certain, they weren’t asking about the Tsarnaevs! But the hearing got even worse:

 

GOHMERT: Were you aware that those mosques were started by Al-Amoudi?

 

MUELLER. I’ve answered the question, sir.

 

GOHMERT. You didn’t answer the question. Were you aware that they were started by Al-Amoudi?

 

MUELLER. No. . .

 

Then my time for questioning expired, leaving many questions unanswered. Why was the FBI unaware of the origins of the mosque attended by the Boston bombers? This was arguably the most traumatic Islamic terrorist attack in America since 9-11 because the explosions happened on live television at the Boston Marathon. When did the FBI become an outreach-to-terrorism organization to the detriment and disregard of its investigations? Under Director Robert Mueller’s tenure, that’s when!

 

In Director Mueller’s efforts to appease and please the named co-conspirators of terrorism, he was keenly attuned to their complaints that the FBI training materials on radical Islam said some things about Islamic terrorists that offended some Muslims. Never mind that the main offense was done to the American people by radical Islamists who wanted to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. Mueller wanted to make these co-conspirators feel good toward Mueller and to let them know he was pleased to appease. Director Mueller had all of the training materials regarding radical Islam “purged” of anything that might offend radical Islamic terrorists. So, in addition to using his “Five Year Up-or-Out” policy to force out so many experienced FBI agents who had been properly trained to identify radical Islamic terrorists, now Mueller was going even further. He was ensuring that new FBI agents would not know what to look for when assessing potentially radicalized individuals.

 

When those of us in Congress learned of the Mueller-mandated “purge” of FBI training materials, we demanded to see what was being removed. Unfortunately, Mueller was well experienced in covering his tracks, so naturally the pages of training materials that were purged were ordered to be “classified,” so most people would never get to see them.

 

After many terrorist attacks, we would hear that the FBI had the Islamic terrorists on their radar but failed to identify them. Now you are beginning to see why FBI agents could not spot them. They were looking more at the complainant than they were at the radical Islamist because that is what Mueller had them trained to do.

 

Michele Bachmann and I were extremely upset that Americans were being killed because of the terribly flawed training. We demanded to see the material that was “purged” from the training of FBI agents regarding radical Islam. That is when we were told it could not be sent over for review because the purged material was “classified.” We were authorized to review classified material, so we demanded to see it anyway. We were willing to go over to the FBI office or the DOJ, but we wanted to review the material.

 

We were told they would bring it over and let us review it in the Rayburn Building in a protected setting. They finally agreed to produce the material. Members of Congress Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, and I went to the little room to review the vast amount of material. Lynn was not able to stay as long as Michele and I did, but we started pouring through the notebooks of materials. It was classified so naturally I am not allowed to disclose any specifics, but we were surprised at the amount of material that was purged from the training our agents. Some of the items that were strictly for illustration or accentuation were removed. A few were silly. But some should clearly have been left in if an FBI agent was going to know how and what a radical Islamic terrorist thinks, and what milestone had been reached in the radicalization process.

 

It was clear to Michele and me as we went through the purged materials that some of the material really did need to be taught to our FBI agents. For those densely-headed or radical activists who will wrongly proclaim that what I am writing is an Islamophobic complaint, please note that I have never said that all Muslims are terrorists. I have never said that, because all Muslims are not terrorists. But for the minority who are, we have to actually learn exactly what they study and learn how they think. As Patton made clear after defeating Rommel’s tanks in World War II, he studied his enemy, what he believed and how he thought. In the movie, “Patton,” he loudly proclaims, “Rommel, you magnificent ___, I read your book!”

 

That is how an enemy is defeated. You study what they believe, how they think, what they know. Failure to do so is precisely why so many “Known Wolves” are able to attack us. Clearly, Mueller weakened our ability to recognize a true radical Islamic terrorist. As one of my friends in our U.S. Intelligence said, “We have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy! You cannot defeat an enemy you cannot define.” Robert Mueller deserves a significant amount of the credit for the inability of our federal agents to define our enemy.

 

PURGING COUNTER-TERRORISM TRAINING MATERIALS

 

FBI Special Agent Kim Jensen had spent a great deal of his adult life studying radical Islam. He is personally responsible for some extraordinary undercover work that remains classified to this day. He was tasked with putting together a program to train our more experienced FBI agents to locate and identify radicalized Muslims on the threshold of violence.

 

Jensen had done this well before Mueller began to cozy up with and pander to groups such as CAIR. Complaints by similar groups caused Mueller to once again demand that our agents could not be properly instructed on radical Islam.

 

Accordingly, Jensen’s roughly 700-pages of advanced training material on radical Islam were eliminated from FBI training and all copies were ordered destroyed.

 

When Director Mueller decides he wants our federal agents to be blind and ignorant of radical Islam, they are indeed going to be blind and ignorant.

 

Fortunately, in changing times well after Mueller’s departure as FBI Director, a new request went out to Mr. Jensen to recreate that work because at least someone in the FBI needed to know what traits to look for in a terrorist. It still did not undo the years of damage from Mueller’s commanded ignorance of radical Islam.

 

MUELLER’S UNETHICAL ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

 

Robert Mueller had more than one direct conflict of interest that should have prohibited him from serving as the Special Counsel to investigate President Donald Trump.

 

For one thing, President Trump fired his close friend and confidante, disgraced FBI Director James Comey. Mueller had long served as a mentor to Comey, who would most certainly be a critical witness in any investigation of Donald Trump.

 

Mueller and Comey had also been exceedingly close friends beyond the mentor relationship. But Comey’s insertion of himself into so much of the election cycle — and even its aftermath — in conversations he had with the President himself made him a critical witness in the investigation. There is no way Mueller could sit in judgment of his dear, close friend’s credibility, and certainly no way he should be allowed to do so.

 

Gregg Jarrett explained one aspect of this situation quite clearly and succinctly at FoxNews.com in an article titled, “Gregg Jarrett: Are Mueller and Comey ‘Colluding’ against Trump by acting as co-special counsel?” A portion of that article reads:

 

The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has a “conflict of interest.” Even the appearance of a conflict is disallowed. The same Code of Federal Regulations defines what constitutes a conflict. That is, “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” (28 CFR 45.2).

 

Comey is that person. He was substantially involved in the conversation with President Trump who may be the subject of an obstruction investigation. In fact, the former Director is the only other person involved. There were no witnesses beyond himself. A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Here, it sets up a clash between the special counsel’s self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest in discharging his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner. His close association with the star witness raises the likelihood of prejudice or favoritism which is anathema to the fair administration of justice.

 

Mueller has no choice but to disqualify himself. The law affords him no discretion because the recusal is mandatory in its language. It does not say “may” or “can” or “might”. It says the special counsel “shall” recuse himself in such instances.

 

An excellent post by Robert Barnes, a constitutional lawyer, identifies five statutes, regulations and codes of conduct that Mueller is violating because of his conflict of interest with Comey. Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner recounts in detail the close personal relationship between Mueller and Comey which gives rise to the blatant conflict of interest.

 

Another deeply troubling aspect of Mueller’s conflict of interest is and was his role in the investigation of Russia’s effort to illegally gain control of a substantial part of United States’ precious supply of uranium. That investigation was taking place within the Mueller FBI, which should have had a direct effect on prohibiting Secretary of State Clinton from participating in the approval of the uranium sale into the hands that were ultimately the Russian government.

 

Of course, then U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein had direct control over that Russia uranium investigation in conjunction with FBI Director Mueller. It certainly appears that with what they had gleaned from that undercover investigation, they should never have been involved in any subsequent investigation that might touch on potential collusion and millions of dollars paid to the Clinton’s foundation by the very beneficiaries of the Russians’ uranium schemes. Rosenstein and Mueller’s failure to warn against or stop the sale reeks of its own form of collusion, cooperation, or capitulation in what some consider a treasonous sale.

 

Quite the interesting duo is now in charge of all things investigatory surrounding their own actions. In fact, Rosenstein and Mueller are now in a position to dissuade others from pursuing them for their own conduct.

 

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MUELLER’S TROUBLINGLY BIASED HIRES

 

Through it all, Mueller’s modus operandi does not seem to have ever changed. He has hired nine Democrat-supporting lawyers and zero Republicans. Certainly all attorneys likely have political views and that is not a problem so long as they do not affect their job. But not a single Republican was worthy of Mueller’s selection?

 

Were there no establishment Republicans who wanted to join his jihad? Mueller’s hand-picked team of Democrats reveal political views that distinctly conflict with Trump and the conservative agenda, raising questions about Mueller’s bias and his ability to conduct a fair investigation. At least nine members of Mueller’s team made significant contributions to Democrats or Democratic campaigns, while none contributed to Trump’s campaign and only James Quarles contributed to Republicans in a drastically smaller amount than what he gave to Democrats.

 

Analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, Andrew Goldstein, James Quarles, Elizabeth Prelogar, Greg Andres, Brandon Van Grack, Rush Atkinson, and Kyle Freeny all contributed over $50,000 in donations to Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s Presidential campaigns, various Democratic non-presidential candidates, and the Democratic National Convention. Mueller also has surprisingly strong personal ties to a number of the lawyers he hired.

 

Three former partners with Mueller at the Boston law firm of Wilmer Hale are on the payroll: Aaron Zebley, Jeannie Rhee, and James Quarles. In addition to strong personal ties to Mueller, many of the attorneys have potential conflicts in working for persons directly connected to the people and issues being investigated.

 

Jeannie Rhee represented Ben Rhodes, ex-Obama National Security Adviser, and the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit, as well as Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit probing her private emails.

 

Aaron Zebley, former Chief of Staff to Mueller while Director of the FBI, represented Justin Cooper in the Clinton email scandal as he was responsible for setting up Clinton’s private email server. He admitted to physically damaging Clinton’s old mobile devices.

 

Andrew Goldstein joined the team after working under major Trump critic Preet Bharara in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York. Bharara became a strong critic after Trump fired him as an Obama-holdover and spoke on ABC News that “there’s absolutely evidence to launch an obstruction of justice case against Trump’s team with regard to the Russia probe.” Does he sound a bit prejudiced?

 

Andrew Weissman, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissman shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined.

 

Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi. Additionally, Weissman has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weissman was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans.

 

Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after more than 10,000 texts between him and former Mueller investigator Lisa Page were found to contain vitriolic anti-Trump tirades. They were not simply anti-Trump. They were more in the nature of desperate attempts to stop him from becoming President and talk of a nefarious insurance policy to orchestrate his removal if he were elected.

 

GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN

 

Michael Flynn is a man entangled in manufactured controversy from the moment he stepped into his role in the Trump administration. The circumstances surrounding his take-down have become one of the more puzzling aspects of the Trump-Russia investigation. His career took him from three decades in the U.S. Army to overseeing the Pentagon’s military intelligence operation and directing the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was more than qualified to act as the first national security adviser in a new administration. However, his influence and zeal made him a clear target for the Trump-Russia investigation.

 

As a strong supporter and friend of Donald Trump’s from the onset, he campaigned and publicly supported then-candidate Trump throughout 2016. As best I can sort it out through the media hype and hysteria, having no first-hand knowledge like the rest of America: after the successful election, during the transition period, in December 2016, Flynn reportedly conversed with a Russian ambassador.

 

He was “accidentally” swept up in an intelligence foreign surveillance recording. When this happens, the names of American citizens are supposed to be masked in the transcripts. Somehow Flynn’s name was magically unmasked, which apparently allowed the Obama administration to peruse his meetings and conversations. Parts of the classified transcript of that conversation were leaked to the media by rogue Deep State law breakers (criminals who Mueller seems completely disinterested in). This appears to be what fueled the media-driven narrative of Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia because Flynn had a discussion with a Russian ambassador, which conversation is absolutely legal and advisable. A media-generated doubt clouded Flynn’s reputation, as the discussion was long reported as having taken place during the campaign (which could possibly be illegal) but was later proven to have been after the election and during the transition which should not have been illegal.

 

After a complete pounding of media-driven hysteria, in mid-February of 2017, Flynn resigned having served only 23 days as National Security Advisor. Mueller targeted Flynn using illicitly-gathered and leaked foreign intelligence and surveillance as evidence. Nine months later after Flynn and his family were subjected to Mueller’s usual threats and intimidation, a financially exhausted Flynn entered a guilty plea on one count of lying to the FBI—the result of a Mueller-technique perjury trap as was used on Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart. What is Flynn guilty of? He apparently misremembered a conversation that took place 33 days previously? The FBI had a transcript of that conversation and already knew what information was there. They went into a conversation with Flynn not seeking answers to questions, but to try to trip him up on exact statements made in a conversation when they were already in possession of the transcript.

 

Flynn’s unmasking has become the center of a controversy wherein those transcripts were procured under exceedingly questionable circumstances before a judge who had a questionable and undisclosed relationship with part of Mueller’s team. That judge was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the secretive court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allows federal law enforcement to seek secretive warrants to surveil foreign persons outside of the United States who are suspected of terrorism. But the Obama administration and Mueller seemed to find it much more politically expedient to use the secret court to go after Americans who were part of the Trump team for actions that did not occur while they were part of the Trump campaign team. Strange goings-on.

 

One could argue that Judge Rudolph Contreras, the federal judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, conveniently misremembered that he also served on the FISA court as a judge and conveniently misremembered his friendship with the FBI agent whose interview was used as evidence against Flynn. As it turns out, the FBI interview notes of that very encounter with Flynn may exonerate Michael Flynn, crushing Mueller’s case against him, not to mention the highly questionable hearing before a judge who may well have been recused much too late to save the Flynn prosecution.

 

FISA ABUSE

 

The FISA-authorized FISC is built upon the principle that highly delicate cases dealing with government surveillance of foreign agents and officials would be handled in an unbiased and respectful environment where secrecy at all costs was critical. There is supposed to be an added precaution to prevent any potential for bias in a FISA Judge by having a rotation of judges. That is why it is such a shock to find out now that Mueller’s case against Michael Flynn would happen to end up before the “randomly selected” very dear close personal friend of FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who hated President Trump with a passion, as evidenced in his text messages with colleague and paramour, Lisa Page. U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, or “Rudy” as Strzok likes to refer to him, should have recused himself from such a highly sensitive case involving the ultimate attempted removal of the duly-elected President of the United States who happened to be despised by the very people who by law were required to prosecute with fairness. He was later forced to ‘recuse’ himself and be removed from the Flynn proceedings, without public explanation.

 

This forced recusal was an unmistakable indication that he never should have been involved in the Michael Flynn plea agreement. Judge Contreras’ conflict of interest has yet to be explained by the court. Contreras’ is one of only three local FISA court judges, and by default, is likely one of the judges who have on four occasions approved the Title I surveillance of another character in this melodrama, Carter Page. This is the case where the FBI is known to have intentionally misled the FISA court by using as evidence the illustrious “Steele Dossier,” a sordid opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Oh, what a tangled web of crime Special Prosecutor Mueller’s team appears to have helped weave, and of which Mueller appears to be completely disinterested, all while he searches high and low for an elusive crime to pin on the President.

 

MUELLER IGNORES PROVABLE CRIMES BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THE FBI, THE FISC, ETC.

 

Strategically timed leaks of selective classified information are being used to target individuals for investigation in order to create the appearance of some sinister crime are committed.

 

Upon closer scrutiny, the cases fall apart.

 

Yet, slam dunk federal criminal cases of leaking classified material are going on under Mueller’s nose, and by those within his purview and his team. When we think of all the leaks from Mueller’s investigation, it brings to mind Wilford Brimley’s quote from Absence of Malice: “You call what’s goin’ on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.”

 

Case in point: Erik Prince. As Lee Smith put it in a recent article from TabletMag.com, Robert Mueller’s Beltway Cover-Up:

 

News that special counselor Robert Mueller has turned his attention to Erik Prince’s January 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles with a Russian banker, a Lebanese-American political fixer, and officials from the United Arab Emirates, helps clarify the nature of Mueller’s work. It’s not an investigation that the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading—rather, it’s a cover-up…

 

Mueller is said to believe that the Prince meeting was to set up a back channel with the Kremlin. But that makes no sense. According to the foundational text of the collusion narrative, the dossier allegedly written by former British spy Christopher Steele, the Kremlin had cultivated Trump himself for years. So what’s the purpose of a back channel, when Vladimir Putin already had a key to the front door of Mar-a-Lago? Further, the collusion thesis holds that the Trump circle teamed with high-level Russian officials for the purpose of winning the 2016 election. How does a meeting that Erik Prince had a week before Trump’s inauguration advance the crooked election victory plot? It doesn’t—it contradicts it. The writer goes on to point out that serious crimes have been committed which Mueller is purposefully ignoring. Prince was thrown into the middle of Russiagate after an April 3, 2017, Washington Post story reported his meeting with the Russian banker. But how did anyone know about the meeting? After the story came out, Prince said he was shown “specific evidence” by sources from the intelligence community that the information was swept up in the collection of electronic communications and his identity was unmasked. The US official or officials who gave his name to the Post broke the law when they leaked classified intelligence. “Unless the Washington Post has somehow miraculously recruited the bartender of a hotel in the Seychelles,” Prince told the House Intelligence Committee in December, “the only way that’s happening is through SIGINT [signals intelligence].” Prince’s name was unmasked and leaked from classified signals intelligence. Oddly enough, it’s the same modus operandi used in the targeting of President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. It is a federal felony to publish leaked classified information.

 

Ask WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about that particular unequal application of the law. The Deep State felons who are strategically leaking this information have politically weaponized our justice system and should be prosecuted for their attempts, with malice aforethought, to manufacture the overthrow of a duly elected President of the United States. The leaks and publication of classified information alone warrant investigation and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law in this matter, yet Mueller appears utterly uninterested in those crimes even as they go to the very heart of the credibility of his investigative mandate.

 

Yet, as I’ve demonstrated here, the man put in charge of the investigation of “Russian Collusion”; case, Robert Mueller, has perfected the art of abuse of the justice system for personal and political gain. He is uninterested in any criminal activity that does not further his cause of damaging this President. If you think that is harsh, consider the criminality of the FISA court abuses by the Obama Department of Justice and FBI. We have all heard ad nauseum about the infamous “Steele Dossier,” the opposition research document paid for by the Clinton campaign that was used to manufacture the Russia collusion narrative and spark what became the Mueller investigation into our President. On June 18, 2017, Muller protégé and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the Clinton campaign-funded document, telling Congress that the document was, “salacious and unverified.” https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295)

 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, created a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to allow secret warrants to surveil agents of foreign governments, be they U.S. citizens or non-U.S. actors. In October of 2016, the Obama DOJ/FBI successfully applied for one of these secret warrants to surveil Carter Page, a short-time Trump campaign volunteer. Since these warrants against U.S. citizens are outside of the bounds of the Constitution, they have to be renewed by applying to the court every 90 days after the first warrant application is approved. These secret warrants are so serious they have to be signed off on at the highest levels. The applications in question would have been signed off on by Obama administration FBI and DOJ officials including then FBI Director James Comey. At least one of the renewal applications would have been signed off on by our current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. At the time of the signing, they all would have had the knowledge and/or the professional and legal duty to know that the dossier was used as evidence and also had the legal duty to know the evidence origins. The same would apply to the knowledge of the penalty for submitting unverified information to the FISC for the purpose of obtaining a warrant. It is a crime to submit under the color of law an application to the FISC that contains unverified information 50 U.S. Code § 1809).

 

Comey’s “salacious and unverified” testimony before the Senate occurred eight months after the Clinton campaign-funded dossier was used in the first successful FISA court application to obtain a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a Trump campaign volunteer for several months. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence examined the documentation submitted to the court and concluded that the unverified information contained in the Steele dossier was in fact used in the FISC application, without disclosing to the court that it was an opposition research document paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

 

Neither the initial application in October of 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, the Clinton campaign, or any other partyn [sic] in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials. The timing of the applications, the inclusion of material the DOJ/FBI knew to be unverified at the time, and the successful result after this fraudulent inclusion speak to the level of criminal corruption of those who sought to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and still seek to overturn his election. The widespread abuse of the FISA-authorized court, FISC, was laid bare in a court memorandum of review of these abuses that was declassified in 2017 and went virtually unnoticed by the media because it didn’t fit their narrative.

 

These are serious crimes that, left unchecked, lead nations down the path to tyranny at the hands of people who think they know better than citizens. It’s an age-old struggle America’s Founding Fathers knew well and did everything they could to prevent from happening. The FISC judges themselves have a duty to police their own courts and call to account these bad actors who, by all facts in the documentation I’ve personally seen, have committed a fraud upon the court. If these judges do not have the integrity to self-police in this matter, we in Congress must hold them accountable using the power granted to us in the Constitution. Congress has created every single federal court in the country except the Supreme Court. We have the duty to phase out, change or disband the FISC, all while developing a better solution to address the authorization of this sort of surveillance of foreign agents and actors. It is our duty to clean up the mess that the Obama administration demonstrated is far too easy to create.

 

If you want answers, and you can handle the truth, join me in demanding those answers from “Special Counsel” Robert Mueller, along with his resignation. If he were to resign, it could well be the only truly moral, ethical and decent action Mueller has undertaken in this entire investigation.

______________________

Gohmert Exposes Mueller & Comrades

John R. Houk

© May 4, 2018

________________________

MONUMENTAL: The Naked Truth About Robert Mueller

 

© 2018 NoisyRoom.net

 

State Department Made Deal with Hillary Clinton to Keep Call Log, Schedules Secret


Judicial Watch, thanks to FOIA requests, has released documents that goes further to the FBI, DOJ and surprise – the State Department; are covering up Crooked Hillary crimes. If my thought is correct, Obama Administration collusion must have been involved in covering for their then hoped for 2016 Crooked Hillary election victory.

 

JRH 12/14/17

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Judicial Watch: State Department Made Deal with Hillary Clinton to Keep Call Log, Schedules Secret

 

JW Press Release – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 14, 2017

Judicial Watch

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new U.S. Department of State documents showing former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her then-Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin were permitted to remove electronic and physical records under a claim they were “personal” materials and “unclassified, non-record materials,” including files of Clinton’s calls and schedules, which were not to be made public. The documents show the Obama State Department records would not be “released to the general public under FOIA.”

The new records also show that Huma Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department that include records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.”

Judicial Watch obtained the reports about the records from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for:

 

Any and all DS-1904 (Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials) forms completed by, or on behalf of, any of the following individuals:

 

Former Secretary Hillary Clinton

 

Former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills

 

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin

 

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan

 

The documents include a list of official and personal calls and schedules that Clinton removed, which carry a special notation that the documents were not to be made public records. The notation is on an addendum to a DS-1904 signed by Clarence N. Finney Jr., then-director of the Office of Correspondence and Records, who was the reviewing officer. (Judicial Watch has a pending request for the deposition of Finney in separate litigation concerning Clinton emails and the Benghazi terrorist attack.):

 

NOTE: The Secretary’s call log, grid and schedules are not classified, however, they would not be released to the general public under FOIA. They are being released to the Secretary with this understanding. (Emphasis in original)

 

***

 

Electronic copy of “daily files” – which are word versions of public documents and non-records: speeches/press statements/photos from the website, a non-record copy of the schedule, a non record copy of the call log, press clips, and agenda of daily activities

 

Electronic copy of a log of calls the Secretary made since 2004, it is a non-record, since her official calls are logged elsewhere (official schedule and official call log)

 

Electronic copy of the Secretary’s “call grid” which is a running list of calls she wants to make (both personal and official)

 

16 boxes: Personal Schedules (1993 thru 2008-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State.

 

29 boxes: Miscellaneous Public Schedules during her tenure as FLOTUS and Senator-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State

 

1 box: Personal Reimbursable receipts (6/25/2009 thru 1/14/2013)

 

1 box: Personal Photos

 

1 box: Personal schedule (2009-2013)

 

The originals of some Clinton documents were retained, such as the call logs and schedules. For other records, including material that predates Clinton’s tenure, there is no indication that a copy was made. The most significant of these are her personal correspondence and gift binders, which could reflect Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative ties.

Through its previous investigations Judicial Watch made public numerous examples of Clinton’s schedule being broadcast via email through her unsecure, non-government server (for example, see here, herehere and here.)

The records uncovered by Judicial Watch also contain a list of materials removed by Clinton accumulated by Robert Russo, Clinton’s then-special assistant, including PDFs of Clinton’s “correspondence in response to gifts … thank you and acknowledgements,” as well as other records.

The documents indicate that Clinton removed a physical file of “the log of the Secretary’s gifts with pictures of gifts.”

The receipt of gifts by federal employees in the Executive Branch is regulated:

 

A “prohibited source” [of gifts] under the regulations is one who seeks official action from the employee’s agency; one who does business or seeks to do business with the agency; one whose activities are regulated by the employee’s agency; one whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; or an organization a majority of whose members fit any of the above categories.

 

A gift is given “because of” the employee’s official position if it would not have been offered “had the employee not held the status, authority or duties associated with his Federal position.”  Gifts that are “motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship” may therefore be accepted without limitation.

 

“We already know the Obama State Department let Hillary Clinton steal and then delete her government emails, which included classified information. But these new records show that was only part of the scandal. These new documents show the Obama State Department had a deal with Hillary Clinton to hide her calls logs and schedules, which would be contrary to FOIA and other laws,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “When are the American people going to get an honest investigation of the Clinton crimes?”

_____________________

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.


judicialwatch.org

 

About Judicial Watch

 

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

 

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

 

Litigation and the civil discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the American people on anti-corruption issues, but can also provide a basis for civil authorities to criminally prosecute corrupt officials. Judicial Watch seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to account.

 

Judicial Watch’s investigation, legal, and judicial activities provide the basis for READ THE REST

 

The Obama Uranium-1 Story even FOX News Won’t Speak About!


The next time you hear a Leftist radical – er, I mean Democrat – tell you that Crooked Hillary did not approve Uranium One because she was just one of nine who gave unanimous support OR that President Barry Soetoroer, I mean Barack Hussein Obama – was the greatest President in U.S.; then direct them to this very informative essay by Andrew Benjamin.

 

JRH 11/18/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

The Obama Uranium-1 Story even FOX News Won’t Speak About!

 

By Andrew G. Benjamin —— Bio and Archives

November 17, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

 

Midday on November 14th, FOX News talking head Shepard Smith, whom we might charitably label as a liberal non-heterosexual who may not like Donald Trump, meaning his politics have everything to do with his sexual preferences and whom he would vote for, and very little to do with reality, gave the nation a much-needed reality check.

 

Hillary Clinton is innocent of all charges. As Shepard opened his mouth, we saw former FBI Director James Comey’s eyes peeking out.

 

Shepard’s was a monologue over which the liberal press went bananas. Or “ape” if you will.

 

You see, the Clinton-Uranium-1 Story is, according to Shepard and the Kool Aid his media mates at CNN and MSNBC drink, a fairytale. Or given the much overused cliché, “a nothing burger”, a fabrication of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

 

The line is the line according to Smith and his media mates on every other channel that would give the death penalty to Team Trump and his family at the earliest opportunity, for the mere outrage of winning an election, with the stories of every Democrat calling for impeachment.

 

“The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.” said Smith.

 

SHEPARD SMITH YOU TUBE

 

VIDEO: Fox News’ Shep Smith Methodically Debunks Uranium One Conspiracy Theories [Blog Editor: Leftist Shep Hogwash]

 

Smith’s monologue was meant to dispel any suspicion still hanging in with FOX viewers about the Clintons who have, throughout their illustrious careers, only benefited the nation. It was meant to reinforce in liberal minds the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin who made them pull 63 million levers across America for Donald Trump. It is meant to fix in one’s mind the notion that the entire Trump Team is guilty of perjury and even treason. And the idea that Barack Obama colluded with Hillary and the Russians about anything is preposterous, since their suspected collusion is not reported on any channel except for Shepard’s, and therefore does not exist.

 

The gist of Shepard’s historical “innovation” is that Hillary Clinton is wholly innocent of accusations about how and why the $145 million wound up in her family’s slush fund AFTER the sale took place. It is to dispel the notion of a possible RICO (organized crime) investigation into the Clinton Matter. Shepard’s spin suggests that the Clintons are hardly greedy, in fact, never; or self-dealing and treacherous. Donald Trump is, for questioning the Clinton Matter in tweets.

 

The bottom-line of Shepard’s astonishing Aesop’s Fables and the non-contextualization of history (as well as the record of the players), was that there were nine cabinet members of CIFUS, The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, who had unanimously, of their free will, approved the “good deal” that was ultimately approved by the president himself. The same president who appointed the self-same cabinet.

 

Clearly, as in law, precedent must rule in this matter, the same as the precedent for the Iran Nuke Deal which was a Good Deal for America (that was the line our past president from some central African nation told us); as the North Korean Nuke Deal was a Good Deal for America (which was the line the husband of the last female Democrat presidential candidate told the nation over two decades ago); as is the Uranium-1 good deal from which ONLY the Clinton Family Foundation profited. It had to be a Good Deal for America, and the $145 million slush fund the Clintons can do with as they will happens to be a sidebar.

 

Every deal from which America’s enemies profit has to be a Good Deal for America.

 

Or charity – if you will.

 

Especially with all the Good Deals in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got involved.

 

For example:

 

  • The BenghaziGate Good Deal in which the United States got run out of North Africa by a band of extremist religious thugs, got Americans killed just to make the deal better, and made certain that that nation was taken over by ISIS.

 

 

  • The Iran Nukes Good Deal which insured that Iran will not only continue to develop IBCM’s – Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles– but in less than eight years arm them with MIRVs – Multiple Re-entry Vehicles tipped with nuclear bombs. that Good Deal was meant to make Americans happy.

 

  • The Eric Holder Fast & Furious Good Deal in which 55,000 Mexicans and some Americans were murdered by weapons seized by Barack Obama and Holder from American citizens, and given to the Mexican drug cartels. Hillary was SecState at the time dealing “diplomatically” with Mexico for America’s benefit.

 

  • The IRS-gate Good Deal in which American organizations and groups with words in their names such as “American,” “Patriot,” “Constitution,” and similar suggesting a faith in law and allegiance to the nation, were targeted for examination – and then deliberately paralyzed from raising funds for political campaigns.

 

  • The DNC-Clinton Primary Fix-Gate Good Deal in which a year prior to the presidential primaries one candidate received, by written agreement from the Party itself, full control of the party, its activities and decision-making, and all the money the party raised. Funds which she promptly redirected to her own campaign and into her own pockets. Clearly, she was never greedy and self-dealing and never had any interest in uranium.

 

Under the greatest president ever, Barack Obama, and his former SecState Hillary, Good Deals for America were almost a daily occurrence and even Settled Science.

 

In 2009 and 2010, in a bid to corner and dominate the global uranium market, Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, was anxious to take over a majority stake in the uranium mining company UrAsia formerly owned by Clinton ally and benefactor, Canadian Frank Giustra.

 

After the board members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States appointed by Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton’s nod approved the sale, as well as managing the approval of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission leadership appointed by Barack Obama at Clinton’s behest, Russia bought the rest of Uranium One in 2013. Clearly, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with this Good Deal to benefit the American People and put America’s uranium assets in Russian hands.

 

As the CFIUS includes the State Department as one of the regulatory body’s members, Hillary asserted that she had nothing to do with “massaging” the deal because she never had any interest in money, uranium, or even her own agency at State. She kept insisting that a number of agencies had agreed to the good deal for America because they too, had no interest in making the Clintons fabulously wealthy. According to the latest reports from insider sources on the inside speaking anonymously behind closed doors at an undetermined date and place, she did not go so far as to suggest that selling off America’s assets and wealth was also a good deal, but we might presume that she was thinking it.

 

What Shepard Smith failed to disclose is that the “friendly” – as opposed to hostile – Uranium One takeover began in 2005. Meanwhile behind the scenes we presume Hillary Clinton was the senator at the time pushing the deal. And Frank Giustra still owned the company.

 

The Clintons were at his side for no reason at all all this time. For example, no reason like this, reported by the Times:

 

“The $500,000 (speaking) fee (in Moscow)—among Mr. Clinton’s highest—was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin…”

 

Meanwhile, as Team Clinton reportedly spent $1.2 Billion on getting her elected to the presidency mostly so no investigation will ever be launched into the Clinton Good Deals (that $1.2B represents One Thousand Two Hundred times a Million dollars) CNN gave you updates 24/7 for months about the Russians using FACEBOOK to infringe on American democracy and turn an American election in Donald Trump’s favor.

 

With the $6500 that FACEBOOK reported the Russians spent.

An amount that would not buy a used steel, never mind, gold, Rolex.

 

According to the Times:

 

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, (Hillary Clinton) then a senator.

 

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

 

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

 

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming ‚Äúa powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared. ‚Ķ The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

 

What Shepard Smith neglected to disclose among all the good deals going down among his media mates at CNN and MSNBC, The NY Times and WashPo, is the timing and the timeline, and that 1 + 1 may actually equal 2. Possibly 3.

 

The Times:

 

“Mr. Telfer’s (the chairman of UrAsia) undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal…..”

 

At least no interest in the deal until a former president who made previous Good Deals that armed North Korea with nukes and ICBMs, came to the rescue with a $500,000 speech that lasted at most 10 minutes, with “guarantees” for millions more to arrive shortly for which no speeches will will [sic] be made. And a box of cigars.

 

Bill Clinton, with Hillary at his side in the early years, made sure that the Kahakh mines would become Russian mines. And the American mines become Russian mines. She was SecState at the time, and if you’re seeing a conflict of interest and self-dealing, you are seeing things.

 

It appears Shepard deliberately neglected the obvious for political reasons of his own, in a speech that LeftMedia is now celebrating thinking that FOX News, just like they, are now in the tank with the Clinton narrative. Look, $145 million goes a long way to persuade the reluctant that the sky is not blue.

 

For after all, there are no more deserving people to benefit from all the Good Deals than the ones who made them: Barack Obama and the Clintons.

 

Theirs is the Good Deal that stipulated that:

 

  1. The $145,000,000 that wound up at the Clinton Family Foundation for no reason at all got there for no reason at all.

and

 

  1. That, for no reason at all Barack Obama appointed ALL the voters at CIFUS and the other agencies under his command who approved the Good Deal without ANY dissent. And then Barry approved the sale himself according to Smith.

 

For absolutely no reason at all.

 

Not even the $145,000,000 reason and a genuine replica of the Reset Button.

 

REPORT TO CONGRESS – CIFUS

 

[Blog Editor: Title to PDF of above link: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); By James K. Jackson; Congressional Research Service; 54 pgs.; 10/11/17]

 

_______________

© Andrew G. Benjamin

 

Andrew G. Benjamin is a real estate and tax specialist, equities trader, a former economic advisor to New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani; serving on the transition team’s Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. Benjamin also wrote extensively about intelligence, economic issues, the Mideast, terrorism, technology, high end audio and transnational politics.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press.

 

Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com 

 

Conspiracies Imposed on the Public


Edited by John R. Houk

By Tony Newbill

Posted January 3, 2017

Tony Newbill highlights Eco-Marxism as part of the Agenda 21 paradigm. He proceeds to the subject of Fake News as in it’s been occurring for decades. Newbill found a Rappoport article talking of the government/media coverup of Chem-WMD sent from the U.S. to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the consequences of that move later. Newbill wonders about the Obama/Dem/Clinton outrage over Russian actions in hacking when prior there appeared complete cooperation with Russian money laundering (and I might add Crooked Hillary giving nuclear armed Russia access to a huge percentage of American uranium). Newbill points to Obama money laundering illegalities with Iran to get hostages freed yet lying (as was and is typical) it was a part of the Iran Nuke deal. Crooked Hillary’s part in fixing IRS criminal against international banks HSBC and USB. Then Newbill culminates with the medical deaths imposed on the public by dangerous GMOs and needless deaths in U.S. hospitals.

 

JRH 1/3/16

Please Support NCCR

************

The UN ECO-Marxists …

12/21/2016 3:22 PM

 

The UN-ECO Marxists …. Give us the POWER to subvert your life into oblivion …. and the international jet set of Climate Change Globalist savants will have the earth all to ourselves!!!!! Like Marxism, sustainability prefers revolution to reform, but is willing to take half-steps. Like Marxism, sustainability seeks to re-architect human nature, finding human beings as they are unworthy of the kingdom it will build.  Like Marxism, sustainability is a vision of history in which a decisive inflection point lies just ahead of us, and we the living have the opportunity to get on “the right side of history” if we are smart enough to listen the movement’s prophets. Like Marxism, sustainability pictures itself a global movement, transcending the boundaries — and the laws — of nations.

 

Listen to the Video starting at 1:39 you will HEAR THE KEY WORD for THEIR PLAN at 1:50:

 

https://youtu.be/eQEF3CfWkQE?t=1m39s 

VIDEO: We Have a Plan


 

Posted by UN Montenegro

Published on Oct 1, 2015

 

Video animation contextualising the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals.

 

Here is the UN page where more on the plan is available!!!    http://www.un.org.me/agenda2030

 

Agenda 2030: A Vision of a Better Future

 

The 193-Member United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, along with a set of bold new Global Goals, which Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed as a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.

 

“The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere. It is an agenda for people, to end poverty in all its forms – an agenda for the planet, our common home,” declared Mr. Ban as he opened the UN Sustainable Development Summit.

 

The UN chief’s address came ahead of the Assembly’s formal adoption of the new framework, Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is composed of 17 goals and 169 targets to wipe out READ THE REST (Agenda 2030: A Vision of a Better Future; UN Montenegro)

 

All TRUMP and PENCE need to do to get reelected is Abstain from this CREATURE and REBUILD our Industrial Base for self-reliance away from these Dependencies on Foreign Resources that can be used as Leverage against the U.S. People being folded into this Globalist Cabal of servitude!!!!!!

 

+++

We Only Know What We are Told

12/27/2016 12:09 PM

 

We only know what we are told …. fake or otherwise!!!!!

Mainstream fake news: the devious limited hangout

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/mainstream-fake-news-the-devious-limited-hangout/

 

Big media attacks “fake news.” Independent reporters rightly point the finger at big media as the predominant purveyor of fake news.

 

Oops.

 

Here I want to comment on one of the most devious forms of MSM fake news: the limited hangout.

 

When necessary, news outlets will do a PARTIAL EXPOSURE of a hidden crime. The assumption is, once the story is published and broadcast, everyone will shake their heads and say, “That’s terrible,” and move on. The whole thing will be forgotten in a matter of days, as if the whole truth has been revealed. Limited hangout.

 

From media’s point of view, a limited hangout means: “We won’t do any further digging. We’ll shut down further investigation.” Vital questions won’t be asked:

 

 

The mainstream press could set their hounds loose and build a story into a huge wave. Over time, they could bring hidden players out into the open and expose them and wring confessions out of them. They could get some of these players to roll over and point to higher-level criminals. The story could achieve tsunami status, at which point the government would have to make arrests and lay on trials in open courtrooms.

 

But that doesn’t happen. Limited hangout rules the day.

 

I’m going to present a story about a crime now. It’s big. Very big. It was covered, to a degree, by the mainstream press. The coverage seemed to be significant. But it was a limited hangout.

 

As you read on, imagine what might have happened if the press had decided to go in with guns blazing and investigate all the way, over a period of months, releasing new revelations as they discovered them. …

 

In 1975, the US signed on to an international treaty banning the production, use, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Ditto for chemical weapons, in 1993. Another treaty.

 

Here’s a quote from the Washington Post (9/4/13, “When the US looked the other way on chemical weapons”): “…The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items…including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague…”

 

Between 1985 and 1989, a US 501C3 firm, American Type Culture Collection, sent Iraq up to 70 shipments of various bio-war agents, including 21 strains of anthrax.

 

Between 1984 and 1989, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control!) sent Iraq at least 80 different bio-war agents, including botulinum toxoid, dengue virus, and West Nile antigen and antibody.

 

This information on the American Type Culture Collection and the CDC comes from a report, “Iraq’s Biological Weapons Program,” prepared by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS).

 

Then we have a comprehensive article by William Blum (one of the good investigators in this whole story) in the April 1998 Progressive called “Anthrax for Export.” Blum cites a 1994 Senate report confirming that, …

 

 

This 1994 Senate report also indicates that the US exported to Iraq the precursors for chemwar agents, actual plans for chemical and biowar production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment. The exports continued until at least November 28, 1989.

 

Blum lists a few other biowar agents the US shipped to Iraq. Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens, Clostridium tetani—as well as E. coli, various genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA.

 

Blum also points out that a 1994 Pentagon report dismissed any connection between all these biowar agents and Gulf War Illness. But the researcher who headed up that study, Joshua Lederberg, was actually a director of the US firm that had provided the most biowar material to Iraq in the 1980s: the American Type Culture Collection.

 

Newsday revealed that the CEO of the American Type Culture Collection was a member of the US Dept. of Commerce’s Technical Advisory Committee. See, the Dept. of Commerce had to license and approve all those exports of biowar agents carried out by the American Type Culture Collection. Get the picture?

 

 

Hewlett Packard said that the recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was some sort of school in Iraq. But in 1990, the Wall St. Journal stated that Saad 16 was a “heavily fortified, state-of-the-art [Iraqi] complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research.”

 

If you review and think about all these WMD shipments from the US to Iraq, you understand there were many US officials and corporate employees who knew about them. Knew about them then, in the 1980s, and knew about them later, during 2 US wars in Iraq, when American soldiers were sent to Iraq, and could have been exposed to the bio/chem weapons.

 

And these officials and employees said nothing.

 

Officials at the CDC and the Dept. of Commerce said nothing. People at the American Type Culture Collection said nothing. People at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA said nothing. Presidents said nothing. Employees of the corporations who supplied germs and chemicals said nothing.

 

 

But it didn’t happen.

 

Instead, the story dissolved and READ ENTIRETY (Mainstream fake-news: the devious limited hangout; By Jon Rappoport; Jon Rappoport’s Blog; 12/27/16)

 

Daily Mail:

 

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.

 

As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

 

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr. Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. [Blog Editor: Emphasis Tony Newbill]

 

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

 

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is READ THE REST (Rumsfeld ‘helped Iraq get chemical weapons’; By WILLIAM LOWTHER; Daily Mail; 12/31/02 7:36:39 am)

 

+++

Dems & Obama are Russian Friends

12/30/2016 2:20 PM

 

I don’t understand why the Democrats and Obama are making such a Big deal out of their Friends the Russians. First, we have Bill dressed up as a Russian:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2946899/Clinton-foundation-received-81million-donations-scandal-hit-HSBC-Swiss-bank.html

 

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation reportedly received as much as $81million from clients with accounts with at HSBC’s Swiss bank in Geneva.

 

The contributions – including $1million in exchange for Bill attending a lavish fancy-dress party in Russia – come from wealthy clients who are protected by Switzerland’s robust banking secrecy laws.

 

Details of 30,000 accounts have come to light after an enormous banking leak – which brought with it the names of seven donors to the charitable Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. 

 

 clinton-dressed-as-russian-general

Donor: Bill Clinton, center, received substantial contributions to his foundation from people with accounts at the secretive Swiss bank – such as Richard Caring, left, who paid $1million after Clinton dressed as a Russian general for a lavish fundraiser, pictured above

 

According to the Guardian, chief among the donors was Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, who reportedly handed over $50million to the presidential organisation.

 

Michael Schumacher, the racing driver seriously injured in a 2013 skiing accident, was listed as another donor, as was billionaire Eli Broad and French financier Arpad Busson.

 

Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who flew President Clinton round in his private jet, also gave tens of thousands of dollars, according to READ THE REST (Clinton foundation ‘received $81million in donations from controversial HSBC Swiss bank – including $1million to dress up as a Russian soldier for lavish fundraiser’; By KIERAN CORCORAN; Daily Mail; 2/10/15 00:13 EST – UPDATED 2/10/15 09:05 EST)

 

Then there is this little Money Laundering scheme:

 

http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/hsbc-case-blows-lid-on-clintons-offshore-empire/

 

NEW YORK – The arrest of the head of global foreign exchange cash trading at HSBC bank may shed new light on suspicions the Clinton Foundation has been involved in illegal offshore money-laundering operations on a massive scale.

 

The investigation into HSBC currency trader Mark Johnson and associate Stuart Scott for their alleged role in a “conspiracy to rig currency benchmarks” by front-running customer orders has escalated to the point where the Department of Justice is threatening to tear up a 2012 agreement to fine HSBC a historic $1.9 billion for money-laundering violations in lieu of criminal prosecutions.

 

At issue is whether or not HSBC has honored the 2012 deferred-prosecution agreement in which the bank agreed to establish internal review procedures to catch and punish potentially criminal activities by employees.

 

 

The bank’s failure to discipline the two currency traders will make it difficult for HSBC to convince law-enforcement authorities that the massive Hong Kong-headquartered bank has complied with the 2012 agreement. An internal investigation in 2013 cleared them of any wrongdoing regarding a $3.5 billion currency trade that U.S. prosecutors now believe was criminally fraudulent.

 

HSBC money trail leads to Clintons

 

WND broke open the HSBC money-laundering case with a series of articles beginning in February 2012. More than 1,000 pages of customer records and secret audio recordings brought to WND by whistleblower John Cruz, a former HSBC employee, showed HSBC employees in Long Island were stealing the Social Security numbers of former bank depositors to create bogus “pass-through” accounts used to launder hundreds of millions of dollars for criminal enterprises such as Mexican drug cartels and Islamic terrorists.

 

WND reported in February 2015 Cruz told Senate Judiciary Committee staff preparing for the Loretta Lynch confirmation hearings that he considered the $1.9 billion fine DOJ imposed on HSBC in 2012 in lieu of criminal prosecution “a joke.” Cruz argued that a $1.9 billion fine of an international bank the size of HSBC amounted to …     READ ENTIRETY (HSBC CASE BLOWS LID OFF CLINTONS’ OFFSHORE EMPIRE: By JEROME R. CORSI; WND; 9/14/16 8:50 PM)

 

Oh, My then Hillary gets Obama to not Look at some of the UBS accounts, LOL wonder who they might be???!!!!

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/ubs-donations-to-clinton-foundation-increased-after-hillary-intervention-in-irs.html

 

Donations to the Clinton Foundation by Swiss bank UBS increased tenfold after Hillary Clinton intervened to settle a dispute with the IRS early in her tenure as secretary of state, according to a published report.

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, total donations by UBS to the foundation grew from less than $60,000 at the end of 2008 to approximately $600,000 by the end of 2014. The Journal reports that the bank also lent $32 million through entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs it launched in association with the foundation, while paying former President Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of corporate question-and-answer sessions with UBS Chief Executive Bob McCann.

 

Though there is no evidence of wrongdoing, ties between the Clinton Foundation, major corporations and foreign governments have come under increasing scrutiny as Hillary Clinton begins her presidential campaign. The UBS case is unusual in that it shows a top U.S. diplomat intervening on behalf of a major overseas bank in a situation where federal prosecutors and the Justice Department had been the lead entity.

 

Clinton, speaking to reporters on READ THE REST (Swiss bank’s donations to Clinton Foundation increased after Hillary intervention in IRS dispute; Ed Henry contributed to this report; Fox News; 6/30/15) 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

 

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

 

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

 

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

 

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

 

Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”

 

READ THE REST (Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons; By CONOR FRIEDERSDORF; The Atlantic; 7/31/15)

 

And I guess Money Laundering is part of US Foreign Policy????

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-laundered-u-s-cash-iran-via-n-y-fed-euro-banks/

 

A member of the House Intelligence Committee is accusing the Obama administration of laundering some $1.7 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Iran through a complicated network that included the New York Federal Reserve and several European banks, according to conversations with sources and new information obtained by the lawmaker and viewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

 

New disclosures made by the Treasury Department to Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a House Intelligence Committee member, show that an initial $400 million cash payment to Iran was wired to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and then converted from U.S. dollars into Swiss francs and moved to an account at the Swiss National Bank, according to a copy of communication obtained exclusively by the Free Beacon.

 

Once the money was transferred to the Swiss Bank, the “FRBNY withdrew the funds from its account as Swiss franc banknotes and the U.S. Government physically transported them to Geneva” before personally overseeing the handover to an agent of Iran’s central bank, according to the documents.

 

These disclosures shine new light on how the Obama administration moved millions of dollars from U.S. accounts to European banks in order to facilitate three separate cash payments to Iran totaling $1.7 billion.

 

The latest information is adding fuel to accusations the Obama administration arranged the payment in this fashion to skirt U.S. sanctions laws and give Iran the money for the release of U.S. hostages, in what many have called a ransom.

 

Congress has been investigating the circumstances surrounding the payment for months and said the administration is blocking certain requests for more detailed information about the cash transaction with Iran.

 

“By withholding critical details and stonewalling congressional inquiries, President Obama seems to be hiding whether or not he and others broke U.S. law by sending $1.7 billion in cash to Iran,” Pompeo told the Free Beacon. “But Americans can plainly see that the Obama administration laundered this money in order to circumvent U.S. law and appease the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

 

As new details emerge, congressional critics such as Pompeo and Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) are beginning to suspect the U.S. government laundered the money in order to provide Tehran with immediate access.

 

“Think about this READ THE REST (Obama Admin ‘Laundered’ U.S. Cash to Iran Via N.Y. Fed, Euro Banks; By Adam Kredo; Washington Free Beacon; 9/19/16 5:00 am)

 

Globalist Enterprise …

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/13/hsbc-files-crackdown-on-amnesty-deal-for-swiss-banks-spanish-customers

 

Santander’s late chairman Emilio Botín at his home in Spain in June 2008. Members of the family paid €200m (£150m) in back taxes to the Spanish government. Photograph: Juan Manuel Serrano/Associated Press

 

A court in Madrid has launched an investigation into the amnesty deal offered to the hundreds of Spaniards whose names appeared in the HSBC files, in which suspected tax evaders were quietly offered the chance to pay back taxes and avoid prison sentences of up to six years as well as millions of euros in fines.

 

The list, leaked by HSBC whistleblower Hervé Falciani, identified more than 650 Spaniards who held accounts at the bank’s Swiss subsidiary. It was handed to Spanish authorities in 2010.

 

The Socialists, who were in power at the time, shied away from the established norm of launching inquiries into the suspected tax fraud. Instead, those named on the list were sent a letter, informing them that their Swiss bank accounts had been discovered and inviting them to pay the taxes they owed voluntarily. They were given 10 days to respond before an inspection – which could have led to criminal prosecution – would be initiated.

 

 

More than 300 Spaniards took advantage of the offer, handing over €260m (£192m) to Spain’s tax agency. Much of that came from Spain’s Botín family, whose members head Santander bank; they paid €200m (£150m) in back taxes to the Spanish government.

 

Complaining that the deal was a thinly veiled attempt to “offer impunity” to suspected tax evaders, the union representing tax workers, Gestha, filed a legal complaint in a Madrid court shortly after the amnesty deal was announced, accusing the tax agency’s top brass of a breach of public duty.

 

The case was initially dismissed by the court, but now has been reopened after a higher court sided with Gestha’s appeal against the decision. Specifically, the court will examine the response of two former senior tax officials to the names on the leaked list. READ ENTIRETY (HSBC Files: amnesty deal for Swiss bank’s Spanish clients investigated; By Ashifa Kassam; the guardian;  2/13/15 11.04 EST)

 

DRUM ROLL please … Oh and LOOK, the DOJ makes it OK to be a Money Launderer. LOL!!!!!

 

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/312118-doj-announces-resolutions-under-program-for-swiss-banks

 

The Justice Department has reached final agreements with Swiss banks in deals that will help the financial institutions avoid potential criminal liabilities over U.S. tax crimes, the department announced Thursday.

 

The Swiss Bank Program, announced in 2013, allowed banks who believed they had committed tax crimes to be eligible for non-prosecution agreements if they met certain requirements, such as paying penalties and providing detailed information about accounts associated with U.S. taxpayers. It also allowed Swiss banks that could establish that they hadn’t committed tax or monetary-transaction related crimes to receive non-target letters from DOJ.

 

“The completion of the resolutions with the banks that participated in the Swiss Bank Program is a landmark achievement in the department’s ongoing efforts to combat offshore tax evasion,” said Caroline Ciraolo, principal deputy assistant attorney general, in a news release. “We are now in the legacy phase of the program, in which the participating banks are cooperating, and will continue to cooperate, in all related civil and criminal proceedings and investigations.”

 

Between March 2015 and January 2016, DOJ executed non-prosecution agreements with 80 Swiss banks that told the department that they had reason to believe that they had committed tax-related offenses. The banks paid a total of more than $1.3 billion in penalties, DOJ said.

 

Between July and December of 2016, four Swiss banks and one cooperative that had not engaged in wrongdoing became eligible for non-target letters from DOJ.

 

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that the Swiss Bank Program “has uncovered those who help facilitate evasion schemes and those who hide funds in secret offshore accounts; improved our ability to return tax dollars to the United States; and allowed us to pursue investigations into banks and individuals.” (DOJ announces deal with Swiss banks on anti-tax evasion program; BY NAOMI JAGODA; The Hill; 12/29/16 01:50 PM EST)

 

[Blog Editor: Well that Hill article is a display swamp infested corruption in Washington DC, the Dems and sadly the Department of Justice!!!]

+++

GMO, pesticide, FDA horror show

12/31/2016 10:33 AM

 

Warning to Trump: don’t approve GMO, pesticide, FDA horror show

 

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/12/31/warning-to-trump-dont-approve-gmo-pesticide-fda-horror-show/

 

In a previous article on Donald Trump, I wrote: “I think Trump favors jobs, all jobs, and will go to extremes to create them…He’ll find ways to allow the FDA to license new drugs more quickly, thus maiming and killing more Americans. He’ll cast a blind eye toward big corporate toxic GMOs/pesticides.”

 

I want to strengthen that warning.

 

First of all, the FDA isn’t being too careful in their drug approval process, as Trump team members suggest. It’s the opposite. The FDA is in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies. The president-elect should take notice of the famous July 26, 2000, review in the Journal of the American Medical Association, by Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public-health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

 

Starfield concluded that FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans a year. That would be 1.06 MILLION deaths per decade. Speeding up their drug-approval work now, the FDA would add many MORE dead Americans to their “credit.”

 

On the issue of GMO/pesticide safety, I could cite many references which eradicate the official claim that these substances are safe. But let’s look at the primary facts surrounding the original approval of GMO crops (and their attendant pesticides) in the US.

 

When you cut through the verbiage, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

 

 

This buck-passing, the direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements, is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal the fix was in.

 

There was no science to back up the claim that GMOs were safe.

 

My belief, at the moment, is that Trump will screw all this up completely. His focus on jobs and the economy will lead him into doing grave damage—just as Obama has, just as Hillary Clinton would have.

 

The corporate media, their corporate experts and allies, and their government friends have low-keyed the whole GMO-pesticide-FDA horror show for a long time.

 

We need a president who will go against the tide.

 

On these issues, Mr. Trump, through ignorance, inattention, unconcern, whatever, is on the verge of becoming a Big Pharma Big Biotech shill. READ ENTIRETY (Warning to Trump: don’t approve GMO, pesticide, FDA horror show; By Jon Rappoport; Jon Rappoport’s Blog; 12/31/16)

 

[Blog Editor: I do find Mr. Rappoport’s exposé of GMOs (& etc.) disturbing, but I don’t concur this should be President Trump’s priority over a swamp full of corruption. On a personal level I believe other priorities trump the GMO corruption in a step by step reparation of Obama’s Leftist destruction of America. I sincerely pray Trump places the GMO corruption in one of those steps. Other priorities such as illegal immigration, Islamic Terrorism, Jobs, Shrinking Government overreach and Deficit reduction come to mind.]

 

additional comment ….

 

How do we know if GMO food is NOT causing the Immune System to become WEAK and LESS resistant to Disease instead of disease more resistant to antibiotics, because every Living Creature is EATING GMO FOODS??????

 

In the link to Jon Rappoport article there is information in there that shows the FDA has approved drugs that KILL 106,000 a year since 2000 for 10 years which does not take into consideration what has been approved on top of that since then to now ….  Then there is this: Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/09/20/224507654/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-u-s-hospitals

 

It seems that every time researchers estimate how often a medical mistake contributes to a hospital patient’s death, the numbers come out worse.

 

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous “To Err Is Human” report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials — and quoted ubiquitously in the media.

 

In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.

 

Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.

 

That would make medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second.

 

The new estimates were READ THE REST (How Many Die From Medical Mistakes In U.S. Hospitals? By MARSHALL ALLEN; NPR; 9/20/13 4:52 PM ET)

 

And Drum Roll please for the grand finale of how our Federally Approved Medicare system is handling the Organized Genocide of the citizenry. Study Shows Hospital-Acquired Infections Kill 3 Times as Many Americans as HIV:

 

http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20100222/hospital-infections-kill-48000-each-year

 

Study Shows Hospital-Acquired Infections Kill 3 Times as Many Americans as HIV

 

Every year, 48,000 Americans die of infections they caught while in the hospital — and that’s a conservative estimate, a new study finds.

 

These aren’t infections people would have caught anyway. They are mistakes that cost lives, says study researcher Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C. think tank Resources for the Future.

 

 

Hospital acquired infections actually kill three times more Americans than HIV does. Yet we’re only beginning to get a handle on the size of the problem. …

 

Laxminarayan and colleagues analyzed administrative data from a huge national database of information on hospital records for 69 million U.S. residents in 40 states between 1998 and 2006. They focused only on infections acquired in the hospital, and not on infections picked up in the community.

 

Most of the infections come from using catheters and ventilators. Some of the germs causing the infections have been around for years; others are scary new bugs such as the MRSA staph “superbug.”

 

Johns Hopkins researcher Peter J. Pronovost, MD, PhD, is a world expert on hospital-acquired infections. He tells WebMD that the Laxminarayan study finally gives hard numbers to a problem that has vexed hospitals for decades.

 

“These deaths are invisible. The public doesn’t know. They are happening one at a time, silently, and patients think they are inevitable,” Pronovost tells READ ENTIRETY (Hospital Infections Kill 48,000 Each Year; By Daniel J. DeNoon – Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD; WebMD; 2/22/10)

 

Bill Gates warns world “vulnerable” to deadly epidemic in next decade

http://www.reuters.com/article/health-epidemic-gates-idUSL5N1EP1VN

 

LONDON, Dec 30 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates warned on Friday that the world was vulnerable to a deadly epidemic of an illness like flu, with the recent Ebola and Zika outbreaks underlining weaknesses in global efforts to tackle health crises swiftly.

 

Gates, whose foundation invests in improving healthcare in developing countries, said the global emergency response system was not strong enough and the ability to create new drugs and vaccines quickly was lacking.

 

He added that there needed to be more focus on developing treatments for likely epidemics.

 

“I cross my fingers all the time that some epidemic like a big flu doesn’t come along in the next 10 years,” Microsoft Corp founder Gates told Britain’s BBC radio.

 

“I do think we will have much better medical tools, much better response, but we are a bit vulnerable right now if something spread very quickly, like a flu, that was quite fatal.”

 

But Gates defended the World Health Organization (WHO) over widespread criticism of READ THE REST (Bill Gates warns world “vulnerable” to deadly epidemic in next decade; By Emma Batha; Reuters; 12/30/16 9:35am EST)

 

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill (pseudonym)

 

Newbill Emails on Crooked Hillary 2nd Set


crooked-hillary-descriptors

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted November 6, 2016

 

This batch of emails focuses on Crooked Hillary. There is some email information on Donald Trump through the eyes of Left Wing detractors. Newbill examines a post from a Bernie Sanders supporter that calls Crooked Hillary an evil Neocon. I disagree with the appellation Neocon on Hillary Clinton. I explain my disagreement on the Neocon accusation and that Neoconservatism is not evil down below.

 

JRH 11/5/16

Please Support NCCR

**************

Trump needs to Identify this Person and use his Extreme ECO-Marxism to Label Hillary with an ANTI-Economic Growth vision

10/14/2016 11:18 AM

 

Trump can say this shows we are Out of Balance with how Obama and NOW Hillary want to Implement policies that will enable the People’s access to their Rights and Liberties!!!! There is No Way we can Have a Robust Economy that serves the people when these people want to OPPRESS access to our Resources with Extreme ECO-Marxism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We Must EXPOSE this Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager as the ECO-Marxist. [This ECO-Marxist represents] the People doing the Dirty work behind our Government’s Closed Doors that’s KILLING OUR LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.hcn.org/issues/47.9/john-podesta-legacy-maker     

 

…  It was 2014, and McCarthy, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was about to make her case for blocking the controversial Pebble gold mine planned for Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed, home to one of the world’s most prolific salmon fisheries. …

 

But McCarthy also knew there would be a new player in the room. Longtime Democratic operative John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, had just returned to the White House as counselor to Barack Obama. And Podesta had a reputation for bold conservation policy.

 

 

And 10 minutes into the conversation, Podesta broke in. He said that he and the president endorsed McCarthy’s plan, and then laid out exactly how the announcement would roll out. McCarthy left the room, dumbfounded and elated.

 

 

“Nobody in the 21st century in U.S. government has had the influence that he has had on public lands and climate change,” says Douglas Brinkley, a Rice University professor of history.

 

 

Podesta’s political philosophy was shaped by his time at Knox College, a small liberal arts school in Galesburg, Illinois, where he joined Vietnam War protests and civil rights demonstrations. His first major political experience involved working on the doomed 1972 presidential campaign of liberal Democrat George McGovern.

 

 

Podesta also understands how public lands can be leveraged to benefit his boss and political party. Toward the end of the Clinton administration, he supported Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck’s proposal to permanently protect the remaining roadless areas on national forests from logging, mining, drilling and other development. …

 

… But as the point man for the many scandals that plagued the Clinton White House, he got a reputation for having an evil twin known as “Skippy,” who could be harsh and unusually direct. …

 

… in2001, Podesta and some colleagues decided to create a progressive think tank that would be tough enough to compete with those on the political right. They called it the Center for American Progress, and it grew into a revolving-door powerhouse that harnessed the intellectual and political capital of the academic, NGO, philanthropic and government communities, often shuttling people in and out of key positions in all these realms. … and today, it boasts a staff of 314 policy wonks, professors and writers.

 

“Democrats and progressives did not have an institution dedicated to thinking up policies and finding a way to move them into the public sphere,” … “We called it a think-and-do tank. …”

 

Liberal pundits and mainstream journalists have occasionally questioned Podesta about his think tank’s financial and policy ties to its energy, defense and pharmaceutical company funders. … Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire businessman who, for two decades, has financed efforts to conserve public lands. Podesta’s financial White House disclosure showed he collected $87,000 in 2013, for consulting for the HJW Foundation, a Wyss philanthropy.  The conservative Daily Caller website accused Podesta of violating White House ethics rules for taking funds from Wyss and then pushing Obama’s proposal to expand the area off-limits to oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge …

 

Together, HJW and Wyss Foundation donated more than $5 million to the Center for American Progress between 2011 and 2013 … The article is pro-Podesta & pro-Eco-Marxist – I chose the info that demonstrates that (John Podesta: Legacy maker; By Elizabeth Shogren; High Country News; 3/25/15)

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/20/fbi-doj-launch-probe-firm-clinton-campaign-chairman-john-podesta/

 

The FBI and Justice Department have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group, the lobbying and public relations firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.

 

 

The Podesta Group, run by John Podest’s [sic] brother Tony Podesta, was retained by the Russia-controlled firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015, to lobby Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The lobbying firm was paid a total of $180,000 according to public records.

 

 

As it was first detailed in the New York Times bestselling book Clinton CashUranium One — which hired the Podesta Group — is the firm that funneled millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.

 

 

According to the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

 

The Times reported last April:

 

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

 

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock,” the Times report said.

 

According to the Daily Caller, Uranium One “paid the Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service, and the National Security Council for ‘international mining projects,’ according to a July 20, 2012 filing.”

 

Distancing itself from the work it did for an organization with ties to Yanukovych’s pro-Russian regime, the Podesta group said it hired lawyers to READ ENTIRETY (FBI, DOJ launch Probe into Firm of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta; By JEROME HUDSON; Breitbart; 8/20/16)

 

+++

These are the Weasels that have created Groper-gate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 10/14/2016 11:18 AM

 

The Enemy’s with-in!!!!!

 

Trump needs to go after these “So Called Biographers” with the “Hey Wayne Barrett, Gwenda Blair, Michael D’Antonio, Harry Hurt and Timothy O’Brien where’s your same Criticism of the Clintons, Bill on the Women Abuse side and Hillary on the Breaking All the Laws of the USA Side”???????????

 

 

This Guy and all these so-called Biographers of Trump need medication for their Bias-ism disease!!!!!!

 

http://www.michaeldantonio.net/ 

 

Drawing upon extensive and exclusive interviews with Trump and many of his family members, including all his adult children, D’Antonio presents the full story of a truly American icon, from his beginnings as a businessman to his stormy romantic life and his pursuit of power in its many forms. For all those who wonder — Just who is Donald Trump? – Never Enough supplies the answer. He is a promoter, builder, performer and politician who pursues success with a drive that borders on obsession and yet, has given him, almost everything he ever wanted.

 

Read More (Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success; Book synopsis of author Michael D’Antonio; MichaelDantonio.net)

 

I watched this Guy this Morning on The MS Media paint the most disgusting image of Trump as a guy with a Pattern towards abusing Women!!!!! I would elevate this “Screen Writer” Michael D Antonio “up to the Level of” PORNO Propagandist!!!!!!

 

This one is awful:

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-biographers-214350

 

Back in early March, Politico Magazine brought together five Donald Trump biographers for a conversation over lunch at Trump Tower. At the time, the country was just beginning to grapple with the reality that the presidential nominee from one of the two major American political parties stood a good chance of being a real estate mogul and entertainer. Wayne Barrett, Gwenda Blair, Michael D’Antonio, Harry Hurt and Timothy O’Brien knew him better than anybody, had studied him more than anybody, had written an aggregate 2,195 pages in books.
So much has happened over the past seven months: the crackpot conspiracy theories, the rageful late-night Twitter tirades, the surges and slides in the polls, an onslaught of investigative reporting that painted him as a racist, sexist, selfish, uncharitable, lying predator. So we thought it was time, especially in the wake of “grab them by the pussy,” for an emergency reconvening of the Trumpologists. [Blog Editor: “Trumpologists” in this case means Leftist MSM hit squad.]

 

He is, the biographers said, “profoundly narcissistic,” “willing to go to lengths we’ve never seen before in order to satisfy his ego”—and “a very dangerous man for the next three or four weeks.” And after that? “This time, it’s going to be a straight‑out loss on the biggest stage he’s ever been on,” one biographer predicted. And yet: “As long as he’s remembered, maybe it won’t matter to him.”

READ ENTIRETY if you desire to vomit (‘I Think He’s a Very Dangerous Man for the Next Three or Four Weeks’; By SUSAN B. GLASSER and MICHAEL KRUSE; Politico Magazine; 10/12/16)

These People, Like the Bill and Hillary Clinton & Co., are a Disease on FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+++

Hillary’s Shadow Government

10/18/2016 9:37 AM

 

Dear John, you need to Please talk about Hillary’s Shadow Government that the FBI refers to in this Investigation report and say this is why Washington does not work for the American People and Shields Hillary and themselves from the rule of LAW!

 

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-04/view (it’s on page 56)

 

vault-home-%e2%80%a2-hillary-r-clinton-%e2%80%a2-hillary-r-clinton-part-04-of-04-pg-56-screen-capture

Vault Home • Hillary R. Clinton • Hillary R. Clinton Part 04 of 04 – pg. 56 Screen Capture

+++++++++++

The Corruption exposed by Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton.

10/19/2016 3:42 PM

**************ATTENTION****************

Here is an EYE-OPENING summary of the corruption exposed by Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton.

 

http://www.thecsconservative.com/podestaemails/

 

Here is a summary of the corruption exposed by Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton.

 

John Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign Chairman. Podesta previously served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and Counselor to President Barack Obama.

 

On October 7th, 2016, WikiLeaks publish thousands of emails belonging to Podesta’s private email archives. More emails were released in the days that followed. Below is a compilation of some of the most revealing and damaging emails discovered:

 

POLICY / POSITION

 

Transcripts from Hillary Clinton’s lucrative closed-door paid speeches delivered to elite financial firms and other special interests groups (which she has refused and failed to disclose to the public after much demand) have finally surfaced:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 (See Attachment)

 

Clinton staff conspiring to stage ‘leaking’ of favorable excerpts from wall street speech, in efforts to calm down the public while leaving out more damaging parts:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8086#efmAYqAgR

 

Leaked private speech, Clinton: “You Need Both A Public And A Private Position”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmAaQAdiFjUFkd

 

Leaked private speech, Clinton: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmFjUFkd

 

Mocking environmentalists in private meeting with unions, Clinton: “I want to defend fracking.” Climate change environmentalists should “Get a life”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9617 (See attachment)

Politico article

 

Leaked private speech transcript shows Clinton’s warm ties to Wall Street’s most powerful figures: Clinton: “There is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives” The pressure on officials to sell or divest assets in order to serve, she added, had become “very onerous and unnecessary”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmDEMDKk

 

Leaked private speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton: Wall street was only accountable for the financial crisis for political reasons. The blame placed on the United States banking system for the crisis “could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmA2YA5Q

 

Leaked private speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton: I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they’re scared of regulations, they’re scared of the other shoe dropping, they’re just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.”

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11011

 

Leaked private speech, Clinton: US will “ring China with missile defense”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 (See attachment)

 

Hillary Clinton flipped her public position on TPP after her team discussed how she would be “eaten alive” by Labor:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8452#efmAH1APRA0NA5c

 

Clinton speechwriter: “We are trying to find a good way to leak her opposition to the pipeline without her having to actually say it”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3855#efmAAGADH

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

 

Hillary admits Qatar & Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774#efmBA5BDe

 

Qatar gifts Bill Clinton $1,000,000 for his birthday:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396#efmAEOAGW

 

Clinton’s advisors agree to take foreign lobbyists money: Clinton’s National Finance Director, Dennis Cheng: “how do we explain to people that we’ll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the Foundation takes $ from foreign govts but we now won’t”. Campaign manager Robby Mook responds: “I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?”, “Take the money!!” – READ THE REST (Breaking News – Wikileaks Release Exposes Hillary Clinton Corruption; By Robert Z; The Common Sense Conservative; 10/17/16)

 

++++

Huma Abedin Admits to a $12 Million Dollar Pay-For-Play

10/20/2016 11:59 AM

 

Hillary’s top assistant Huma Abedin admits to a $12 million dollar pay-for-play from Morocco!

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/day-debate-wikileaks-strikes-hillary-pay-to-play-shocking/#ixzz4Ne3uQoEu

 

We have always known that Hillary Clinton was for sale during her time at the State Department.

 

Many politicans [sic] try to do this, but Hillary’s corruption is so massive that it’s historic.

 

Now, just hours after the debate, WikiLeaks provided the smoking gun we’ve been waiting for. Hillary’s top assistant Huma Abedin admits to a $12 million dollary pay-for-play from Morocco!

 

This leaked email from the 13th batch of John Podesta’s hacked emails shows direct confirmation that a meeting was set up with Hillary Clinton, and it was paid for with that massive cash payoff:

wikileaks-huma-abedin-emailWikileaks Huma Abedin Email

 

And Hillary Clinton confirmed that the WikiLeaks emails are authentic last night during the debate:

 

 

Hillary Clinton can blame the Russians and foreign agents all she wants. The emails are real, and so is the criminal corruption. Hillary Clinton used the Secretary of State’s office to become obscenely wealthy, and she put America’s national security at risk repeatedly.

 

Hillary couldn’t apply for a job in the federal government because READ ENTIRETY (Day After Debate, WikiLeaks Strikes Hillary With The Most Shocking Leak of 2016! By Kosar; Political Insider; 10/20/16)

++++

Russia has already Bribed Hillary!!!!!

10/20/2016 11:01 PM

 

What Romney says WAS BEFORE WE HAS THE RESULTS FROM FBI Comey … and if Hillary Clinton has already COMPROMISED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. The First response by the FBI would be to act in the best Interest of the USA and the Market and divert from this conversation!!!!

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/romney-every-appearance-that-hillary-clinton-was-bribed-on-uranium-deal/

 

Mitt Romney made the argument around which everyone else danced yesterday after the New York Times exposed the UraniumOne deal and its principals’ big cash avalanche to the Clinton Foundation. The State Department’s approval of the deal under Hillary Clinton wasn’t just “undue influence,” and not “a poor choice of timing,” either. “It looks like bribery,” Romney told Hugh Hewitt last night:

 

VIDEO: Mitt Romney on Clinton foundation uranium payments: “It looks like bribery”

 

Posted by Hugh Hewitt Show

Published on Apr 23, 2015

 

Hugh Hewitt Interview w/ Mitt Romeny [sic]

 

READ THE REST (Romney: “Every Appearance That Hillary Clinton Was Bribed” On Uranium Deal; ED MORRISSEY; Hot Air; 4/24/16 10:01 am)

 

Hillary Clinton has already been Bribed, we just did not realize it until the Lawless FBI ran its course letting Hillary off so she could skate into the Oval Office and Pardon her and her cohorts!!!!!

 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+bribed+by+Russia+&qs=n&form=QBLH&pc=MOZO&pq=hillary+clinton+bribed+b&sc=0-24&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=45D62613D14A40A48C2FAF788F995258

 

[Blog Editor: Bing Search Link under the query “Hillary Clinton bribed by Russia”]

+++

Hillary has already been bribed

10/21/2016 7:05 AM

 

The FBI cover up through Lawless Means shows this:

 

What was the U.S. Asset that was used as the bribed is the Question?

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/romney-every-appearance-that-hillary-clinton-was-bribed-on-uranium-deal/

 

[Blog Editor: See above summary of the same link.]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-clinton-campaign-and-brian-fallon-stop-accusing_us_57fcab23e4b0d786aa52bcaa?

 

Brian Fallon recently accused WikiLeaks of working on behalf of the Russian government to help Donald Trump. Fallon’s Twitter barrage was full of accusations against the whistleblowing organization, including an ironic plea for WikiLeaks to disclose Trump’s tax returns. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have engaged in Cold War-era propaganda, primarily to deflect from numerous cyber-attacks. There’s also the tiny issue of 20% of U.S. uranium sold to the Russian government from a company run by Clinton Foundation donors.

 

Thus far, WikiLeaks, DC LeaksGuccifer 2.0, and apparently “Russian hackers” have managed to hack into computer networks associated with the Democratic Party. Rather than assess why these various cyber-attacks have taken place, Brian Fallon, Robby Mook, and others in the Clinton campaign have leveled baseless accusations against WikiLeaks and Russia. U.S. intelligence officials might believe Russia is involved with the leaks, but have yet to disclose any evidence READ THE REST (Dear Clinton Campaign and Brian Fallon, Stop Accusing WikiLeaks of Working for Russia; By H. A. Goodman; Huffington Post; 10/11/16 05:27 am ET)

 

Look at the Credits in this video, it is HUGE!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAM48bmtMDc

 

VIDEO: NEW CLINTON EMAIL SCANDAL: State Dept Bribed FBI To Protect Hillary From Espionage Act Indictment

 

Posted by H. A. Goodman

Published on Oct 16, 2016

 

My name is H. A. Goodman and I’m an author, columnist, and journalist www.hagoodman.com
Dear Clinton Campaign and Brian Fallon, Stop Accusing WikiLeaks of Working for Russia:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-clinton-campaign-and-brian-fallon-stop-accusing_us_57fcab23e4b0d786aa52bcaa

 

New FBI files contain allegations of ‘quid pro quo’ in Clinton’s emails:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/15/new-fbi-files-contain-allegations-quid-pro-quo-in-clintons-emails.html
PODESTA 9 JUST RELEASED! https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787625546461175808
WikiLeaks releases transcripts of Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs speeches:

 

http://myfox8.com/2016/10/15/wikileaks-releases-transcripts-of-hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches/
Subpoena: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6391

 

FAKE CRAIGLIST: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
Podesta Suggested Coordinating With State Dept. To ‘Hold’ Hillary’s Emails With Obama:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/14/podesta-suggested-coordinating-with-state-dept-to-hold-hillarys-emails-with-obama/

 

READ THE REST

 

If Hillary has already been bribed whatever was bribed is grounds for Impeachment as this article shows.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439715/impeach-hillary-clinton-congress-has-power-do-it

 

For months, I have been arguing that Hillary Clinton should be impeached. It is all well and good to prosecute a former government official for any crimes she has committed. Indeed, the Constitution expressly provides for criminal prosecution in addition to impeachment. Nevertheless, for the Framers — and, if we had common sense, for us — the imperative was to deprive a corrupt person of any further opportunity to abuse government power. Whether the official should also be convicted and sent to prison was not unimportant but, in the greater scheme of things, decidedly secondary.

Interestingly, the main pushback I received upon positing this argument was not that Mrs. Clinton is undeserving of impeachment. That, of course, is a measure of the seriousness of her high crimes and misdemeanors: the e-mail scandal; the reckless mishandling of classified information that has surely exposed our national-defense secrets to hostile powers; the mass destruction of thousands of government records after Congress asked for them; the obstruction of government investigations; the serial lies to Congress and the public; the shocking failure to provide security for Americans stationed in Benghazi and the failure to attempt to rescue them during a terrorist siege; the lies to the American people and to the families of murdered American officials about the cause of the attack; the trumping up of a prosecution against the video producer scapegoated for the Benghazi attack; the Clinton Foundation corruption involving the sale of influence for donations, the favors done for shady benefactors at the expense of national security, and the use of the State Department as an arm of the Clinton pay-to-play enterprise.

 

… How could she be removed from an office she does not hold based on offenses not committed while wielding presidential power?

These questions and the non-incumbency theory behind them fundamentally misconstrue the constitutional remedy of impeachment, which is not limited to removal from power but includes disqualification from future office. Moreover, their premise is wrong: The proceeding against Clinton would not be a presidential impeachment; it would be an impeachment based on her abuses of power as secretary of state, which would have the constitutional effect of disqualifying her for the presidency.

… Article I endows the House of Representatives with the “sole Power of Impeachment” — i.e., the power to file articles of impeachment. It further empowers the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Significantly, in prescribing the standard for conviction in the Senate, Article I, Section 3 states that “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present” (emphasis added).

 

Note carefully: The Constitution does not say the impeached person must be a current officeholder. As we shall see, that makes perfect sense: The point of impeachment is to deny power to any person — not necessarily an incumbent official — whose high crimes and misdemeanors have demonstrated unfitness for a high public trust.

 

The constitutional standard for impeachment also elucidates that incumbency is not necessary. The standard, prescribed by Article II, Section 4, is the commission of “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Obviously, one need not be in office to commit treason or bribery; but if one has at any time committed these heinous offenses, one is unsuitable for public office. The same is true, by definition, of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term of READ ENTIRETY (Impeach Clinton to Bar Her from Holding Federal Office. It’s Constitutional; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 9/6/16 4:00 AM)

+++

Hillary Clinton: Oliver Stone & U.S. Foreign Policy ‘Elite’

10/21/2016 9:02 AM

 

Oliver Stone has penned a powerful and emotional takedown of Hillary Clinton

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/03/31/were-going-to-war-oliver-stone-opines-on-the-dangerous-extremism-of-neocon-hillary-clinton/

 

 

Oliver Stone has penned a powerful and emotional takedown of Hillary Clinton, focusing on her insane neocon foreign policy chops in a piece published in the Huffington Post titled, Why I’m for Bernie Sanders.

 

What follows are just a few paragraphs, I suggest reading the entire thing:

 

We’re going to war — either hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its 1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don’t because our media is dumbed down in its “Pravda”-like support for our “respectable,” highly aggressive government. We are being led, as C. Wright Mills said in the 1950s, by a government full of “crackpot realists: in the name of realism they’ve constructed a paranoid reality all their own.” Our media has credited Hillary Clinton with wonderful foreign policy experience, unlike Trump, without really noting the results of her power-mongering. She’s comparable to Bill Clinton’s choice of Cold War crackpot Madeleine Albright as one of the worst Secretary of States we’ve had since … Condi Rice? Albright boasted, “If we have to use force it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.”

Hillary’s record includes supporting the barbaric “contras” against the Nicaraguan people in the 1980s, supporting the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, supporting the ongoing Bush-Iraq War, the ongoing Afghan mess, and as Secretary of State the destruction of the secular state of Libya, the military coup in Honduras, and the … You can read the rest of this Leftist rant if you choose (“We’re Going to War” – Oliver Stone Opines on the Dangerous Extremism of Neocon Hillary Clinton; By Michael Krieger; Liberty BlitzKrieg; 3/31/16 12:01 pm)

 

***[Blog Editor: I disagree with Mr. Krieger that Crooked Hillary is a Neocon. Part of that disagreement is because I believe the venom and vitriol against Neoconservatism is based on erroneous perceptions from both sides of the political aisle. Did Neocons make some bad decisions after 911? It turns they did. However, at the time the concept of throwing despotic leadership to give people a more democratic representative choice was a valid objective. The reason is history has shown people are given a voting representative choice their government tends toward more individual freedom. Examples are post-WWII Germany and Japan. Both those nations developed into solid allies of America according to the needs of U.S. National Interests. The thing Neocons didn’t count on is Islamic culture which is totally contrary to Western Liberty, especially in the USA. Islam by nature is intolerant and despotic of any individual choice that might run counter to Islamic tenets. Muslims for the most part concur with their faith of intolerance. This Muslim intolerance will factor into a mutual National Interest benefiting the USA or a Muslim nation. The Neocon failure was finding this out the hard way. The Neoconservative key is a foreign policy that validates U.S. National Interests, keeps America strong and keeps America Exceptional. NONE OF WHICH is of interest to Crooked Hillary (falsely accused of Neoconservatism) or to uber-Leftist Bernie Sanders who author Michael Krieger has endorsed]***

 

U.S. Foreign Policy ‘Elite’ Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/20/u-s-foreign-policy-elite-eagerly-await-an-expansion-of-overseas-wars-under-hillary-clinton/#comment-114647

 

Comment 114647 is Tony Newbill

N3angus — October 21, 2016 at 7:22 am

 

Facebook has blocked me from public comment posting of this, Hillary has already been bribed.

 

The FBI cover up through Lawless Means shows this.

 

What was the US Asset that was used as the bribed is the Question?

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/romney-every-appearance-that-hillary-clinton-was-bribed-on-uranium-deal/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-clinton-campaign-and-brian-fallon-stop-accusing_us_57fcab23e4b0d786aa52bcaa?

 

My name is H. A. Goodman and I’m an author, columnist, and
journalist http://www.hagoodman.com

 

Dear Clinton Campaign and Brian Fallon, Stop Accusing WikiLeaks of Working for Russia. Look at the Credits in this video, it is HUGE!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAM48bmtMDc

 

If Hillary has already been bribed whatever was bribed is grounds for Impeachment as this article shows:

 

For months, I have been arguing that Hillary Clinton should be impeached.

 

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439715/impeach-hillary-clinton-congress-has-power-do-it

 

[Blog Editor: This comment is covered above in a Newbill email.]

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill

 

The Rape of Lady Justice


Blind Justice Raped

Justin Smith expresses the same outrage every American should feel that Director Comey, AG Loretta Lynch and the Obama Administration is not going to make any effort whatsoever to prosecute Crooked Hillary:

 

Everyone is “innocent until proven guilty” in America, but the evidence in Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of information is so overwhelming that it leaves no doubt that she is guilty on several levels. This is the reason that Director Comey’s recommendation that she not be prosecuted was so shocking to so many Americans; it is unfathomable that this case was not at the very least presented to a Grand Jury for inspection. –Justin O. Smith

 

JRH 7/12/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

The Rape of Lady Justice

The Day the Rule of Law Died

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent July 9, 2016 2:03 PM

 

The rule of law died on July 5th and the tide turned against freedom in America, after FBI Director James Comey delivered the news that Hillary Clinton, a crooked, corrupt and accomplished liar, would not face charges for her criminal mishandling of top secret information. This day will be marked in infamy in the annals of American history as the day that Comey, Loretta Lynch and Obama, who all swore oaths to uphold justice, worked to annihilate justice and limit and destroy rights. Their actions to this point and after the fact remove all doubt that one standard of law does in fact exist for the political aristocracy and another standard of law applies to the average, common U.S. citizen, as this administration pushes America down the dark path of tyranny.

 

Coincidences of the magnitude of Bill Clinton’s and Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s “chance” meeting on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport in late June are no coincidence at all, especially once one discovers the July 3rd New York Times story that revealedMrs. Clinton … may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general“. This story confirmed to Lynch that her message had been received by Hillary’s staff. A pact — a collusion and a conspiracy — was shaped: No indictment in return for reappointment.

 

Comey outlined the facts that 110 emails in 52 email chains contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, at the time they were sent, thirty-six contained secret information and eight other email chains contained confidential information at the time.

 

Now, at the very least, America understands that Hillary Clinton lied last July, when she confidently claimed “I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.” This one statement supports a charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

 

So why wasn’t Hillary interviewed under oath by the FBI? And why wasn’t Clinton’s testimony recorded?

 

After thousands of investigative hours and more than a year it came down to Comey stating: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges.”

 

Really? This appears to have great potential to be prosecuted, unless one has been bought or intimidated away.

 

Comey said that he and his team “cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” This does not have the ring of truth for several reasons.

 

The Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers of information under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined, with five subsequently sent to prison. Secrecy in D.C. is such that the slightest mishandling or disclosure can result in a felony charge and months or years of prison. Stephen Kim was sentenced to 13 months in prison for speaking with reporter James Rosen on “sensitive” information about North Korea, most of which was already released in several news sources. If one is sufficiently important in D.C., as in the cases concerning Leon Panetta and David Petraeus, they are usually spared and let off with the lightest of consequences, while powerless nobodies without any intent to leak or mishandle information face criminal prosecution, career destruction and the permanent loss of security clearance.

 

A Naval investigation into Bryan Nishimura’s 2007-2008 service in Afghanistan revealed that he did not intend to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel. He had downloaded and carried classified materials on his “personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media”. Upon his return to the U.S., he continued to maintain this information at several unauthorized locations and on several unclassified systems, which resulted in his prosecution, two years of probation and a $7500 fine.

 

If someone, who was obscure and unimportant and powerless, recklessly and secretly used a shoddy home server, as well as several other unsecured servers, to work with Top Secret information in the same manner that Hillary Clinton did, they would have been criminally charged and placed under the jail long ago. This was all criminal behavior, as Huma Abedin’s recent sworn testimony before Congress has shown.

 

Comey tried to give Clinton a pass by suggesting she didn’t have the requisite intent, but the law doesn’t require intent. The law requires merely “gross negligence” under 18 U.S.C. 793, which, among other things, makes it a federal crime punishable by 10 years in prison, for any official entrusted with classified information relating to national defense to “permit … the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed” — all of which Hillary Clinton did.

 

And the Far Left, those like Representatives Elijah Cummings and Nancy Pelosi, are celebrating this recent obstruction of justice. Obama too made it clear he was Hillary’s Black Knight and protector, as he gave her use of Air Force One at the expense of the American people. He took her to her North Carolina campaign event, where they both laughed and smiled like pumpkin-eating possums, as she gave her speech behind the presidential seal.

 

The Obama administration and an entire segment of U.S. society, millions of people, are turning a blind eye to this travesty of justice, acting as if it’s nothing. They are offering an immoral defense of Hillary Clinton — an elitist, oligarchic ideologue and a smug sociopath — who was a treacherous Secretary of State, responsible for the murders of four fine Americans at Benghazi, and who lied repeatedly about compromising U.S. secrets.

 

Unless Americans are willing to submit to the arbitrary whims of rulers for generations to come, we must stop this rape of Lady Justice and free Her from the chains imposed by the FBI and the Department of Justice, which have been corrupted by Obama and Hillary. This administration became illegitimate the second it stopped operating through just and impartial laws, applied equally to everyone in society, including its own. This dark course towards systemic privilege and a different application of the “law” between the powerful and the powerless must never become common place in America. Stopping Hillary’s ascent to the presidency will stop our slow slide towards such tyranny, and prosecuting her, no matter how long it takes, will stop Lady Justice’s outraged screams and start the healing of America’s soul.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

%d bloggers like this: