Monday, July 17, 2017

US Media vs. Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump Jr.

Hillary Clinton Collusion with Russia ?

Hillary Clinton claimed Russian hacking and election meddling caused her unexpected loss. 

Donald Trump was supposedly a puppet of Putin. 

A Trump dossier prepared by a London opposition research firm, Orbis, was paid for by unidentified Democrat donors.

The dossier claimed Trump’s sexual and business escapades in Russia had made him a hostage of potential Kremlin blackmail.

The Clinton campaign was connected with an unregistered foreign agent of Russia headquartered in DC (Fusion GPS), and the Christopher Steele Orbis dossier. 

Did the Kremlin prepared the dossier as part of a disinformation campaign?

If the dossier was ordered and paid for by Hillary Clinton associates, there could have been collusion between Clinton operatives and Russian intelligence. 

Two op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal on this subject (Holman Jenkins and David Satter). 

Possible Russian-intelligence origins of the Steele dossier have been raised only in conservative publications, such as the National Review.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to the Justice Department on March 31, 2017 demanding for his Judiciary Committee all relevant documents on Fusion GPS, the company that managed the Steele dossier against then-candidate Donald Trump. 

Grassley writes: 
“The issue is of particular concern to the Committee given that when Fusion GPS reportedly was acting as an unregistered agent of Russian interests, it appears to have been simultaneously overseeing the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier of allegations of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.”

Former FBI director, James Comey, refused to answer questions about Fusion and the Steele dossier in his May 3 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. 

Comey responded to Lindsey Graham’s questions about Fusion GPS’s involvement “in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?” with “I don’t want to say.” 

The role of Fusion GPS and one of its key associates, a former Soviet intelligence officer, must raise the question if the dossier was a plant by Russian intelligence to harm Donald Trump?

The ‘Trump dossier, full of unverified sexual and political allegations, was published in January 2017 by BuzzFeed, despite having hallmarks of Russian spy agency ‘creativity.’ 

The dossier was prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer. 

Much of the credibility of the Orbis dossier hinges on Steele’s reputation as a former M15 intelligence agent. 

After the publication of the Trump dossier, Mr. Steele went into hiding, supposedly in fear for his life. 

On March 15, however, Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director, told NBC that Mr. Steele had paid Russian intelligence sources who provided the information and he never met with them directly. 

If Steele disappeared for fear of his life, the only secret he might have had would be knowledge that Russian intelligence prepared the dossier.

According to a Vanity Fair article, Fusion GPS was first funded by an anti-Trump Republican donor, but, after Trump’s nomination, Fusion and Steele were paid by Democratic donors whose identity remains secret. 

The Steele dossier consists of raw intelligence from informants identified by capital letters, who claim (improbably) to have access to the highest levels of the Kremlin. 

The dossier was not, as the press reports, written by Steele. 

In Stalin's day, some of the most valued KGB (NKVD) agents were called "novelists," for their ability to conjure up fictional documents --  the Steele dossier could be written by Russian intelligence "novelists" to defame Trump and add chaos to the American political system.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s assignment – to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election – requires him to consider “matters” that Democrats would prefer be left alone.

Mueller has been given a broad charge and no deadline -- a formula for trouble. 

On the Clinton / Democrat side, there are a number of unanswered questions related to Russian electoral intervention. 

(1) Whether “wiped clean” Clinton e-mails are in Russian hands (as asserted by the Steele dossier), 

(2) Whether  the tarmac meeting of Bill Clinton and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch quashed the investigation of Hillary’s e-mails, 

(3) Whether the Clinton Foundation and Russian uranium interests engaged in quid pro quo and “pay to play” operations, and 

(4) Whether the Clinton campaign funded the Orbis Trump smear campaign, which may have involved Russian intelligence?

The Fusion-Steele matter is explosive because it suggests Russia’s most damaging intervention in the 2016 campaign may have been its creation of the Steele Dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign! 

If so, the Clinton campaign was the prime sponsor of Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election.

Another Clinton-related mysterious death

Klaus Eberwein was a former Haitian government official expected to expose Clinton Foundation corruption and malpractice next week.

He has been found dead in Miami at the age of 50.

The official cause of death is “gunshot to the head.“ 

Eberwein’s death has been registered as “suicide” by the government. 

But not long before his death, he said his life was in danger because he was outspoken on criminal activities of the Clinton Foundation. 

Eberwein was a critic of the Clinton Foundation’s activities in the Caribbean island, where he served as director general of the government’s economic development agency, Fonds d’assistance économique et social, for three years. 

“The Clinton Foundation, they are criminals, they are thieves, they are liars, they are a disgrace,” Eberwein said at a protest outside the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan last year. 

Eberwein was due to appear on Tuesday before the Haitian Senate Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission where he was widely expected to testify that the Clinton Foundation misappropriated Haiti earthquake donations from international donors. 

Eberwein was only 50-years-old and reportedly told acquaintances he feared for his life because of his fierce criticism of the Clinton Foundation.  

His close friends and business partners were taken aback by the idea he may have committed suicide. 

During and after his government tenure, Eberwein faced allegations of fraud and corruption on how the agency he headed administered funds. 

Among the issues was FAES’ oversight of the shoddy construction of several schools built after Haiti’s devastating Jan. 12, 2010, earthquake.  

According to Eberwein, it was the Clinton Foundation who was deeply in the wrong – and he intended to testify and prove it on Tuesday.

Eberwein claimed only 0.6% of donations granted by international donors to the Clinton Foundation for assisting Haitians actually ended up in the hands of Haitian organizations. 

9.6% ended up with the Haitian government. 

89.8% – or $5.4 billion – was funneled to non-Haitian organizations. 

Eberwein was expected to testify against the Clinton Foundation in court and ends up committing suicide shortly before?  

The mainstream media is silent about this death.

Monday, July 10, 2017

Update on DNC Hacking and Loretta Lynch

Hardware sitting at the Democrat National Committee (DNC) contained the emails that were stolen and subsequently shared with WikiLeaks.  

WikiLeaks claims a DNC insider handed the files to a WikiLeaks representative. 

A WikiLeaks representative stated he was the person who was handed the stolen information in Washington DC, I assume on  a flash drive or memory card.

The DNC has never allowed anyone in the Obama Administration to examine their server -- I've mentioned that here many times.

The DNC is now completely refusing to cooperate with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and Robert Mueller's independent investigation.  

Cyber security firm CrowdStrike, headed by Russians who hated Putin, is the only organization the DNC to inspect their email server.

That inspection which quickly resulted in the very 'convenient' conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC.

Minimal details supporting that conclusion were ever revealed to Obama Administration authorities.

The key piece of forensic evidence in Russia’s suspected efforts to sway the November presidential election has only been seen by CrowdStrike, the Irvine, California-based private company that the DNC hired to investigate the hack.

Critics say CrowdStrike’s evidence for blaming Russia for the hack is thin. 

The server is a key “witness” in the political scandal, yet remains beyond the reach of all investigators not hired by the DNC.

CrowdStrike is the very same 'cyber security' firm that attributed the huge Sony hack to North Korea...

That 'hack' was subsequently revealed to have been perpetrated by a Sony insider.

Crowdstrike's Mr. Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank focused on international issues that is partially funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who reportedly has donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Late last year the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected British think tank, disputed CrowdStrike’s analysis of a Russian hack during Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists. 

CrowdStrike later revised and retracted portions of its analysis.

Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?

Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party... Obama is trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President.

Both Republicans and Democrats say the DNC’s reaction to the hacking is troubling.

Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama, told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last month that his department offered to assist the DNC during the campaign to determine what was happening, but was rebuffed:

    “The DNC did not feel it needed DHS’ assistance at that time. I was anxious to know whether or not our folks were in there, and the response I got was the FBI had spoken to them, they don’t want our help, they have CrowdStrike.”

In January, FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the FBI issued “multiple requests at different levels” to assist the DNC with a cyber forensic analysis. Those requests were also denied.

If the DNC has the only evidence that could prove Russians hacked their servers, and attempted to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton, why not share that evidence with Obama Administration or Trump Administration or independent council Robert Mueller investigators?

Might it have something to do with this "purely coincidental' meeting oBill Clinton - Loretta Lynch meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix ... and/or Loretta Lynch's 'assurances' that the FBI's investigation (or, "matter") of Hillary Clinton "wouldn't go too far." 

According to an article in the New York Post, some testimony that Loretta Lynch offered under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year could come back to haunt her.  

Lynch said that she had "not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them."

That statement seems to contradict reports that Lynch personally assured members of Clinton's campaign, potentially Amanda Renteria, that the FBI's investigation "wouldn't go too far".

The Senate Judiciary Committee launched a bipartisan investigation into Lynch for possible obstruction of justice, recently learned of the existence of a document indicating Lynch assured the political director of Clinton’s campaign she wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former secretary of state.

Renteria, who has been identified in the document as the senior Clinton campaign aide with whom Lynch privately communicated, has also been asked to testify.

And then there is that inconvenient Comey testimony in which the former FBI director says that he was instructed by Lynch to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter" rather than what it actually was, an investigation. 

The Post points out new developments which would suggest that Comey confronted Lynch about her alleged communication with Amanda Renteria and was promptly asked to leave her office.

Why did she reportedly ask former FBI Director James Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with a document?

And then there is that Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton on that Phoenix tarmac, that just happened to get noticed by a local reporter, who just happened to be on scene.

The Clinton destruction of over 60,000 emails, after ordered preserved by a Congressional subpoena, was handled by a fake FBI investigation that included multiple people being offered immunity for nothing in return, and numerous federal crimes committed by Hillary Clinton, and several people on her staff, for which not one person received even a slap on the wrist.

US Constitution versus Muslim Qur'an

What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an 
-A History of Islam & the United States 
By William J. Federer

President Barack Obama stated in 
Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: 
“When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the Holy Qur’an.”

The dilemma is, how can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, 
     yet Mohammed said 
“Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” 
(Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). 

Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or Star of David.

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells.

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places which Muslims have destroyed, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government

The 2nd Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

The 3rd Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

The 4th Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

The 5th Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime...without due process of law,” yet Mohammed said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

The 6th Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the 7th Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.

The 8th Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” 
yet the Qur’an states:
'Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from Allah.' (Sura 5:38)

       A raped woman is punished with the man:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication-
Flog each of them with a hundred stripes. (Sura 24:2)

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Qur’an accommodates slavery as Mohammed owned slaves.

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Qur’an does not consider non-Muslims equal to Muslims.

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the vote shall not be denied...on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.”     Mohammed said 
“Fight those who believe not in Allah...until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly."

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Robert Mueller is bad news and should be fired !

Added Tuesday: 
According to Newt Gingrich, who I trust, Justice Department employees gave 97% of their 2016 campaign donations to Hillary Clinton, or other Democrats, and Robert Mueller's law firm gave 99% of contributions to Clinton, or other Democrats.

There is nothing to be gained from having Robert Mueller searching for a crime when there is no evidence of collusion with Russians, or obstruction.  

The FBI has been investigating since July 2016 -- it is almost one year, and there's NOTHING -- any evidence would have been leaked the day it was found.

The last Special Council, during the Bush Administration, investigated for three years until someone could be put in prison -- that someone was Scooter Libby who DID NOT commit any crime. 

Trump should fire the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstain who picked Mueller -- already a conflict of interest since Mueller and Comey were friends for many years -- and Robert Mueller, who is obviously a Democrat on a witchhunt without constraints for as many years as he needs to find someone to hang.

Original post:
Since his appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Special Counsel Robert Mueller enjoyed bipartisan praise in Washington D.C.  

That made me suspicious.

James Comey cast a shadow over Mueller's independence last week when he admitted under oath that he leaked FBI documents to the New York Times with the express intent of getting a Special Counsel appointed to investigate Trump's team.

And maybe it's a coincidence, but Comey and Mueller, both former FBI Directors, are friends!

Mueller should recuse himself if Comey is involved in this investigation ... and he must be involved because no one else suggested Trump committed obstruction of justice!

Unfortunately several of Mueller's early hires have all been contributors to Hillary Clinton's and/or Barack Obama's previous campaigns -- if this pattern continues, this is a witchhunt, not an impartial investigation, and Mueller should be fired:

If Mueller continues to staff his team with Democrats, Congress could intervene and abolish the independent counsel.

Michael Dreeben, the Justice Department’s deputy solicitor general, is working on a part-time basis for Mueller, The Washington Post reported. 
Dreeben donated $1,000 to Hillary Clinton’s Senate political action committee (PAC), Friends of Hillary, while she ran for public office in New York. 
Dreeben did so while he served as the deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department.

Jeannie Rhee, another member of Mueller’s team, donated $5,400 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign PAC Hillary for America.

Andrew Weissmann, who serves in a top post within the Justice Department’s fraud practice, is the most senior lawyer on the special counsel team, Bloomberg reported. 

He served as the FBI’s general counsel and the assistant director to Mueller when the special counsel was FBI director.

Before he worked at the FBI or Justice Department, Weissman worked at the law firm Jenner & Block LLP, during which he donated six times to political action committees for Obama in 2008 for a total of $4,700.

James Quarles, who served as an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, has donated to over a dozen Democratic PACs since the late 1980s. 

He was also identified by the Washington Post as a member of Mueller's team.

Starting in 1987, Quarles donated to Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis’s presidential PAC, Dukakis for President. 

Since then, he has also contributed in 1999 to Sen. Al Gore’s run for the presidency, then-Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential bid in 2005, Obama’s presidential PAC in 2008 and 2012, and Clinton’s presidential pac Hillary for America in 2016.

Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey as credible law enforcement figures. 

As top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director, and Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, and enabled Bush-Cheney lies to launch the war on Iraq.

Mueller denied or downplayed the significance of warnings that had poured in before the 9/11 attack -- all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the “post 9/11 round-up” of about 1,000 immigrants who happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. 

FBI Headquarters encouraged more detentions for what seemed to be public relations purposes. 

FBI field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI “progress” in fighting terrorism. 

Some of the detainees were jailed for up to a year -- none turned out to be terrorists.

Deputy Attorney General James Comey went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and torture of captives. 

Comey also defended the Bush Administration’s three-year-long detention of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.

Mueller was okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents were warned against participation. 

CIA agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any “war crimes files” disappeared. 

Not only did “collect it all” surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller’s (and then Comey’s) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

Mueller's close “partnership” with Comey, has been called “one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen,” 

Mueller didn’t speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. 

He didn’t speak out against torture. 

He didn’t speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. 

And he didn’t tell the truth about 9/11. 

James Comey testimony vs. Trump vs. Watergate

Note: I do not trust James Comey, especially when he makes unsupported claims against President Trump after being fired.

Former FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee alleged that Trump asked him, when discussing the investigation of General Mike Flynn, to “let this go.”

The president has legal authority to dismiss the FBI director, as Comey testified, and even to direct what the FBI does and does not investigate.

Yet the FBI holds itself to be “independent”? 

Trump views the federal bureaucracy as the enemy.

Comey testified that Obama attorney general Loretta Lynch “directed me not to call it (Hillary Clinton destroyed eMails) an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me.” 

Lynch’s meeting with Bill Clinton on a runway tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona prompted Comey to expand his role leading the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s activities ... into taking over the Justice Department's duty to decide whether Clinton should be prosecuted ... which was unprecedented. 

“In an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department,” he told Sen. Richard Burr.

Comey told Sen. Joe Manchin, “if Hillary Clinton was elected, I might have been terminated.” 

Comey's  job was not likely to last whether Trump or Clinton won the election!

Comey admitted to illegally leaking his memo of his talk with Trump about Flynn. 
" ... I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.”

Any disgruntled FBI man or other government intelligence insider who wants to damage a president, or sabotage an elected leader’s agenda, he has the means to do it. 

Mark Felt did so as “Deep Throat” -- his leaks allowed Woodward and Bernstein to break open the Watergate scandal. 

Mark Felt did not act only out of public interest -- he was angry at President Nixon for failing to make him the next FBI director.

Comey did not take Trump’s wishes regarding General Flynn as an order. 

He did not consider resigning (as he had once earlier in his career during the George W. Bush administration). 

Trump allegedly raised the Flynn matter only once. 

Trump did not try to shut down the investigation into Russia’s interference into the 2016 election.

There is no known crime at the heart of the Trump-Russia collusion charges affair.

No hush money changed hands.

Comey affirmed in his testimony that he told Trump more than once that he (Trump) was not a target of investigation in the Russia inquiry. 

Comey did say that Flynn was in possible legal jeopardy, as a result of his interactions with foreign officials and what he told the FBI. 

Flynn violated rules for foreign lobbyists, like many people do.

If he lied to the FBI, he would be subject to prosecution. 

Trump violated norms if he really suggested to Comey that the FBI should “let go” of the investigation into Flynn, but that was NOT a crime.

The only possible "scandal" here is Trump’s disregard for Washington’s norms ... which is what got him elected. 

Today none of the institutions of government or media, except the military, has popular support. 

The differences vs. Watergate:
There was a real crime at the heart of the Watergate affair -- the burglary of DNC offices in the Watergate complex.

More crimes were committed as part of the cover-up. 
Nixon knew that his staff was paying hush money to the burglars. 

The hush money was important for convincing members of Congress that impeachment was justified, although Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.