Call it yet the latest example of the taxpayer-funded steamroller, called our Just Us Department: a steamroller that can ruin lives during investigations that increase federal prosecutor profiles on their way up the chain. We’re witnessing in real time an underbelly of our government that would’ve been sight unseen had Hillary Clinton won the presidency: the push to enforce the unregistered foreign agent law that many well-connected are even bothered with.
It’s one thing for the citizens who are in rampant #Resist mode, who believe and act on anything consumed on CNN, MSNBC, NPR or the myriad of so-called professional and social media and liberal dot orgs who depend on a vibrant opposition. But when those at the highest level of the federal government; those with access to proof that something didn’t happen but are proceeding like it did should be of great concern because this kind of tactic can be used against any one of us, any time.
We had the honor of spending some time with former National Security Agency Technical Director Bill Binney a few months ago and hopefully we can get him on video soon to address Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s charges against “Russian officials”. Binney considers Edward Snowden a patriot for alerting the American people that the NSA is actively collecting data on everyone. Maybe even 33,000 “deleted” emails…?
The beauty of this latest chapter is the perpetuation of the 24-7 cable news cycle on the whole Russia collusion thing (which is intended as red meat for the base prior to the 2018 midterms) is it’s a narrative that can last as long as Democrats want. No Russian will EVER see the inside of a United States courtroom to challenge the Rosenstein-special counsel charges, which could also open the special counsel’s office to again having to present their evidence that Russia hacked the 2018 election; something the Mueller team is resisting to produce… because after $17+ million there’s still no there there because there never was.
Russian Uranium One-Clinton Foundation collusion, notwithstanding.
The big news, coming from the Washington Post is all about that debunked Russian “dossier” and who paid for its production!
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about Donald Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
— Washington Post, 10/24/17
Now that they’ve got everyone looking over there, look what also broke last night that the stellar journalists in and around D.C. are NOT going to get around to.
Let’s start with that $145 million finding it’s way from Russia into the Clinton Foundation….
There’s that common sense belief that when you’re dealing with liars, wherever they point, look at whomever is doing the pointing.
Fox News: Fusion GPS fallout: DNC, Clinton, FBI take heat after bombshell that Dems funded Trump dossier
The Hill: New York Times reporters blast Dems over Trump dossier funding claims
CNN: Clinton campaign, DNC helped fund dossier research
Daily Mail: A YEAR of Clinton lies about the ‘golden showers’ dossier exposed as Hillary’s lawyer is under fire for falsely denying paying for it
If the Russians (according to Hillary, her media, and her sheeple base repeating “Russian collusion”) wanted Trump to win, why would they provide a bogus document (given faux respectability by calling it a “dossier”) to Democrats designed to take out Trump?
If the media tells you the Mueller investigation is focusing in on the Trump campaign and collusion with the Russians, look at what’s always been the Achilles heel of Bill and Hillary Clinton: big money, whomever will give it to them, and you’ll see who was really colluding with who and for a hefty price.
Many Americans were stunned when then-FBI Director James Comey came before the nation and said that Former Secretary of State and Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton didn’t mean to break the law when she stored classified information on a private server; an offense that would put most people behind bars.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
— James Comey statement, 7/5/16
She didn’t mean it. But this is not the first time James Comey let a Clinton off the hook.
Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”
— Time, 3/31/16
While BleachBit didn’t exist as well as the guts of what we now consider the Internet back in the late 90’s, we had destruction of evidence and lying and no conviction. It would appear James Comey adopted what would be a line of consistency when it came to an investigation he was involved in concerning a Clinton.
Comey parlayed the Whitewater job into top posts in Virginia and New York, returning to Manhattan in 2002 to be the top federal prosecutor there. One of his first cases as a line attorney in the same office 15 years earlier had been the successful prosecution of Marc Rich, a wealthy international financier, for tax evasion. But on his last day as President in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. “I was stunned,” Comey later told Congress. As top U.S. prosecutor in New York in 2002, appointed by George W. Bush, Comey inherited the criminal probe into the Rich pardon and 175 others Clinton had made at the 11th hour.
Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing. He was careful not to let the investigation be used for political purposes by either party. When pressed for details in one case, he said, “I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.”
— Time, 3/31/16
Again, while the American people could clearly smell the rat, there was one person with the trap that didn’t.
And his name was James Comey, but wait: there’s more!
However, in late 2008, amid concern over potential conflicts of interest for Hillary Clinton, who was on course to become President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, the foundation launched a public database of its donors along with a rough estimate of the sums they have given.
It reveals seven foundation benefactors linked to HSBC bank accounts in Geneva, who have donated, in total, as much as $81m.
— The Guardian (UK), 2/10/15
The Clintons were raking in the cash and guess who was at the Swiss HSBC bank in 2015…?
Former US Deputy Attorney General joins HSBC Board
James Brien Comey, Jr. (52), former United States Deputy Attorney General, has been appointed a Director of HSBC Holdings plc with effect from 4 March 2013. He will be an independent non-executive Director and a member of the Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee.
— HSBC Press Release, 1/30/13
James Comey was at HSBC until September of 2013 when he became the seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and we all know his story since then.
Career government officials will readily pat themselves on the back and demand WE recognize their integrity but anyone can be corrupted and civil servants in our federal government somehow always seem to end up well fed and not hurting for the rent once they either retire, resign or are forced out.
Back when Obama nominated Comey for the job in 2013, the former prosecutor reported his net worth in Senate documents during the confirmation process. His net worth came in at $11 million, a figure that likely rose almost immediately considering he was due a $3 million profit-sharing payout from his former employer, the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, should he be confirmed to the post, CNN reported at the time. He worked as the firm’s general counsel from 2010 through early 2013 and earned some $6 million in compensation his final full year with the company, according to Open Secrets.
— Newsweek, 5/9/17
One can only imagine what a President Hillary could have gotten away with having a longtime-friendly FBI director and a Clinton Foundation run by Bill, legally cleared and unfettered.
James Comey doesn’t seem to be the kind of person one would want in honest government because the well-connected shouldn’t have a different standard of allowed behavior compared to the rest of the American people. If your last name was Clinton, James Comey appears to have been the best friend one could have and it’s clear President Trump decided to push Comey off the train and that was long overdue.
While the case was made during the presidential campaign as more and more was revealed about Hillary Clinton’s private server and the pay-for-play operations at the Clinton Foundation, one simple conclusion was reached: had any of us done a fraction of what Hillary did, we be in jail at this moment, thus there is a clear double standard for elites versus everyone else?
In a new legal development on the controversy over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, an appeals court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling and said two U.S. government agencies should have done more to recover the emails.
The ruling from Judge Stephen Williams, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, revives one of a number of legal challenges involving Clinton’s handling of government emails when she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
— msn.com, 12/28/16
With that, considering all he’s done foreign and domestically since the election, do you think a petulant President Barack Obama will pardon Hillary Clinton before he leaves office?
If Hillary did nothing wrong, there’s no reason for a pardon.
If Obama pardons her and we find out later she did violate the law, his all-important legacy is tarnished.
And regarding “political revenge”, let’s not forget the power of the government Lois Lerner used against political opponents of Democrats, and that’s just one example.
On the flip-side, Obama’s recent executive actions with Hillary’s hint she may run again may hopefully show President Trump that his peace overtures have been spat upon and despite the predictable wailing of the media, a special prosecutor should be appointed to get to the bottom of this whole mess, and if that means eventually locking the old woman up, so be it.
If you can’t smell the desperation from within the Clinton campaign, as evidenced by the clearly coordinated media blitz against Donald Trump, you must be one of those “informed” who get most of your valuable political information from Fox News and Facebook.
For example, the media for decades have told us there’s no way to win the White House without Ohio, yet when Hillary’s campaign decided to pull out of the Buckeye State, the New York Times covered for her by insisting the state was now politically irrelevant.
On the Friday prior to the first presidential debate between Clinton and Donald Trump, the coordinated action line repeated by almost every cable and broadcast news channel recited the words “lies” and “liar”, setting the weekend’s narrative against Trump.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign labelled rival Donald Trump a liar and called on moderators to police his assertions in a clear sign the Democratic presidential candidate is increasingly worried Monday’s high-stakes debate could boost Mr Trump’s chances of victory. The demands by Robby Mook, Mrs Clinton’s campaign manager, came as a new poll showed her lead over Mr Trump shrinking to just two points
— Financial Times, 9/25/16
And the “demands” were obeyed….
Vox: Donald Trump lies. All the time.
LA Times: Scope of Trump’s falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate
HuffPo: Donald Trump lies as fast as he can speak. We’re going to try to keep up
NY Times: A Moment of Truth for Presidential Debate Moderators
Bloomberg: Lester Holt and the Problem of Refereeing Donald Trump
Boston Globe: Trump’s coded racism is as dangerous as his lies. Debate moderators must call it out.
US News & World Report: Media Call Out Trump. Various news organizations depict a pattern of lies
Of course, we’re not privy to the behind-the-scenes in Hillary’s campaign but someone obviously believed there’d be no irony in HER accusing anyone of “lying”.
The media also recited the instruction to “fact check” everything Trump would say during the debate; an instruction that was ironic considering Hillary’s proven allergy to the truth and the questionable integrity and motives of the so-called “fact checkers”.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters trust media fact-checking of candidates’ comments. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe instead that news organizations skew the facts to help candidates they support.
— Rasmussen, 9/30/16
What’s amusing is the extent the media is colluding with her campaign to keep the public persona positive. One would think if Hillary is (as we’ve been told many times) “the smartest woman in the world”, the “most qualified”, etc., she’d be insulted by the booster seat being constantly placed beneath her ass because the coronation simply is not going as predicted.
One reason to look at ALL the media as entertainment and not news is because the qualifications of those disseminating said news is questionable at best. Way too many are trust fund babies, well-connected but ratings-challenged losers, and millennial bloggers (former interns and/or nepotism beneficiaries) whose bodies of “work” can’t be found past a couple of years at best.
Politifact.com, Hillary’s designated go-to for all things “Donald Trump is a liar” has questionable credibility as “impartial” at best. They are a melting pot of media has-beens, progressive wonks, nonprofit and government-funded communication leeches, and recent graduates with direct or passive links to the liberal Annenberg Public Policy Center. It’s suspicious (and ironic) that the very Constitutionally-protected entity that demands accountability, transparency and honesty from candidates fails to disclose where they got their funding AFTER 2011, and the motives of anyone associated with Chicago’s Bill Ayers should be questioned.
A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts. In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged “false” or “pants on fire” over the last 13 months were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent).
— Eric Ostermeier, University of Minnesota political science professor, 2/10/11
PolitiFact isn’t alone. Snopes is also another a progressive-preferred supposed go-to fact check site that should be taken with a large grain of salt.
The bottom line is Hillary Clinton is still a weak woman who needs others to do the heavy lifting for her. Many over the years who’s been in close contact with her describe her as a volatile diva who must be going off of those who’ve failed to clear the path and seen her campaign publicly go from inevitable to embarrassing. Low turnout, low enthusiasm, the gradual erosion of the traditional Democrat base (blacks, Hispanics, Hollywood, etc.) has made the media have to throw everything at Donald Trump including the kitchen sink. The desperation is only exacerbated by a Trump base that refuses to obey the Democrat media’s instructions to abandon him.
The results on Election Day will not only be a final referendum on loser Hillary Clinton but the loser media as well. Meanwhile, all she and her media has left is keep up trying to so damage Trump as to hopefully get some of his supporters to change their minds and stay home on November 8th.
Yeah, maybe that will work….
Black & Blonde Media is funded solely by contributions made by the readers who enjoy and use it. We are beholden to no political party, no advertisers, no outsiders, no sugar daddies, no corporate string-pullers. This means no annoying pop-ups, no email campaigns, no spam and no one controls us. We are self-funded and independent thus are on a week-to-week basis. Please value our time and donate today!
George Stephanopoulos discloses $75,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation
George Stephanopoulos’s Gifts to Clinton Foundation Reinforce G.O.P. Doubts
Stephanopoulos pulls out of debate after Clinton donations revealed
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager Interned for George Stephanopoulos
Few of us on the right are disillusioned enough to believe the media is fair. We apparently now have a receipt as further proof.
B&R and B&B Media is funded solely by contributions made by the readers who enjoy and use it. We are beholden to no political party, no advertisers, no outsiders, no sugar daddies, no corporate string-pullers. This means no annoying pop-ups, no email campaigns, no spam and no one controls us. We are self-funded and independent thus are on a week-to-week basis. Please value our time and donate today!
If last week was any indication of how the “Hillary 2014” is going to proceed, this could be quite entertaining because the anticipated fawning just ain’t happenin’.
Students at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas are asking the former secretary of state to return the speaking fee she is set to collect when she appears at a university fundraiser in October. The calls, which are gleefully being pushed by national and state Republicans, come at an inopportune time for Clinton, whose “Hard Choices” book tour has largely been defined by missteps she’s made regarding her wealth and steep speaking fees.
The University of Nevada-Las Vegas announced this week that Clinton, a likely 2016 presidential candidate, would headline their annual fundraising dinner in this fall. The university is paying Clinton $225,000 for the appearance with money from “private donations secured by the UNLV foundation,” according to a spokeswoman for the university who went on to say that no money from the school’s operating budget will be used on the fee.
Even with that caveat, the news of Clinton’s fee did not sit well with the university’s students, especially considering Nevada’s higher education board decided to raise tuition by 17 percent earlier this month. Elias Benjelloun, the UNLV student body president, and Daniel Waqar, the student government’s public relations director, told Nevada political reporter John Ralston that the speaking fee is “a bit outrageous.”
Pushing back against the controversy, a Clinton aide told CNN that the UNLV speaking fee would go to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, not to the former first lady directly.
Considering how badly the foundation’s funds have been consistently mismanaged, that’s hardly reassuring.
The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary
They’ve always been narcissistic users and with their in-your-face excesses, it’s hard to defend
(even for low-standard liberals)