How The Media Buried Two Huge FBI Stories

memos memos everywhere

For more than a year and a half, the media have gone all-in on reporting every possible angle of President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. No story update has been too small, no encounter with a Russian too inconsequential, and no anonymous source too sketchy to generate outsize coverage and histrionic claims from major media.

But as the Russian collusion story disintegrates, another interesting story ascends. Investigations by multiple congressional committees as well as an investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Justice have shown irregularities in the handling of the most politically sensitive probes in recent memory: the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information while secretary of State and the investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged nefarious ties with Russia to meddle in a U.S. election.

These investigations have resulted in the firing, demotion, and reassignment of at least six top officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice. And all of those personnel changes were made before even the first official reports and memoranda from these investigations were made public.

In recent weeks, however, some official documents have come to light. These are statements made by elected members of the U.S. government on the record, not selective and political leaks from anonymous sources. So how have the media responded to these official statements regarding wrongdoing? Mostly by downplaying, mocking, and ignoring them.

When the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s majority memo was made public last week, many journalists highlighted Democratic talking points against it or otherwise rushed to defend the agencies credibly accused of abuse of power. As soon as they could, they dropped the story, despite the dramatic claims in the memo.

Two nights ago, a criminal referral by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was published with far fewer redactions than an earlier version of the referral. The less-redacted letter was significant. For one thing, it confirmed all of the major claims from the House memo authored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

A Clinton campaign document formed an essential part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to spy on a Trump campaign affiliate. The application failed to note that the campaign document was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier wasn’t corroborated so much as taken in faith based on the supposed credibility of its author, even after the FBI discovered he’d violated his working agreement with them. A top Justice official’s wife also worked on the Clinton campaign effort. The official funneled her information into the investigation.

The FBI hid their relationship with the Clinton operation from the court. The principal creator of the dossier revealed that he was “desperate” to keep Trump out of office, and the FBI knew this but didn’t tell the court about his extreme political bias. A news article obviously sourced to the dossier author, Christopher Steele, was presented in the application as separate from and corroborating the dossier.

In addition to supporting the major claims of the House Intelligence memo, the criminal referral also said that Clinton associates — elsewhere reported to be the extremely sketchy Cody Shearer and Sid Blumenthal — funneled information to Steele and he took it seriously, itself completely discrediting for someone working with the FBI.

Grassley and Graham had to fight the FBI tooth and nail to get this memo released with few-enough redactions to serve the public. Grassley accused the bureau of playing a “bureaucratic game of hide the ball.” In short, there were multiple interesting angles worthy of serious — perhaps even breathless — coverage.

Yet Major Outlets Don’t Want to Talk About This

Instead, The New York Times ran a story on page 19 of the newspaper. Its portions about the criminal referral — as opposed to its portions repeating Democratic talking points — could not have been more dryly written or uninteresting. Reporters Maggie Haberman, Sharon LaFraniere, and Michael Shear devoted a total of five sentences in a 22-paragraph story to the Grassley and Graham expose. It ran under the false headline “2 Senators Issue Letter To Support House Memo,” even though the letter was issued in early January, weeks before the House memo was made public. The criminal referral was only this week published with few-enough redactions to make sense of it.

What about at the Washington Post? Their reporters did not write a story about the significantly less redacted letter released Tuesday. A blog post mischaracterized the more redacted version of the letter Monday as a letter written “in an effort to breathe life into the deflating Nunes effort. Unsurprisingly, it’s another big nothing.” It’s not nothing, as coverage of the less redacted letter shows. It confirms the dramatic claims in the House memo, which are anything but deflated. And it was written weeks prior to the House Intel memo. But other than that, great job downplaying.

Certainly Politico covered the dramatically more transparent letter released Tuesday, right? Wrong. I mean, it’s not a scandal if you don’t look at it!

Before we move on to the next big example, let’s look at Washington Post senior political reporter Aaron Blake, who was very upset on January 5 when Grassley and Graham announced the criminal referral of dossier author Steele. That’s when the criminal referral was announced, but we didn’t know why they made the referral until late Tuesday night. Back in January he tweeted that it looked “pretty darn political,” wondered why they made their cover letter public when the particulars were classified, and quoted someone calling it a distraction and “nonsense.” When both the highly redacted and less redacted version of the letter came out this week, however, he was silent.

He did find time to repeatedly throw cold water on the revelations of the House Intel memo, saying it was “laughable” to be concerned about the FBI hiding the fact the dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton when attempting to secure a wiretap to spy on a Trump campaign affiliate. He said arguments in support of the memo were “tortured.” And he generally tweeted and retweeted critiques of those with a different perspective on FISA abuse than the average House Democrat.

Where Journalistic Instincts Go To Die

Let’s turn our attention to another big development in the growing scandal of mismanagement at the FBI. The broad contours are already known. The FBI’s deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, and key FBI lawyer Lisa Page were alleged to be cheating on their respective spouses with each other, presumably a big no-no for counterintelligence officials seeking not be compromised. The chatty duo exchanged tens of thousands of text messages about their work on the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/how-the-media-buried-two-huge-fbi-stories-yesterday/

All Russia Collusion Goes Back to Killery Clinton

Hillary on Russia Russia Russia

Are The Clintons Behind The Whole Trump-Russia Collusion Story?

“It’s all a hoax.” That’s what my 62-year-old father, a Cruz-Rubio supporter, has been telling me since the very first time the media uttered, “Trump may have colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.”

I wasn’t so sure he was right. After news broke indicating Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had met with Kremlin-linked lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 2016 to get “dirt” on the Clinton camp, the situation for Trump looked worse than ever.

“It’s a hoax,” my father reassured me. “Maybe Trump Jr. did meet with the Russian lawyer, but there was no collusion. This is a plan put into place by the Clintons. You’ll see.”

“How can you possibly know that?” I responded. “You have absolutely no reason to believe it’s a hoax.”

“I’ve been watching the Clintons work for 30 years. That’s all the evidence I need,” he answered.

In the rollercoaster ride since word of the Veselnitskaya meeting first reached the public, there have been numerous ups and downs. Like most Americans, I’ve been left wondering exactly how far the Trump team was willing to go to win the 2016 election. Were they really open to trading away American interests, as the Clintons appeared to have done many times, to capture the White House?

Although there remains a possibility someoneon the Trump team struck a deal with Russian operatives in an effort to win the election, new revelations about the role the Clintons may have played in the infamous Christopher Steele dossier seem to suggest a large portion—and perhaps all—of the Trump-Russia narrative was invented by the Clintons, the Hillary Clinton campaign, or their sycophants.

The Steele Dossier Included Clinton Campaign Gossip

On Tuesday, Fox News reported that a recently unclassified (but still heavily redacted) memo from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) claimed, “Clinton associates were ‘feeding’ allegations to former British spy Christopher Steele at the same time he was compiling the controversial anti-Trump dossier paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.”

We already know Steele’s work on the dossier was being funded by Democrats and the Clinton campaign in the middle of the 2016 election, and a recent memo made public by the House Intelligence Committee says the FBI relied on Steele’s memo to obtain an important Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant from a federal judge.

The House memo also claimed the FBI did not disclose to the court that Democrats and Clinton had paid for the dossier. Further, the House memo showed the FBI relied in part on a news story to corroborate the findings of the Steele dossier, even though that report had also been based on information fed to reporters by Steele himself.

That’s Nowhere Near the End of It, Either

As damning as all this is—and it’s clearly damning—there’s even more evidence pointing to the Clintons’ involvement in the FBI’s investigation and the creation of the dossier. On Jan. 30, The Guardian reported its sources claim the FBI has also relied (and may still be depending on) a second dossier, this time written by Cody Shearer, a long-time Clinton associate who has ties to past Clinton campaign efforts to destroy opponents. Those efforts include California Gov. Jerry Brown (D),  who ran against Bill Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in the 1990s; Ross Perot, also a Clinton opponent from the 1992 election; and Gennifer Flowers, who accused Bill Clinton during the 1992 primaries of having an affair with her.

Additionally, although it’s unclear how many people connected to the Clintons may have been “feeding” information to Steele for his dossier, we know Obama State Department official Jonathan Winer received from Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal in September 2016 at least some of Shearer’s information and passed it along to Steele, who was then still working closely with the FBI. Winer also admitted he passed the information to another State Department official, who then gave it to Secretary of State John Kerry.

Blumenthal’s role in both dossiers is not an insignificant detail. Not only is Blumenthal an extremely close ally to Hillary Clinton, he is also closely linked to Shearer. Shearer worked with Blumenthal to help tear down Clinton opponents in the 1990s, and reportedly helped Blumenthal provide Hillary Clinton intelligence about the Libyan revolution in 2011.

According to Winer, who wrote an opinion article about his experiences for the Washington Post on Thursday, Steele said at the time Winer gave him the information from Blumenthal that the Shearer report and his own research had a lot of similarities. But, of course, there’s no way to know Winer is telling the truth. He was, after all, an important member of Obama’s State Department who says Blumenthal is an “old friend.”

So Here’s the Quick and Dirty Summary

Piecing all this together is difficult, but the broad strokes are as follows: (1) Much of the Trump-Russia collusion evidence comes from the Steele dossier. (2) The Steele dossier was created during the 2016 election, at the behest and funding of Democrats and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

(3) Grassley and Graham’s memo and Winer’s op-ed show Steele was given some information from at least one source tied directly to the Clintons. (4) The FBI is likely using a second dossier in its investigation, one authored by Cody Shearer. (5) Shearer has close ties to Blumenthal and the Clintons.

(6) Top officials at the FBI and Department of Justice, including members of the team working on the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, had ties to the Democratic Party; or the dossier; or expressed their dislike of Donald Trump, a conflict of interest for their work; or all three. For instance, DOJ official Bruce Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS, which paid Steele to make the dossier while it was being created.

(7) The FBI used the Steele dossier and maybe even information from Shearer to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign team, but it failed to tell the FISA court of the dossier’s connection to the Clintons or that Blumenthal’s information reached Steele. (8) The vast majority of “evidence” supposedly linking Trump to Russia resulted directly or indirectly from the FISA warrant and the investigation that followed.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/13/clintons-behind-whole-trump-russia-collusion-story/

Hillary Clinton’s Fingerprints Are All Over The FBI’s Investigation Into Trump’s Russia Ties

Her campaign is linked to at least three separate pieces of information fed to the FBI, including the dossier the FBI used as a pretext to spy on a Trump campaign associate.

A significant part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s basis for investigating the Trump campaign’s Russia ties is looking more and more like a political hit job carried out by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Her campaign’s fingerprints are on at least three separate pieces of information fed to the FBI, including the Christopher Steele dossier Republicans say formed the basis of a secret warrant obtained to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

A former State Department official confirmed on the record Thursday that Clinton associates were funneling information to Steele as he was compiling a dossier commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and DNC. That’s on top of the recent revelation that a top Department of Justice official fed the FBI information compiled by his wife, who was working for the firm Clinton and the DNC were paying to dig up dirt on Trump, Fusion GPS.

The dossier was quoted “extensively” in the FBI’s application to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, according to a memo released by Republicans on the House intelligence committee. In a January letter to the FBI made public this week, two Senate Republicans also said Steele’s information formed a “significant portion” of the warrant application.

“It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility,” Sens. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham wrote in the letter referring Steele to the FBI for a criminal investigation.

Taken together, here’s what we know so far about the extent of Clinton’s involvement in the FBI’s case.

1. Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal funneled information to the FBI through a contact at the State Department.

In an account published by The Washington Post, former State Department official Jonathan Winer describes how research compiled by a Clinton ally made its way into his hands and then to the FBI. Winer was in charge of combating transnational organized crime at the State Department under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and returned under the Obama administration to work on international law enforcement. Between his two gigs, he became friends with Steele, who as a result began feeding information to the State Department, and tipped Winer off in Sept. 2016 to the Trump dossier he was compiling.

That same month, Winer met Blumenthal, who provided him with notes on Trump and Russia compiled by another Clinton insider, Cody Shearer. “What struck me was how some of the material echoed Steele’s but appeared to involve different sources,” Winer writes in The Washington Post. He decided to show the notes to Steele, who told him the information could be used to corroborate his dossier. Steele walked away with a copy of the notes, which he provided to the FBI.

Shearer and Blumenthal, known respectively as “Mr. Fixer” and “Vicious Sid” in Clinton world, are staunch allies of the Clintons. Winer notes he didn’t know whether the information Blumenthal fed him was accurate, but says he fed it to Steel anyway because he was “alarmed at Russia’s role in the 2016 election.”

Grassley and Graham express concern in their criminal referral that Steele was “vulnerable to manipulation” while compiling his dossier on Trump, as he has admitted to meeting with at least four different news outlets during that time (in violation of an agreement he had with the FBI), and indicated he received unsolicited and unverified tips on Trump and included them in his dossier. “Simply put, the more people who contemporaneously knew that Mr. Steele was compiling his dossier, the more likely it was vulnerable to manipulation,” they wrote in their letter.

Of course, the Clinton network knew to some extent about the dossier, since Hillary’s campaign and the DNC had commissioned and funded the effort through Fusion GPS. Whether Blumenthal was planting bogus information to manipulate Steele or passing along what he regarded as a legitimate tip is unclear, but it’s certainly not a good look.

Regardless, this second unverified and unsolicited dossier made its way to the FBI thanks to the Clinton camp.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/10/hillary-clintons-fingerprints-fbis-investigation-trumps-russia-ties/

Q: Who Really Colluded with Russia? A: Obama and Clinton

It’s one of the first of Alinsky’s rules for radicals… Accuse your opponent of your own crimes.

Obama-More Power After Elections
A Year of Russian Collusion

September 2009.

Obama hadn’t even been in office for a whole year when he gave in to Moscow’s biggest demand by dropping the missile defense shield for Poland and the Czech Republic. During his campaign, he had enthusiastically backed the defensive program, declaring, “We have to send a clear signal that Poland and other countries in that region are not going to be subject to intimidation and aggression.”

Like all of his campaign promises that were based on political triangulation, law enforcement, counterterrorism, Jerusalem and gay marriage, it was a campaign lie to be thrown out after the election.

Putin praised Obama’s sellout of our allies as a “brave decision.” In his first year, President Trump touted the sale of Patriot missiles to Poland. That was a truly brave decision.

After the Russian invasion, Obama refused to provide Ukraine with military assistance. While he had handed out weapons to Islamist terrorists in Syria and Libya, the Ukrainians were only offered MREs. The same administration that covertly shipped a fortune in foreign currency on unmarked cargo planes to Russia’s Iranian allies took months to meet Ukrainian requests for boots and spare tires.

The Trump administrated unapologetically approved the sale of sniper rifles to the Ukrainians.

“I’m aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people,” Obama had gushed during his meeting with Putin. There were no protests from the same media that has since then repeatedly suggested that Trump’s praise for Putin indicated a soft spot for dictators.

Looking back at Obama’s first year and Trump’s first year, it’s easy to assess who was giving Moscow more. It wasn’t just missile defense. In the spring of ’09, Hillary was in Moscow toting a misspelled Reset Button swiped from a swimming pool. But it was Obama who had first urged a “reset or reboot”. That was the month he sent a secret hand-delivered letter to Russia offering to kill the missile shield. The Russians turned down his proposed deal, but he went through with the appeasement anyway.

Trashing missile defense was just one step in a larger effort to revive Jimmy Carter’s defense policies. In his first year, Obama began the push to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. CTBT would have allowed the Russians (and everyone else) to build up their nuclear arsenals while crippling our own. The new START treaty was drafted in ’09 and signed next year. And Russian violations of it were ignored.

It took a new administration to change that.

Read More: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/01/a-year-of-russian-collusion.html

Here’s Why There May Be No More Free Passes for the Clinton Foundation

Clinton Cash

A new Department of Justice probe of the email and charity fraud scandals won’t end well for Bill or Hillary

Until recently, the Clinton Foundation has been monitored by the IRS, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, and multiple state government authorities that are seeded with persons loyal to either the Clintons or the Obamas.

Every time, the Clinton Foundation got a free pass.

But now it appears key authorities may finally be turning strict attention toward answering tough questions about public filings of Clinton “charities” inside and outside the United States. When these powerful organizations engage motivated minds, they will wish to concentrate on a few areas that have long gone begging for attention.

The first time the Clinton Foundation was investigated, between 2001 and 2005, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and others could not seem to find obvious and escalating frauds as a supposed presidential library complex in Little Rock, Arkansas, also “fought HIV/AIDS internationally” from unregistered offices in New York and Massachusetts without ever obtaining required audits of worldwide activities.

Strangely, as the first investigation wound down, evidence in the public domain suggests that the Clinton Foundation also defrauded the National Archivist by making demonstrably false representations in a binding legal agreement.

For example, there is no evidence the IRS provided final approval to the Clinton Foundation to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally” as a tax-exempt purpose by Nov. 18, 2004, the date the presidential archive was officially donated.

That Nov. 18, 2004, agreement is nowhere to be found today on the Clinton Foundation website and in public filings despite the charity’s more than 13 years of widespread solicitation across state and national boundaries using telephones, mail, and the internet.

The next major investigation started in December 2009 when the French government launched a detailed look into UNITAID, a multilateral international organization — primarily funded by France — that has sent more than $650 million to arms of the Clinton Foundation engaged, at least in theory, in fighting HIV and AIDS.

Reports concerning this investigation, written in French and published in 2010 and 2011, show that French government authorities, like their U.S. counterparts, missed the heart of the problem posed by the Clinton Foundation.

The foundation, by its own description, started soliciting funding for its fight against HIV and AIDS early in 2002, though its authorized charitable status didn’t change until March 2004, after the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was officially recognized on March 24, 2004, in Arkansas.

Applications made to the IRS, to various states and to foreign governments for tax exemption and solicitation rights to pursue this radically different mission, are not available on the central portal operated by the Clinton Foundation, nor forthcoming, yet, from the governments concerned.

Federal tax filings for this entity for the partial year in 2004 and for 2005 aren’t available on the Clinton Foundation website, perhaps because they show substantial activities that seem to fall far outside tax-exempt purposes approved by the IRS.

In addition, these and other tax filings fail to explain payments to members of the Clinton family for services received and for reimbursement of expenses by donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Even though there is no public record that the Clinton Foundation ever was authorized to control a supposed charity “fighting HIV/AIDS internationally,” the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was supposedly liquidated as of Dec. 31, 2005, with all of its worldwide activities and obligations supposedly taken over by the parent foundation. There is no evidence in the public domain that the merger was lawfully completed in each U.S. state and foreign country in which either entity operated.

From 2006 through 2009, the Clinton Foundation solicited funds and received a majority of its growing revenues, in theory, to fight HIV and AIDS internationally. Required audits were not prepared to strict U.S. requirements.

Moreover, versions of these audits on the Clinton Foundation website exclude key “combining” statements that show for 2007 through 2009 just how substantial HIV- and AIDS-specific financial amounts are compared to the combined total. The Clinton Foundation attempted to reorganize in 2009, but available public filings could place multiple individuals in significant jeopardy.

For example, claims made to the IRS in applications for federal tax exemption on Form 1023, under penalties of perjury, are false and materially misleading concerning numerous entities created after Sept. 4, 2009, to carry on unauthorized activities in which the Clinton Foundation had been engaged starting in 2002.

To get to the heart of the vexing problems that allowed the largest unprosecuted charity frauds ever attempted to flourish from January 2001 forward, one must ask many questions of central figures in federal, state and foreign governments.

How did Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, while U.S. attorney in Maryland, miss the fact that the Clinton Foundation was promoting use of potentially adulterated HIV and AIDS drugs from October 2003 forward, even as he took until May 2013 to help win a $500 million set of penalties against the Indian manufacturer of the generic drugs?

Why was an African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?

How did Rosenstein miss obvious errors in the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 (originally submitted in 2011 with amended versions submitted in 2015) concerning a $37.1 million donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund at a P.O. Box address in Baltimore, Maryland, that was never declared, as required, in key states like New York?

Why did Rosenstein (and many other officials, including New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman), fail to require Laureate Education and the Clinton Foundation to explain how they organized the “Clinton Global Initiative University” and why the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 through 2016 don’t explain what Bill Clinton did for the $17.6 million he was paid as part-time chancellor while he held key roles at the Clinton Foundation?

Former Congresswoman Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat, reports to jail for a five-year term in federal prison following her conviction of being part of an $800,000 charity fraud. Why was this African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?

Former presidents in either the Democratic or Republican parties are not above the law. Now it’s up to President Donald Trump to make this fact abundantly clear.

Read More: https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/heres-why-there-be-no-more-free-passes-for-the-clinton-foundation/

Epidemic of medical boots: Now it’s Rep. Jackie Walorski #itishappening

It’s an epidemic!

Of politicos wearing a medical or orthopedic boot.

First, it was Hillary Clinton, first seen on October 15, 2017 with a medical boot, ostensibly because she broke her right toe “while running downstairs wearing heels and falling back”. Two months later, on Dec. 14, she’s still wearing an orthopedic boot, although of a different color — navy blue instead of grey.

Then, it’s RINO Sen. John McCain, first seen on November 6, 2017, with “the boot” on his right leg, ostensibly because of a “minor tear” in his right Achilles’ tendon. 17 days later, he switched the boot from his supposedly injured right foot to his healthy left leg. McCain nonsensically explained he did so in order to give the left leg “a break” because it “was doing extra work to compensate for the boot” on his right leg.

Next, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) was seen wearing “the boot” on her left leg:

Then, it’s Hillary close aide Huma Abedin, spotted on December 29, 2017 wearing pants with an interesting rectangular-shaped wrinkle on her right pant leg:

The latest discovery: Congresswoman Jackie Walorski (R-Indiana), 54, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. On November 2, 2017, Walorski was photographed by AP’s Pablo Martinez Monsivais, leaving the White House with a group of other House Representatives after a meeting with President Donald Trump. (Source: Boston Herald; h/t REBRN)

I cropped and enlarged the image of Walorski, and painted the yellow arrow pointing to her boot:

First elected to the House in 2012 with the support of the TEA Party, Walorski turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment:

  • Voting with the Republican Party most of the time, Ballotpedia calls her a “centrist” or “moderate” Republican.
  • Madison Project gave her a score of only 59% on conservative issues.
  • Freedom Works gives her a lifetime score of 69% on issues that promote less government, lower taxes and more economic freedom.

Reportedly, the number of sealed indictments since last October has reached over 8,000.

H/t Kelleigh

~Eowyn

Read More: https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/01/05/epidemic-of-medical-boots-now-its-rep-jackie-walorski/

Deconstructing the Almighty Russian Hackers Myth

Jan Brady says Russia Russia Russia

Sometimes things can be made more complicated than they really are. And such is the case with the story that the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee so as to help Trump become president.

In July 2016 Wikileaks released a number of documents showing that the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president had been rigged. A month earlier the DNC had announced it had been “hacked” and the cybersecurity company it hired announced that the Russians had done it – one of the reasons they gave was that the hackers had helpfully left the name of the Polish founder of the Soviet security forces as a clue.

Since then, this story has been broadly accepted and it has spun on and on for eighteen months. But it doesn’t really make any sense.

Let us pretend that Moscow wanted Trump to win. Let us further pretend that Moscow thought that there was a chance that he could win despite the fact that almost all news outlets, pollsters and pundits were completely confident that he could not. And let us pretend that Moscow thought that, with its thumb on the scale, Trump could make it. And, the fourth if, let us pretend that Moscow decided to put its thumb on the scale.

How to do it? Let us pretend (number five) that the strategy was to try and discredit Clinton. Let us further assume (this assumption is the one that’s probably true) that Moscow has very good electronic intelligence capacities. So, we imagine the scene in headquarters as they look for an approach; they quickly find one that is very good, a second that is pretty good and a third area that is worth digging around in.

The Russians would know all about the Uranium One matter where, as even the Clinton-friendly NYT admitted, “a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation“. It would be very easy for them to package this as a case of Secretary of State Clinton selling US policy for personal profit. Russian intelligence organisations would have a great deal of true information and would find it easy to manufacture material to fill in any gaps in the story. Presented as a case of corruption and near treason, the story could have done a great deal of damage to her. And, given that it had happened six years earlier, all the details would have been known and ready to be used. It would have been a very powerful attack that even the complaint media would have had difficulty ignoring.

We know, and it’s very likely that the Russians did too, that she ran a private e-mail server on which there were thousands and thousands of official communications. The server was very insecure and we can assume that Russia’s signals intelligence (and everyone else’s, for that matter) had penetrated it. Think of all the real material from that source that could be revealed or twisted to make a scandal. That would make quite a campaign. Further, it is a reasonable assumption that Russian intelligence would have some of the thousands of e-mails that were “bleached”. There would be enough material for a months-long campaign of leaks.

Finally, Hillary Clinton has been in public life for many years and there would have been ample opportunities, and, many would say, ample material in her scandal-plagued career, for the construction of many campaigns to weaken her appeal.

So, a preliminary look would suggest that there were several angles of attack of which Uranium One would be the easiest and most effective. But, failing that, or as a supplement to that, there was plenty of embarrassing and incriminating material in her illicit private server. Now we have to pretend (number six), contrary to the universal practice of security organs in all times and places, that the (always assumed in the story to be implacably hostile) Russians would decide to forgo the chance of compromising a future POTUS in favour of a harebrained scheme to get another elected.

But we’re supposed to believe that they did. The Russians, the story goes, with all this potential material, with a solid hit with Uranium One, decide instead to expose the finagling inside the Democratic Party structure. And to expose it too late to make any difference. As I said at the beginning, sometimes things are easier to understand when you, as it were, turn them upside down.

In the middle of June 2016 the DNC admits that its documents have been obtained – a “hack” they insist – and almost immediately, “Guccifer 2.0” pops up to claim responsibility and the DNC’s experts (Crowdstrike) claim Russia was behind it. A month passes before Wikileaks releases the first batch of DNC documents showing the extent of the manipulation of the process by Clinton – who had, according to most counts – already secured the nomination about two weeks before. A couple of days before the release, Trump gets the Republican nomination and a couple of days after that Clinton easily wins the Democratic nomination by a thousand-vote majority.

So, the first thing that should have occurred to the observer (but didn’t) was, if the Russians had had this incriminating evidence that the Democratic Party nomination had been fixed in Clinton’s favour, wouldn’t it have been more useful to put it out at a time when Sanders who was, after all, the swindled one, might have been able to do something about it? Instead those supposedly clever Russian state hackers dropped the news out at a time when it made very little difference. No difference in fact: Clinton got the nomination and there was no comeback from Sanders’ people.

So, the “Russian hackers” made their arrow, shot it, hit the target and… no one cared. The people who devoutly believe in the Russian hacking story now have to explain (but don’t) why the Russian state, apparently so determined to bring Clinton down, didn’t immediately hit her with the Uranium One documents and anything else they had that could feed the flames of scandal.

But, as we all know, they didn’t. While long rumoured, and even briefly reported on, we only learned of Uranium One in a big way in October 2017 and the fact that her server contained Special Access material (the very highest classified secrets) was confirmed authoritatively only in November 2017. If the Russian had really had this sort of information and the hostility to Clinton that we’re incessantly told that they had, two years earlier would have been the time.

So, on the one hand we are supposed to believe that the Russian government is so clever that it can hack anything, has innumerable social media trolls that influence elections and referendums around the world (“control the American mind“), drives a “fake news” campaign at a fraction of the cost but with far greater effectiveness than the massed legions of the Western media, is a threat to practically everything we hold sacred… but is too stupid to get it right. Possessing great and powerful secrets and a stunningly powerful machine to spread them, it chooses to fire a damp squib too late to make any difference and passes up the chance to have a compromised US president for it to control.

In other words, it’s nonsense: we don’t really need the forensics of VIPS; we don’t need to argue with people who say it’s fake news about Seth Rich, or that Assange is a Putinbot, or carefully ignore Murray. Those efforts are useful enough but they’re not necessary. In any case, the Russia story is a Gish gallop and a whole academy of wise men and women couldn’t keep up with the latest. (Robert Parry bravely attempts to list the most prominent ones from the Vermont power facility, through all 17 agencies to 14th not 4th.)

Just common sense will do it: if the Russians had wanted to bring Hillary Clinton down, they had far more powerful charges which they could have detonated much earlier. It is not plausible that all they had was the rigging evidence and that they then deployed it too late to have an effect.

Or, maybe they’re not so all-competent in which case all the other stuff we’ve had shoved down our throats for months about “Russian information warfare” is even bigger nonsense.

FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok Implicated

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has discovered that edits made to former FBI Director James Comey’s statement exonerating Hillary Clinton for transmitting classified info over an unsecured, private email server went far beyond what was previously known, as detailed in a Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok

The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey’s statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok’s direct supervisor, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) – in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton’s conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.

Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills

Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and aide Heather Samuelson – who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over in the investigation.

Sen. Johnson’s letter reads:

According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey’s statement in at least three respects.

It was already known that Strzok – who was demoted to the FBI’s HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog – was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton’s conduct from the criminal charge of “gross negligence” to “extremely careless.”

“Gross negligence” is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, gross negligence is “A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard,” and “Blatant indifference to one’s legal duty, other’s safety, or their rights.” “Extremely careless,” on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.

According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, “extremely careless” is in fact a defense to “gross negligence”: “What my client did was ‘careless’, maybe even ‘extremely careless,’ but it was not ‘gross negligence’ your honor.” The FBI would have no option but to recommend prosecution if the phrase “gross negligence” had been left in.

18 U.S. Code § 793 “Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information” specifically uses the phrase “gross negligence.” Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary had broken the law.

18 U.S. Code § 793
 
In addition to Strzok’s “gross negligence” –> “extremely careless” edit, McCabe’s damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton’s actions to the standard of “gross negligence” – that being the “sheer volume” of classified material on Clinton’s server. In the original draft, the “sheer volume” of material “supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.”

Also removed from Comey’s statement were all references to the Intelligence Community’s involvement in investigating Clinton’s private email server.

Director Comey’s original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server. The original statement read:

[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.

The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:

[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey’s statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton’s server was hacked by hostile actors, changing their language from “reasonably likely” to “possible” – an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase “Gross negligence.” To put it another way, “reasonably likely” means the probability of a hack due to Clinton’s negligence is above 50 percent, whereas the hack simply being “possible” is any probability above zero.

It’s also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.

The original draft read:

Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s private email account.”

The edited version from Director Comey’s July 5 statement read:

Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Johnson’s letter also questions an “insurance policy” referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read “I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.” It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40….”

One wonders if the “insurance policy” Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in “late July” 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap – the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey’s March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2)

Transcript, James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016

The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; “the edits to Director Comey’s public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions. This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an “insurance policy” against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation of President Trump.”

Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:

  1. Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the “mid-year review team” during the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.
  2. Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement. Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
  3. Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton’s behavior as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” What evidence supported these changes?
  4. Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community. On what basis was this change made?
  5. Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI’s assessment that it was “reasonably likely” that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton’s private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was “possible.” What evidence supported these changes?
  6. Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey’s statement, including comment bubbles, and explain the basis for the redactions produced to date.

We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI’s top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the “insurance” Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, “hands off” recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don’t seem very excited to explore the issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal ammunition to truly clean house at the nation’s swampiest agencies.

Read More: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-15/fbi-edits-clinton-exoneration-go-far-beyond-what-was-previously-known-comey-mccabe-s

“They Went After The Women Who Came Forward” – Former Obama HHS Secretary Exposes The Clintons

Clinton Body Count

In the “post Weinstein” world we now find ourselves in we have seen dozens and dozens of prominent figures in Hollywood, politics, and the media be accused of a wide range of sexual attacks on women.

From groping all the way to rape, powerful establishment figures are being outed as sexual predators across the country, with the mainstream media declaring that all accusers must, at least initially, be believed.

 

Amazingly, at the same time, mainstream media talking heads have either specifically ignored the numerous allegations against Bill Clinton or actually claimed that his accusers are discredited and cannot be believed. (Keep in mind all other accusers are automatically assumed to be telling the truth.)

With that being said, it was only a matter of time before that dam broke as well and now, with a series of explosive comments by an Obama and Clinton ally, one can hope that Bill Clinton may finally be brought to justice with Hillary forever shamed for her role in attacking the women who came forward.

In an interview conducted on a CNN podcast by former Obama chief adviser David Axelrod, former Obama Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius opened up about the cover-up and subsequent attacks on the women who accused then President Clinton in the 1990’s.

“Not only did people look the other way, but they went after the women who came forward and accused him,” Sebelius stunningly detailed. Keep in mind this is a fact that the alternative media has reported on literally hundreds and hundreds of times while being attacked as right-wing conspiracy theorists for doing so.

“And so it doubled down on not only bad behavior but abusive behavior. And then people attacked the victims,” Sebelius continued.

Sebelius made clear that her criticism extends directly to Hillary Clinton herself who was widely known to be the driving force behind the attacks on her husbands accusers.

An article written about the podcast by CNN couldn’t hide from the fact that this is absolutely Hillary’s problem as well.

Sebelius extended her criticism to Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton White House for what she called a strategy of dismissing and besmirching the women who stepped forward – a pattern she said is being repeated today by alleged perpetrators of sexual assault – saying that the criticism of the former first lady and Secretary of State was “absolutely” fair.

Sebelius noted that the Clinton Administration’s response was being imitated, adding that “you can watch that same pattern repeat, It needs to end. It needs to be over.”

The comments came during a conversation with David Axelrod on the latest episode of “The Axe Files,” a podcast produced by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN.

Of course the notoriously left wing, anti-Trump network couldn’t simply report on Sebelius’s comments without also attacking Republicans who have seemingly done the exact thing that the network has defended the Clinton’s for doing.

One can imagine that like Donna Brazile, Sebelius will be attacked by Clinton’s army of media shills and then eventually attempt to backtrack a few days later when the pressure becomes too much to handle.

Regardless, the cat is out of the bag. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton (as well as the entire machine around them) actively and purposefully attacked the numerous women who accused Bill of everything from groping to rape.

They absolutely did not “stand by them.”

Read More: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/they-went-after-the-women-who-came-forward-former-obama-hhs-secretary-exposes-the-clintons-for-attacking-the-women-who-accused-bill-clinton-of-sexual-assault_11222017

Libyan Black People Being Sold As Slaves In 2017

What Hillary Clinton should have said on CBS?

“We came, we saw, he died…. we established a revived African slave trade.” …?

..P.D.

we came we saw he died LOL

Billy C Carson
11/26/2017

The Libyan War in 2011 was a BIG LIE!!! The Obama administration said it was just trying to protect civilians. Its actions reveal it was looking for regime change. Let’s revisit a few key quotes from the past… From the Defense Department, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen informed David Gregory of Meet the Press, “The goals of this campaign right now again are limited, and it isn’t about seeing him go.” Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates echoed the administration line: “Regime change is a very complicated business. It sometimes takes a long time. Sometimes it can happen very fast, but it was never part of the military mission.” (Emphasis added.) In truth, the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.

The threat posed by the Libyan regime’s military and paramilitary forces to civilian-populated areas was diminished by NATO airstrikes and rebel ground movements within the first 10 days. Obama’s administration continued to attack Lybia led by U.S. backed rebels AKA Al Qaeda!!!!

 

ll the while Obama made millions off of these campaigns. The sickest part of this entire story is that most black people won’t even research it and will continue to support Obama just because they think he’s black which is everything that’s wrong with this world. Black people have been sold down the river with no paddle. This is the reason Obama is banned from visiting most African countries. Banned by black people.

 

Read More: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lybian-black-people-being-sold-as-slaves-in-2017_us_5a1b25b3e4b0bf1467a847a3?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

Shep Smith’s Humiliating Uranium One ‘Debunking’ Draws Harsh Rebuke From Angry Viewers

Fox News viewers are demanding the network fire resident liberal Shep Smith after the host embarrassed himself in a wildly inaccurate and poorly researched “fact check” of the Uranium One scandal on Tuesday, following reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was exploring a special counsel to investigate the sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Kremlin-owned Russian energy giant Rosatom.

Did anyone watch Shep Smith , just explain how Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with Uranium deal?? What a joke Fox News!!! Send him to CNN

The nuclear deal, which ultimately resulted in the transfer of 20 percent of American Uranium to Russia so they could sell it back to US nuclear plants at an enormous profit, was approved by the Obama administration after significant donations in excess of $140 million were made to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One affiliates.

Unlike Sean Hannity – Ol’ Shep clearly hadn’t done his homework – consistently mispronouncing the names of people involved in the case, telling viewers that Canada-based Uranium One is a South African company, and spewing inaccurate and misleading facts regarding the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) which approved the deal.

Shep’s selective timeline

While Smith claimed that the majority of donations to the Clinton Foundation were from Frank Giustra – a mining financier who sold his stake in Uranium One before it was acquired by Russia, and before Clinton was Secretary of State – he fails to mention the history between Giustra and the Clintons.

As Breitbart reports:  “it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra. Smith never mentions any of this.”

Smith also misled viewers over the fact that while while nine agencies which comprise the CFIUS, the decision to approve the Uranium One deal was ultimately Obama’s. This is incorrect, as any one of the nine agencies involved had the power to veto the deal.

Another key fact omitted by Smith was the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons – including the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank which issued a “buy” rating to Uranium One during the CFIUS review process.

Notably, Bill Clinton was at Vladimir Putin’s HOUSE the same day he gave the speech. Maybe he was checking out Vlad’s Russian tie collection?

Shep’s lies continue

Smith, in his crappy debunking, declared that “no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country.”

FALSE

Reports from both the New York Times and The Hill reveal that yes – uranium left the US on multiple occasions. In fact, the Obama administration approved its export through a Uranium trucking firm based in Canada.

Shep fails to mention the FBI’s involvement

An October 17 article in The Hill reveals that Obama’s FBI, headed by Robert Mueller, discovered that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow

No mention by Smith, of course.

The Hill also reported that an FBI mole embedded in the Russian nuclear industry gathered extensive evidence that Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – a scheme of bribes and kickbacks to the company which would ostensibly transport the U.S. uranium sold in the ’20 percent’ deal.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials. –The Hill

Smith also leaves out a new report that the FBI scrambled to issue records-retention requests to all 9 member agencies of the CFIUS weeks after they cracked into Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.

No mention of the Podesta Group

Shep also fails to mention that the Podesta Group received $180,000 to lobby for Uranium One during the same period that the Clinton Foundation was receiving millions from U1 interests, and after Russia took majority ownership in the “20 percent” deal (source – you have to add up the years).

Moreover, a former executive of the Podesta Group told Fox’s Tucker Carlson that Tony Podesta regularly met with the Clinton Foundation to coordinate the Uranium One deal, and was “basically part of the Clinton Foundation.” Moreover, the former exec claims that John Podesta – Clinton’s Campaign manager and long time DNC operative, recommended  David Adams, Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser at the State Department, giving them a “direct liaison” between the group’s Russian clients and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Let’s review the timeline:

Between 2008 – 2010, parties involved with Uranium One donated $145 Million to the Clinton Foundation. You can read more about the parties here.

June 2009, Russian State Nuclear Agency Rosatom (through a subsidiary) takes a 17% stake in Uranium One.

June 2010, Rosatom takes majority (51%) ownership of Uranium One, granting the Kremlin control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium – which Hillary Clinton’s State Department signed off on. The FBI uncovers massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approves deal.

June 29th, 2010Bill Clinton meets with Vladimir Putin at his home in Russia. Later that day Clinton earns $500,000 for a speech in Moscow to Kremlin-linked investment bank Renaissance Capital, which assigned a “buy” rating to Uranium One stock.

January 2013,  Rosatom State Nuclear Agency acquires the remainder of Uranium one and takes it private.

Watch Shep Smith fumble the ball and cover for Hillary Clinton, horribly

Sitting down with Mother Jones, Hillary Clinton called any investigation into the Uranium One deal “an abuse of power” – of course.

If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter

Read More: http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2017/11/16/shep-smiths-humiliating-uranium-one-debunking-draws-harsh-rebuke-from-angry-viewers/#sthash.CMSkgoZT.dpbs