Posts Tagged ‘HIllary Clinton’

Shadows in the Swamp – Mueller, Comey, the FBI, Hillary, E-mailgate, and a Partisan Witch Hunt Against Trump

December 5, 2017

untitled (188)

All of the collusion, all the things they’re trying to get Trump on, the Democrats did. I’m frosted over this, and everybody ought to damn well be. – Rush Limbaugh, 12/4/2017

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave…”

Late yesterday, the Wall Street Journal posted the following op-ed…

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.

There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.

While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation. The public has a right to know whether the Steele dossier inspired the Comey probe, and whether it led to intrusive government eavesdropping on campaign satellites such as Carter Page.

All of this reinforces our doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.

***
Mr. Mueller’s media protectorate argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump. But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes—Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.

Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive. 

First it claimed cooperation would hurt the Mueller probe, but his prosecutions are proceeding apace. Then Justice claimed that providing House investigators with classified material could hurt security or sources. But House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has as broad a security clearance as nearly anyone in government. Recently Justice said it can’t interfere with a probe by the Justice Department Inspector General—as if an IG trumps congressional oversight.

Mr. Nunes is understandably furious at the Strzok news, on top of the other stonewalling. He asked Justice to meet the rest of his committee’s demands by close of business Monday, and if it refuses Congress needs to pursue contempt citations against Mr. Rosenstein and new FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.

When word first got out that Former President Obama was setting up shop in Washington, DC close to the White House and that there was a cadre of Professional Government Bureaucrats still loyal to him and the Democratic Party working together as a “Shadow Government”, I made the remark that the situation was like that in a Tom Clancy Spy Novel.

Not only was I right, but I underestimated just how blatantly deep within the swamp that these shadows roamed.

As The WSJ Editorial Board alluded to, Robert Muller was appointed FBI Director by George W. Bush, whom he served under for 10 years.

However, there is more to the pervasive corruption contained within this supposedly unbiased Special Counsel Investigation.

When Barack Hussein Obama became President, Mueller served under him for 2 more years. During that time, he acted as a “mule” for Secretary of State Clinton, carrying a sample of the before-mentioned seized uranium BACK to Vladimir Putin via the Russian Embassy.

Mueller’s past, plus the fact that he has recruited lawyers who are Democratic Donors to fill out his “Investigative Staff” led me and others to throw up a red flag about this guy, believing that he is another Establishment Political Weasel like James Comey, who followed Mueller as Director of the FBI.

Just call me “Captain Obvious”, but, considering the facts that we already know about this fiasco, it is very obvious to this crazy ol’ cracka’ that the Trump Russian Collusion Fairy tale was actually a False Flag Operation designed by the Democratic Party Hierarchy, their Propaganda Arm, the Main Street Media, and their operatives on Capitol Hill and within the Trump Administration itself, to keep the nation’s attention diverted to the Trump/Russia Lie, when in reality the Uranium One Treasonous Operation by Hillary Clinton WAS AND REMAINS THE STORY.

And now, through yesterday’s revelations of the political shenanigans pulled on behalf of Hillary Clinton by the FBI, and the fact that those who were behind all of that corruption are the main participants in this Democratic Witch Hunt disguised as in impartial investigation, it is apparent to this average American that, unlike the suggestion made by the Editors of the WSJ, Mueller should not simply be replaced, this whole macabre joke of an “investigation” needs to be shut down.

It is now apparent that President Donald J. Trump’s “Russiagate” is an invention of the Democratic Party in more ways than one. Not only was Hillary Clinton guilty of nefarious dealings with the Russians when she was Obama’s Secretary of State, she, her Campaign Staff, and shadow operatives within the FBI attempted to work with the Russians in an attempt to sabotage the campaign of Donald J. Trump in order to overcome her own shortcomings and win the Presidency. When that didn’t happen, she, along with the Democrat Elite, made up the version of “Russiagate” which the MSM and Liberal Political Activists (but, I repeat myself) have been bombarding skeptical Americans with for the past 11 months.

Additionally, the American Public is just now slowly becoming aware of the treasonous activities of Hillary and her fellow Democrats because the Main Stream Media, who have been and remain so complicit in the matter, refuse to “air” this story.

Now that it has been revealed that the FBI, Comey, Mueller, Strzok, et al covered up the extent of Hillary Clinton’s reckless handing of Top Secret Information, which very well could have been passed along to the Muslim Brotherhood by Clinton’s Assistant and BFF Huma Abedin, whom they also “interviewed”, as she has relatives in that Islamic Terrorist Organization, it is time to re-open the E-mailgate INvestigation and put hooks in that can of worms and catch some very smelly fish.

Not only is it past time to Drain the Swamp, it is time to cast a spotlight on the Shadow Government Bureaucrats within the Administration, who are working to not only destroy President Trump, but also our American Way of Life.

It’s time to go snake hunting in the Washington Swamp.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Advertisements

Liberal Hypocrisy and the Alinsky Playbook: Defend “Boudoir Bubba” Clinton. Savagely Attack Judge Roy Moore.

November 16, 2017

US-VOTE-DEBATE

12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. – from “Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals”

As the good name of Judge Roy Moore continues to be besmirched every day by the Liberal Main Stream Media, some Liberals have finally figured out that perhaps they did not respond properly in the case of the sexual misconduct of Former President Bill “Bubba” Clinton, a guy who has been around more times than the turnstiles at Disney World.

Gee, DiNozzo. Ya think?

The Ultra-Liberal New York Times reports that

Another woman went on national television this week to press her case of sexual assault by a powerful figure. But the accused was not Roy S. Moore or Harvey Weinstein or Donald J. Trump. It was Bill Clinton. “I feel like people are starting to believe and realize that I was truly sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton,” Juanita Broaddrick said on Fox News nearly two decades after first going public with her story. “All victims matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. Who cares if you’re straight or you’re gay, or if you believe in God or not. We all have a right to be believed.”

The cultural conversation about women, power and sexual misconduct that has consumed the United States in recent weeks has now raised a question that is eagerly promoted by those on the political right just as it discomfits those on the political left: What about Bill? While Fox News and other conservative outlets revive years-old charges against Mr. Clinton to accuse Mr. Moore’s critics of hypocrisy, some liberals say it may be time to rethink their defense of the 42nd president.

Matthew Yglesias, a liberal blogger who once worked at the Center for American Progress, a pillar of the Clinton political world, wrote on Vox.com on Wednesday that “I think we got it wrong” by defending Mr. Clinton in the 1990s and that he should have resigned. Chris Hayes, the liberal MSNBC host, said on Twitter that “Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.”

Caitlin Flanagan, a social critic who calls herself a “lifelong Democrat, an enemy of machine feminism and a sexual assault survivor,” wrote on The Atlantic’s website that “the Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton.” Michelle Goldberg wrote a New York Times column headlined, “I Believe Juanita.” David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official, said Monica S. Lewinsky “deserves an apology from many of us she has never received.”The emerging revisionism may influence a historical legacy that Mr. Clinton and his allies have spent the past 17 years scrubbing of scandal. Despite his impeachment on perjury and obstruction for covering up sexual liaisons with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Clinton until lately had made progress in framing the national memory of his presidency as a time of peace and prosperity.

But the arrival of President Trump on the political stage has chipped away at that. To counter damage from the “Access Hollywood” tape recording him boasting about groping women as well as allegations by a number of women that it was more than just “locker room talk,” Mr. Trump recruited Ms. Broaddrick and other women who had accused Mr. Clinton to join him on the campaign trail last year.

The spate of sexual misconduct stories in recent weeks has brought those cases back into the public spotlight.

“It’s about time,” Kathleen Willey, another woman who accused Mr. Clinton of sexual harassment, said Wednesday in a telephone interview from her home in Richmond, Va. “We’ve waited for years for vindication.”

She expressed bitterness that liberals and feminists did not believe her or the other accusers at the time. “They’re hypocrites,” she said. “They worship at the altar of all things Clinton. They’re all over Roy Moore, but they had nothing to say about Bill Clinton when he was accused of doing what he was accused of doing.”

Some Democratic leaders rejected the comparison. “I don’t think there’s any double standard here,” Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said last weekend on “Fox News Sunday.” “You were also talking in this case, as you know, about allegations of child sexual abuse.”

Mr. Clinton’s behavior, proved or otherwise, has long been an uncomfortable subject for Democrats. Many chose to defend him for his White House trysts with Ms. Lewinsky because, despite the power differential between a president and a former intern, she was a willing partner. To this day, Ms. Lewinsky rejects the idea that she was a victim because of the affair; “any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath” when the political system took over, as she wrote in 2014.

Ms. Willey, Ms. Broaddrick and Paula Jones, however, described unwilling encounters. Ms. Jones asserted that Mr. Clinton, while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee, summoned her to a hotel room, dropped his pants and requested oral sex. Ms. Willey, a former White House volunteer, accused him of kissing and groping her in the Oval Office. Ms. Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home owner, alleged that Mr. Clinton forced her to have sex during a meeting on the campaign trail in 1978.

Mr. Clinton’s lawyers have disputed all three charges, although he eventually paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Ms. Jones without admitting wrongdoing, citing the political costs of continuing to fight it. None of those cases was part of the impeachment articles against Mr. Clinton, which rested on whether he lied under oath about his interactions with Ms. Lewinsky and coaxed her to lie, too. The House impeached him along party lines in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him two months later.

Many Democrats condemned Mr. Clinton at the time, but they opposed his removal from office, citing what they considered the partisan nature of the attempt. The fact that some of his accusers willingly collaborated with Mr. Clinton’s conservative opponents troubled some. Others seized on inconsistencies in the women’s accounts. Ms. Broaddrick, for instance, initially denied that anything happened, saying later that she did so because she did not want to be dragged into the political arena. Ms. Willey later said she suspected the Clintons were somehow involved in the death of her husband, which was called a suicide.

Gloria Steinem, who at the time wrote a column generally defending Mr. Clinton, remains unmoved by time. “Most important is to listen to the women themselves,” she said in an email forwarded by her office on Wednesday. “Please watch Monica Lewinsky’s TED talk. It is important, moving and tells you who the abusers are.” She did not respond to questions about Ms. Broaddrick or the others.

Of course, many liberals and Democrats stood by Mr. Clinton despite the allegations because they agreed with his policy stances and did not want to reward those on the other side. Nina Burleigh, a journalist, wrote a column at the time joking that she would give Mr. Clinton oral sex for protecting abortion rights.

In an email on Wednesday, she said she did not mean to imply she supported sexual harassment. “As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant, not a victim,” she said. As for the other accusations against Mr. Clinton, she said, “Was he a Harvey Weinstein? I doubt it, but I have no evidence either way.”

Still, some on the other side in the 1990s have noticed a change. “Some of the same people who dismissed the women who came forward” then, “it seems like they’re evaluating these issues differently now than they did during that time,” said Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, a Republican who was one of the House impeachment managers.

Mr. Clinton has kept publicly quiet amid the flurry of sexual misconduct stories lately, and his office had no comment on Wednesday. But other Democrats were not as willing to come to his defense this week. Of a dozen prominent political activists contacted on Wednesday, none went on the record on Mr. Clinton’s behalf.

Liberals always point the finger at others while ignoring their own hypocrisy.

Let’s look a little deeper at Bubba’s “excursions into exploring his sexuality”, shall we?

Back in the Bill Clinton era, White House advisor Betsey Wright coined the term “bimbo eruptions” to describe a long list of presidential gal pals. BIll “Bubba” Clinton’s Bimbo List” included, but is not limited to (I’m sure) Jennifer Flowers, Former Miss America Elizabeth Ward, Paul Corbin Jones, and, of course, Monica Lewinsky.

The Lewinsky scandal was a sensation that enveloped the presidency of Bill Clinton in 1998–99, leading to his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and acquittal by the Senate.

Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state worker who claimed that Bill Clinton had accosted her sexually in 1991 when he was governor of Arkansas, had brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against the president. In order to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton’s part, Jones’s lawyers questioned several women believed to have been engaging in sex  with him. On Jan. 17, 1998, Bubba took the stand, becoming the first sitting president to testify as a civil defendant.

During this testimony, Clinton denied having had an affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, an unpaid intern and later a paid staffer at the White House who worked in the White House from 1995–96. Lewinsky had earlier, in a deposition in the same case, also denied having such a relationship. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel in the Whitewater case, had already received tape recordings made by Linda R. Tripp (a former coworker of Lewinsky’s) of telephone conversations in which Lewinsky described her involvement with the president. Asserting that there was a “pattern of deception,” Starr obtained from Attorney General Janet Reno permission to investigate the matter.

The president publicly denied having had a relationship with Lewinsky and charges of covering it up. His adviser, Vernon Jordan, denied having counseled Lewinsky to lie in the Jones case, or having arranged a job for her outside Washington, to help cover up the affair. Hillary Clinton claimed that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was trying to destroy her husband, while Republicans and conservatives portrayed him as immoral and a liar.

In March, Jordan and others testified before Starr’s grand jury, and lawyers for Paula Jones released papers revealing, among other things, that Clinton, in his January deposition, had admitted to a sexual relationship in the 1980s with Arkansas entertainer Gennifer Flowers, a charge he had long denied. In April, however, Arkansas federal judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the Jones suit, ruling that Jones’s story, if true, showed that she had been exposed to “boorish” behavior but not sexual harassment; Jones appealed.

In July, Starr granted Lewinsky immunity from perjury charges, and Clinton agreed to testify before the grand jury. He did so on Aug. 17, then went on television to admit the affair with Lewinsky and ask for forgiveness. In September, Starr sent a 445-page report to the House of Representatives, recommending four possible grounds for impeachment: perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of authority.

On Dec. 19, Clinton became the second president (after Andrew Johnson) to be impeached, on two charges: perjury—in his Aug., 1998, testimony—and obstruction of justice. The vote in the House was largely along party lines.

In Jan., 1999, the trial began in the Senate. On Feb. 12, after a trial in which testimony relating to the charges was limited, the Senate rejected both counts of impeachment. The perjury charge lost, 55–45, with 10 Republicans joining all 45 Democrats in voting against it; the obstruction charge drew a 50–50 vote. Subsequently, on Apr. 12, Judge Wright, who had dismissed the Jones case, found the president in contempt for lying in his Jan., 1998, testimony, when he denied the Lewinsky affair. In July, Judge Wright ordered the president to pay nearly $90,000 to Ms. Jones’s lawyers. On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, President Clinton agreed to admit to giving false testimony in the Jones case and to accept a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine in return for an agreement by the independent counsel, Robert W. Ray (Starr’s successor), to end the investigation and not prosecute him.

In a later interview, Hillary claimed that Bill suffered childhood abuse which may have caused him to philanderer and experience “bimbo eruptions” later in life. She described her philandering husband as “a hard dog to keep on the porch”.

In hindsight, it would have probably would have been a less unwanted image if Hillary would have called Bubba “a difficult dog to keep on the porch”, instead.

Just sayin’.

As we return to the present, we are witnessing the Trial By Media of Judge Roy Moore, Republican Candidate for Jeff Sessions’ vacated Senate Seat in Alabama.

As Judge Moore continues to experience a manufactured “Bimbo Eruption”, some striking differences between what is happening against him and the women who came forward against President Clinton are very clear.

There was not as long a period of time between Bubba’s actions and his accusers coming forth as there was in the case of Roy Moore.

And, the Democratic Establishment and the Main Stream Media did not take them seriously, as opposed to the sainthood status given to the accusers of Judge Moore.

And, as opposed to William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Judge Roy Moore has not admitted to any inappropriate sexual behavior.

And finally, Judge Moore knows what the definition of what “is” is.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Celebrating Trump’s First Year: Why The Libs Never Saw Him Coming and Why They Still Don’t Understand What Happened

November 8, 2017

Donald Trump

One year ago yesterday on Huffingtonpost.com

The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. Republican Donald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory.

Clinton’s win will be substantial, but not overwhelming. The model projects that she’ll garner 323 electoral votes to Trump’s 215. 

For all of 2016’s craziness, that projection actually follows a fairly traditional electoral map. Trump should keep Arizona and Georgia, even though Clinton is likely to make it a closer-than-usual race. Iowa also seems firmly in Trump’s column. All three states are more than 85 percent likely to remain red.

Florida, Nevada and North Carolina have leaned toward Clinton in the polling averages.

The forecast in recent weeks, along with the strength of early voting numbers, makes it seem very likely that these will stay with her. All three states are more than 80-percent likely to swing Democratic. New Hampshire polls have wavered recently, but the

HuffPost model still predicts those four electoral votes will go to Clinton with more than 90 percent certainty. And Clinton should fairly easily hold onto Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

That leaves Ohio as the last critical state. It’s the closest in the race, according to the HuffPost forecast model. Trump leads by just 1 point, and the polling trend has moved toward the GOP in the last few weeks. The HuffPost model gives Trump about a 70 percent chance of winning the state. In the event that Clinton’s ground game stimulates turnout and pulls Ohio in her direction ― which is not out of the question ― she’ll get 341 electoral votes.     

Maine’s 2nd Congressional District and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District could defy their states’ trends, but there’s no substantial polling information to indicate whether that will happen. In the absence of data, I’m choosing not to split them in projections.

Third-party candidates aren’t likely to be a factor. Independent Evan McMullin will probably take a sizable share of the vote in Utah, but not enough to beat Trump. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has been polling at 5 percent or less on average. And Green Party nominee Jill Stein isn’t likely to pull much of the vote in the states where she’s on the ballot.

Huff ‘n Puff was not the only Liberal Website to get the 2016 Presidential Election wrong.

Liberal Darling Nate Silver predicted it wrong as well on his FiveThirtyEight.com Website.

He called for it to shake down as follows:

Hillary Clinton – 71.4%

Donald J. Trump – 28.6 %

In an article titled, “There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble, which Silver wrote as a part of as series titled “The Real Story of 2016”, in an attempt to explain why he and the rest of the Liberal Political Pundits got the Presidential Election so wrong, he wrote…

All things considered, then, the conditions of political journalism are poor for crowd wisdom and ripe for groupthink.

Well…duuuhhh.

Silver first gained public recognition for developing PECOTA, a system for forecasting the performance and career development of Major League Baseball players, which he sold to and then managed for Baseball Prospectus from 2003 to 2009.

Which explains why his current poll of President Donald J. Trump’s popularity reads…

56.8% Disapprove

37.6% Approve

Meanwhile…

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States of America one year ago today with 46% of the vote.

Not exactly the precipitous drop in popularity in his first year in office that the same Liberal Political Pundits who never saw his election coming in the first place claim that there is, huh?

But, I digress…

One year into the Presidency of Donald J. Trump, the gaping maw that is America’s Political Division remains as cavernous as ever.

While the News Organizations and Political Pundits who inhabit the never-ending metropolitan areas of the East and Left Coasts and the “Beltway” insist, as “some old Lib” named Phil Donahue did last July, that,

This is the darkest political moment in American History.

Those of us who live in America’s Heartland, between the coasts, could not be happier with the choice we made on November 8th, 2016 as Fox News Commentator and Radio Host Todd Starnes, now a New Yorker, witnessed.

Liberals who seem to spend their entire day on Social Media posting fake news stories, pulling “facts” out of their hindquarters, and posting anything and everything that they can, in order to attempt to remove President Trump from office, are probably in diabetic shock from consuming too many Cheetos and donuts in their Mom’s basement, as they attempt to comprehend what I am writing.

Here’s the deal, Snowflakes…

None of these fake news stories, Democrat-heavy polls, and photoshopped pictures and stupid Occupy Democrat Memes on Facebook are making any difference to average Americans.

The Democrats, as a result of their own regional bias toward the major metropolitan areas on the East and Left Coasts, which has been obvious to average Americans for the last several decades, effectively divorced themselves from the people whom they claimed in every previous election cycle to “love”…Average Working Class Americans.

Yet still, they expect us to believe the Fake News which they are desperately trying to distribute in a vain attempt get Trump out of office, and which you Liberal Trolls are posting on Social Media ad nauseam, so that they and you, in your shared madness can get a do-over and Hillary Clinton will somehow miraculously become the President.

Americans do not care what the Main Stream Media…or you…think.

They are the Propaganda Arm and you are their unpaid (usually) stable boys and girls.

They produce it and you shovel it.

To put it mildly and in Marital Terms, which even you can understand, Average Working Class Americans and the Democratic Party are no longer “evenly yoked”.

The Democrats became the party of the “Upper Crust” and Special Interest Groups, who look down their noses at Americans who live here in “Flyover Country”.

The Democrats assumed, after reading their own press clippings, that all Americans wanted  and somehow, still want, the Progressive/Marxist Political Ideology and style of governance which Barack Hussein Obama practiced during his time as President.

Well, we all know what assuming does, don’t we, Snowflakes?

The American People overthrew the “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we had suffered under for the last 8 years on November 8th.

The Oxford Dictionaries define the word “mandate” as

the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.

Guess what, Democratic Elite, George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, Main Stream Media, Facebook and Internet Trolls, Hollywood Celebrities, and the rest of you still throwing a National Temper Tantrum?

Trump won! Therefore, he does have a mandate.

And, average Americans, the “Deplorables” between the coasts whom the Democrats continue to insult and ridicule on a daily basis, still support and appreciate president Donald J. Trump.

Because it is evident by the lowest Unemployment Rate since 2000 that President Donald J. Trump is working hard to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Kleenex, Libs?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Before Hillary and the DNC Screwed Bernie, Bernie and Hillary Had a “Secret Agreement” – A KJ Investigative Report

November 3, 2017

160510183508-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-cnn-debate-super-tease

There’s a difference between fair game and playing games. – Hillary Clinton

FoxNews.com reports that

The fix was in after all.

Last year’s presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was rigged by the Democratic National Committee – just as Sanders’ supporters suspected – to hand the nomination to Clinton, according to a bombshell claim by Donna Brazile. The onetime Clinton confidante, CNN commentator and former interim party boss made the explosive claim Thursday while touting a new book that could sever her ties to Team Clinton for good.

“I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested,” Brazile wrote in a piece for Politico Magazine.

“By Sept. 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart,” Brazile said.

The proof, according to Brazile, was a joint fundraising agreement document between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary for America. It had been signed in August 2015, four months after Clinton announced her candidacy and a year before she officially secured the nomination over Sanders.

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff.”

Brazile took over as the interim DNC chairman in 2016 when Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced out as chairman over the emails, which indicated the party organization unfairly favored Clinton over Sanders during the primary.

The ardent supporters of Sanders, the Democratic socialist, have long accused the party establishment of actively taking steps to benefit Clinton during the primary.

In a statement to Fox News, Wasserman Schultz didn’t directly address Brazile’s claims, but defended her tenure leading the committee.

“It was a tremendous honor to be asked by President Obama to serve as chair of the DNC,” Wasserman Schultz said Thursday. “I am proud of the work our team did to support Democrats up and down the ballot in the 2016 election and to re-elect the president in 2012.”

DNC spokesman Xochitl Hinojosa, who works under current DNC chairman Tom Perez, told Fox News the party’s official policy is to not take sides during the primaries.

“The DNC must remain neutral in the presidential primary process, and there shouldn’t even be a perception that the DNC is interfering in that process,” Hinojosa said.

She said joint fundraising committees were created between the DNC and the Clinton and Sanders campaigns during the 2016 cycle but Clinton was the only candidate who raised money for the party.

The piece, titled “Inside Hillary Clinton’s secret takeover of the DNC,” is excerpted from Brazile’s forthcoming book, which is being published this month.  

After taking over, she said she went in search for “evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary.”

“I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn,” she wrote. “Well, here was the answer.”

It’s typical, she said, for candidates to make such arrangements with party organizations – but after they’ve won the nomination. Brazile said the arrangement does not appear to be “illegal, but it sure looked unethical.”

“If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead,” she said. “This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

Sanders has not yet commented on Brazile’s story, but other progressives are expressing outrage.

During an afternoon appearance on CNN, Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, another favorite of the liberal base, said “yes” when asked if she thinks the primary was rigged.

“This is a real problem,” she told anchor Jake Tapper. “What we’ve got to do, as Democrats, now is we’ve got to hold this party accountable.”

Before the agreement to screw Bernie was signed in August of 2015, another “secret agreement” had occurred, as I reported in a post titled “WikiLeaks Reveals Romantic Triangle: Millinneals Loved Bernie, Bernie Loved Hillary, Bernie Sold Out Millennials”, on November 6, 2016, just two days before the election.

According to heatstreet.com,

Emails published by WikiLeaks suggest that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had a secret “agreement” during the Democratic primary.

In a May 2015 email exchange, top Clinton campaign aides discussed “Sanders criticism” after Hillary’s primary opponent attacked the Clintons over their extreme wealth by suggesting that they “hustle money.”

When asked about the Clintons’ wealth during an interview with CNBC, Sanders had some harsh words:

Theoretically you can be a multibillionaire and in fact be very concerned about the issues of working people. Theoretically that’s true. When you hustle money like that, you don’t sit in restaurants like this. You sit in restaurants where you spend, I don’t know what they spend, hundreds of dollars for dinner and so forth. That’s the world you are accustomed to. And that’s the worldview that you adopt. I’m not going to condemn Hillary and Bill Clinton because they’ve made a lot of money. That type of wealth has the potential to isolate you from the reality of the world.

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook emailed campaign chairman John Podesta to express his displeasure with Sanders’ remarks, and suggested that Sanders had violated an “agreement” of some kind between the campaigns.

“This isn’t in keep [with] the agreement,” Mook wrote. “Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him. I could send a signal via Welch–or did you establish a direct line [with] him?”

The “Welch” referred to here is presumably Rep. Peter Welch (D., Vt.), one of the first Democratic lawmakers to publicly endorse Sanders.

So, Bernie had already planned to screw his supporters and Hillary and the DNC then screwed him.

Bernie Sanders, “Evangelist” of the failed political ideology of Marxism, member of the rapidly tanking American Political Party known as “Democrats”,  basically appealed to the collegiate and “slacker” vote, the MTV Generation, still living in Mom’s Basement, who salivate over the vision of “money for nothing and their chicks for free”.

The Socialist Paradise, which Bernie Sanders offered Millennials, is nothing new.

Ask the countries of Venezuela and Greece, as they burn to the ground, their hopes and dreams piled on top of a “Democratic Socialist” Pyre of their own making.

What Bernie’s collective hive-mind of group-thinking followers never seemed to grasp was the reality that Marxism has NEVER worked, anywhere that it has been tried.

Man’s own greed and corruption, as in the case of the old Russian Politboro, and Bernie Sanders, himself, always gets in the way of their dream for a Socialist Utopia.

That is the reason that Marxism remains a THEORY…and a failed one, at that.

But, I digress…

From the time that she spent behind the scenes of her husband’s political career in Arkansas to the days she occupied the White House as “Co-President” to her days as Senator from the State of New York to this very moment, Hillary Clinton has engaged in political activities involving corruption and downright criminality that would make Machiavelli blush.

Now that more of these criminal activities are coming to light, such as the Uranium One Scandal and her duplicitous dealings during her failed Presidential Campaign, Americans should breathe a sigh of relief that this Modern Madame Bovary did not succeed in her quest to become the 45th President of the United States of America,

Just like the original Madame Bovary, she would have drained the very life’s blood out of our wonderful, vibrant country, to the benefit of no one but herself.

Hillary Clinton herself said,

There’s a certain consistency to who I am and what I do, and I think people have finally said, ‘Well, you know, I kinda get her now.’ I’ve actually had people say that to me.

The American People “got you” alright, Hillary.

That is why you lost.

Thank God.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Regarding the Manafort Indictment, When Do the Tony Podesta, Lanny Davis, and Rep. John Conyers Get Indicted, Too? – A KJ Investigative Report

October 31, 2017

Chasing-Story-600-LI

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his Investigative Staff, made up of Democratic Donors, handed down their first indictment yesterday. The target was Paul Manafort, Former Presidential Campaign Manager for the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump.

As you can imagine, it was the focus of much Media and Political scrutiny, featuring, dissection, castigation, and insinuation.

FoxNews.com reports that

President Trump fired back on Monday in an attempt to distance his White House from the grand jury indictments of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an aide, noting their crimes were committed “years” before they worked on the campaign.

The president led a chorus of critics of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, noting that the crimes for which Manafort and his aide, Rick Gates, are charged appear to predate the presidential campaign by years.

“Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????” Trump tweeted Monday. “….Also, there is NO COLLUSION!”

Manafort and Gates were indicted by a federal grand jury Friday on 12 counts, including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading Foreign Agent Registration (FARA) statements, false statements and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign banks and financial accounts. The indictments were announced Monday.

Mueller’s team also unsealed a guilty plea by former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who admitted to making false statements to FBI agents as part of the investigation. According to court documents, Papadopoulos’ false statements were in regards to his relationship with a Russian ‘professor,’ who had ties to Russian government officials.

The special counsel probe and Russia “hoax,” as the president has described it, has cast a cloud over the Trump administration. But last week, the White House enjoyed a shift in focus, amid new revelations in the controversial Obama-era Uranium One deal and the payments behind the salacious anti-Trump dossier.

Reports last week revealed that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid more than $9 million to law firm Perkins Coie, which commissioned Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research that ultimately led to the now-infamous dossier.

Over the weekend, it was revealed that the conservative Washington Free Beacon website initially funded the opposition research into then-candidate Donald Trump and other GOP contenders for the White House. Lawyers for the Free Beacon told the House Intelligence Committee that the website funded the research between fall 2015 and spring 2016.

But some Republicans say that the Manafort-Gates indictments provide “no evidence” in the Russian collusion narrative.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who has repeatedly called for Mueller’s resignation, over the special counsel’s relationship with former FBI Director James Comey, said the indictment “doesn’t have anything to do with Donald Trump.”

“I believe that Mr. Mueller’s conflict of interest is absolutely incontrovertible, and I think this is further indication he’s headed in this direction no matter what,” Franks said on his local radio station, KTAR-FM Morning News, Monday. “It’s ironic because ostensibly his investigation is supposed to be into Donald Trump’s potential involvement with Russia, yet this doesn’t have anything to do with Donald Trump.”

Franks added: “They may try to parlay it into something to hook President Trump in, but right now, this is par for the course. I should suggest this was kind of predictable.”

Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is leading its own Russia probe, echoed a similar sentiment.

“This pre-dates the campaign entirely, and could pre-date Paul Manafort even meeting Donald Trump. This has nothing to do with the campaign,” King told Fox News on “America’s Newsroom” Monday. “The investigation still has to go forward but what I’ve seen so far, is there is no evidence at all linking the Trump campaign to Russian influence or collusion.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee is also leading a bipartisan Russia probe, and said that the indictment “doesn’t change” their investigation.

“The special counsel has found a reason on criminal violations to indict two individuals and I will leave that up to the special counsel to make that determination. It doesn’t change anything with our investigation,” Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C. said in a statement to Fox News. “We received documents from and had interest in two of the individuals named, but clearly the criminal charges put them in the Special Counsel’s purview.”

But Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that the indictments are “significant” and a “sobering step” in the special counsel’s investigation.

“That’s why it is imperative that Congress take action now to protect the independence of the Special Counsel, wherever, or however high his investigation may lead,” Warner said in a statement Monday. “Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, must also make clear to the President that issuing pardons to any of his associates or to himself would be unacceptable and result in immediate, bipartisan action by Congress.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also said that the president “must not, under any circumstances, interfere” with Mueller’s work.

“If he does so, Congress must respond swiftly, unequivocally, and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the investigation continues,” Schumer said in a statement Monday.

While Trump has not suggested any plans to interfere with the special counsel investigation, there are currently two pieces of legislation in the Senate, with bipartisan sponsorship, that would ensure a judicial check on the executive branch’s ability to remove a special counsel. Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., are behind the bills, along with Democratic senators.

“The president is not firing the special counsel,” Trump’s attorney, Jay Sekulow, said on CNN Monday. 

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also said Monday the president has “no intention or plan to make any changes in regard to Special Counsel.”

Though some argue the indictments are irrelevant to the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, former top-ranking Justice Department official under both Bush and Obama administrations, James Trusty, told Fox News that this is what happens during a broad investigation.

Last week, Mueller expanded his probe to investigate Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta’s dealings with Manafort and a Ukrainian nonprofit. The Podesta Group told Fox News last week they were “cooperating” with the special counsel’s office.

Trusty said last week that Mueller has “a lot of room to legitimately poke around and find information on one party or another.”

“It’s a cliché, but a good cliché –prosecutors go where the evidence leads them,” Trusty told Fox News last week. “When you define the mission broadly, there is a lot of room for [an independent prosecutor’s] exploration.”

Trusty said that if a special counsel’s mission is defined broadly, “it is all fair game if the independent prosecutor is doing his job the right way.”

Okay. So, Mueller has the power to investigation anything he wants to.

That’s fine.

Because, as the Maha Rushie, himself, Rush Limbaugh, explained on his radio program yesterday, there is no “there” there.

No crime here. No crime has been specified. You could look at the document that charters the Mueller special counsel investigation team. You won’t find a crime. There are no limits on the number of people they can hire. There’s no limit on the amount of money he can spend. And there’s no limit on the amount of time. Ao he can do and go wherever he wants. And for Manafort, he went back from 2006 to 2015. And that’s what he’s gonna do with Trump because there isn’t any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. There just isn’t anything. The only thing there is is the Trump dossier, and that’s fake and made up. I don’t care what you hear, none of it’s been corroborated. A lot of it has been officially blown to smithereens as not credible, and not just the golden showers aspect of it. So to the extent that that dossier has been used to form an official investigation, if that dossier is ever the reason for any indictments, then I can see — well, I don’t know. Depends on the judge. Depends on the court.

Everything’s been so corrupted because it’s been so politicized. I’ll just tell you this. In a just world — and I’m not trying to make a pun here. In a world where the justice system reigns supreme, any indictment resulting from whatever’s in the Trump dossier would have to be thrown out. It’s not real. It’s a political document. It was bought and paid for by a political campaign to do damage against the political presidential opponent! It’s not an intelligence document. It’s bought and paid for. So anything in it that leads to an indictment, to me, would be extremely risky.

So, I will have to defer to actual legal experts on that last claim, but it just seems common sense to me that if indictments occur because of things that are not true in that dossier are used as evidence, then what good is it? It’s gotta be thrown out. So here’s the next question I got. “Rush, I’m thinking that there’s a possibility that Manafort is not actually aiming at Trump here.” Meaning with the indictment of Manafort. That Mueller is not actually aiming at Trump but may in fact be trying to get Podesta. What Mueller and his investigators are looking into is Russian influence in general, not from the Trump campaign, but from Manafort for years before and the Podesta — Now, Manafort’s political entanglements involve him with the government of Ukraine, which is not Russia! And the things that Manafort’s firm, things they were engaged in, the Podesta firm was engaged in very similar behavior.

Now, I just need to do a little test here. How many of you actually would accept the premise that Mueller is using the Manafort indictment to tighten the screws on Podesta? Anybody think that’s got any, any shred of possibility? Because everybody assumes Mueller, Mister Big, Washington establishment, unassailable reputation, not covered, not tainted by the corruption of politics, strictly — same things that we’ve heard about Comey which now we have reason to question.

But there’s nothing here with Trump and collusion with Russia. There simply isn’t anything there. Now, Manafort did do some stuff. Maybe money laundering, maybe colluding or something with Ukraine, but so did Podesta. Is it feasible that this guy with 16 Obama and Hillary lawyers on his team would be going after a Democrat? Remember, Mueller is, supposedly, a Republican, former FBI director. Remember, untainted, one of the maybe two people in town untainted reputationally by the swamp.

According to the Podesta Group’s website profile page, they are

Always original, never ordinary, we imagine and execute inventive, integrated, data-based campaigns that don’t just ignite conversations, but inspire action and change outcomes.

Whether across the country, or around the globe, at the Podesta Group, the one thing clients can rely on is results. From advising on parliamentary elections overseas to orchestrating large, issue-focused national advocacy campaigns back home, we know how to chart a winning course. With the rolled-sleeves values and senior-level attention of a boutique shop and the 535-member reach and wide-ranging issue fluency of a powerhouse firm, our bench of strategists brings decades of experience to bear. That’s why Bloomberg Businessweek calls us a “Beltway blackbelt” and why organizations large and small, from Fortune 500s and national foundations to local nonprofits, startups and foreign corporations have entrusted us with their public affairs agendas since 1987.

Back of February 18th of this year, Forbes.com posted an article titled “No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists” by Paul Roderick Gregory, which makes the keen observation that

Thanks to the Panama Papers, we know that the Podesta Group (founded by John Podesta’s brother, Tony) lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. “Sberbank is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead, and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S. intelligence official. According to a Reuters report, Tony Podesta was “among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.” Among these was the European Center, which paid Podesta $900,000 for his lobbying. 

That’s not all: The busy Podesta Group also represented Uranium One, a uranium company acquired by the Russian government which received approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to mine for uranium in the U.S. and gave Russia twenty percent control of US uranium. The New York Times reported Uranium One’s chairman, Frank Giustra, made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech from a Russian investment bank that has “links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”  Notably, Frank Giustra, the Clinton Foundation’s largest and most controversial donor, does not appear anywhere in Clinton’s “non-private” emails. It is possible that the emails of such key donors were automatically scrubbed to protect the Clinton Foundation.

Let’s not leave out fugitive Ukrainian oligarch, Dymtro Fortrash. He is represented by Democratic heavyweight lawyer, Lanny Davis, who accused Trump of “inviting Putin to commit espionage”

That’s still not all: Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) read Kremlin propaganda into the Congressional Record, referring to Ukrainian militia as “repulsive Neo Nazis” in denying Ukrainian forces ManPad weapons. Conyers floor speech was surely a notable success of some Kremlin lobbyist.

Lobbying for Russia is a bi-partisan activity. Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia’s third largest bank, Gazprombank, is represented by former Sen. John Breaux, (D., La.), and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R., Miss.), as main lobbyists on “banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions.” The Breaux-Lott client is currently in the Treasury Department list of Russian firms prohibited from debt financing with U.S. banks.

In his February 16 press conference, President Trump declared in response to the intensifying media drumbeat on his Russian connections: “I haven’t done anything for Russia.” K-Street lobbyists, on the other hand, have done a lot to help Russia. They greased the skids for a strategic deal (that required the Secretary of State’s approval) that multiplied the Kremlin’s command of world uranium supplies. They likely prevented the shipment of strategic weapons needed by Ukraine to repulse well-armed pro-Russian forces. A fugitive billionaire who robbed the Ukrainian people of billions is represented by one of the establishment’s most connected lawyers.

Gazprombank GPB hired Breux and Lott to gain repeal of sanctions. That’s perfectly fine in Washington; they are playing according established “swamp rules” in their tailored suits and fine D.C. restaurants. General Flynn lost his job when the subject of sanctions was mentioned by the Russian ambassador in their telephone conversation, but that’s the way the media and Washington play.

 As I always say,

The problem with pointing a finger at somebody is that you have three fingers pointing back at you.

All of the Liberal Political Pundits who were all over Cable and Broadcast News and all of the self-proclaimed trollish little Liberal know-it-alls who were all over Social Media Yesterday, crowing about Manafort’s Indictment, are soon going to have a rude awakening.

Democrat Politicians and their operatives have been wheeling and dealing with Putin and his henchmen for years. And, once the hearings concerning Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama’s Uranium One Scandal get started, even their seemingly well-planned distraction, known as the Trump-Russian Collusion Fairy Tale, won’t be about to stop the Sword of Damocles from ripping their political and professional futures to shreds.

The Dems are about to figure out that the old adage is true,

If you lay down with dogs, (even Siberian Huskies”) you get up with fleas.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Indictment Monday: Who Will Be the First to Be Indicted Because Trump Won the Election?

October 30, 2017

IcFv8qqB.jpg

“This seems more like an effort to prosecute Donald Trump.”
“What the hell are we investigating?” “Why are we going through with this charade?” –  U.S. Representative Sean Duffy (R-Wis.)

FoxNews.com reports that

Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, the leader of the House’s top investigative committee, slammed special counsel Robert Mueller on Sunday for allowing the news media to learn that he and his legal team now have charges in their Russia investigation.

“In the only conversation I’ve had with Robert Mueller, I stressed to him the importance of cutting out the leaks,” Gowdy, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s kind of ironic that the people charged with investigating the law and the violations of the law would violate the law.”

Mueller and his team have for roughly the past five months been leading a Justice Department investigation into whether anybody associated with the President Trump’s 2016 White House campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election outcome. On Friday night, CNN reported that Mueller’s team has filed the first charges in the case with a federal grand jury.

“Make no mistake, disclosing grand jury material is a violation of the law. Somebody violated their oath of secrecy,” Gowdy, a South Carolina lawmaker and former federal prosecutor, also told Fox News on Sunday.

The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that anyone charged will be taken into custody Monday. However, the charges have been sealed by a federal judge. So whoever is charged and whether the charges are criminal remains unclear.

The possible charges come as Mueller’s tactics have been called into question.

During a raid by the FBI in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s Virginia home,  a source close to the investigation told Fox News at the time the scope of the search was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”

Andrew Weissmann, the prosecutor tapped by Mueller to help lead the investigation, has also received criticism. Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor recently wrote about Weissman in a piece titled, “Judging by Mueller’s staffing choices, he may not be very interested in justice.”

Powell accused Weissmann, once the director of the Enron Task Force, of “prosecutorial overreach” in past cases and said it could signal what’s to come for President Trump and his associates in the Russia probe.

“What was supposed to have been a search for Russia’s cyberspace intrusions into our electoral politics has morphed into a malevolent mission targeting friends, family and colleagues of the president,” Powell wrote in The Hill. “The Mueller investigation has become an all-out assault to find crimes to pin on them — and it won’t matter if there are no crimes to be found. This team can make some.”

Powell cited several cases where Weissmann won convictions that were later overturned.

During a Saturday appearance on Fox News, former Department of Justice official Robert Driscoll told anchor Leland Vittert it’s possible the indictment might not even be directly tied to Russian collusion.

“Think back to the Clinton years,” Driscoll said. “The Whitewater investigation was about an Arkansas land deal. And it ended up being about something else completely.”

Driscoll added, “Robert Mueller is free to look at taxes, is free to look at lobbying filings, foreign agent filings. Things like that could all be involved that wouldn’t necessarily touch on the issue of Russia collusion that everyone seems focused on politically.”

Speculation has focused on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn as likely targets.

Manafort has been the subject of a longstanding investigation into his dealings in the Ukraine several years ago — for which he did not file as a foreign agent until June 2017. 

Federal agents, reportedly in search of evidence related to the Russia investigation, this summer raided his northern Virginia home. He also was reportedly wiretapped by investigators before and after the 2016 presidential election.

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, was a Trump surrogate during the campaign and briefly served as national security adviser before being fired for failing to fully disclose his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, then-Russian ambassador to the United States.

The FBI also secured approval from a federal court to monitor the communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

On Saturday, Page released a statement to Fox News in response to questions about whether he or his lawyers have been notified about any charges.

Page said in the statement that he has worked with the executive branch and Congress since being contacted in March. But he also suggested that revelations about the Democratic Party having helped finance a dossier to smear Trump has tainted any Russia probe.  

“In terms of ‘charges’, I can’t even imagine what might even be considered now that the false evidence from the politically-motivated, big-money-financed Dodgy Dossier that started this extrajudicial disaster has instead been so thoroughly exposed as a complete sham,” Carter wrote in the statement. 

Richard Hibey, an attorney for Manafort, told Fox News on Friday that neither he nor any of his colleagues representing Manafort had been informed of any indictment of their client.

Manafort has been the subject of a longstanding investigation into his dealings in the Ukraine several years ago – for which he did not file as a foreign agent until June 2017. In addition to his home being raided, Manafort was reportedly wiretapped by investigators before and after the 2016 presidential election.

Flynn served as a Trump surrogate during the campaign and briefly served as national security adviser before being fired over his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, who was Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Mueller has reportedly probed whether Flynn was involved in a private effort to get former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers.

The Justice Department’s special counsel’s office declined to comment on the reports of filed charges.

Trump has denied allegations that his campaign colluded with Russians and condemned investigations into the matter as “a witch hunt”.

As I have told you before, boys and girls, make no mistake. Mueller is a part of the Washington Establishment.

While it is true that he served under both a Democratic and Republican President, he is still quite partisan. His loyalties are to the Washingtonian Status Quo.

That is why he expanded his investigation into the business dealings of a then-private citizen.

What boggles the mind is the fact that they have spent so much of OUR money investigating the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, and his son, Donald Trump, Jr., who have committed no crime.

Even a well-respected Liberal Professor Emeritus from Harvard, a renown Legal Scholar,  has written in op eds that no crime has been committed.

On July 11th, Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction”, wrote the following op ed for foxnews.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller will surely be looking into the meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., and a Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya.  Part of the meeting was also attended by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul Manafort, who at the time was running Trump’s campaign.  It now seems clear from the emails that the Trump people went to the meeting expecting to be given dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.  The question remains, if this is all true, is it criminal?

The first issue that must be addressed by Mueller is whether any existing criminal statutes would be violated by collusion between a campaign and a foreign government, if such collusion were to be proved? Unless there is a clear violation of an existing criminal statute, there would be no crime.

Obviously if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime – such as hacking the DNC – that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning.   Moreover, the emails sent to Trump Jr. say that the dirt peddled by Veselnitskaya came from “official documents.”  No mention is made of hacking or other illegal activities. So it is unlikely that attendance at the meeting violated any criminal statute.

Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections. But it is not currently a crime.

Whether or not such collusion, if it occurred, is a crime, it is clear that the American people have the right to know whether any sort of collusion –legal or illegal – took place.  And, if so, what was its nature.

The Mueller investigation is limited to possible criminal activity.  Probing the moral, political or other non-criminal implications of collusion with, or interference by, Russia is beyond the jurisdiction of the special counsel.  It is the role of Congress, not the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, to make changes in existing laws.  Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections.  But it is not currently a crime. 

Nor will it be easy to draft a criminal statute prohibiting a campaign from using material provided by a foreign power, without trenching on the constitutional rights of candidates.  But this is all up to Congress and the courts, not the special counsel, with his limited jurisdiction.

That is why the entire issue of alleged collusion with, and interference by, the Russians should be investigated openly by an independent nonpartisan commission, rather than by a prosecutor behind the closed doors of a grand jury. 

The end result of a secret grand jury investigation will be an up or down determination whether to indict or not to indict.  If there are no indictments, that will end the matter. The special counsel may issue a report summarizing the results of his investigation, but many experts believe that such reports are improper, since the subjects of the investigation do not have the right to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, which typically hears only one side of the case. Beyond any report, there will also be selective leaks, such as the many that have already occurred.  Leaks, too, tend to be one-sided and agenda driven.

A public non-partisan commission investigation, or even one conducted by partisans in Congress, would be open for the most part.  They would hear all sides of the story, and the public would be able to judge for itself whether there was improper collusion.  A commission or Congressional committee could also recommend changes in the law for the future.

The American people need to know precisely what the Russians tried to do and did – and what, if anything, the Trump campaign knew and did.  These issues go beyond a cops-and-robber whodunit. They involve the very essence of our democracy.

It is quite refreshing to read the writings of a level-headed Liberal for a change.

On, the night of the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary and her henchman, Podesta came up with this cockamamie Russian Collusion Fairy Tale, which the Libs have been harping on, repeating lies as being facts, as if they graduated from the Dan Rather School of Broadcast Journalism.

As I have written before, the frenzy which they have built themselves into as a group resembles the mentality of an old West Lynch Mob.

They want a hanging, and by gum, there WILL be a “hanging”, even though, as Professor Dershowitz has written, there is no proof whatsoever that the President did anything wrong.

Being the minority Political Ideology in America has never stopped Modern American Liberals from trying to enforce their will upon the American people.

On November 8th, the Electoral College, put in place by our Founding Fathers, stopped them.

And, the Russia-Trump Collusion Fairy Tale and the staffing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team with Democratic Donors is their attempt to circumvent our Constitution.

It is apparent that Mueller is a part of “The Resistance”.

It appears to this average American that Mueller, being well-connected in the Washington Establishment, is cut from the same cloth as Former FBI Director James Comey.

Mueller has turned out to be a political weasel, a professional bureaucrat who views himself to be more important than he actually is, just like Comey.

Remember, boys and girls…you can indict a ham sandwich.

Whether you have a case for conviction is another thing entirely.

President Trump needs to go ahead and fire Mueller.

…before he and the rest of “The Resistance” totally usurp the will of the American People.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Calls for Mueller to Resign Increase. Why it is Time for Him to Go.

October 28, 2017

untitled (189)

…you look at the Mueller investigation, and, to me, you know, adding or connecting the dots, it wouldn’t surprise me if the real purpose of all of this is to try to cover-up or erase or obfuscate the discovery of even more. And all disguised as an investigation to get Trump, to save America, to save our democracy, to save our election system and so forth. But I don’t put anything past these people. I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt on anything. – Rush Limbaugh, 10/27/17

FoxNews.com reports that

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is facing a fresh round of calls from conservative critics for his resignation from the Russia collusion probe, amid revelations that have called into question the FBI’s own actions and potentially Mueller’s independence.

This week’s bombshell that a controversial anti-Trump dossier was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign has Republicans asking to what extent the FBI – which received some of the findings and briefly agreed to pay the same researcher to gather intelligence on Trump and Russia – used the politically connected material.

Hill investigators also are looking into a Russian firm’s uranium deal that was approved by the Obama administration in 2010 despite reports that the FBI – then led by Mueller – had evidence of bribery involving a subsidiary of that firm.

Critics question whether Mueller’s own ties to the bureau as well as fired FBI director James Comey now render him compromised as he investigates allegations of Russian meddling and collusion with Trump officials in the 2016 race.

“The federal code could not be clearer – Mueller is compromised by his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey,” Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who first called for Mueller to step down over the summer, said in a statement to Fox News on Friday. “The appearance of a conflict is enough to put Mueller in violation of the code. … All of the revelations in recent weeks make the case stronger.”

Outgoing New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie, a former federal prosecutor and Trump ally, also suggested Friday that Mueller consider stepping aside.

“If the facts that you just laid out are true, then somebody with Bob Mueller’s integrity will step aside and should — if in fact those facts, as you laid them out, are true,” Christie said on “Fox & Friends,” in response to various conflict-of-interest allegations.

The special counsel’s office declined Fox News’ request for comment.

This is not the first time Mueller has faced calls to step down.

Congressional Republicans over the summer raised concerns over Mueller’s relationship with Comey, whom Trump ousted from the FBI in May. Reps. Franks and Andy Biggs, both Republicans from Arizona, had called for Mueller’s resignation for that reason.

President Trump has called Mueller’s relationship with Comey “bothersome,” though hasn’t said much about Mueller’s role lately even as he seizes on the latest revelations about the Fusion GPS dossier to try and turn the tables on Democrats in the Russia scandal.

“It is now commonly agreed, after many months of COSTLY looking, that there was NO collusion between Russia and Trump. Was collusion with HC!” he tweeted Friday.

But the Wall Street Journal editorial board cited the dossier development in calling for Mueller’s resignation on Thursday, saying the “troubling question is whether the FBI played a role” in aiding a “Russian disinformation campaign.”

“Two pertinent questions: Did the dossier trigger the FBI probe of the Trump campaign, and did Mr. Comey or his agents use it as evidence to seek wiretapping approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Trump campaign aides?” the editorial board wrote, before turning to Mueller’s role: 

“The Fusion news means the FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated—even as the FBI and Justice insist that Mr. Mueller’s probe prevents them from cooperating with Congressional investigators. Mr. Mueller is a former FBI director, and for years he worked closely with Mr. Comey. It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years. He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.”

Another potential issue is Mueller’s supervision of a bribery probe involving a subsidiary of Russia’s Rosatom, which eventually got approval from the U.S. to buy a Canadian mining company that controlled a swath of American uranium reserves. At the time of the probe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller as special counsel, was a U.S. attorney and Mueller was FBI director. Republicans want to know how that deal was approved despite the evidence gathered in the bribery probe.

“The whole reason for independent counsels is to have the public trust, the professionalism and the diligence of the investigation, but they have to guard against actual conflicts of interest and apparent conflicts of interest,” said former high-ranking Justice Department official James Trusty, who served under the Bush and Obama administrations. “There may be some tipping point, though, separating facts from rumors, and we may be close to the tipping point.”

Earlier this week, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, called for a separate special counsel to investigate the Uranium One deal.

Grassley, however, stopped short of suggesting he didn’t trust Mueller.

“There might be reasons to wonder his involvement because of his involvement with the previous administration during this period of time. There’s no way that I can make any accusations against Mr. Mueller because he is a man of high ethical standards,” Grassley told “Fox & Friends” on Thursday.

Other Republicans have sought to protect Mueller from interference.

There are currently two pieces of legislation in the Senate, with bipartisan sponsorship, that would ensure a judicial check on the executive branch’s ability to remove a special counsel. Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., are behind the bills, along with Democratic senators.

Comey’s attorney, David Kelley, also has disputed the characterizations of the Mueller-Comey relationship interviews in the past.

“Bob and Jim have a congenial relationship as former colleagues. Both served long legal careers that involved overlapping time spent within the Department of Justice, and that’s pretty well documented. But beyond that, they’re not close, personal friends,” Kelley told the Washington Post this summer. “They’re friends in the sense that co-workers are friends. They don’t really have a personal relationship.”

Kelley told Fox News on Friday that he stands by those comments.

Mueller, meanwhile, has been criticized by Republicans for the makeup of his investigative team, which includes several Democratic donors.

“As these various Russian related allegations swirl, I think Mueller increasingly regrets his decision to pick a staff in which half of the prosecutors had either given to, or participated, in Democratic causes,” Trusty said. “That was an unforced error.”

No. It was not. This whole Trump-Russia Collusion Fairy Tale has been nothing but a lie from the get-go.

Mueller’s 16 lawyers who are “investigating for corruption” are Democrats who donate to the DNC.

Therefore, they are hardly “objective”.

Muller was appointed FBI Director by George W. Bush whom he served under for 10 years. When Barack Hussein Obama became President, Mueller served under him for 2 more years.

His past, plus his present staff activity shows him to be another Establishment Political Weasel like James Comey, who followed Mueller as Director of the FBI.

All average Americans, like you and me, continue to see on Liberal-produced television newscasts or read in Liberal-written newspapers or magazines, are attacks on President Trump, which feature all of the common sense and objective level-headedness of Bobcat Goldthwait.

You see, boys and girls, from the moment that it was announced that the “Interloper” Donald J. Trump, had “stolen” the election from “the Chosen One”, Hillary Clinton, America’s Liberals determined that they had to go into an all-out offensive to run Trump out of office, saving their entitlement programs and continuing the mission which Obama and his Administration started: that of turning the “Shining City Upon the Hill” into just another country.

As I have noted numerous times in the last 10 months, Modern American Liberals are throwing an unending National Temper Tantrum over the loss of Hillary Clinton to American Businessman and Entrepreneur Donald J. Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election.

The other factor, besides this ongoing temper tantrum, which has led to the Liberals proclaiming criminal activity on behalf of President Trump and his son when there is none, is the fact that Liberals lead their lives in a state of perpetual confusion.

Liberals believe that

Rachel Dozeal is black….

Elizabeth Warren is an American Indian.

Al Sharpton is a Reverend.

Al Gore is a scientist.

George Stephanopoulos is a journalist.

Bernie Sanders is presidential.

Barack Hussein Obama is honest.

And, somehow, someway, if they could get rid of Trump, Hillary Clinton would be given the Presidency.

Heck. Hillary’s husband, Bubba, doesn’t even know what the definition of “is”, is.

The good news is that evidence is finally seeing the light of day that the actually Russian Collusion involved Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and members of the Obama Administration, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller. These revelations have caused the Democrat Party, their Propaganda Arm, the MSM, and their Social Media Operatives to at least back away a little bit from continuing to sound like Jan Brady, screaming

Russia! Russia! Russia!

As the featured article in today’s post alluded to, Mueller’s involvement in the Democratic Collusion with Russia with a possible Special Counsel about to be appointed to investigate the matter, places him in a position of conflict of interest.

Even if he is the man of integrity that all of the Washington Establishment claims him to be, the activities of the FBI Before, during, and after the Uranium One Deal and during the past ten months have been less than exemplary, to say the least.

Mueller’s history with the FBI and as a Washington Democratic Establishment Insider has placed him in an untenable position.

He must resign immediately.

The fact of Democratic Political Corruption involving the giving of 1/20th of America’s Uranium Supply and their subsequent attempt to keep Donald J. Trump from becoming president and now attempting to get rid of him after his election is overwhelming.

In fact, the odious gas emanating from the Democrats’ attempt to lie their way back into power with the false Trump-Russia Collusion Fairy Tale, only to have it boomerang back on them,  proves once again that

the ‘smeller” is the feller.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Uranium One Scandal: DOJ Removes Gag Order So FBI Informant Can Testify to Congress About Hillary’s Actual Russian Collusion

October 26, 2017

Jar-600a-LA

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! – Sir Walter Scott

FoxNews.com reports that

The Justice Department said Wednesday night that it had lifted a gag order on a former FBI informant involved in a high-profile Russia bribery case, clearing the individual to speak to Congress about Moscow’s Obama-era uranium deals in the U.S. market and other schemes.

In a statement, the department said it had authorized the informant to speak to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in addition to select staffers.

The department said the informant could provide “any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market,” including Russian company Rosatom, subsidiary Tenex, Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation.

Uranium One refers to the name of a Canada-based company with mines in the U.S. that was bought by Rosatom, a company backed by the Russian state. The State Department, then led by Hillary Clinton, was one of nine U.S. government agencies that had to approve the deal back in 2010.

All three congressional committees launched investigations after The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in fraudulent dealings – including extortion, bribery and kickbacks – as far back as 2009 in a case involving Rosatom’s subsidiary, Tenex. Congressional Republicans have since questioned how the Uranium One deal was approved the following year by an inter-agency committee, and sought to gain access to the informant.

Republicans also have raised concerns about efforts by interested parties to influence the Clintons – citing donations to the Clinton Foundation as well as a $500,000 speaking fee received in Russia by former President Bill Clinton, who reportedly met with Vladimir Putin around the time of the deal.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tweeted Tuesday that the Justice Department should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Uranium One deal.

The informant’s attorney, Victoria Toensing, told Fox Business Network Monday that her client can “tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made.” The informant earlier was prevented from testifying by former attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, according to Toensing, after having signed a non-disclosure agreement.

A non-disclosure agreement to cover up treason.

The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI involved in a cover-up of a sitting Secretary of State and Former First Lady’s sale of 20% of America’s Uranium Supply to Russia.

If this wasn’t so frighteningly real, I would swear that it was a Tom Clancy or Clive Cussler Novel.

Where are Jack Ryan and Dirk Pitt, when we need them?

Once again, boys and girls, please allow me to attempt to summarize this political chicanery by the Democrats which includes a traitorous betrayal of our Sovereign Nation by a sitting Secretary of State…

It was actually Hillary Clinton and her campaign who colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 Presidential Elections through payment to create a dossier designed to bring Trump down by defaming him. This operation also involved Russian Intelligence and a wealthy Democratic Donor.

Can you say, “George Soros”, boys and girls?

Robert Muller was appointed FBI Director by George W. Bush whom he served under for 10 years. When Barack Hussein Obama became President, Mueller served under him for 2 more years. During that time, he acted as a “mule” for Secretary of State Clinton, carrying a sample of seized uranium BACK to Vladimir Putin via the Russian Embassy.

Mueller’s past, plus his present staff activity has led me and others to throw up a red flag about this guy, fearing that he may be another Establishment Political Weasel like James Comey, who followed Mueller as Director of the FBI.

Again, allow me to reiterate that President Trump needs to go ahead and fire Mueller and appoint a new Special Prosecutor. One Former FBI Director/Washington Establishment Political Weasel on his staff caused enough trouble already.

The Trump-Russia Collusion Fairy Tale is an invention of the Democratic Party in more ways than one. Not only was Hillary Clinton guilty of nefarious dealings with the Russians when she was Obama’s Secretary of State, Obama and his Administration and Hillary and her Campaign Staff worked with the Russians in an attempt to sabotage the campaign of Donald J. Trump in order to overcome Hillary’s shortcomings and win the Presidency. When that didn’t happen, Hillary, along with the Democrat Elite, made up the Trump-Russia Collusion Fairy Tale which the MSM and Liberal Political Activists (but, I repeat myself) have been bombarding skeptical Americans with for the past 10 months.

To quote Rush Limbaugh in an excerpt from his nationally syndicated radio program yesterday…

Folks, that means there has never been any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. Now, balance that fact with everything that’s happened in the past year in the news media! This dwarfs Watergate in ways that I can’t even categorize. This has so many players involved who knew that this was phony. But for the highest investigatory intelligence agency in the world to knowingly accept pure fiction and use it politically? See, it doesn’t surprise me. This is who Obama is! This is right out of Saul Alinsky and Rules for Radicals.

This is exactly how community organizing works. You populate these places with your fellow extremist radicals, and you turn ’em loose — and everything they touch ends up being corrupted. The CIA? The FBI? This story… I guarantee you, Jim Kallstrom, who ran the New York office of the FBI for years, this is gonna… It’s gonna combine to devastate him and infuriate him like you can’t believe. The FBI is sacred to people who have devoted their lives to it, it’s sacred in its mission, and to have this? This is not just a mistake. This is not somebody getting fooled.

This is not Comey and Robert Mueller being fooled by any of this. This was knowingly used to help deny a duly elected president his victory — and then after he was inaugurated, it was used for the express purpose of driving this duly elected president out of office, and it encompassed the United States Congress. It encompassed the office of the Director of National Intelligence run by James Clapper. It ensnared the CIA and the FBI — or rather, the FBI and the CIA used this to ensnare all of these different House and Senate investigating committees — and, of course, the Drive-By Media.

To condense what I have said, so that even any stray Libs who might be reading this can understand, Hillary’s Uranium One Deal was the actual collusion with Russia and the Trump-Russia Collusion Fairy Tale was created to cover it up and to try to force Trump from office.

And now, an FBI informant is about to spill his guts in a way that will make Watergate and “Deep Throat” seem like “Blue’s Clues”.

Pass the Popcorn.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Hillary, the Dems, and Obama’s FBI All Paid for Dirt on Trump, While the Actual Collusion Had Already Taken Place Between Hillary and Russia

October 25, 2017

untitled (188)

“Corruption is just another form of tyranny.” – Joe Biden

The Washington Post reports that

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

Fusion GPS gave Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role.

The dossier has become a lightning rod amid the intensifying investigations into the Trump campaign’s possible connections to Russia. Some congressional Republican leaders have spent months trying to discredit Fusion GPS and Steele and tried to determine the identity of the Democrat or organization that paid for the dossier.

Trump tweeted as recently as Saturday that the Justice Department and FBI should “immediately release who paid for it.”

Elias and Fusion GPS declined to comment on the arrangement. Spokesmen for the Clinton campaign and the DNC had no immediate comment.

Some of the details are included in a Tuesday letter sent by Perkins Coie to a lawyer representing Fusion GPS, telling the research firm that it was released from a ­client-confidentiality obligation. The letter was prompted by a legal fight over a subpoena for Fusion GPS’s bank records.

People involved in the matter said that they would not disclose the dollar amounts paid to Fusion GPS but that the campaign and the DNC shared the cost.

Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier is a compilation of reports he prepared for Fusion GPS. The dossier alleged that the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and that the Kremlin was engaged in an effort to assist his campaign for president.

U.S. intelligence agencies later released a public assessment asserting that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to aid Trump. The FBI has been investigating whether Trump associates helped the Russians in that effort.

Trump has adamantly denied the allegations in the dossier and has dismissed the FBI probe as a witch hunt.

Officials have said that the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier. Other details, including the most sensational accusations, have not been verified and may never be.

Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries, when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate magnate’s background.

Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter.

When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue. The Democrats paid for research, including by Fusion GPS, because of concerns that little was known about Trump and his business interests, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Those people said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.

The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in “legal and compliance consulting’’ since November 2015 — though it’s impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS.

At no point, the people said, did the Clinton campaign or the DNC direct Steele’s activities. They described him as a Fusion GPS subcontractor.

Some of Steele’s allegations began circulating in Washington in the summer of 2016 as the FBI launched its counterintelligence investigation into possible connections between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Around that time, Steele shared some of his findings with the FBI.

After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports.

The dossier was published by BuzzFeed News in January. Fusion GPS has said in court filings that it did not give BuzzFeed the documents.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that Steele was respected by the FBI and the State Department for earlier work he performed on a global corruption probe.

In early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele’s dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump. In May, Trump fired Comey, which led to the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel investigating the Trump-Russia matter.

Congressional Republicans have tried to force Fusion GPS to identify the Democrat or group behind Steele’s work, but the firm has said that it will not do so, citing confidentiality agreements with its clients.

Last week, Fusion GPS executives invoked their constitutional right not to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee. The firm’s founder, Glenn Simpson, had previously given a 10-hour interview to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Over objections from Democrats, the Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), subpoenaed Fusion GPS’s bank records to try to identify the mystery client.

Fusion GPS has been fighting the release of its bank records. A judge on Tuesday extended a deadline for Fusion GPS’s bank to respond to the subpoena until Friday while the company attempts to negotiate a resolution with Nunes.

Trump scared the mess out of The Washington Establishment from the moment he announced his candidacy.

Following the bouncing dossier.

A GOP Donor first commissioned it during the Republican Primaries. Then he dropped his funding after deciding that there was nothing to be gained by continuing. From there, the Clinton Campaign and the Democrats started funding it.

Then, after the election the FBI, that’s right, the FBI, under James Comey, continued to pay Steele to investigate Trump, looking for collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 Presidential Election.

In May, Trump fired Comey, which led to the hiring of Professional Bureaucrat James Mueller as special counsel, who has since hired Attorneys who happen to be Democratic Donors to staff his “Investigative Team”.

The moment that it was announced that a “Special Counsel” had been named and it was announced who it was, the little hairs on the back of my neck stood straight up.

Make no mistake. Mueller is a part of the Washington Establishment.

While it is true that he served under both a Democratic and Republican President, he is still quite partisan. His loyalties are to the Washingtonian Status Quo.

Back on June 13th, I wrote a post titled: “Special Counsel Mueller Hires Dem Donors. Is This an Investigative Staff or a “Firing Squad”?” concerning the hiring of Democrats to be a part of the investigative team looking into whether President Trump “colluded” with Russia.

In that post I set up and asked the following pertinent question…

…The thing is Muller was appointed FBI Director by George W. Bush whom he served under for 10 years.

When Barack Hussein Obama became President, Mueller served under him for 2 more years.

His past, plus his present staff activity has led me and others to throw up a red flag about this guy, fearing that he may be another Establishment Political Weasel like James Comey, who followed Mueller as Director of the FBI.

Why would a Special Counsel hire so many financial supporters of the Democratic Party to assist in investigating a matter which the Democratic Party has erroneously linked to a President?

Is Professional Bureaucrat Mueller putting together an Investigative Staff or a Firing Squad?

Well, boys and girls, I think that we now know the answer to my question.

With the revelations during the past two weeks of the real collusion which happened between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Russians, which involved Robert Mueller acting as a “mule” to deliver uranium to  the Russians, and now, her and the Dems being behind the continued funding of the Steele Dossier, the questions that I asked on June 13th, appear to have been spot on.

Why would a Special Counsel hire so many financial supporters of the Democratic Party to assist in investigating a matter which the Democratic Party has erroneously linked to a President?

Is Professional Bureaucrat Mueller putting together an Investigative Staff or a Firing Squad?

The answer, boys and girls, is now, undoubtedly, A FIRING SQUAD

What Mueller has been doing surreptitiously on behalf of the Democrats and his own reputation, has been the ultimate in both misdirection and covering one’s a@@.

Mueller should just go ahead and recuse himself or the President should just go ahead and fire him and stop the probe. For more information as to why, WSJ.com has posted a report titled “The FBI’s Political Meddling”.

In addition, Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to go after Hillary and her Cartel of Washington Insiders with the same veracity with which the Democrats and their Propaganda Arm, the Main Street Media, have attacked the 45th President of the United States of America, “Citizen Statesman”, Donald J. Trump.

It appears that there are enough Machiavellian Manipulations, Political Shenanigans, and downright treasonous acts to keep the DOJ, Congressional Committees, and Grand Juries busy for a long time to come.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Can You Say “False Flag”? The False Story of Trump’s “Russiagate” and the True Story of Hillary’s “Uranium One”

October 23, 2017

Smoking-Guns-600-LI

“Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!” – President Donald J. Trump, Twitter, 10/19/17

FoxNews.com reports that

The House Oversight committee has started looking into an Obama-era deal in which a Russian-backed company bought a uranium firm with mines in the U.S., Rep. Ron DeSantis told Fox News on Sunday, adding that he’s spoken with the federal government’s “confidential informant” on the matter. 
 
The uranium agreement was reached while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and some investors in the Russian-backed company, Uranium One, had relationships with former President Bill Clinton and donated to the Clinton Foundation.

“I’ve spoken with the confidential informant that helped the FBI uncover this bribery scheme,” DeSantis, R-Fla., a member of the oversight committee, told “America’s News Headquarters.” “Clearly, it’s in the public’s interest that this individual be able to tell his story to Congress.”

When asked by Fox News if a criminal investigation would be coming, DeSantis responded: “It could be criminal.” He cited statutes of limitations that may limit prosecutions of any crimes that may arise from the 2010 deal.

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week said it started an investigation into the matter, including whether federal agencies knew the FBI was looking into possible corruption before the deal was approved.

In addition, Iowa GOP Sen. Charles Grassley, the committee chairman, has requested the Justice Department lift a non-disclosure agreement that a former FBI confidential informant said prevents him from speaking to Congress about the handling of a criminal probe linked to the deal.

Grassley said the Justice Department had threatened to prosecute the informant if he disclosed details of his involvement in the investigation.

DeSantis said Sunday the informant to whom he spoke signed his original non-disclosure deal with Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder and was “threatened with reprisal” by the Justice Department under Attorney General Loretta Lynch when he tried to “come forward” in 2016.

DeSantis also said he has spoken with the informant’s attorney, but it’s unclear whether the informant is the same one to whom Grassley has referred.

The House Oversight Committee doesn’t appear to have announced officially that it has opened a probe or more formal investigation. Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., could not be reached Sunday for comment.

“I have spoken with Chairman Gowdy. He believes that this is an important issue and he has indicated to me that he is supportive of what we are doing. So, I think you are going to see action,” DeSantis added.

President Trump said last week that media outlets have failed to cover the purchase of American uranium mines by the Russian-backed company adequately, as most recently reported by The Hill.

The Senate committee launched its probe after the series of Hill stories, which showed the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in fraudulent dealings in 2009 before the uranium deal was approved.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump frequently cited the deal for the uranium, which is used in nuclear reactors, and has returned to the issue at rallies during his presidency.

Clinton’s State Department was one of nine U.S. government agencies that had to approve the deal. But Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and former State department officials have said she was not involved in the approval process by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS.

Republicans have also pointed to some of the investors in the deal and their ties to the former president. Canadian financier Frank Giustra, a top Clinton Foundation donor, sold his company, UrAsia Energy, to Uranium One, which was chaired by Ian Telfer, also a Clinton Foundation donor.

Giustra has said he sold his stake in the deal in 2007, while Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And PolitiFact found that most of the donations from individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia Energy were made before and during Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign — before she became secretary of state.

And then, there was the “Steele Dossier”…

Hillary Clinton and her campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 Presidential Elections through payment to create a dossier designed to bring Trump down by defaming him. This operation also involved Russian Intelligence and a wealthy Democratic Donor.

Can you say, “George Soros”, boys and girls?

It has since been discredited and its creators are pleading the Fifth.

Curiously enough, there is a person who was involved in all of this chicanery, now working in the Trump White House…

The “Special Counsel” appointed by President Trump, himself.

Robert Muller was appointed FBI Director by George W. Bush whom he served under for 10 years. When Barack Hussein Obama became President, Mueller served under him for 2 more years. During that time, he acted as a “mule” for Secretary of State Clinton, carrying a sample of the before-mentioned seized uranium BACK to Vladimir Putin via the Russian Embassy.

Mueller’s past, plus the fact that he has recruited lawyers who are Democratic Donors to fill out his “Investigative Staff” has led me and others to throw up a red flag about this guy, believing that he is another Establishment Political Weasel like James Comey, who followed Mueller as Director of the FBI.

Just call me “Captain Obvious”, but, considering the facts that we already know about this fiasco, it is very obvious to this crazy ol’ cracka’ that the Trump Russian Collusion Fairy tale was actually a False Flag Operation designed by the Democratic Party Hierarchy, their Propaganda Arm, the Main Street Media, and their operatives on Capitol Hill and within the Trump Administration itself, to keep the nation’s attention diverted to the Trump/Russia Lie, when in reality the Uranium One Treasonous Operation by Hillary Clinton WAS AND REMAINS THE STORY.

In other words, Trump’s “Russiagate” is an invention of the Democratic Party in more ways than one. Not only was Hillary Clinton guilty of nefarious dealings with the Russians when she was Obama’s Secretary of State, she and her Campaign Staff attempted to work with the Russians in an attempt to sabotage the campaign of Donald J. Trump in order to overcome her own shortcomings and win the Presidency. When that didn’t happen, she, along with the Democrat Elite, made up the version of “Russiagate” which the MSM and Liberal Political Activists (but, I repeat myself) have been bombarding skeptical Americans with for the past 9 months.

The American Public is just now slowly becoming aware of the treasonous activities of Hillary and her fellow Democrats because the Main Stream Media, who have been and remain so complicit in the matter, refuse to “air” this story.

Because, just like all the other shady dealings committed by Democratic Politicians in the past several decades…

It’s different when THEY do it.

And, therefore is judged by the MSM to be unimportant.

However, despite their best efforts thanks to the “New Media” and Fox News, the story is beginning to see the light of day.

And, as we all know, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Until He Comes,

KJ