Archive for the ‘Clinton Foundation’ Category

WHAT CRIME DID MANAFORT ALLEGEDLY COMMIT?

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2018

 

Thanks to Linda Bartlett of Virginia for sharing this very eye opening  article re Russian and other countries  influence peddling for Big $$$$$ paid to  U.S. officials and  the politically well connected.   Nancy

What crime did Manafort allegedly commit?

As jurors deliberate the fate of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, it’s a bit of a letdown for Trump critics that Manafort wasn’t charged with anything having to do with alleged Russia collusion in the 2016 presidential campaign. So what’s his prosecution all about?

To understand, it helps to know a bit more about the murky universe in which Manafort and his closest colleagues operated.

It’s illegal for foreigners to directly give money to U.S. politicians and political parties. But there’s a legal way around that. Believe it or not, foreigners — even Russian President Vladimir Putin or North Korean President Kim Jong Un — are permitted to pay big money to hire well-connected U.S. public relations firms, law firms and lobbyists to act as their “foreign agents.” From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, more than 15,000 foreign entities have hired thousands of Americans to do just that.

What do these foreigners get for the money? The kind of access of which most Americans can only dream: Meetings are arranged with powerful, influential people in politics and media, at think tanks and universities. U.S. tax money gets directed their way. Laws are written in their favor. Arms deals are made. Trade policies are developed. Positive op-eds appear in American newspapers, and sympathetic articles are published in the press to sway public opinion. Rarely are we — as taxpayers and consumers of the information — told about the money that traded hands in the shadows. We’re left to believe it’s all just organic.

Our government says it’s all good as long as the U.S. foreign agents disclose their business ties to the Department of Justice as required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The idea is that as long as the relationships are made known, it’s not subterfuge. Problem is, few Americans read the disclosures or would even know where to find them, and have no idea about the extent to which foreign governments are secretly pulling strings in America every day.

(more…)

Share

2 VIDEOS – JUDGE JEANINE ON CLINTON AND ELIZABETH WARREN ON SOCIALISM

Monday, August 20th, 2018
VIDEO – FOX NEWS – ELIZABETH WARREN – NATIONALIZE MAJOR U.S. CORPORATIONS
VIDEO  – JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO – HILLARY’S PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER
This video is from 2016 but is full of information that  only Judge Jeanine can lay out so clearly
Share

THE MAJOR CLINTON STATE DEPARTMENT SECURITY BREACH THAT EVERYONE IS IGNORING

Tuesday, July 31st, 2018

 

LAWCOMMENTARY

The Clinton State Department’s Major Security Breach That Everyone Is Ignoring

Peter Strzok’s testimony about the email server scandal involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised headlines because of his defiant, disrespectful, and unapologetic attitude about the bias revealed in his text messages that permeated his work at the FBI.

Then, there was the verbal combat between him and Republican members of the two committees holding the joint hearing, and between the Republicans and Democratic members who were running interference for Strzok and acting as his defense counsel.

The news media jumped on an exchange in which Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked Strzok if he lied to his wife about his affair with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page in the same way as he was in testifying to Congress. That was too much for the Democrats and the media, who leaped to Strzok’s defense.

The media, however, virtually ignored another exchange between Gohmert and Strzok that revealed a potential bombshell. Gohmert asked Strzok about his meeting in 2016 with Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan, an investigator and lawyer, respectively, for then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough (an Obama appointee).

McCullough sent them to see Strzok, who was the FBI’s deputy assistant director for the Counterintelligence Division, to brief him and three other FBI personnel about an “anomaly” that their forensic analysis had found in Clinton’s server.

According to Gohmert, the inspector general discovered that, with four exceptions, “every single one” of Clinton’s emails—more than 30,000—“were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.”

In other words, according to the information Gohmert received from the intelligence inspector general, something was causing Clinton’s server to send copies of all of her email communications outside of the country “to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.”

(more…)

Share

JUST HOW FAR WILL THE LEFT GO ? VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Wednesday, July 25th, 2018

 

Just How Far Will the Left Go?

By Victor Davis Hanson| July 23rd, 2018

There was no honeymoon for the unlikely winner of the 2016 election. Progressives have in succession tried to sue to overturn Trump’s victory using several different approaches. First on the bogus claim of fraudulent voting machines. Then they sought to subvert the Electoral College by bullying electors into renouncing their respective states’ votes.

Massive protests and boycotts marked the inauguration. Then there were articles of impeachment introduced in the House. Some sued to remove Trump on a warped interpretation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Others brought in psychiatrists to testify that Trump was ill, disabled, or insane and should be removed in accordance with the 25th Amendment. The former FBI director, CIA director, and director of the Office of National Intelligence have variously smeared the president as a coward, a traitor, and a Russian mole.

The Mueller Investigation
We are about 430 days into Robert Mueller’s investigation; the special prosecutor whose team of lawyers and investigators has in a large part been made up either of Clinton donors, clear Clinton partisans, lawyers who have in the past represented Clinton interests or employees, or partisans already removed for expressing clear Trump hatred. The media grew ecstatic over its creation, dubbing it an “all-star” or “dream” team, as leaks assured the public that next week, next month, or “soon” there would be a sensational indictment proving that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.

We have gone through the psychodramas surrounding Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and a host of others. Any second, any minute they would be indicted for collusion in throwing an election, or they would soon flip and end the Trump presidency.

 

When we learned that Robert Mueller initially did not disclose to the media why he had fired Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and why he had spaced out their firings to prevent the impression that they were connected, we were only reassured of the professionalism of the Mueller investigation.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – AMERICA’S BROKEN ETHICS SYSTEM

Monday, June 25th, 2018

 

VIDEO – FOX NEWS  

Swamp Watch: America’s broken ethics system

Jun. 24, 2018 – 4:41 – Washington needs to get its ethics priorities straight.

Share

ARE WE IN A CIVIL WAR ?

Monday, May 28th, 2018

 


A few days ago, Jack Minzey, sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written.

Jack went to be with the Lord,  on Sunday, 8 April 2018. 

Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.  His interest in Conservative Politics was exceeded  only  by his intellectual ability.

This is the last of his works:

Civil War

How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.  That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That’s a civil war.

(more…)

Share

THE MEMO – WHAT IT SAYS AND FULL TEXT

Friday, February 2nd, 2018

 

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Share

VIDEO – GREATEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Friday, February 2nd, 2018

 

 

VIDEO 

 A riveting  interview done by Ginny Thomas of former federal prosecutor Joe deGenova concerning the  whole sordid story behind the FBI and Justice Department involvement in the Russian Collusion investigation, the manufactured dossier and coverup of the Uranium One Scandal.   Absolutely fascinating !  Thanks to Steve Bishop for sharing.   Nancy:

Share

CLINTON AND HUMA ABEDIN REMOVED FILES FROM STATE DEPARTMENT

Sunday, December 17th, 2017

 

 

Obama State Department Let Clinton And Huma Make Off With Boxes Of ‘Muslim Engagement’ Docs

by  Jack Crowe  Political Reporter   December 14, 2017

The Obama State Department allowed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin to remove call logs, scheduling documents and files described as “Muslim Engagement” from government premises by labeling the records “private,” Judicial Watch has learned.

Judicial Watch obtained records about the document removals in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all forms authorizing the removal of “personal papers and non-record materials,” according to a Thursday press release.

“These new documents show the Obama State Department had a deal with Hillary Clinton to hide her calls logs and schedules, which would be contrary to FOIA and other laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “When are the American people going to get an honest investigation of the Clinton crimes?”

The documents, which are not classified but carry a special notation that they are not to be made public under normal FOIA procedure, include a list of Clinton’s personal and official calls. The special notation was included as part of an addendum signed by Clarence N. Finney Jr., then-director of the Office of Correspondence and Records, who reviewed the records.

The newly obtained records also show that Abedin was authorized to remove five boxes of “physical files” that include documents described as “Muslim Engagement.”

They also indicate that Clinton removed a physical file of “the log of the Secretary’s gifts with pictures of gifts,” which could potentially expose Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative connections.

Follow Jack on Twitter

Share

“OBAMA’S ENFORCER: ERIC HOLDER’S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT”

Saturday, December 16th, 2017

 

The co-author of the book mentioned in the article below,  “Obama’s Enforcer:  Eric Holder’s Justice Department”,  is Hans A. von Spakovsky who will be guest speaker at ICON in Chapel Hill on Tuesday, April 17, 2018.  Season tickets for all of ICON’s lectures are now available at www.iconlectureseries.com     Nancy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A TALE OF TWO CULTURES
– – Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Daniel Oliver is chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute and a director of Citizens for the Republic.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky wrote a whole book on corruption in the Holder Justice Department called “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

One longtime lawyer in the Civil Rights Division told the authors Mr. Holder had: racialized and radicalized the division to the point of corruption. They embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically. Their policy is to intimidate and threaten employees who do not agree with their politics.

“Prospect of New Special Counsel Rattles Justice” was the scary front-page headline on a recent, worried edition of The Washington Post. The faux fuss was caused by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ suggestion that after weighing recommendations from senior prosecutors, he might appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in the Uranium One deal.

The key facts of that deal, for those whose attention has been wholly absorbed by the all-day coverage of the corruption trial of Sen. Bob Menendez (New Jersey Democrat, of course), are: First, Russian interests gave the Clinton Foundation $145 million dollars; second, paid (now finally, not after Harvey Weinstein but only after Roy Moore) disgraced former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a short speech on tying shoelaces; following which, third, the sale of Uranium One to the Russians was cleared by the State Department then run by (now mostly disgraced for covering shamelessly for the now finally and fully disgraced said Bill ClintonHillary Clinton.

It’s true that eight other government agencies also had to approve the sale, but does anyone really think that either a low-level bureaucrat, a mid-level Democratic appointee, or a possible future Democratic candidate for any office in the land (even canine collector) would have crossed the Democratic Party’s very own Wicked Witch of the West?

Democratic Louis Renaults, who are rattled at what they claim is politicization of the Justice Department, should turn the clock back (any conservative can show them how) to the Eric Holder Justice Department days for a master class on politicizing.

John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky wrote a whole book on corruption in the Holder Justice Department called “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

One longtime lawyer in the Civil Rights Division told the authors Mr. Holder had: racialized and radicalized the division to the point of corruption. They embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically. Their policy is to intimidate and threaten employees who do not agree with their politics.

People may differ on what kind of actions they think rise to the level of politicization. That is not only inevitable, but increasingly likely in our increasingly polarized political world.

The real issue, slouching slowly toward our conscientiousness, is: Can two major cultures coexist in our democracy? In any democracy?

American politics has always been rambunctious. One need only read accounts of some of America’s early political campaigns to get a sense of the permanence of political hyperbole — doing business as mudslinging.

Even so, perhaps, but only perhaps, we think the administration of justice should be different. It would be satisfying to blame the high-octane politicization of the courts on Sen. Edward Kennedy’s unspeakable campaign in 1987 against Robert Bork’s confirmation to be a justice on the Supreme Court. In fact, the uber-politicization of the courts began years earlier, perhaps in 1973 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion. That decision was simply legislation from the bench; divisive then, divisive now. And more legislation, and more divisiveness, came with the Supreme Court’s decisions legalizing sodomy, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and marriage between homosexuals, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

But now the party’s over, for the left. And you can see why they’re worried. There are 18 vacancies on the Courts of Appeal and 127 in the Federal District Courts. The Senate has already confirmed 12 of President Trump’s nominees. He may fill most of the remaining vacancies during his first term, and will certainly fill them all if he gets a second term. Because the judges serve for life, their influence will be felt for decades to come.

But there are still two cultures. One lives according to traditional Western Civ. morality, the other pushes a feel-good cocktail of new-age practices; one believes in limited government, the other that government power should reign supreme. And the struggle will continue. The leftist side has been most prominently represented by the Clintons, though it does look now as if their day, finally, is passing. It’s passing because of Hillary’s defeat, and because of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, and that of so many of the left-wing cinematic glitterati whose behavior was just like his and, just like his, known to the rest of the denizens of the glitterati galaxy — including, undoubtedly, the Clintons.

Is it any wonder the Deplorables say, “Lock her up”?

Lock her up, indeed. Tempting. Better, probably — more fun, certainly — to put one of those ankle bracelets on her and on Bill, and sentence them to stay close to each other, always. Till death do them part.

A better slogan might be: “Lock her up — and give culture a chance.” But the rattled writers of scary headlines know that traditional Western Civ. culture may now get a chance even if she stays free.

• Daniel Oliver is chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute and a director of Citizens for the Republic.

 

Share
Search All Posts
Categories