Category Archives: US Presidents

Whoopi Goldberg defends Creepy Joe Biden (of course); doesn’t want him to change his ways

From Yahoo (via HuffPo): Whoopi Goldberg defended former Vice President Joe Biden following an allegation that he inappropriately touched and kissed a former Nevada assemblywoman, saying she doesn’t want the likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidate to change his behavior.

Goldberg, a co-host on ‘The View,’ was irked when colleague Sunny Hostin predicted during Monday’s program that Biden would curb his tactile tendencies with women after Lucy Flores said she felt uncomfortable when Biden placed his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair and kissing the back of her head at a 2014 campaign event. Flores was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in Nevada and Biden was appearing on her behalf.

“I don’t know that we will see any more smelling of hair and kisses on the forehead,” Hostin said of the controversy, eliciting a strong rebuke from Goldberg.

“That pisses me off,” she said. “I don’t want Joe to stop doing that.”

Meghan McCain, another “View” co-host and daughter of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), agreed, suggesting Biden’s behavior was simply part of his brand.

“There’s a certain type of retail politician that loves people,” she said. “I would put Bill Clinton in that category, I would put my father in that category, I would certainly put Joe Biden in that category. When he came on this show, he was the only politician other than my father to go into the crowd and shake everyone’s hand.”

Bill Clinton…a “hands on kind of guy”

Goldberg also noted that Biden is known to be “a hands-on kind of guy,” which is evident from photos of his interpersonal interactions spanning years, some of which show him touching shoulders and at least one in which he is pictured holding a reporter’s waist.

“In the old days, we would call Joe ― some folks of a certain age would say he’s a little overly familiar,” Goldberg said.

Goldberg said that she took Flores’ account seriously. But she also argued that Flores, who lost the lieutenant governor’s race, should have directly told Biden to stop.

“My point is, I want women to get to the place where they can say, ‘Hey, you just made me uncomfortable.’ This idea that you have to tippy-toe away from this or you have to carry [it] ― you do not have to carry it. If someone makes you uncomfortable, tell them.

On Sunday, moments before Flores appeared on CNN to discuss the allegation that she first detailed in a New York magazine article published Friday, Biden released a statement saying he would “listen respectfully” to women alleging he had displayed inappropriate affection toward them but that it had never been his intention to do so.

He also said that “not once ― never ― did I believe I acted inappropriately.

During her CNN interview, Flores suggested that Biden’s comments indicate he lacks awareness of how women ought to be treated. She also said that her experience wasn’t the first time he crossed boundaries.

Biden’s defense of himself was bolstered on Sunday by Stephanie Carter, whose husband served as defense secretary during President Barack Obama’s second term in office. Biden, as vice president, attended the swearing-in ceremony for Ash Carter, and a widely circulated photo showed him resting his hands on her shoulders from behind and whispering into her ear.

Questions were raised at the time about Biden’s action. But in an essay in Medium, Stephanie Carter disputed that Biden had acted inappropriately. “The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful,” she wrote.

DCG

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

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Eric Holder: “MAGA is inconsistent with who we are as Americans”

See the whole interview with Holder here.

DCG

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

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Creepy Joe Biden blames sexual assaults on “white man’s culture”

This guy Biden, THIS OLD WHITE MAN, is “still well-liked by Americans.”

According to a Gallup poll on March 7, even though he has not declared his candidacy, 56% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Creepy Joe Biden. According to the NY Intelligencer, a “a Biden–Abrams Ticket Is a Brilliant Idea for Both Biden and Abrams.”

Wonder how the mainstream media will push (or not) Biden forward once his latest nugget of knowledge (aka, selling identity politics) comes out.
Where do we start…

From NY Post: Women have been suffering in “a white man’s culture” — which has continually turned a blind eye to sexual assault and misconduct, according to former Vice President Joe Biden, who propped up Anita Hill as an example.

“To this day I regret I couldn’t come up with a way to give her the kind of hearing she deserved,” Biden said Tuesday while speaking at an event to combat sexual violence on college campuses. “But I also realized there was a real and perceived problem the [Senate Judiciary] committee faced: They’re a bunch of white guys.

The 76-year-old Democrat continued, “No, I mean it sincerely — a bunch of white guys…hearing this testimony. So…when Anita Hill came to testify, she faced a committee that didn’t fully understand what the hell it was all about.”

Biden, who was Judiciary chairman for the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, got criticized heavily for his handling of the Hill situation. Thomas was accused of harassing Hill, who is black, while he was her supervisor.

“Last fall, you saw it all over again in the Kavanaugh hearing,” Biden blasted. “Almost 30 years…the culture — the institutional culture — has not changed. We have an obligation to change the culture in this country.”

Later on during his speech, Biden brought up a widespread misconception about the “rule of thumb” being an old reference to British common law and it’s tolerance of domestic abuse.

“This is English jurisprudential culture — a white man’s culture,” Biden said, describing how people think the “rule of thumb” was a law that allowed husbands to beat their wives with sticks no thicker than their thumbs. “It’s got to change,” he repeated.

Describing sexual assault, Biden claimed it was “about the abuse of power.”

“It’s not about sex,” he said. “It’s about power. The most insidious abuse of power of all. And right now we live in a culture where the abuse of power is allowed to penetrate the highest offices of government, where it lives in board rooms and global corporations, and it poisons entire industries — from Hollywood to hotel workers. It pushes down women all around the world.”

Biden spoke for more than a half hour during Tuesday’s event, which was held at the Russian Tea Room in Manhattan. He repeatedly condemned violence against women throughout his speech.

No man has a right to lay a hand on a woman, no matter what she’s wearing, she does, who she is…Never,” Biden said. “If you see a brother taking an inebriated co-ed up the stairs at a fraternity house and you don’t go and stop it, you’re a damn coward. You don’t deserve to be called a man.”

DCG

There’s ample evidence that Biden is a pedophile. Below is a compilation of pics of him pawing, touching little girls.

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
 

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
 

Rapper Cardi B says she drugged, robbed men because she had “limited options”

Don’t believe the feminists’ lies. Stripper careers do not “empower” women.

And as for Cardi B and her “limited options” excuse, girlfriend should learn about Nick Vujicic. Not everyone succumbs to the notion of perpetual victimhood…

From Fox News: After a video surfaced of Cardi B admitting to robbing and drugging men, the singer is explaining herself.

In the clip from an Instagram Live recorded three years ago, the rapper said, “I had to go strip, I had to go, ‘Oh yeah, you want to f–k me? Yeah, yeah, yeah, let’s go back to this hotel,’ and I drugged n—–s up, and I robbed them. That’s what I used to do,” (via Hip Hop Ratchet) she explained.

After horrified social media users responded to the 26-year-old star’s confession with the hashtag #SurvivingCardiB (in reference to the R. Kelly documentary “Surviving R. Kelly”) Cardi took to Instagram to explain her actions.

“So I’m seeing on social media that [an Instagram] live I did 3 years ago has popped back up. A live where I talked about things I had to do in my past right or wrong that I felt I needed to do to make a living,” she wrote in a post on Tuesday. “I never claim (sic) to be perfect or come from a perfect world wit (sic) a perfect past I always speak my truth I always own my s–t.”

The star said that while many artists glorify violence and crime, that was never her style.

“There are rappers that glorify murder violence drugs an (sic) robbing. Crimes they feel they had to do to survive,” she said. “I never glorified the things I brought up in that live I never even put those things in my music because I’m not proud of it and feel responsibility not to glorify it.”

While the former stripper said she was not proud of her actions, she felt they were necessary at the time.

I made the choices that I did at the time because I had very limited options. I was blessed to have been able to rise from that but so many women have not,” she said. “Whether or not they were poor choices at the time I did what I had to do to survive.”

And the Bronx native clarified that all the men she referred to in the clip were men who she was dating and she claims they knew what she was doing.

“The men I spoke about in my life were men that I dated that I was involved with men that [they] were conscious willing and aware,” she said. “I have a past that I can’t change we all do.”

She continued, “all I can do now is be a better me for myself my family and my future.”

Cardi is married to rapper Offset, with whom she shares 8-month-old daughter, Kulture.

DCG

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

Please follow and like us:
0
 

No justice: Chicago prosecutors drop all charges against fake hate-crime actor Jussie Smollett

On February 21, 2019, actor Jussie Smollett, 36, turned himself in to Chicago police after he was charged with a felony for lying to police when he claimed to be the victim of a racist and homophobic attack.

Smollett, best known for the Fox TV show Empire, who is both black and “gay”, had told police that on January 29, at around 1:30 a.m., he was accosted by two men in downtown Chicago who shouted racist and homophobic slurs, beat him up, poured bleach on him, wrapped a noose around his neck, and warned him that “This is MAGA country!”– a reference to President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

But Smollett’s story completely fell apart: Not only had he purchased the “lyncing” rope wrapped around his neck, Smollett had paid $3500 to two Nigerian brothers, Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo, who are also black, to stage the fake racist-homophobic attack on him. (See my post “Fake Hate Crime: Hollyweirdo Jussie Smollett arrested“)

On the day of his arrest, at a press conference, Chicago police superintendent Eddie Johnson fumed with righteous indigation that as a black man who’s grown up in Chicago, he’s “offended” and “angry” with Smollett taking advantage of the pain and anger and racism to promote his acting career.

We were told Smollett could face probation or up to three years in prison if convicted. But the news today is that Chicago prosecutors have dropped all charges — and the fingerprints of the Obamas and George Soros are all over this stunning reversal.

Page Six reports:

The criminal case against “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett took a stunning turn Tuesday when Chicago prosecutors abruptly dropped all of the charges — after slapping him with 16 felony counts for allegedly staging a hate crime attack.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office only offered a vague explanation why it was allowing Smollett to skate in the case following a surprise, five-minute court appearance in which Judge Steven Watkins sealed the case file.

“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollet’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case,” the office said.

The move comes just a week after Chicago’s police union demanded a federal probe into the county’s top prosecutor for allegedly interfering in the case after being contacted by Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff.

The Fraternal Order of Police, which represents the department’s rank-and-file, sent a letter asking the Department of Justice to probe Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.

Foxx tried to convince Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to turn Smollett’s case over to the FBI — after Tina Tchen, the former senior Obama aide, reached out to her, saying the “Empire” star’s family had “concerns.”

Foxx had recused herself from the case in February because she had reached out to one of Smollett’s relatives and acted as a go-between with the cops.

All charges against Smollett will be wiped clean. His two attorneys said: “The state dismissed the charges. We believe it was the correct result.… We are very anxious for Jussie to get on with his life.”

First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Magats (rhymes with “maggots”) — who took over the case after Foxx recused herself — said his office considered the incident a “nonviolent crime” and that Smollett has no felony criminal background. Magats insisted that dropping the charges does not mean Smollett was, in fact, the victim of a crime. He said: “Absolutely not. We stand behind the CPD investigation done in this case, we stand behind the approval of charges in this case. They did a fantastic job. The fact there was an alternative disposition in this case is not and should not be viewed as some kind of admission there was something wrong with the case, or something wrong with the investigation that the Chicago police did.”

Blah, blah, blah.

But Smollett’s attorneys, Holmes and Glandian, are sticking to Smollett’s fake story and portraying him as the real victim. They said:

“Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgment.

Jussie and many others were hurt by these unfair and unwarranted actions. This entire situation is a reminder that there should never be an attempt to prove a case in the court of public opinion. That is wrong. It is a reminder that a victim, in this case Jussie, deserves dignity and respect. Dismissal of charges against the victim in this case was the only just result.”

For their part, Smollett’s family shamelessly proclaims Jussie’s innocence. They said:

“Our son and brother is an innocent man whose name and character has been unjustly smeared. Jussie is a son, a brother, a partner, a champion for human rights, and a genuine soul who would never be capable of what he was falsely accused of. He was the victim of an assault and then falsely blamed for his own attack. This morning truth has prevailed and he has been vindicated. All charges have been dismissed and his record expunged.”

There is no longer justice in America. The America I thought I once knew is gone and may be never was.

Update: Just after I published this post, it came to my attention that George Soros had donated $408,000 in 2016 to a super PAC that supported Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, whose office prosecuted — and dropped — the Jussie Smollett case. (Breitbart)

H/t Big Lug

~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
 

Video that big tech is censoring: Another day in Trump’s America

The man who did this video, Paul Martinez, says that YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are censoring his video. It did take me some time to find it, and others noted this on YouTube as well. Cowards…

DCG

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