Category Archives: Clinton Foundation

America’s 25 most hated celebrities

Last month, National Enquirer conducted a poll asking its readers to vote for their 25 most hated celebrities from a list of 60 names.

Here are the results (the deliciously catty comment on each celebrity is the Enquirer‘s):

(25) Ellen DeGeneres: “Please feed your rail-thin wife Portia de Rossi!”

(24) Gwyneth Paltrow: “From ‘conscious uncoupling’ to Goop-y lifestyle tips, she’s a precious pain.”

(23) Sean Penn: “The big-screen bad boy should stop sticking his big nose into politics.”

(22) Angelina Jolie: “She’s been blacklisted by Hollywood after trying to tar and feather ex Brad Pitt.”

(21) Roman Polanski: “His carnal cravings for a 13-year-old girl turned him into an international fugitive.”

(20) Matt Lauer: “If it weren’t for ‘Today,’ the prissy girly-man would be nowhere.”

(19) Miley Cyrus: “The admitted ‘pansexual’ and pothead now swears she’s clean. Right.”

(18) Shia LaBeouf: “The whacked-out actor wore a paper bag over his head on the red carpet. Why stop there!”

(17) Barbra Streisand: “Hollywood’s biggest liberal can’t stop singing the praises of the crooked Clintons.”

(16) Charlie Sheen: “Drugs, booze, abuse and a HIV-positive diagnosis — Charlie’s done it all.”

(15) Megyn Kelly: “The ex-Fox News journalist’s sky-high ratings have tanked since she joined NBC.”

(14) Chris Brown: “The hip-hopper managed to duck jail time after battering then-girl friend Rihanna.”

(13) Stephen Colbert: “In all ‘truthiness,’ this late-night windbag should keep his opinions to himself.”

(12) Woody Allen: “He married his own stepdaughter, and has long been dogged by child-abuse charges.”

(11) Kris Jenner: “O.J.’s former bosom buddy shamelessly peddles her kids like a low-class pimp.”

(10) Alec Baldwin: “He’s plummeted from lean leading man to a bloated, self-important political annoyance.”

(9) Madonna: “The im-Material Girl is too old to bed twentysomethings and dress like a hooker.”

(8) Kanye West: “Oh yeezy! The rapper wrote a song titled, ‘I Am a God,’ forcing us to rethink religion.”

(7) Kim Kardashian: “The reality star gained fame from a sex tape and now her big butt is unavoidable.”

(6) Whoopi Goldberg: “The daytime TV gasbag has defended Cosby and alienated audiences.”

(5) Barack Obama: “His life is one long golf vacation — just like when he was in the White House! The 44th president of the United States dropped the ball on probing Russian meddling in the election, wiretapped candidate Trump and dismissed ISIS terrorists as a ‘junior varsity squad’.”

(4) Bill Cosby: “He was ‘America’s favorite dad’ — now he’s the nation’s most famous accused serial rapist. Cosby has declared his innocence, but dozens of gutsy gals have charged he drugged and sexually assaulted them. After a mistrial, he’s expected to face charges again.”

(3) O.J. Simpson: “Lock up your kids and bolt the door — The Juice will soon be on the loose! He’s set to be freed from prison, but cocky O.J. will always be a ‘killer’ to many after the 1994 murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and waiter Ron Goldman. The monster even wrote a ‘hypothetical’ account of the murders in the book ‘If I Did It’.”

And the #2 and #1 most hated  American celebrities are . . .

[Drumroll]

(2) Hillary Clinton: “Voters couldn’t ‘lock her up!’ But they kept the scandal-scarred politico out of the Oval Office. The bungled Benghazi raid, deleted emails, leaked state secrets from her private server and ghastly cash Clinton Foundation grabs wrecked her White House hopes.”

(1) Rosie O’Donell: “TV’s loudmouth lesbian ‘Queen of Mean’ tops our list with 950 votes! The tone-deaf Donald Trump basher is a serial cheater who’s ditched two wives and antagonized her co-stars on ‘The View.’ Rosie’s also struggled with drugs and been accused of illegally adopting one of her kids!”

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

~Eowyn

Advertisements

House Judiciary Committee asks for second special prosecutor to investigate Clinton-Comey-Lynch

House Republicans are doing their utmost to bring Hillary Clinton to justice.

On July 26, 2017, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee ingeniously turned a Democrat resolution witchhunt (HRes. 446) of President Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey inside out into an amended HRes. 446 calling for an investigation into Comey’s mishandling of the FBI’s criminal investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server. (See “House Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton!”)

A day later, on July 27, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee redoubled their effort by sending a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate matters connected to the 2016 election which are not addressed by HRes. 446 or Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, including many actions taken by Obama Administration officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey.

Below is the full text of the letter:

July 27, 2017

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

We are writing to you to request assistance in restoring public confidence in our nation’s justice system and its investigators, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). We need to enable these agencies to perform their necessary and important law enforcement and intelligence functions fully unhindered by politics. While we presume that the FBI’s investigation into Russian influence has been subsumed into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, we are not confident that other matters related to the 2016 election and aftermath are similarly under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller. The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected. For this reason, we call on you to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Many Democrats and members of the Washington media previously called for a “special prosecutor” to investigate Russian influence on the election and connections with the Trump campaign. Not surprisingly, once you actually made the decision to appoint a special counsel, the calls for further investigations by congressional committees continued, focused on allegations that have heretofore produced no evidence of criminality, despite the fact that over a year has passed since the opening of the original FBI investigation. Political gamesmanship continues to saturate anything and everything associated with reactions to President Trump’s executive decisions, and reveals the hypocrisy of those who refuse to allow the Special Counsel’s investigation to proceed without undue political influence. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.

Your stated rationale for recommending Director Comey’s termination as FBI Director was his mishandling of former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation and associated public disclosures concerning the investigation’s findings. We believe this was the correct decision. It is clear that Director Comey contributed to the politicization of the FBI’s investigations by issuing his public statement, nominating himself as judge and jury, rather than permitting career DOJ prosecutors to make the final decision. But many other questions remain unanswered, due to Mr. Comey’s premature and inappropriate decision, as well as the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to respond to legitimate Congressional oversight. Last week, the Republican Members of this Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department, asking for responses to those unanswered inquiries. These questions cannot, for history’s sake and for the preservation of an impartial system of justice, be allowed to die on the vine.

It is therefore incumbent on this Committee, in our oversight capacity, to ensure that the agencies we oversee are above reproach and that the Justice Department, in particular, remains immune to accusations of politicization. Many Congressional entities have been engaged in oversight of Russian influence on the election, but a comprehensive investigation into the 2016 Presidential campaign and its aftermath must, similarly, be free of even the suggestion of political interference. The very core of our justice system demands as much. A second, newly-appointed special counsel will not be encumbered by these considerations, and will provide real value to the American people in offering an independent perspective on these extremely sensitive matters.

Our call for a special counsel is not made lightly. We have no interest in engendering more bad feelings and less confidence in the process or governmental institutions by the American people. Rather, our call is made on their behalf. It is meant to determine whether the criminal prosecution of any individual is warranted based on the solemn obligation to follow the facts wherever they lead and applying the law to those facts.

As we referenced above, Democrats and the mainstream media called for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate any Russian influence on President Trump’s campaign. Their pleas were answered, but there are many questions that may be outside the scope of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. This was clear following Mr. Comey’s recent testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, which ignited renewed scrutiny of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the actions she took to mislead the public concerning the investigation into the Clinton email investigation. Last year, this Committee inquired repeatedly about the circumstances surrounding that and other matters, but our inquiries were largely ignored.

During his testimony, Mr. Comey referenced a meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Comey raised concerns about Ms. Lynch’s conduct, and questioned her independence, stating:

At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, ‘I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly.’

In addition, in preparing to testify in front of Congress for a September 2015 hearing, Mr. Comey asked Ms. Lynch at the time whether she was prepared to refer to the Clinton investigation as just that, an “investigation.” Mr. Comey testified that Ms. Lynch said, “Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.” Mr. Comey retorted, “Why would I do that?” Ms. Lynch answered, “Just call it a matter.” Mr. Comey stated that he acquiesced, but it gave him “a queasy feeling,” since it gave him the “impression that the attorney general was trying to align how we describe our work” with how the Clinton campaign was talking about it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and not the Federal Bureau of Matters, one is hard-pressed to understand why Ms. Lynch directed then-Director Comey to call the Clinton investigation a “matter” unless she intended to use such deceptive language to help wrongly persuade the American people that former Secretary Clinton was not, in fact, the subject of a full-scale FBI investigation, or to otherwise undermine the integrity of the investigation.

Following Director Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, Senator Dianne Feinstein was asked about the testimony while appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Senator Feinstein stated, “I would have a queasy feeling too, though, to be candid with you, I think we need to know more about that, and there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”

We share Senator Feinstein’s and Mr. Comey’s concerns – specifically, that during the midst of a contentious Presidential election, which was already rife with scandal arising from Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, that our nation’s chief law enforcement officer would instruct the FBI Director, her subordinate, to mislead the American public about the nature of the investigation. Following Ms. Lynch’s directive to downplay the Clinton investigation as a “matter,” Director Comey infamously terminated the Clinton investigation, stating, “[a]lthough there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Mr. Comey’s testimony has provided new evidence that Ms. Lynch may have used her position of authority to undermine the Clinton investigation. At any other point in history this accusation would entail a shock to the conscience of law abiding Americans who expect a DOJ free of political influence. We only have, however, an investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election, including any ties to the Trump campaign. To limit our nation’s insight into just this this single component of the 2016 election will only cause the special counsel’s work to be derided as one-sided and incomplete. The special counsel’s work must begin and end unimpeded by political motivations on either side of the aisle. For these reasons, the following points must also be fully investigated – ideally, via a second special counsel. This is imperative to regain the cherished trust and confidence in our undoubtedly distressed law enforcement and political institutions.

We call on a newly appointed special counsel to investigate, consistent with appropriate regulations, the following questions, many of which were previously posed by this Committee and remain unanswered:

  1. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation;
  2. The shadow cast over our system of justice concerning Secretary Clinton and her involvement in mishandling classified information;
  3. FBI and DOJ’s investigative decisions related to former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation, including the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to potential Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel and possibly others;
  4. The apparent failure of DOJ to empanel a grand jury to investigate allegations of mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and her associates;
  5. The Department of State and its employees’ involvement in determining which communications of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates to turn over for public scrutiny;
  6. WikiLeaks disclosures concerning the Clinton Foundation and its potentially unlawful international dealings;
  7. Connections between the Clinton campaign, or the Clinton Foundation, and foreign entities, including those from Russia and Ukraine;
  8. Mr. Comey’s knowledge of the purchase of Uranium One¹ by the company Rosatom, whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation, and what role Secretary Clinton played in the approval of that sale that had national security ramifications;
  9. Disclosures arising from unlawful access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer systems, including inappropriate collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign;
  10. Post-election accusations by the President [Trump] that he was wiretapped by the previous Administration, and whether Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to unlawfully monitor communications of then-candidate Trump or his associates;
  11. Selected leaks of classified information related to the unmasking of U.S. person identities incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community, including an assessment of whether anyone in the Obama Administration, including Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Susan Rice, Ms. Samantha Power, or others, had any knowledge about the “unmasking” of individuals on then candidate-Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both;
  12. Admitted leaks by Mr. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations between Mr. Comey and President Trump, how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of a special counsel, and whether any classified information was included in the now infamous “Comey memos”;
  13. Mr. Comey’s and the FBI’s apparent reliance on “Fusion GPS”² in its investigation of the Trump campaign, including the company’s creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Trump, that dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 election, whether the FBI paid anyone connected to the dossier, and the intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS and its affiliates; and
  14. Any and all potential leaks originated by Mr. Comey and provide to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

You have the ability now to right the ship for the American people so these investigations may proceed independently and impartially. The American public has a right to know the facts – all of them – surrounding the election and its aftermath. We urge you to appoint a second special counsel to ensure these troubling, unanswered questions are not relegated to the dustbin of history.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte, Chair
Jim Jordan
Lamar Smith
Matt Gaetz
Tom Marino
Steve Chabot
Blake Farenthold
Steve King
Louis Gohmert
Ted Poe
Doug Collins
Raul Labrador
Ron DeSantis
Andy Biggs
Mike Johnson
John Rutherford
Martha Roby
John Ratcliffe
Trent Franks
Karen Handel

###

Note¹: Uranium One is a uranium mining company, headquartered in Toronto,  Canada. It has operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States. In January 2013, Russian state-owned enterprise Rosatom, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased Uranium One for $1.3 billion. For Bill Clinton and John Podesta’s involvement in Uranium One and Rosatom, click here.

Note²: Fusion GPS is a commercial DC-based intelligence firm that conducts opposition political research on political candidates, such as on Mitt Romney. The company was hired by Planned Parenthood (PP) to investigate pro-life activists who took a series of “sting” videos showing PP selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Fusion GPS was first hired by Republicans to conduct “opposition research” on Donald Trump, which ended when Trump became the GOP’s presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton then became Fusion GPS’s client to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS hired former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on Trump, which became infamous for its entirely-fake allegation that Trump had hired Russian prostitutes to urinate (“golden shower”) on a Russian hotel bed supposedly used by Obama.

Send a “thank you” to Congressman Bob Goodlatte!:

~Eowyn

Hillary Clinton now wants to be a Methodist preacher

Losing the 2016 presidential election doesn’t mean Hillary Clinton will disappear.

On the contrary, it appears she will never go away.

In a fawning article in The Atlantic, Aug. 6, 2017, Emma Green reports that at a recent photo shoot for Shillady’s new book, Hillary Clinton told her Methodist pastor Bill Shillady that she wants to be a preacher:

“Scattered bits of reporting suggest that ministry has always been a secret dream of the two-time presidential candidate: Last fall, the former Newsweek editor Kenneth Woodward revealed that Clinton told him in 1994 that she thought ‘all the time’ about becoming an ordained Methodist minister….

Now, as Clinton works to rehabilitate her public image and figure out the next steps after her brutal November loss, religion is taking a central role. After long months of struggling to persuade Americans that she is trustworthy, authentic, and fundamentally moral, Clinton is lifting up an intimate, closely guarded part of herself. There are no more voters left to lose. In sharing her faith, perhaps Clinton sees something left to win, whether political or personal….

Given her depth of knowledge of the Bible and her experience of caring for people and loving people, she’d make a great pastor,’ Shillady told me. No, she probably won’t go to seminary, he said. No, she probably won’t pursue an official lay position in the Methodist church, like deaconess. (I reached out to Clinton’s spokespeople for comment, but didn’t hear back.) ‘I think it would be more of … her guest preaching at some point,’ he said. ‘We have a long history of lay preachers in the United Methodist Church.’”

“Trustworthy”, “authentic”, “fundamentally moral”, “caring for people”, “loving people” . . . .

“Trustworthy” — as in being a psychopathic liar, and using an unauthorized and illegal private email server while she was Secretary of State, including emails containing top secret national security information and names of CIA agents?

“Fundamentally moral” — as in using her Clinton Foundation to pay for her daughter Chelsea’s wedding and for millions in pay-to-play “donations” bribes from foreign governments and individuals in exchange for State Department favors, and stealing $2B in donations for Haiti’s earthquake relief?

“Caring for people” — as in trashing the women whom her husband raped, groped and harassed as “bimbos”; laughing about defending a man who raped a 12-year-old girl; leaving four Americans, including two of her State Department staffers, to die in Benghazi — then lie about Benghazi being a Muslim riot over a video; her Clinton Foundation working with Big Pharma to keep AIDS drug prices high; and advocating the legal murder of late-term pre-born babies?

“Loving people” — as in a woman whom her own campaign chair describes as “hates everyday Americans“; who treats the Secret Service agents who protect her with their lives, like crap; who trashes millions of Americans (whom she meant to rule over as their President) as “deplorables” simply because they disagreed with her?

A “lay preacher” with a filthy mouth and who stinks like sulfur?

Hillary and her pastor must live in an alternate Universe.

But then, given what the United Methodist Church has become, Hillary actually would fit right in as a preacher. See:

H/t FOTM‘s josephbc69

~Eowyn

House Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton!

They’re finally going after Hillary Clinton, via former FBI Director James Comey.

And what’s brilliant about this is that House Republicans are doing this by hoisting the Democrats on their own petard (explanation below).

On July 14, 2017, Democrat Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA) introduced House Resolution 446, yet another Demonrat witch-hunt.

The resolution demands that President Trump and U.S. Attorney General (Jeff Sessions) turn over to the House all documents relating to President Trump’s firing of Comey. Please note that President Trump, as the head of the executive branch of the U.S. government, has every constitutional right to fire Comey, the FBI being a part of the Department of Justice, which is a bureaucracy within the executive branch.

HRes. 446 has 42 co-sponsors, all Democrats, which means that it has no hope of being passed by the Republican-majority House.

On the same day that Jayapal introduced HRes. 446, it was referred to the House Judicial Committee.

Yesterday, July 26, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee turned HRes. 446 inside out into a resolution for an investigation into Comey’s mishandling of the FBI’s criminal investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server.

From True Pundit, July 26, 2017:

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to request documents about former FBI director James Comey’s conversations with the Obama administration and journalists, amending and replacing a Democratic resolution that was designed to obtain documents about Comey’s firing by President Trump.

“In my district, my constituents say, hey, what’s going on with investigation of the crimes of the previous administration?” asked Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), one of the amendment’s sponsors. “When I hear talk that this contains right-wing conspiracies — well, I’ll tell you, my constituents think what’s going on in the other bill are left-wing conspiracy theories.”

The amendment was a surprise to Rep. Primala Jayapal (D-Wash.), the freshman who had proposed the Democratic resolution of inquiry, which had been expected to fail.

The Republicans’ amendment and substitution of HRes. 446 is co-sponsored by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Here’s the amended HRes. 446:

Substitute For the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Res. 446

Offered by Mr. Gaetz of Florida

Strike all that follows after the resolving clause and insert the following:

That the President is requested, and the Attorney General of the United States is directed, to transmit, respectively (in a manner appropriate to classified information, if the President or Attorney General determines appropriate), to the House of Representative, not later than 60 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, record, audio recording, memo, correspondence, or other communications in their possessions, or any portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to the firing of James B. Comey in the following respects:

(1) Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing James B. Comey to mislead the American people by stating that he should refer to the investigation into the mishandling of classified data and use of an unauthorized email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a “matter”, rather than a criminal “investigation”.

(2) Leaks by James B. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations had between President Donald Trump and then-FBI Director James B. Comey, and how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of special counsel, Robert Mueller, a longtime friend of James B. Comey.

(3) The propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to possible Hillary Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel, and potentially others, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, during the criminal investigation James B. Comey led into Hillary Clinton’s misconduct.

(4) The decision of James B. Comey to usurp the authority of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his unusual announcement that criminal charges would not be brought against Hillary Clinton following her unlawful use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information.

(5) James B. Comey’s knowledge and impressions of any ex-parte [one-sided] conversation between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on January 27, 2016, at a Phoenix airport in a private jet.

(6) James B. Comey’s knowledge of the company “Fusion GPS,” including —

(A) Its creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Donald Trump;

(B) That dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 Presidential Election; and

(C) The intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS or its affiliates.

[Note: Fusion GPS is a commercial DC-based intelligence firm that conducts opposition political research on political candidates, such as on Mitt Romney. The company was hired by Planned Parenthood (PP) to investigate pro-life activists who took a series of “sting” videos showing PP selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Fusion GPS was first hired by Republicans to conduct “opposition research” on Donald Trump, which ended when Trump became the GOP’s presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton then became Fusion GPS’s client to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS hired former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on Trump, which became infamous for its entirely-fake allegation that Trump had hired Russian prostitutes to urinate (“golden shower”) on a Russian hotel bed supposedly used by Obama.]

(7) Any and all potential leaks originated by James B. Comey and provided to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

(8) James B. Comey’s knowledge of

(A) the purchase of majority stake in the company Uranium One by the company Rosatom;

(B) whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation;

(C) what role then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in the approval of that sale; and

(D) whether the sale could have affected the national security of the United States of America.

[Note: Uranium One is a uranium mining company, headquartered in Toronto,  Canada. It has operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States. In January 2013, Russian state-owned enterprise Rosatom, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased Uranium One for $1.3 billion. For Bill Clinton and John Podesta’s involvement in Uranium One and Rosatom, click here.]

(9) James B. Comey’s refusal to investigate then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding

(A) selling access to the U.S. State Department through Clinton Foundation donations;

(B) Huma Abedin’s dual employment at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation simultaneously; or

(C) utilization of the State Department to further paid speaking opportunities for her husband.

(10) Any collusion between former FBI Director James B. Comey and special counsel Robert Mueller; including —

(A) the information James B. Comey admitted to leaking to the Columbia University law professor, being intentional such that a special counsel, his longtime friend, Robert Mueller, would be appointed to lead the investigation against the Trump administration; and

(B) any communication between Robert Mueller and James B. Comey in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

(10) Whether James B. Comey had any advance knowledge of

(A) efforts made by any federal agency

(i) to monitor communications of then-candidate Donald Trump;

(ii) to assess any knowledge by James B. Comey about the “unmasking” of individuals on Donald Trump’s campaign team, transition team or both;

(iii) to assess the role that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice played in the unmasking of these individuals; or

(iv) to reveal the purpose served by unmasking any individual or individuals serving on the staff of then-candidate Donald Trump; or

(B) the dissemination of unredacted information to various intelligence agencies, and any attempts to use surveillance of then-candidate Donald Trump for the purposes of damaging the credibility of his campaign, his presidency, or both.

Here’s Rep. Matt Gaetz’s press release on the amended HRes. 446:

“On Wednesday, July 26, Congressman Matt Gaetz brought an amendment before the House Judiciary Committee, seeking answers to questions that have weighed heavily on the minds of American voters. In his amendment, which passed the House Judiciary Committee and has been reported favorably to the House, Rep. Gaetz requested documents and information from President Trump and Attorney General Sessions surrounding the firing of former FBI Director James B. Comey, and Mr. Comey’s knowledge of, and connection to, the many worrisome scandals of the previous administration.”

Read the rest of the press release here.

Congressmen Matt Gaetz, 35, and Andy Biggs, 58, you are my heroes!

Please thank Rep. Gaetz and Biggs. Here’s their contact info.:

  • Rep. Matt Gaetz: (202) 225-4136 (phone); email.
  • Rep. Andy Biggs: (202) 225-2635 (phone); email.

H/t Voat

~Eowyn

John McCain’s foundation is funded by Saudis, Rothschilds & Soros

Sen. John McCain (RINO-AZ) has an eponymous foundation, the McCain Institute for International Leadership, that is less known and much smaller in scale, but rivals the Clinton Foundation in corruption.

Note: Don’t confuse the McCain Institute with either:

  • The philanthropic John and Cindy McCain Family Foundation that, according to NonProfitFacts.com, claimed a paltry $1,002 in income and $6,013 in assets in 2013; or
  • The McCain Foundation, which has nothing to do with John McCain, but was founded by McCain Foods.

The Institute describes itself as a tax-exempt non-profit and “non-partisan do-tank dedicated to advancing character-driven global leadership based on security, economic opportunity, freedom and human dignity – in the United States and around the world.”

Reporting for The Daily Caller on June 19, 2017, Richard Pollock writes that the  Institute began with $9 million left over from McCain’s failed 2008 presidential campaign, and has become a huge operation, featuring upwards of 80 people including dozens of full time staff and board members. Associated with Arizona State University, the McCain Institute has assets valued at $8.1 million.

According to Pollock:

“Critics worry that the institute’s donors and McCain’s personal leadership in the organization’s exclusive ‘Sedona Forum’ bear an uncanny resemblance to the glitzy Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) that annually co-mingled special interests and powerful political players in alleged pay-to-play schemes.”

So who exactly are McCain Institute donors?

(1) Saudi Arabia

A WikiLeaks tweet says the McCain Institute is funded by the Saudis:

wikileaks-tweet-on-mccain-instituteThe WikiLeaks tweet is corroborated by a Bloomberg report in 2016 on a $1 million Saudi Arabian donation to the institute, a contribution the McCain group has refused to explain publicly. (See “McCain cuts off questions about Saudi donation“)

Baxter Dmitry of YourNewsWire observes that the secretive $1 million donation from Saudi Arabia “looks suspiciously like a Clinton Foundation style pay-for-play ‘donation'” and explains why Sen. McCain has “certain ‘viewpoints’ about the Middle East, and keeps making secret trips to Syria.” Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, are adamantly opposed to Syria’s Assad government and seek its overthrow by “rebels” who include Al Qaeda jihidasts.

More than that, according to the censored 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission’s report, the Saudi government was involved in the 9/11 attack. John F Lehman, a Republican member of the 9/11 commission, said:

“There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government. Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.”

See “Congress releases classified 28 pages of 9/11 Report: It’s Saudi Arabia”.

But John McCain took $1 million donations from the very same Saudi government.

(2) The Rothschilds

According to the above-referenced WikiLeaks tweet as well as the McCain Institute’s staff members page, Lynn Forester de Rothschild — a buddy of the Clintons — is a trustee of the McCain Institute.

The involvement of the Rothschilds goes beyond Lynn being an institute trustee.

John McCain has been accused of accepting improper campaign donations from the Rothschilds. U.S. political campaigns are forbidden from accepting contributions from foreign nationals.

According to the nonpartisan citizens’ watchdog group Judicial Watch (via The Guardian), in 2008 John McCain violated election laws by accepting campaign contributions from two non-U.S. nationals.

At issue is a fundraising luncheon held in March at London’s Spencer House during McCain’s swing through the United Kingdom. An invitation to the event lists Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild as hosts, and indicates the event was made possible with their “kind permission”. Tickets to the luncheon cost $1,000 to $2,300.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said: “The question is whether or not the Rothschilds paid for the event, the venue, the catering, or any other related costs.”

(3) George Soros & Clinton Crony

According to Richard Pollock of The Daily Caller, the McCain Institute has also “accepted contributions of as much as $100,000 from billionaire liberal activist-funder George Soros” and from Teneo, a for-profit “global strategies” company founded by a Clinton crony named Doug Band, who was Bill Clinton’s “bag man”. As Pollock puts it, “Teneo has long helped enrich [Bill] Clinton through lucrative speaking and business deals.”

Pollock says McCain and Soros became friends after the senator was exposed as a member of the “Keating Five” in the savings and loan (S&L) industry scandal that erupted during George H.W. Bush’s administration. As the S&L bank chairman, Charles Keating had paid $1.3 million to bribe five members of Congress, including McCain, to interfere with government regulators on behalf of the savings bank.

The experience so scarred McCain that he became a vigorous advocate of campaign finance reform and in the process reportedly became friends with Soros — the thoroughly evil funder of black riots here in the United States (see “List of persons/groups paid by Soros to protest in Ferguson & Selma“), and of the Muslim invasion in Europe (see “Soros aids invasion of Christian Europe by Muslim refugees, says Hungary prime minister”).

(4) Moroccan Government

According to Pollock, the McCain Institute has also taken at least $100,000 in “donations” from OCP, S.A., a Moroccan state-owned phosphate company operating in Western Sahara which repeatedly has been accused of worker abuse and exploitation.

Morocco seized Western Sahara in 1975 and has since occupied the region by force in defiance of U.N. resolutions and legal declarations by other international bodies. Human rights groups, including the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice, say Morocco’s state-owned companies, including OCP, subject its workforce to gruesome conditions while exploiting Western Sahara’s natural resources, especially phosphate, Morocco’s “white gold” that is used to make fertilizer. The Western Sahara holds half of the world’s phosphate reserves.

The King of Morocco was also a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton personally accepted $12 million from the King in return for holding a CGI (the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative) regional meeting in Morocco. OCP, the Moroccan state-owned phosphate company that “donated” $100,000 to the McCain Institute, was a major sponsor of the CGI meeting, and Bill Clinton was the featured speaker.

McCain has lavished effusive praise on the King of Morocco, saying in 2011, that the country was a “positive example to governments across the Middle East and North Africa.”

(5) Pro-Iran Foundation

Pollock reports that the McCain Institute has also accepted at least $100,000 from the pro-Iranian Pivotal Foundation, founded by Francis Najafi who owns the private equity and real estate firm Pivotal Group.

The Pivotal Foundation has in the last three years given $205,000 to the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), which has been a vocal advocate for the Iranian nuclear deal the Obama administration negotiated. The NIAC describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening the voice of Iranian Americans and promoting greater understanding between the American and Iranian people.” In other words, the NIAC act as Iran’s lobbyists in Washington, although it has neither registered as a lobbyist with Congress, nor filed as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Indeed, NIAC President Trita Parsi has long been an advocate a lobbyist for Iran:

  • In May 2013, Parsi spoke to a packed Capitol Hill meeting sponsored by Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison to argue in favor of the nuclear deal. Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress and is also deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
  • As recently as May 2017, Parsi demanded that President Donald Trump and officials in his administration “cease questioning the integrity of” the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Sen. McCain’s involvement with Iran lobbyist NIAC is troublesome:

  • Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, said: “This is a very real conflict of interest. This is the similar type of pattern we received with the Clinton Foundation in which foreign governments and foreign interests were throwing a lot of money in the hopes of trying to buy influence.”
  • Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, said that accepting contributions in the name of a sitting senator like McCain raises troubling issues: “In terms of the ethics of it, it does raise a broad question of people trying to get good will with the elected official. From a personal standpoint, I’d rather not see these entities exist.”
  • Charles Ortel, a retired Wall Street investment banker and philanthropy law expert, said that “high government officials such as John McCain, [former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama should not get involved with vehicles like these where substantial sums can be funneled over time in ways that at best, reeks of impropriety and at worse are public corruption.”

Pollock says the McCain Institute did not respond to requests for the dollar amounts of its high donors, when the donations were made and if there were strings attached to the contributions, claiming it did not have any of the information.

For his part, Sen. McCain professed he has no involvement with his own institute that is named after him, saying “I’m proud that the institute is named after me, but I have nothing to do with it” — which stretches credulity.

The institute’s donations from governments like Saudi Arabia and Morocco raise legitimate questions of pay-for-play. They also contradict McCain’s vision of human rights and national security.

How the McCain Institute spends its millions also raises questions.

Combating human trafficking is an important program of the Institute. The actor Ashton Kutcher is a member of the Institute’s Human Trafficking Advisory Council.

According to Baxter Dmitry of YourNewsWire, the Institute claims to have donated a total of $2.5 million to stop human trafficking: $500,000 in 2012; $500,000 in 2013; and $1,500,000 in 2014.

The only problem is every penny of the $2.5 million went to the Arizona State University Foundation that “does not appear to have anything whatsoever to do with human trafficking.”

See also:

~Eowyn

CyberBerkut publishes email of Democrat plot to blame Russia for hacking 2016 election

CyberBerkut, founded around 2014, is a Ukrainian nationalist and pro-Russian group of anonymous hacktivists who, as described by Wikipedia, became known for a series of denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on the pro-West (NATO and the U.S.) Ukrainian government, and on western and Ukrainian corporate websites.

Its name, CyberBerkut or Berkut online, is a reference to Berkut — a special police within Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs. After the 2014 Ukrainian revolution — in which the Obama State Department was covertly involved — the new pro-West Ukrainian government dissolved Berkut, blaming the special police for most of the nearly 100 civilian deaths. Berkut’s unit in Crimea, which broke away from Ukraine, defected to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs and kept its old name.

Indeed, CyberBerkut’s emblem is almost identical to that of Berkut:

CyberBerkut’s activities include:

  • Attacks on NATO websites.
  • Attacks on U.S. private military companies.
  • Publication of correspondence with the United States Embassy in Ukraine and United States foundations (e.g., Clinton Foundation).

In response to CyberBerkut’s hacktivism, the group’s Facebook page is repeatedly blocked, and its website repeatedly disrupted. Indeed, when I tried to assess CyberBerkut’s website this morning, I got the message:

“The site is under attack. Service is temporarily unavailable.”

Yesterday, WikiLeaks sent out a tweet informing us that CyberBerkut just published a batch of emails between Ukraine and Hillary Clinton/Clinton Foundation, with a link to the CyberBerkut webpage.

When you go on the CyberBerkut page, the most intriguing thing comes at the end — an email on January 8, 2017, i.e., after Hillary Clinton had lost the presidential election to Donald Trump, showing the Democrats plotting to manufacture the phony story that Russia had hacked the election.

CyberBerkut claims they were given the email by a “whistleblower” and that the names of the email sender and receiver are blacked out to protect the identity of the whistleblower.

Below is the text of the email, followed by a screenshot of the email:

1/8/2017 10:03 PM

From _____
Subject Re. Elections 2016
To _____

Dear ______

We all agree there is a need to provide technical details on Russian hacking.
____ urges you and _____ to bring up again the issue with _____. It’s quite important, especially as we approach the hearings. If there are no technical details we have to find some by all means. I am sure his guys can do it. We are short of time.

Regards,
_______

Sent from my iPhone

CyberBerkut notes that:

“Our whistleblowers gave us information that Russia was going to face great provocation. The Americans intend to manufacture false evidence of the Russian security services’ involvement in cyber attacks during the U.S. presidential elections 2016.

We cover the names of the provocation facilitators in order not to expose our sources. It is worth saying, a famous American politician and major financier took part in the plot.”

Is the “famous American politician” Hillary Clinton, and the “major financier” George Soros?

See also:

~Eowyn

Choose Your Revolution

Choose Your Revolution: 1776 vs 1917

The election of Donald Trump has torn the mask off our real enemies

June 8, 2017: Former FBI Director James Comey was going to put the nail in President Trump’s coffin. Unexpectedly, divine justice caused Comey’s testimony to undermine the charge of “obstruction of justice” against Trump, and bring it even more powerfully against Bill and Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch.

But relief for the American people isn’t yet gained, due to the will of CNN and other Fake News media. The “5th Estate” as the Fake News likes to call itself is now spinning lies at a pace that would embarrass even George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth.”

And it’s not just CNN. It’s the deep state, non-elected career employees embedded throughout our government, who share the monolithic ideology of the Left. And it’s also embedded Leftists in academia, responsible for the riots on many campuses. It’s Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA, twin Marxist children of George Soros.

And there is without question a “Neo-Bolshevik” movement coming into view in America, driven by the same demonic principality that murdered countless millions in the 20th century in Europe, Asia and Latin America. It’s being facilitated by the false narratives of people like Bernie Sanders, the Clintons and Obamas, and money form the likes of George Soros and other puppeteers of the New World Order.

We won an election and now may need to defeat a revolution

There is much planning afoot to cause riots and bloodshed in our cities in the summer of 2017 and beyond. It will be falsely reported of course on by CNN and others as the voice of the people. Plus, there is the invading army of military aged men from radical islamic countries. And as much as radical islamists seem to be odd bedfellows with campus Leftists, there seems to be a growing sense of common cause. The unseen hands of the globalists have left fingerprints all over this situation.

If revolution is comes we must decide how it ends 

In 1776 there was a revolution in America that gave birth to a nation with noble ideals, undergirded by faith in the God of the Bible. Although its history has been both good and bad, America has largely been good for the world. And it is in truth Freedom’s last safe place on Earth. If America falls, who will stand up? Europe? (sarc)

In 1917 there was a revolution in Russia claiming noble ideals, but driven not by ethnic Russians but by atheistic Jews from neighboring countries. Like a howling tornado of demons, the Bolsheviks decimated ethnic Russians, the Christian Church and religious Jews of Russia, committing genocides so severe that they became a playbook for Adolph Hitler, and duplicating their atrocities in China, Cuba and Cambodia. The current working model of the 1917 revolution is the once beautiful country of Venezuela, which has descended into bloodshed and famine.

In October 2017, we will arrive at the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. If we think this is insignificant, we are fooling ourselves. 

I am not calling for revolution, but if one comes this year, it will be of the 1917 variety.  And if this happens we must meet it head on, with all our might and courage and willingness to sacrifice. And we must do it in the spirit of  1776.

Fight like a Christian.

“Let courage rise with danger,
and strength to strength oppose”
– Stand Up Stand Up for Jesus 

PS: In pointing out the fact of the atheistic jews who did so much harm to the Russian people in the 1917 Bolshevick revolution, pretending to be the “voice of the people,” I am not speaking against the many noble jews I know personally. Rather, I am speaking of the “Synagog of Satan.” The difference is critical.

“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars–I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.”
– Revelation 3:9

Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) was himself of the “Synagog of Satan” until the true Jewish Messiah, the resurrected Jesus encountered him on the road to Damascus. Paul was as cruel to the sect called “Christians” in his days as the ISIS terrorists we see today. But when he saw the truth and repented, he became one of the greatest apostles.

I thank God for the jews of noble character it has been my pleasure to know. Instead, I am speaking of the people I have also known who are constantly harming any society they are a part of. Think of Saul Alinsky.

~ TD