Category Archives: Russia and the 2016 election

The real U.S.-Russian conspiracy: Russia gave multi-million $ bribe to Clinton Foundation for 2010 uranium deal

Yesterday, while on her book tour in the UK, pathological liar Hillary Clinton claimed to have broken her toe while “running down stairs” in heels and fallen backward. (As astute reader MomOfIV points out, it’s quite a feat to break a toe by falling backward.)

I pointed out in my post that Hillary’s story is incredible because:

  1. Hillary’s spokesman initially said she’d sprained her ankle.
  2. In 9 days, Hillary will be 70 years old. Not only are 70-year-olds unlikely to run down stairs, that Hillary did so while wearing heels is even more preposterous given that during last year’s months-long presidential campaign, she was in such bad shape that she had to be propped up while standing, hoisted up a short flight of stairs, and collapsed into a van at the 9/11 memorial in New York.

April 16, 2016 at Southwest College, Los Angeles.

February 4, 2016, in Charleston, SC.

Using the story of a broken toe, Hillary’s spokesman throws doubt on whether she could continue her book tour, which I predict she will discontinue, if she hasn’t done that already.

Here’s the real reason why the “broke a toe running down stairs wearing heels” cover story was concocted.

The news broke today that the Obama administration’s FBI and DOJ had known, as early as 2009, about a multi-million $ payoff bribe that the Russian government “routed” to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state, prior to the State Department’s approval of a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium.

report for The Hill, October 17, 2017, that according to government documents and interviews, federal agents had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian nuclear industry officials, in particular an official named Vadim Mikerin, were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Russia’s atomic energy business inside the United States, including:

  • Bribes and kickbacks to an American uranium trucking firm in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
  • Millions of dollars “routed” (via money launderers) by Russian nuclear officials to the Clinton Foundation during the time Hillary was secretary of state.

The FBI’s evidence consists of an eyewitness account, and extensive financial records, secret recordings and intercept emails gathered by a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry.

Rather than bring charges in 2010, however, Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ), under Attorney General Eric Holder, continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, all the while leaving the American public and Congress in the dark, as the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Russia’s commercial nuclear ambitions:

  1. The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the Hillary Clinton’s State Department and Obama government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20% of America’s uranium supply.
  2. The second nuclear deal was made in 2011 when the Obama administration approved Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary’s sale of commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in partnership with the U.S. Enrichment Corp.

Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials, “a person who worked on the case” told The Hill:

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions.

Congress was kept in the dark.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal:

“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them. The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

In 2015, conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the Russian nuclear deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal — all of which is a lie.

FBI, Department of Energy and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — Moscow director of Rosatom’s Tenex and the main Russian official overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — had been engaged in bribery since 2009.

Despite the FBI’s knowledge of Russian bribery, then-AG Eric Holder, who headed the DOJ (and therefore the FBI, an agency within the DOJ), was on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States together with Hillary Clinton when the committee approved the Uranium One deal.

Neither the spokesman for Holder nor for Hillary returned calls from The Hill seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.

Absurdly, the same figures who were in charge of the FBI investigations of Russian bribery since 2009, are now involved in the investigation of alleged, but still unproven after more than 8 months of investigation, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign:

  • Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who, as U.S. Attorney, had supervised the FBI investigation into Russian nuclear bribery, now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general.
  • Andrew McCabe was assistant FBI director in 2009 and now deputy FBI director under Trump. Ironically, McCabe himself is under congressional and DOJ inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.
  • Robert Mueller was FBI director in 2009, and now the special counsel in charge of the Trump investigation.

See also Guy Benson, “WaPo: Documents show Russians sought meetings with Trump campaign…and Team Trump declined,” Townhall, August 15, 2017.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Friday Funnies!

H/t maziel and John Molloy

~Eowyn

Hillary Clinton launches book tour with tickets selling for up to $1,200

Hillary Clinton devil woman

The pity party rolls on, at a price of course.

From Daily Mail: Hillary Clinton will be back in the spotlight this fall for an unprecedented, big-ticket book tour for her new tome What Happened, with tickets priced as high as $1,200. 

On Monday, the ex-Democratic nominee announced ‘Hillary Clinton Live,’ a 15-city tour, which includes stops in a handful of states she lost in the election last year.

Promotional materials for her first stop, at the Warner Theatre in Washington, D.C., promises Clinton plans to ‘let loose’ and tell her audience a ‘personal, raw, detailed and surprisingly funny story’ of her election loss and recovery.

The website promoting the tour, HillaryClintonBookTour.com, features a quote from Clinton too.

‘In the past, for reasons I try to explain, I’ve often felt I had to be careful in public, like I was up on a wire without a net,’ she said. ‘Now I’m letting my guard down,’ she pledged.

The tour kicks off on September 18 in D.C. and continues on all through fall.

Clinton is making stops in the trio of states that are largely blamed for her election loss: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

Sticking to blue areas within those states, she’ll head to Ann Arbor, Michigan on October 24, Milwaukee, Wisconsin on November 9 – exactly one year to the day that she gave her concession speech – and then head on to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 30.

Clinton is hitting up a trio of Canadian cities too, making appearances in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.   Top-tier ticket packages in those cities cost $3,000 Canadian dollars for two seats, or, in American dollars, about $1,200 a pop.

There are cheaper seats in the states with tickets costing between $50 and $350 to see Clinton in Broward, Florida – another state that she lost to now-President Trump.  Clinton will also visit UC Davis, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Boston, Seattle and Portland.

The former secretary of state, senator and first lady already gave audiences a taste of What Happened in the form of two clips from its audio book, which were aired on Morning Joe last week.

In one of the clips, she talks about what it was like to have Trump breathing down her neck, literally, during the second presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri. ‘It was incredibly uncomfortable he was literally breathing down my neck,’ Clinton said. ‘My skin crawled.’

Clinton said that no matter where she walked onstage, Trump followed.  ‘Staring at me, making faces,’ she said, adding that she would have loved to have ‘hit pause’ and ask everyone in the audience, ‘well, what would you do?’

‘Do you say calm, keep smiling and carry-on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye and say loudly and clearly, “Back up you creep, get away from me! I know you love to intimidate women, but you can’t intimidate me, so back up!“‘ Clinton said.

What Happened hits bookshelves on September 12.

DCG

Trump Fights Back on 3 Fronts: against Antifa, Democrats & Russian conspiracy theory

According to Joey Millar of Jews News, Aug. 17, 2017, Tony Schwartz, the ghost-writer of Donald Trump’s best-selling memoir The Art of the Deal, said President Trump could resign in a matter of weeks in exchange for immunity in the investigation into Russia’s alleged interfering with last November’s presidential election.

Schwartz, who has been a fierce critic of Trump throughout the first seven months of his presidency, said the situation is reaching boiling:

“The circle is closing at blinding speed. Trump is going to resign and declare victory before Mueller and Congress leave him no choice. Trump’s presidency is effectively over. Would be amazed if he survives till the end of the year. More likely resigns by fall, if not sooner. He has gone over the line of acceptability so far there is no return. The Russia stuff will be huge. He doesn’t want to go to jail.”

Really, Schwartz?

Instead of resigning, President Trump is fighting back.

Two days ago, Sean Hannity sent out a series of intriguing tweets:

“3 different fronts”? Um . . . .

Here are three possibilities.

Front #1: Trump DOJ declares war on Antifa

DisruptJ20, a coalition of Antifa groups, was among the communist organizations that planned activities, including terrorist activities, to disrupt the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. (See “Video evidence of the Left’s terrorist plans for Trump inauguration”)

DreamHost, headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, is the firm that hosts DisruptJ20’s website, disruptj20.org.

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally requested that DreamHost turn over 1.3 million IP addresses and other information to “unmask” disruptj20’s subscribers, as part of the investigation into crimes committed on and around January 20 by rioters. 

On July 12, 2017, the DOJ served DreamHost a warrant, ordering the web-host “to assist” law enforcement’s search of its electronic files because the DOJ “has probable cause to believe that in the premises controlled by DreamHost Inc., there is now being concealed property, namely stored electronic communications including but not limited to digital files, records, messages and photographs” that are “in violation of D.C. Code § 22-1322 [on rioting or inciting to riot] involving the individuals who participated, planed, organized, or incited the January 20 riot”.

The warrant specifies that the property to be searched is any “information associated with http://www.disruptj20.org that is stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled, or operated by DreamHost”, including:

“all information in the possession of DreamHost that might identify the subscribers related to those accounts or identifiers, including names, addresses, telephone numbers…, e-mail addresses, business information, the length of service (including start date), means and source of payment for services (including any credit card or bank account numbers), and information about any domain name registration….”

DreamHost is challenging the DOJ warrant, on the grounds that the scope of data requested violates the first and fourth amendments because it is too broad. Interestingly, Goldman Sachs is a major investor in DreamHost. (ZeroHedge)

Front #2: GOP Meets with Wikileaks Julian Assange

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange met with a U.S. government official for the first time.

GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Assange has been living in political asylum for the past 5 years. The meeting was reportedly set up by conservative journalist Charles C. Johnson, who claimed that Rohrabacher “would be the envoy in charge of bringing back a deal to the Trump White House.”

Rohrabacher said that in the meeting, Assange “reaffirmed his aggressive denial that the Russians had anything to do with the hacking of the DNC during the election. He has given us a lot of information. He said there’s more to come. We don’t have the entire picture yet.”

Rohrabacher said the information he received from Assange would have “an earth-shattering political impact” and that “It wouldn’t be so important if Democrats hadn’t focused so inordinately on the Russians. Democrats are creating a total upheaval over this. I have some information to give the president before I give information to anyone else.” (Breitbart)

That suggests to me that the “earth-shattering” information Assange gave Rohrabacher has to do with iron-clad evidence that, contrary to what the Democrats and their MSM mouthpieces keep insisting, Russia did not hack into the DNC emails nor interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

Rohrabacher is recommending that Assange be pardoned. He told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview yesterday that Assange is hoping to leave the Ecuadorian embassy and that during the meeting they explored “what might be necessary to get him out.” Rohrabacher said: “if [Assange] is going to give us a big favor, he would obviously have to be pardoned to leave the Ecuadorian embassy.”

Front #3: Imran Awan Indicted

Yesterday, August 17, 2017, Imran Awan, 37, a former IT aide of former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was indicted by a grand jury on four counts including bank fraud and making false statements.

The indictment also includes Awan’s wife Hina Alvi.

Fox News reports that the grand jury decision in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia comes roughly a month after Awan was arrested at Dulles airport in Virginia trying to flee the U.S. by boarding a plane to his native Pakistan.

Awan and other IT aides for House Democrats have been on investigators’ radar for months over concerns of possible double-billing, alleged equipment theft, and access to sensitive computer systems. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Schultz had kept him on even after Awan had been barred from the House IT network.

The indictment addresses separate allegations that Awan and his wife engaged in a conspiracy to obtain home equity lines of credit from the Congressional Federal Credit Union by giving false information about two properties – and then sending the proceeds to individuals in Pakistan.

Awan and other family members for years had a lucrative arrangement for IT-related work on Capitol Hill for House Democrats, from which the Awan family had made at least $4 million since 2009, according to The Daily Caller.

In a recent interview published in the Sun Sentinel, Wasserman Schultz blamed the “right-wing media circus fringe” for the attention on Awan, and that it’s all part of an effort to distract from the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign and possible ties to President Trump’s team.

Her colleagues in Congress, though, say there are serious security implications in her former staffer’s case. “We have to investigate how our systems may have been compromised,” Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., recently told “Fox & Friends.”

In his IT work in Congress, Awan had access to all kinds of sensitive information. Expect him to sing like canary so as to cut a deal with prosecutors for a lesser sentence.

~Eowyn

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

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

Alyssa Milano is fighting to hold Trump accountable for Russia “Collusion”

alyssa milano

Alyssa Milano (r) campaigning for loser Jon Ossoff

Well, it’s not like she is an in-demand actress. Might as well have a graduate of the “independent co-educational institution” (Buckley High School) educate y’all on the concept of “collusion.”

From Daily Beast: If you happened to be strolling the streets of northern Atlanta on March 28, you could have scored a ride from Alyssa Milano.

The star of Who’s the Boss? and Charmed took a break from filming a new CW pilot to drive people to the polls in support of Jon Ossoff, a fresh-faced Democrat hoping to flip Georgia’s 6th congressional district (He LOST). Milano was arguably the most vocal celebrity supporter of the 30-year-old political neophyte, donating her time, money, and 3.1 million strong Twitter account to the cause.

When Ossoff not-so-narrowly lost the special election to Republican Karen Handel, the actress fired off an innocuous tweet—one that, two days later, drew a creepy reply from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), winking face emoji and all.

“My initial reaction was that I had to check the account four times to make sure it wasn’t a parody account. I was like, ‘This is really coming from Ted Cruz?!’” recalls Milano. “I think what he was doing was actually giving me a dig, right? I think it was a dig…but it didn’t surprise anyone coming from Ted Cruz.”

The Bensonhurst native swiftly put the Campbell’s Chunky Soup-loving lawmaker in his place.

Yes, when it comes to ‘80s TV icons the right may have Chachi but the left has Milano, who’s been gracing our television screens since she was 11 (her new series, Wet Hot American Summer: Ten Years Later, premieres on Netflix August 4). And in the wake of her Ossoff campaigning, she’s decided to launch a website—along with actor Misha Collins—that “allows you to contact your representative, via phone, email or video, and demand they take action now” and “hold the Trump administration accountable for collusion with Russia.” Its slogan—or hashtag—is #patriotnotpartisan.

“It’s very easy to sit behind our computers and bitch about the administration, but in everything I do I want to empower people to make a difference and know in themselves that they can make a difference,” Milano tells me.

“And this concept of ‘collusion’ and Russia is a very obscure concept for people to really grasp, so I hope this campaign puts into words what’s really going on in a simple way so that other people can grasp the concepts,” she continues. “In particular, this idea of ‘patriot not partisan’ is very near and dear to my heart because I feel like the far-right has hijacked the word ‘patriot,’ and it upsets me. I’m not any less of a patriot because my ideas are different.”

Milano, who is 44, created the website in response to all of the curious connections between the Trump camp and Russia—ones that are currently being investigated by the Department of Justice under special counsel Robert Mueller.

Read the rest of the story here and become educated!

h/t Twitchy

DCG