Category Archives: Russia and the 2016 election

Did the FBI stage the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting?

The term “false flag” has its origins in naval warfare where a flag other than the belligerent’s true battle flag is used as a ruse de guerre.

As the term is used in contemporary America, a false flag is an event that is  contrived and manipulated by the authorities to achieve a covert agenda, e.g., gun control. The intended result is a “rallying around the flag” effect, wherein an inflamed “useful idiot” populace is mobilized to support the covert agenda. The public is given an untruthful version of the event by government and/or the media, whether it be about the perpetrator(s) and/or victim(s). That real people actually died or were injured doesn’t mean the event isn’t a false flag, so long as the event meets the two defining and necessary conditions for a false flag incident:

  1. The public is given an untruthful version of the event.
  2. The purpose of which is to achieve some covert agenda.

We are told that on Sunday night, Oct. 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada, 64-year-old retired accountant and multimillionaire Stephen Craig Paddock fired an automatic weapon from his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel at an outdoor Route 91 Harvest country western music concert across the street, killing 58 people and wounding more than 500.

If the Las Vegas shooting massacre was a false flag, it would mean there are people in government who could kill innocent people and inflict trauma on the American people to achieve their ends. That, in turn, means that our government is in the hands of people so diabolical, calling them psychopaths does not begin to describe what they are. That is a frightening thought.

But it is a thought not entirely alien to America’s Founding Fathers who fashioned a polity based on a view of human nature as inherently selfish, and of government as a necessary evil that must be constrained and delimited. To quote James Madison in The Federalist No. 51:

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Even with checks and balances in place, the U.S. government is known to have undertaken and planned false flags. An example is the Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 4, 1964. We were told that without provocation, the North Vietnamese attacked the U.S.S. Maddox and U.S.S. Turner Joy destroyers. Congress took the bait and passed a joint resolution pre-approving military deployments without a declaration of war, thereby giving President Lyndon Johnson a free ticket to wage war in Vietnam. It turned out no Vietnamese boats were even in the gulf at the time of the alleged attack.

Then there was Operation Northwoods, a false flag of stunning scope, audacity and deviousness which was proposed in 1962 by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the head of every branch of the armed forces. Government operatives were to undertake acts of terrorism against U.S. military and civilian targets in Guantanamo Bay, Miami, other Florida cities, and even in Washington, D.C. Hostile acts including sinking U.S. ships, having fake Cuban MIGs attack a U. S. Air Force aircraft, hijacking and shooting down a chartered civil airliner, and gunning down civilians in the streets would be blamed on the Fidel Castro government, which would be used as pretexts for a “military intervention” against Cuba. Thankfully, President John F. Kennedy rejected the proposals. See “Operation Northwoods: A true U.S. government conspiracy for those who mock conspiracy theories“.

In the case of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting massacre, some question whether the FBI, part of the Deep State, had staged the shootings.

To begin, about 16 months before the shooting, in a report for Business Insider on June 9, 2016, news intern Caroline Simon sounded the alarm that “The FBI is ‘manufacturing terrorism cases’ on a greater scale than ever before“. She wrote:

The FBI has ramped up its use of sting operations in terrorism cases, dispatching undercover agents to pose as jihadists and ensnare Americans suspected of backing ISIS, aka the Islamic State, Daesh, or ISIL . . . .

In many cases, agents will seek out people who have somehow demonstrated radical views, and then coax them into plotting an act of terrorism — often providing weapons and money. Before the suspects can carry out their plans, though, they’re arrested.

But critics say that the FBI’s tactics serve to entrap only individuals who would never have committed any violence without the government’s instigation.

“They’re manufacturing terrorism cases,” Michael German, a former undercover agent with the FBI who now researches national-security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, told The Times . . . .

Stephen Downs, an attorney . . . said that the FBI often targets particularly vulnerable people, such as those with mental disabilities . . . who are genuinely psychotic, who are taking medication . . . .

On October 2, 2017, the morning after the night of the Las Vegas mass shooting, right on cue ISIS claimed responsibility for the shooting massacre. As reported by the New York Post, ISIS’s news agency Amaq said, “The Las Vegas attack was carried out by a soldier of the Islamic State” and that “The Las Vegas attacker converted to Islam a few months ago.”

The FBI quickly dismissed ISIS’s claim of responsibility.

On the same day as ISIS’s claim, FBI Special Agent in Charge Aaron Rouse said at a news conference there is no evidence that Stephen Paddock was associated with any international militant group and that “We have determined at this point no connection to an international terrorist organization.”

The FBI’s alacrity in dismissing ISIS’s claim of responsibility was particularly impressive given the fact that the Bureau, at the time more than eight months into its investigation of Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with the Russians to sabotage the 2016 presidential election, still could not definitively tell the American people that the allegation is fictive.

Adding to the confusion, on the same day of ISIS’s claim of responsibility and the FBI’s quick dismissal of the claim, InfoWars reported that:

The Las Vegas shooter didn’t commit suicide as the mainstream media is reporting, but was killed by a FBI hostage rescue team who also found Antifa literature in his hotel room, according to a source linked to the team.

The FBI team took the suspect out after he opened fired on them, according to the source, and afterwards the team found photos taken in the Middle East of a woman linked to the suspect, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock.

Do these look like the same man to you?

A “deep-level intelligence insider” also told Infowars the mass shooting was “very, very strange”:

  • The shooter, Stephen Paddock, was “an average 64-year-old white male with no criminal record.”
  • Paddock’s brother described him as an average person who was not into firearms and never owned that many guns. But Paddock’s Mandalay Bay hotel room was filled with guns, including several long guns. Where did those guns come from?
  • The attack clearly had been “pre-planned” and the target group, a country-music concert, “was specifically chosen” — a group that represents traditional America, patriotic, God-fearing, pro-Second amendment, pro-Constitution and anti-NWO (New World Order) Americans whom Obama derisively described as “clinging to their guns and religion.”

Noting the fortuitous coincidence that “the mainstream media was already in Las Vegas to cover the OJ Simpson release right before the shooting occurred,” Infowars concluded that the possibility of the Las Vegas shooting being a false flag must now be considered.

On October 5, 2017, four days after the Las Vegas mass shooting, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange referenced Caroline Simon’s Business Insider report when he implied in a since deleted tweet that the shooting had been staged by the FBI. Assange wrote:

Almost all “terror” plots are created by the FBI as part of its business model.

What is the business of the FBI? Extracting tax. What does it need to do that? A stable threat. Prob? Real terrorists are sporadic & make FBI look weak. Solution? Make them.

Assange ended his tweet with a link to Caroline Simon’s Business Insider report that “The FBI is ‘manufacturing terrorism cases’ on a greater scale than ever before.”

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:
error0
 

Lindsey Graham claims we’ll soon know the ugly truth about Russian probe & it will be “damning” for intelligence communities

Well, if you got the goods sir, produce them NOW. Because I’m not going to hold my breath.

From Daily Mail: Republican senator Lindsey Graham said Sunday that the Inspector General’s report on how the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia began will be ‘ugly and damning’ for the Department of Justice.

During an interview with Fox News, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Graham said the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report is ‘going to be ugly and damning regarding the DOJ handling of the Russian probe.’

Graham said that Horowitz’s report is now expected to be released in the coming weeks and he is determined to have the report released so that the American people can find out what it says about the Russia probe.

When asked why the report, which was expected to have been submitted months ago, was delayed for so long, Graham said that ‘Every time you turn around you find something new.’

He added that ‘Mr. Horowitz is doing a very in-depth dive’ into how the FBI made use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in an effort to obtain a warrant allowing them to monitor Trump’s former campaign adviser Carter Page.

Graham said that when Horowitz submits his report, the DOJ will evaluate it for classified information, but that he wants to ‘declassify as much as possible. ‘I want the American public to hear the story, I want all this information to come out,’ Graham said. ‘I don’t want people to believe what I say about it, I want them to read for themselves how bad it was.’

Graham said he wants ‘people to see how off the rails this investigation got’ and that he wants ‘people to be held accountable.’

‘I am patient,’ Graham said. ‘I am not in a hurry, I want to do it right.’

Graham said that he wanted George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign staffer who pleaded guilty to making false claims to the FBI, to testify in front of his Senate Judiciary Committee after Horowitz’s report is released.

The senator said he believes that Papadopoulos’ interview transcripts reveal that he was ‘clearly’ not working with the Russians as has been claimed.

Papadopoulos is said to have been responsible for initiating the Russia probe by telling an Australian diplomat that he had heard that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The diplomat was said to have alerted US officials about what the ex-campaign staffer said.

Graham also noted that he believe the FBI’s application for a FISA warrant was a ‘fraud on the court’ because the FBI relied in Christopher Steele’s dossier to get the warrant, even though Steele was, what Graham called, ‘an unreliable informant’ who disliked Trump.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Hollyweirdo Alec Baldwin says Russians killed Jeffrey Epstein

Last Friday morning, we were told that just a day after the unsealing of documents revealing the names of prominent Demonrat politicians, convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had committed suicide-by-hanging in his prison cell in Manhattan Correctional Center.

“At 50, everyone has the face he deserves.” -George Orwell

Last night, from the Hilaria and Alec Baldwin Foundation account he runs with his wife, Trump-hater actor Alec Baldwin, 61, tweeted that “The Russians killed Epstein. They’re in charge of everything now.”

“AlecBaldwin” should be a new synonym for insanity.

See also “Singer David Crosby believes President Trump is under the control of Russia

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Singer David Crosby believes President Trump is under the control of Russia

Libtard David Crosby, formerly of the group Crosby, Stills & Nash, was given the opportunity to write an opinion piece for the Daily Beast. In his screed, he goes on to state that President Trump is under the control of Putin because of the “very real possibility that Putin has incriminating evidence with which to blackmail the president.”

From his rant:

It seems clear to me that Russia may well have some kind of info they are using to blackmail Trump with—“kompromat” as the Russians call it. It could be the alleged “pee tape,” could be some truth to the whispers that Trump has been laundering Russian mob money for at least 20 years through his New York real estate deals, stashing illegal money in multimillion-dollar apartments and condos all over town.

Could just be the fact he lied about working on a deal for Trump Tower Moscow while he was running to be President of the United States in 2016. This could be why Trump is so completely under the control of Russia and so utterly disloyal to the United States. This could be why the Republican Party is blocking the passage of laws to protect our elections from outside influence, because that’s how they installed Trump, and that’s how they intend to win again in 2020.”

Read his full tirade here.

Although Mr. Crosby has no proof of actual crimes committed by President Trump, we DO have proof of crimes committed by this libtard. From Wikipedia:

“In 1982, after being convicted of several drugs and weapons offenses, Crosby spent nine months in a Texas state prison. The drug charges were related to possession of heroin and cocaine.

In 1985, Crosby was arrested for drunken driving, a hit-and-run driving accident, and possession of a concealed pistol and drug paraphernalia. Crosby was arrested after driving into a fence in a Marin County suburb, where officers found a .45-caliber pistol and cocaine in his car.

On March 7, 2004, Crosby was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, illegal possession of a hunting knife, illegal possession of ammunition, and illegal possession of about one ounce of marijuana. Crosby left said items behind in his hotel room. Authorities said a “hotel employee searched the suitcase for identification and found about an ounce of marijuana, rolling papers, two knives and a .45-caliber pistol. Mr. Crosby was arrested when he returned to the hotel to pick up his bag.” After spending 12 hours in jail, he was released on $3,500 bail. On July 4, 2004, he pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon, was fined $5,000 and given no jail time. Prosecutors did not seek a more severe penalty on the weapons charge because the pistol was registered in California and was stowed safely in his luggage when it was found. A charge of unlawful possession of marijuana was dismissed. Crosby was discharged by the court on condition that he pay his fine and not get arrested again.”

Since Mr. Crosby is very familiar with the criminal justice system and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” I suggest he offer some more verifiable proof for his claims. Even better, present the proof to Congress. STAT.

Or maybe he should just up his meds for his TDS infection.

h/t Breitbart
DCG

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

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Live feed of Robert Mueller testifying before Congress

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller is testifying before two House panels about the report on his two-year, $25 million investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which found no evidence of any Trump collusion.

But that hasn’t stopped the mentally-ill Demonrat Left from their obsessive insistence of a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Nothing will.

Watch the live feed of the hearing at the New York Post, here.

Your comments are welcome!

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Just what we need: Celebrities lecturing us about the “truth about Trump collusion”

I made it through about a minute of this video. That’s about all I can take of self-righteous celebrities with TDS.

And if the “collusion” is there, why isn’t President Trump impeached yet? Why the wait? Huh?

Expect the delusional hysterics to continue well until 2020…

DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Hillary Clinton calls herself ‘Madam President’ in commencement speech

It is now more than 2½ years since she lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald John Trump, but Hillary Clinton is still bitterly in denial and still coveting the presidency.

Last Wednesday, May 29, 2019, Hillary was the keynote speaker at the commencement of more than 2,400 Hunter College students in New York City’s Madison Square Garden.

Hunter College is one of the constituent colleges of the public, i.e., taxpayer-funded City University of New York (CUNY), in Manhattan, NYC.

Hillary began her speech by referring to Hunter College President Jennifer J. Raab’s “Madam President” title to imply that she (Hillary Clinton) should be President of the United States. She said:

“Thank you, thank you so much. I have to say this has been one of the most inspiring heartfelt commencements that I’ve ever experienced, and I am thrilled, I’m thrilled to be a part of it today. [Turning to look at Hunter College president Raab] ‘Madam President’ — that has a nice ring to it!”

Hillary then used the rest of her speech to attack President Trump and to continue the fiction that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election.

You can hear/watch her entire speech here, if you insist on torturing yourself.

Jennifer J. Raab, 62, was appointed president of Hunter College in 2001 by then NY Mayor Giuliani, amid controversy and accusations of intimidation of the CUNY Board of Trustees because of Raab’s lack of doctoral degree (she has a law degree from Harvard). Raab is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

H/t Lophatt

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:
error0
 

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:
error0
 

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:
error0
 

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:
error0