Category Archives: 2016 Election

Chase Bank says they won’t do business with Trump supporters in Project Veritas undercover audio

In China, the Communist Party government keeps a “social credit” score on each citizen for reward/punishment. Depending on the score, citizens may find themselves unable to travel on plane or train.

Here in the United States, some privately-owned businesses — including banks — are doing that. Below are examples of politicized businesses that are actively against the Second Amendment and discriminate against gun-owners:

Chase Bank is going after conservatives and Trump supporters by closing their accounts.

Chase Bank is one of the Big Four banks in the United States, with more than 5,100 branches and 16,000 ATMs. (The other three big banks are Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.) Known as Chase Manhattan Bank until 2000 when it merged with multinational banking and financial services holding company J.P. Morgan & Co. Headquartered in Manhattan, NYC, Chase Bank is the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co.

On February 26, 2019, I reported on Chase Bank denying service to four conservatives & Trump supporters: Joe Biggs, Laura Loomer, Martina Markova, and Enrique Tarrio. This post is a follow-up on the case of Enrique Tarrio, a Cuban-black who is the chairman of a fraternal organization called Proud Boys, slimed by Wikipedia as “a far-right neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence.”

As reported by Big Leaque Politics, Tarrio received a letter from Chase Bank, dated February 4, 2019, that “After careful consideration, we have determined that we can no longer support your banking account(s) and will be closing it on April 01, 2019.” The letter came days after Chase Bank’s payment processor, Chase Paymentech, de-platformed Tarrio on 1776.shop — a website he runs that allows groups and charities to sell merchandise and raise money for causes. The website is most known for selling the “Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong” shirts which Stone was wearing during the late-night arrest at his home.

Tarrio says that before Chase terminated his account, he had asked the bank why, but phone operators for Chase were unable to explain why his business account was being terminated.

Two days ago, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released an undercover video of conversations with Chase Bank professionals discussing the closure of Tarrio’s account.

As described by Project Veritas, “Multiple Chase account and bank managers were unable to assist Tarrio, saying that inquiries regarding the closure of his business account would have to be directed to the ‘executive office.’” Chase banker Marcel Smith said the bank typically gives its customers a reason for account closures: “I see nothing that indicates any reason why the account should be closed, I don’t see any outstanding transactions or anything ridiculous. I’ve never seen them not give a response to someone whose account they had closed.”

An analyst from the Chase executive office, Nora, told Tarrio that his account was being closed for various clerical issues. But Tarrio, in a phone conversation with Nora which was published by Project Veritas, made clear there were no “clerical issues”.

But a Project Veritas (PV) undercover audio of a conversation with a Chase Corporate Global Media Relations employee reveals that Chase Bank does make political judgments about their customers:

PV JOURNALIST: I don’t want to do business with anyone who does business with Steve Bannon, or any of these alt right people, and that’s just one of my prerequisites.

CHASE: Right, right. As far as I’m concerned, we’re not connected with Steve Bannon.

JOURNALIST: Do you have standards in place that would preempt such relationship with anyone, um of Steve Bannon’s.–

CHASE: Oh definitely. Definitely, definitely.

JOURNALIST: That’s what I’m calling to inquire about. Tell me more.

CHASE: Right so I mean, Chase is not involved with any like, you know, alt right people or anything. I really can’t name names but it’s basically like we don’t get involved with any of that…

JOURNALIST: … I don’t expect for you guys, I’m not talking about who you guys give money to –

CHASE: No, just any business relationships, period.

JOURNALIST: Really? Okay… So I mean on my end I’m talking about people like Trump supporters for instance. The MAGA, whatever – make, whatever the hell they, those types of people, I mean individuals.

CHASE: Right, right. I know what you mean, but like I said the call is being recorded, monitored, so I can’t get too political. And say I don’t support these people, or this, but you know, any kind of business entity, people like that, no moral character or anything like that, the bank usually doesn’t get involved with that.

After Project Veritas released the undercover audio, Chase Bank issued a denial:

“We do not close accounts due to political affiliation. Despite what was described in the video, that was NOT someone from Global Corporate Media Relations.”

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe observes:

“Are there unwritten Chase policies that Mr. Tarrio and others were in breach of? ‘Debanking’ appears to be a new frontier in American politics.”

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Illinois Senate votes to bar Trump from 2020 ballot if tax returns aren’t released

Illinois state senate legislators Thursday (April 11) publicly removed all possible doubts whether they are blithering, sniveling, whining, petulant idiots.

They are.

There is absolutely no question in my military mind.

Illinois Democrats approved a bill that would require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns if they want their names to appear on the state’s ballot. In other words, if Present Trump wants his name on the ballot in Illinois in 2020, he would have to first cough up five years of his income tax returns to Illinois Demorats.

New York state legislators introduced a similar bill on Monday. New York would authorize the state’s tax commissioner to release state tax returns to Congress upon request. The legislation, if passed, would enable the release of Trump’s state returns, since he is a New York resident and the state is home to his corporate businesses.

Illinois Senate Bill 145, introduced in January by State Sen. Antonio Muñoz, would require any candidate for president or vice president to release the most recent five years of their tax returns to have their name on the general election ballot.

“Voters have a right to know a presidential candidate’s conflicts of interests,” Muñoz said in a statement on his website. “They have reasonably expected this disclosure for decades, and if candidates won’t release the information willingly, then we need a law in place that requires it.”

The push from Illinois Democrats for President Donald Trump’s taxes ahead of the 2020 presidential election comes as several other states are pursuing similar legislation.

Since 2017, 18 state legislatures, including those in Illinois and New York, have introduced bills that would require presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns to be on the ballot, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

House Democrats in Washington formally requested the President’s tax returns last week from the Internal Revenue Service, but Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin informed them on Wednesday that his department would be unable to comply with their deadline for Trump’s tax return.

Under the bill approved Thursday, the Illinois secretary of state would post the tax returns on its website, with the candidate’s personal information redacted. The bill would not apply to congressional or statewide candidates.

The measure was approved by the Illinois Democratic-controlled Senate, 36-19. The bill has moved to the Illinois House, where Democrats also hold the majority

Republican state Sen. Dale Righter questioned the bill’s constitutionality and called it “an embarrassing waste of the Senate’s time” on Thursday, the Capitol News Illinois reported.

Cokie Roberts, moderator of NPR’s “Morning Edition” said in a broadcast February 15, “It’s been standard from Nixon on for presidents and presidential candidates to let the public see what they’ve paid, but not everyone has handled it the same way. Gerald Ford, Nixon’s successor, provided a summary of his taxes. Some candidates have just turned over a couple of years’ worth of documents. Others have provided returns for many years.”

She noted that the tradition of presidential candidate making their income tax return public began with Richard Nixon. But she that Nixon did not volunteer to turn over his tax returns.

“Nixon didn’t initially turn over his returns voluntarily,” she said. “They were leaked by someone in the IRS.”

There is no law requiring a presidential candidate to make his or her tax returns public. And there certainly is no law requiring publicizing tax returns as a condition of having one’s name placed on an election ballot. But democrats socialists might be able to force President Trump to give up his tax returns under a little known tax law from 1924.

According to Roberts, “The law that some House members want to employ to force the IRS to turn over Trump’s returns is a very obscure section of the tax code. And it allows the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to demand any tax filer’s returns. It dates back to the Teapot Dome scandals of the 1920s, when members of the Harding administration were accepting bribes. Congress had to rely on the executive for financial information, so they made this law. It’s been rarely used. But the Republican members of the Ways Means Committee did employee it a few years ago when they were investigating what they called the IRS’ discrimination against conservative organizations.”

# # #

I have an alternative suggestion. Let every demorat disclose all of their tax returns first—just to show good faith. Of course they won’t. They have no faith—good or otherwise.

Idiots.

~ Grif

Click here for full text of Illinois Senate Bill 145.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

U.S. indicts Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for conspiring to hack into Pentagon computers

Yesterday, April 11, 2019, after providing him political asylum in its embassy in London for the past 7 years, the government of Ecuador surrendered WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 47, to the UK police.

Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno said he had run of patience with Assange and withdrew his asylum status, describing him as an “inherited” problem from Moreno’s predecessor, former President Rafael Correa. Moreno said Assange had been “discourteous and aggressive” while inside the embassy and confronting and mistreating guards.

In a press conference, Ecuador’s Interior Minister Maria Paula Romo said Correa’s government “tolerated things like Assange putting feces on the embassy walls and other behaviors far from the minimum respect that a guest can have.” (CNN)

In the past, others had also commented on Assange’s hygiene:

  • Last January, Assange’s former aide Daniel Domscheit-Berg, author of Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website (2011), told International Business Times: “Julian ate everything with his hands and he always wiped his fingers on his pants. I have never seen pants as greasy as his in my whole life.”
  • In 2011, New York Times former executive editor Bill Keller met Assange and described him as a “bag lady walking in off the street. He smelled as if he hadn’t bathed for days. He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles.”

From these descriptions of Assange’s lack of hygiene, it is difficult for me to imagine Hollyweird sex-pot Pamela Anderson, 51, allegedly having an affair with Assange in the embassy.

Anderson had a meltdown on Twitter over Assange’s arrest and expected extradition to the U.S. Here’s one of her tweets:

Assange was arraigned in Westminster Magistrates’ Court yesterday. In a quick verdict, Judge Michael Snow found Assange guilty of skipping bail in 2012 by entering the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden in a rape investigation. Assange faces up to 12 months behind bars for the conviction in the UK. His defense argued that he couldn’t expect a fair trial in Britain because the UK’s sole purpose was to “secure his delivery” to the US. (New York Post)

Wanted in the U.S. for conspiring with “transgender” Chelsea (Bradley) Manning to steal military secrets by hacking into U.S. government computers, Assange will appear in a US court via video link on May 2.

Below is the U.S. Department of Justice’s April 11, 2019 press release:

Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested today in the United Kingdom pursuant to the U.S./UK Extradition Treaty, in connection with a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer.

According to court documents unsealed today, the charge relates to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.

The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications. Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst, was using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log on to the computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a deceptive measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures.

During the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.” To which Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”

Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison if convicted. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors….

The extradition will be handled by the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

WikiLeaks had played an invaluable role in the 2016 presidential elections by publishing emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — probably obtained by then-DNC staffer Seth Rich whose suspicious death cries out for justice — Hillary Clinton, and her presidential campaign chairman John Podesta.

WikiLeaks‘ position has always been that, in the interest of freedom of information, it will publish documents that are sent to them. That is very different than what Assange is accused of by the DOJ, which is that Assange had actively conspired with Manning to hack into Pentagon computers to obtain classified information.

What do you think?

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Barbara Bush blamed Donald Trump for her ‘heart attack’

America’s Ruling Class at the George W. Bush Presidential Library dedication, Dallas, Texas, April 25, 2013.

Add Barbara Bush (BB) to our long, long list of Demonrat crazies.

The New York Post reports, March 27, 2019, that in a book by USA Today’s Washington bureau chief Susan Page, The Matriarch: Barbara Bush and the Making of an American Dynasty, which is based on interviews in the last 6 months of her life, BB blamed Donald Trump for her “heart attack” after he “relentlessly” ridiculed her son Jeb during the 2016 Republican primaries with the nickname “Low Energy Jeb”.

But Page points out: “It wasn’t technically a heart attack, though she called it that. It was a crisis in her long battle with congestive heart failure and chronic pulmonary disease that hit her like a sledgehammer one day in June 2016,” when Trump had secured the GOP nomination.

An excerpt from Page’s book:

Afterward, Jeb, whose presidential campaign was already history, urged her [BB] to let it go, to focus on herself and have faith in the country.

“Jeb said, ‘Mom, don’t worry about things you can’t do anything about,’” [Barbara] Bush recalled. “He’s right. Just do good, make life better for someone else.”

Page says that BB’s “negative opinion of Trump” actually “dated back decades”:

  • In 1988, Trump volunteered to be George H.W. Bush’s running mate, which, according to BB, George dismissed as “strange and unbelievable.
  • In 1990, BB wrote in her diary that Trump is “the real symbol of greed in the ’80s.”
  • BB told Page she was incredulous that Trump won the presidency: “I woke up and discovered, to my horror, that Trump had won. I don’t understand why people are for him.”
  •  After Trump was elected, a friend gave BB a red, white and blue digital “Trump countdown clock” that displayed how many days, hours, minutes and seconds remained in his term. BB placed it on a table at her bedside, where she could see it every day to the day she died.
  • When asked how she thought things were going during the Trump presidency as his first anniversary in office approached, BB said: “I’m trying not to think about it. We’re a strong country, and I think it will all work out.”

BB’s Trump Derangement Syndrome actually led her to leave the Republican Party. Although in October 2017, BB told Page she considered herself a Republican, four months later (and two months before she died), BB said: “I’d probably say no today.”

Net rumor is that satanist Aleister Crowley was Barbara Bush’s biological father

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Trump 100% vindicated: AG William Barr’s letter to Congress on Mueller Report

After two years and $25 million of taxpayer dollars, the long-awaited Mueller report was delivered to Attorney General William Barr last Friday, March 22, 2019.

The report finds no Trump/Russia collusion nor that President Trump committed crimes. Of course, that won’t stop the Demon Party from undertaking yet more investigations, which some leading Demonrats are already vowing.

The Mueller Report is not yet made public, but below is AG Barr’s summary letter of the report’s “principal conclusions” to the chairmen (Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Jerrold Nadler) and ranking members (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Doug Collins) of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

I had a hell of time finding the letter in text format to copy and post here. You can also read the letter in PDF here.

The Attorney General

Washington, DC.
March 24, 2019

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member
Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel’s Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 CPR. This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 US. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”¹

_________________

¹In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.

_________________

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.2

_________________

² See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

_________________

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public View, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e. g. 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

* * *

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 CPR. I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr
Attorney General

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Happy Sunday: Mueller report finds no Trump/Russia collusion nor that President Trump committed crimes

Breaking report from Twitchy. There is a tweet in the Twitchy link to the letter that the DoJ sent to the Judiciary Committee.

There was never a doubt in my mind that President Trump colluded or committed a crime. I did doubt whether or not Mueller could complete an unbiased investigation.

And now we know.

Happy Sunday demorats!

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Colorado governor signs law that gives state’s electoral votes to national popular vote winner

Over two years later, butt hurt from Hillary’s loss still alive and well.

From MSN (via CNN): Colorado could be part of voting history next general election day, joining 11 other states looking to ensure that their electoral college votes echo the will of the American majority to elect the next president.

Gov. Jared Polis (demorat) signed a law Friday that would allot the state’s electoral college votes to whichever candidate won the national popular vote. The Washington Post previously reported the law’s signing.

The trend comes as Americans have shown greater support in recent years for a more democratic presidential election process, without the translational risks of the electoral college. But the daunting requirement of changing the Constitution, where the electoral college is formally codified, has posed a challenge to both public and political support for the issue.

The state’s legislation would only take effect if enough other states sign on to secure the cumulative 270 electors needed to elect a president, and Colorado’s votes raise the current total to 181 electors. Most states have winner-take-all laws in place dictating that their electors go towards whichever candidate takes the state’s popular majority, while Maine and Nebraska opt to proportionally split their electors based on the vote.

The eleven other states that have signed on — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state — as well as the District of Columbia and now Colorado, make up the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. New Mexico, which has five electoral votes, sent a bill to the governor’s desk to elect the president by popular vote and may soon join the group as well.

And the electoral college had been contentious not long ago. In 2016, President Donald Trump won the presidential vote with 306 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes. But Clinton won the popular vote, garnering 48.5% of the vote to Trump’s 46.4%.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

New Zealand mosque shootings: the John Podesta connection

On March 14, 2019, New Zealand sustained its deadliest mass shootings in modern history when a gunman, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant, killed 50 people and injured another 50 at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The media immediately identified Tarrant as that most noxious of all monsters — “an alt-right affiliated white supremacist”. (Wikipedia)

Strangely, there is a John Podesta connection to the New Zealand mosque shooting.

John Podesta, 70, is a major Democrat Party honcho. He was:

  • Bill Clinton’s White House chief-of-staff.
  • Barack Obama’s White House advisor.
  • Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.

Here are his connections to the Christchurch mosque shootings:

(1) John Podesta just happened to be in New Zealand 5 days before the mosque shootings.

To begin, New Zealand is enmeshed with the U.S. Deep State, being a member of the Five Eyes spy network — a powerful intelligence club made up of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

As reported by MSN.news on March 10, 2019, Podesta was in New Zealand for a Global Progressives event. He was interviewed on TV by a pliant and fawning Newshub political correspondent, Tova O’Brien, who extolls Podesta as “one of the most powerful in U.S. Democratic politics” and “someone who understands too well the influence and damage hacking and fake news can do.”.

Promoting the Russian election-meddling meme that Democrats never tire of, Podesta said he agrees with New Zealand intelligence’s warning to Parliament last month that their election is also vulnerable to a serious cyber attack from Russia and China. Podesta said:

“Vladimir Putin must be sitting in the Kremlin saying this is the best return on investment I ever got – I’ve got a pliant president of the United States. I’d say very worried. I don’t see why they couldn’t do it. And there are other state actors as well. There are other actors in the region including China that may have a high degree of interest in being able to penetrate what the private conversations of people in NZ politics and NZ Government are looking at.”

Calling the country a “juicier target”, Podesta said New Zealand should guard against hacked information being weaponised as fake news: “What’s new is this weaponisation – the use of social media to spread discord, lies, dissatisfaction – that’s I think what you’ve got to look out for.”

To watch the interview, go here.

(2) The same symbols on Podesta’s palms were painted on mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant’s semi-automatic gun.

The (UK) Sun reports, March 15, 2019, that “Crazed Brenton Tarrant scrawled the names of modern terrorists, ancient military commanders and far-right symbols on his guns and magazines of ammunition before going on a rampage in New Zealand,” including the words “For Rotherham” — an apparent reference to the paedophile ring run by British-Pakistani men in the Yorkshire town in recent decades.

What The Sun missed are two other symbols painted in white on Tarrant’s semi-automatic gun: that of a fish and the number 14.

Below is a pic of the gun. I painted the red circles around the two symbols.

Where have we seen the fish symbol and number 14 before?

On John Podesta’s palms! (H/t tweeter Jordan Sather)

In December 2016, I did a post on just that: “Those cryptic markings on John Podesta’s palms“.

While there may be an innocent explanation for the no. 14 and fish markings on Podesta’s palms, some see an occultic meaning. Whatever the meaning of the two symbols, it is curious, to say the least, that the perpetrator of the deadliest mass shootings in modern New Zealand history just happens to sport the same symbols on his semi-automatic gun.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Democrats on House Intelligence Committee took down FISA memo

On February 2, 2018, the House Intelligence Committee (HIC) released the notorious FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ) memo after President Trump declassified it.

The memo says:

  • The Obama Administration’s FBI and DOJ used the unverified and wholly fictitious Russian dossier to successfully obtain from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court surveillance warrants on Trump and members of his campaign team — which makes the surveillance UNLAWFUL and ILLEGAL.

Note: The Russian dossier, including the wholly fictitious “golden shower” account, was concocted by ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele, who was hired by “opposition research” company Fusion GPS that, in turn, had been commissioned by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

  • Senior law enforcement officials testified during a closed classified session to the HIC, that without the unsubstantiated and wholly-ficitious “Russian dossier” on then-candidate Donald Trump, they would not have been able to obtain at least one surveillance warrant for a member of the Trump campaign.
  • The Obama Administration used Fusion GPS and Steele as part of an active campaign to “brief” (i.e., lie) major media outlets.
  • Steele was no impartial researcher. In September 2016, Steele said to then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”

But after Americans elected Democrats to a majority in the House of Representatives in last year’s midterm elections, the House Intelligence Committee, with crazy-eye Adam Schiff (D-CA) as chair, has taken down the FISA memo.

The link to the FISA memo on the House Intelligence Committee website now leads to a blank page. See for yourself: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf

Fortunately, netizens had saved and uploaded the FISA memo to ScribD, and I’ve saved it to FOTM.

Here’s the 4-page FISA memo:

See also “Rep. Devin Nunes is preparing criminal referrals re. FBI & FISA to Attorney General Barr“.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Rep. Devin Nunes is preparing criminal referrals re. FBI & FISA to Attorney General Barr

Is this another false hope?

A criminal referral or recommendation is a notice to a prosecutory body, recommending criminal investigation or prosecution of one or more entities for crimes which fall into that body’s jurisdiction.

In the U.S. federal government, agencies that investigate crimes — including the House Intelligence Committee — typically refer cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for prosecution at its discretion. The U.S. attorney general heads the DOJ.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), 45, is a farmer with a Master’s degree in agriculture from Cal Poly, who became a politician. His grandparents were immigrants from the Azores, a tiny group of islands more than 800 miles off the coast of Portugal. (See “The Devin Nunes You Don’t Know“)

Nunes is that rare politician who has not sought to exploit his public office for financial gain. Unlike corrupt politicians like Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee with a 2015 net worth of $3.5 million, Nunes’ net worth in 2016 and 2015 was estimated at only $158,001. (Heavy.com)

Congressman Nunes was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee for four years until January 3, 2019. He lost the chairmanship because Americans in the 2018 midterm elections voted a Democratic majority to the House of Representatives. Since then, Nunes still serves on the committee as the senior Republican.

On January 30, 2019, during an interview on Fox News, Nunes said he plans to make criminal referrals as part of an investigation into political bias in the FBI, and that even though he is no longer chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and Democrats have taken control of the House and the committee, that won’t stop GOP investigators from making headway:

“A lot of people think just because Republicans are out of power that we are not conducting an investigation. We still are. Whether or not people will come in and interview with us, we don’t have gavels, we don’t have subpoena power. But we will still be trying to interview people and we will still be making criminal referrals.”

One person who has already been criminally referred to the Justice Department was former UK spook Christopher Steele, the  author of the fake “Russian hooker” Trump dossier. Steele was criminally referred in January 2018 by then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and now-committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who succeeded Grassley.

Nunes said on January 30 that to this day Congress has not heard any updates from the DOJ on the Steele referral. Referring to Trump’s AG nominee William Barr, Nunes said it will take a new attorney general to come in and “clean” up before any real progress can be made. (Washington Examiner)

On February 14, 2019, Trump nominee William Barr succeeded Jeff Sessions as the 85th U.S. attorney general.

See Deplorable Patriot’s post, “Attorney General William Barr jumps into the fire“.

On March 1, 2019, at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Nunes told OANN (0:30 mark):

“We’re still continuing to get to the bottom of what was happening to the Department of Justice and the FBI, trying to make sure that everyone there is held accountable…either through the courts or otherwise…. We’ll be making criminal referrals on a whole host of topics, most importantly probably lying and misleading Congress.”

Five days later, on March 6, 2019, Nunes once again said he’ll be making criminal referrals. He told Fox News’ Sean Hannity (0:03 mark):

We are preparing a criminal referral that we will present to the attorney general at the appropriate time…for many crimes. The obvious ones that you would know about would be lying to Congress. But we will also be looking at FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] abuse and all the other matters that we have been looking into. It will probably be one large referral….

We’re probably going to be prepared in the next two to three, four weeks — one of the things that’s coming up. So don’t mind all the shiny balls that you see running around Congress here — the so-called new investigations [by current House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-CA)]. Just ignore that.

What you should be out looking for is next week. On March 14, the federal judge down in Florida has ordered the release of depositions by Christopher Steele, who is supposedly the author of the dossier, and David Kramer, who pled the Fifth to this committee. who we know was handling and moving the dossier around to press outlets…. We [House Intelligence Commitee] had not ever interviewed Christopher Steele, and we don’t know what David Kramer would say because he pled the Fifth. So this could be critical. It may be nothing, but it could be critical for our referral. “

Note: David J. Kramer was nominated by President George W. Bush to be U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor, which he was from 2008 to January 20, 2009. Kramer is currently the senior director for human rights and human freedoms at the (John) McCain Institute, which is funded by the Saudis, Rothschilds, and George Soros. Kramer is a central player in how the fake Trump dossier made its way to the FBI in late 2016. He has invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify in connection with questions from the House Intelligence Committee about the anti-Trump dossier’s alleged Russian sources. (Fox News)

Sean Hannity said at the end of his interview with Rep. Nunes (2:16 mark):

“Finally, things are happening, which I’ve been telling you it will.”

Do you believe, too, that things are finally happening?

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0