Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, July 28, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Grandpa's little cutie... One of the flock.
Here we go!!!!!
THE LIBERTY DAILY
There’s a Direct Line from Obama, Holder, Rice, Lois Lerner, and Clinton to FBI Scandals
https://ift.tt/2OgLhPH
![TUCKER CARLSON BOMBSHELL: FBI COLLUDED WITH SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER [SPLC] LEFTIST HATE GROUP AND IS STILL DOING IT! [VIDEO]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/LLQQaXR7UeMrmUbSkPtSdKahgS99LiZBTPNVvuASoZ68mTjN8FLDKQnX5N9vtCZeA5JkKUT7DCgvpFGi_Wbw0LtNCN_tkPMI96A_JNudGMCGjuBHNm_zX6FyKKSfWy9dJ_JjHCNi)
TUCKER CARLSON BOMBSHELL: FBI COLLUDED WITH SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER (SPLC) LEFTIST HATE GROUP AND IS STILL DOING IT! (VIDEO)
Rep. Matt Gaetz: ‘Money Was Paid to People to Collect Intelligence on the Trump Campaign’
4.1%!
Five Clues Don Jr.’s Trump Tower Meeting Was Set Up as Dem Dirty Trick
Getty: Hannah Peters, Alex Wong, Spencer Platt; Arr: BNNNEW YORK — Amid renewed news media attention focusing on the infamous brief meeting at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016 between individuals tied to Russia, Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign officials, it is instructive to review the largely unreported details surrounding the get-together that point to the increasing likelihood of the confab being set up as a dirty trick against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Below, in no particular order, are five key details drawn from Breitbart News investigative reporting that raise immediate questions about the possibility of anti-Trump shady business at play in arranging the infamous meeting.
1 – Rob Goldstone, the English publicist and music manager, admitted that when he wrote Donald Trump Jr. to set up the meeting with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower he used deliberately hyperbolic language to ensure that the meeting took place. In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed in full by Breitbart News, Goldstone further said that he believes the meeting was a “bait and switch” by a Russian lobbyist seeking a meeting on another matter by misleadingly claiming to be bringing the Trump campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Trump Jr. previously explained that he took the meeting thinking it was about “opposition research” on Hillary Clinton and was disappointed that it wasn’t.
The meeting was set up by Goldstone, who had contacted Trump Jr. on behalf of his client Emin Agalarov, a Russian singer and businessman who is the son of Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov. Aras Agalarov organized the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow when the pageant was partially owned by Donald Trump.
On behalf of Emin Agalarov, Goldstone had emailed Trump Jr. to set up a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lobbyist acting to counter the Magnitsky Act.
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your fat This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
The email was widely cited by the news media, with many claiming the message represented some sort of collusion with Russia.
Russia does not have a “Crown prosecutor.” Rhona Graff served as President Donald Trump’s longtime secretary.
In recently released Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, Goldstone admitted to using deliberately hyperbolic language to ensure that the meeting took place.
Goldstone was asked to clarify a draft statement he sent to the committee stating, “I, therefore, used the strongest hyperbolic language in order to secure this request from Donald Trump Jr. based on the bare facts I was given.”
“Mr. Goldstone, in your capacity as a music publicist, have you at times used hyperbolic language or exaggeration or hype as part of your pitch?” Goldstone was asked.
“At most times, yes,” he replied.
“So if I understand your statement right, you were saying that your email on June 3rd to Mr. Trump was an example of this hyperbolic exaggeration type?” he was asked.
Goldstone replied, “It was an example of, I was given very limited information, and my job was to get a meeting, and so I used my professional use of words to emphasize what my client had only given bare-bones information about, in order to get the attention of Mr. Trump Jr.”
Elsewhere in the testimony, Goldstone says it appeared the claim of damaging information on Clinton was used to pull a “bait and switch” on the campaign.
2 – All participants in the meeting who have spoken publicly say no Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton was discussed.
All meeting participants agree the confab focused largely on the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials accused of involvement in the death of a Russian tax accountant, as well as talk about a Russian tax evasion scheme and alleged connections to the Democratic National Committee.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who led the meeting, told the Wall Street Journal that she approached Russian real estate magnate Aras Agalarov, whom she was representing, to help set up a meeting with the Trump campaign as part of her efforts opposing the Magnitsky Act. She was also looking to spread information about Bill Browder, the primary supporter of the Magnitsky Act, she said.
A widely circulated Associated Press article released yesterday and titled, “Emails: Lawyer who met Trump Jr. tied to Russian officials,” concedes meeting participants saw the confab as a waste of time.
The AP article, centered on emails purportedly from Veselnitskaya obtained by the Dossier Center, relates:
In particular, the Dossier Center’s investigation turned up almost no messages about the Trump Tower meeting, its lead-up or its aftermath. The group said it received only a few messages dealing with the media queries when the meeting became public in mid-2017.
That could lend credence to arguments by the Trump campaign and Veselnitskaya that both sides quickly realized the get-together was a waste of time.
“I wanted to go away as soon as possible,” she told Congress. “And I felt Trump Jr. wanted the same too.”
3 – Two Russians at the meeting evidenced a larger relationship with Fusion GPS and the controversial firm’s co-founder Glenn Simpson. The Russia collusion conspiracy theory was sparked by the discredited dossier produced by Fusion GPS, which was paid for its anti-Trump work by Trump’s primary political opponents, namely Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) via the Perkins Coie law firm.
Email transcripts and other information disclosed in testimony released by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal a significant relationship between Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, who was present at the Trump Tower meeting, and Fusion GPS. Veselnitskaya also worked closely with Fusion GPS on a legal matter.
Akhmetshin’s November 14, 2017 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee contained numerous sections that detail his past relationship with Fusion GPS and Simpson. Some of that relationship, which also involved Veselnitskaya, spanned the period just prior to the meeting with Trump Jr.
In one instance, Akhmetshin was asked about an email obtained by the Senate committee in which he described Fusion’s Simpson as a “colleague.”
The email related to the Russian-linked Prevezon Holdings Ltd., a firm that had settled a case in the U.S. involving the purchase of real estate with allegedly laundered money, accusations that centered around the Magnitsky Act.
Veselnitskaya, who countered the Magnitsky Act along with Akhmetshin, was an attorney for Prevezon. Veselnitskaya was involved in the case since it investigated financier Bill Browder, who successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act and was a witness in the Prevezon legal matter. Fusion GPS investigated Browder for another client and their findings were used in the Prevezon trial.
In his testimony, one Senate griller asked Akhmetshin about a December 2015 email from a Bloomberg News reporter that states he was told that Akhmetshin was “handling media calls” for Prevezon and its owner.
Akhmetshin’s email reply, in which he calls Fusion GPS’s Simpson “my colleague” was read aloud: “I am traveling this week, but my colleague Glenn Simpson, cc’d , will be able to brief you on the particulars of the case.”
Another email read in the testimony described plans for a February 4, 2016 dinner meeting between Simpson, Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya, with Akhmetshin confirming that he did have a meeting with Simpson and Veselnitskaya around that time, possibly dinner. This puts Simpson in person with two participants in the Trump Jr. meeting just four months before the June 2016 Trump Tower meet, although Akhmetshin described the meeting with Simpson as being about the Prevezon case.
Akhmetshin further describes pitching stories directly to Simpson while Simpson was a journalist prior to his co-founding of Fusion GPS. Simpson previously worked for the Wall Street Journal.
Akhmetshin also relates a previous working relationship with Simpson’s wife, pitching her stories while she served at the Wall Street Journal.
4 – A key participant at the Trump Tower meeting said that he “knows” Hillary Clinton and has a personal relationship with her that dates back to the late-1990s. Besides describing a direct connection to Clinton, Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin also testified that he “knew some people who worked on” Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Akhmetshin further revealed that the same day of the Trump Tower meeting he met with a Clinton associate after the confab and possibly also just before.
In his senate testimony (cited above), Akhmetshin related a personal connection to Clinton via attorney Ed Lieberman, whose late wife Evelyn previously served as Clinton’s chief of staff when she was First Lady. Evelyn Lieberman also served as Bill Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and famously transferred Monica Lewinsky out of the White House to the Defense Department.
The New York Times previously reported that Lieberman in 1998 arranged for Akhmitshi’s position at “an organization pushing what he described as a pro-democracy agenda for Kazakhstan.” Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says he met Akhmetshin through Lieberman.
In his Senate testimony, Akhmetshin described taking an Acela train to New York the day of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, and says that Lieberman “may” have been with him on the train.
Akhmetshin says his dealings with Lieberman in New York that day were “personal” and centered on a scholarship program that he claims Lieberman started. “And he was in New York that day to discuss arrangements with Metropolitan Museum with kind of taking care of that scholarship award,” Akhmetshi stated.
Akhmetshin says that while he was in New York, he had lunch with Veselnitskaya, who told him about the scheduled meeting that day at Trump Tower, but she didn’t say anything about him attending.
He claims that after he had lunch with Veselnitskaya, she called him and asked him to attend the Trump Tower meeting, but she didn’t suggest any role he would play at the meeting or why he should attend.
After the meeting at Trump Tower, Akhmetshin says he went to dinner and a play with Lieberman, and the subject of the meeting that same day did not come up in his conversations with Lieberman at dinner or during the play. Akhmetshin also stated in the testimony that he was not asked to keep the meeting confidential.
In other words, Akhmetshin is claiming that he attended a meeting at the campaign headquarters of Clinton’s presidential challenger with that challenger’s son and other top Trump staffers, and that same night Akhmetshin did not even mention the meeting to his friend Lieberman, a Clinton associate.
He also said he had drinks that same night with another “friend” but could not remember who that friend was.
Later, when Akhmetshin described disclosing another matter to journalist friends, he was questioned about his claim that he didn’t tell Lieberman that same night about the Trump Jr. meeting, yet he seemingly evidenced a lack of discretion with reporters.
During further questioning in Senate testimony, Akhmetshin admitted to possibly telling Clinton associate Lieberman about the Trump Tower meeting, but says he may have told him on another day and not the night they met the same day as the meeting.
Akhmetshin detailed knowing Hillary Clinton since the late 1990s and last seeing her at Evelyn Lieberman’s 2015 funeral. In the same testimony, Akhmetshin says he “knew” some of the people who worked on Clinton’s 2016 campaign
5 – Akhmetshin admits to being present at the same security conference in Canada where Sen. John McCain was reportedly first informed about the anti-Trump dossier. Akhmetshin says he might have spoken to McCain and the senator’s assistant David J. Kramer at the Halifax International Security Forum in 2016.
It was at the security conference in Canada in November 2016 that McCain says he was approached by Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow and friend of ex-British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier.
Wood briefed McCain and Kramer, a former State Department official and longtime McCain associate who agreed to meet Steele in London for a fuller briefing on the dossier contents.
The Washington Post reported in February that after meeting with Steele, Kramer went to Washington and received the dossier document directly from Fusion GPS. McCain then passed the dossier to FBI Director James Comey.
In a New York Times op ed in January, GPS co-founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritch wrote that they helped McCain share their anti-Trump dossier with the Obama-era intelligence community via an unnamed “emissary.”
In testimony his Senate testimony, Akhmetsin describes attending the Halifax security conference in 2016, but claimed he played no role in the contact where Wood connected with McCain and Kramer to inform them of the dossier’s existence. Ahmetshin also claimed he was not aware of the dossier at the time.
Akhmetshin said he “might” have “said hi” to McCain but could not say for sure. In other words, Akhmetshin is claiming he is not certain whether he spoke to one of the most famous American politicians, something that would seemingly be quite memorable to most people.
The Russian lobbyist also said he “might have spoken with” Kramer but would not give a definitive answer.
Akhmetshin also stated that he had a previous relationship with McCain. “I knew Senator McCain when he was running years ago because I had friends who were — did advance work for him,” Akmetshin said, referring to McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
‘Kamala Harris knows rent is too high’: That’s why she’s pushing a law for taxpayers to foot the bill
Democrat Kamala Harris, a junior senator from California, is proving the cliché that liberals are experts at spending OPM (Other People’s Money) and promising “free sh–” while pandering for votes.
Harris wants American taxpayers who work hard to pay their own rents or mortgages to pay the rents of minimum-wage workers.
Harris has introduced a bill called the Rent Relief Act, which would “give money back” to renters with minimum-wage jobs who pay more than 30 percent of their monthly income on rent and utilities.
That covers tens of millions of people. Even high-income individuals typically spend about 30% of their gross monthly income on rent or a mortgage.
In a video, Harris said: “America’s affordable housing crisis has left too many families behind who struggle each month to keep a roof over their head. This bill will ensure no family is priced out of the basic security of a place to live.”
Apparently, the idea of living in a less-expensive apartment or taking a roommate is a foreign concept to liberals. But under Harris’ plan, you don’t have to live on a budget because someone else will pay your rent for you.
Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, and Maggie Hassan support for this latest Democratic “free stuff” gimmick that’s a transparent bid to buy voters.
It’s no coincidence that this latest “free sh–” ploy is coming three months before the crucial November 2018 midterm elections.
While the idea of helping other people pay their rents is commendable, Harris forgets that most people are busy trying to make ends meet in their own households.
Many on Twitter asked where is the money come from? Others pointed that such government subsidies will only ensure that landlords deliberately inflate rents since they know their tenants will get help making their monthly payments.
Kamala Harris knows rent is too high — so she’s proposing a law that will give money back to families paying more than 30% of their income on rent. This should assure an increase in rents.
Kamala Harris knows rent is too high — so she’s proposing a law that will give money back to families paying more than 30% of their income on rent. This should assure an increase in rents.
Harris has introduced a bill called the Rent Relief Act, which would “give money back” to renters with minimum-wage jobs who pay more than 30 percent of their monthly income on rent and utilities.
That covers tens of millions of people. Even high-income individuals typically spend about 30% of their gross monthly income on rent or a mortgage.
In a video, Harris said: “America’s affordable housing crisis has left too many families behind who struggle each month to keep a roof over their head. This bill will ensure no family is priced out of the basic security of a place to live.”
Apparently, the idea of living in a less-expensive apartment or taking a roommate is a foreign concept to liberals. But under Harris’ plan, you don’t have to live on a budget because someone else will pay your rent for you.
Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, and Maggie Hassan support for this latest Democratic “free stuff” gimmick that’s a transparent bid to buy voters.
It’s no coincidence that this latest “free sh–” ploy is coming three months before the crucial November 2018 midterm elections.
While the idea of helping other people pay their rents is commendable, Harris forgets that most people are busy trying to make ends meet in their own households.
Many on Twitter asked where is the money come from? Others pointed that such government subsidies will only ensure that landlords deliberately inflate rents since they know their tenants will get help making their monthly payments.
Another person remarked: “It is absolutely idiotic to require that the middle of the country subsidize the rents of people who choose to live in Cali and NY. It’s amoral and will only push rents higher in those places.”
What, Us Socialists? Dems Try To Deny What Their Party Is Fast Becoming
Political Parties: Democrats have been very busy lately trying to tell the public that theirs is not an extremist socialist party. But the public sees through the smoke screen. Just a third now see the Democratic Party as mainstream.
This month, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked if the public believed that Democratic candidates for Congress were "in the mainstream," or "out of step."
Just 33% said they felt Democrats were mainstream, while 56% said they were out of step. That's a dramatic turnaround from just two years ago, when 48% said Democrats were mainstream and only 42% said they were out of step.
To be sure, the public is equally split on Republicans: 33% say they're mainstream, and 57% say they're out of step. But while Democrats have lost significant ground, Republicans are gaining — which is remarkable given the nearly 100% negative coverage the party gets.
The public, it seems, is finally picking up on something that we've been documenting in this space for years. That it is Democrats — not Republicans — who have been drifting to the political edge.
We took a close look at IBD/TIPP poll results back in 2013 and found that on issue after issue Democrats were out of touch with mainstream America.
For example, our poll showed that 61% of the public — including 68% of independents — wanted a smaller government with fewer services. But 59% of Democrats wanted a bigger government and more services.
Nearly two thirds of Democrats said they supported a government-run health care system, compared with only 28% of independents and 8% of Republicans.
We reported on a Gallup poll in 2015 showing that Democrats had become far more liberal over the previous 15 years, while Republicans hadn't changed in their views much (and had moved leftward on some social issues).
Last year we looked at data from the Pew Research Center and found that the "center" of the Democratic Party had moved dramatically to left between 1994 and 2017. The center of the Republican Party had barely changed.
Yet, all along Democrats and their handmaidens in the press declared that Republicans were the ones who are ever-more extreme.
But with the increasingly harsh and often violent rhetoric coming from Democrats since President Trump won the election, and the coronation of socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — the veil has been lifted.
In fact, Democratic leaders are now on the defensive, claiming that despite all appearances to the contrary, their party isn't extremist, much less socialist.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, after being asked if socialism was ascendant in the party, said "I don't accept any characterization of our party presented by the Republicans. So let me reject that right now."
Both Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Elizabeth Warren got pressed on the issue this week by CNBC's John Harwood, and both denied the "S" label.
"The Democratic Party is not a socialist party," Waters said. But then she followed that up by saying of socialist Bernie Sanders, "I consider him basically a Democrat."
Far-left Sen. Pocahontas Warren of Massachusetts felt the need to make it clear that "I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets."
For now, Democrats don't want to admit what their party has turned into, because the "socialist" brand isn't very popular.
But look at what it now stands for.
The Democratic base went head over heels for socialist Bernie Sanders in 2016, to the point where he nearly stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton — who said she struggled with her own party because they thought of her as a "capitalist."
Democrats have by and large embraced a "Medicare for all" health plan that would outlaw private insurance and is to the left of every other health system in the world, except maybe Cuba.
Many of the 2020 presidential hopefuls are on board with "government-guaranteed jobs," an idea last seen in the Soviet Union's constitution.
And, as if that weren't enough, Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez called socialist Ocasio-Cortez "the future of our party."
We don't doubt that many Democrats are sincere in their belief that they are sensible centrists. And there's no doubt that some still are.
But when you live in an increasingly left-wing bubble, extremism can easily start to look mainstream. And that's precisely what's been happening, with an increasing leftist media, an aggressively left-wing base, and most of the moderates drummed out of the party.
Now the public at large is seeing what we've been pointing out for years. And that's a good thing for everyone, including Democrats.
Nat. Geographic Admits They Were Wrong About Famous Climate Change Polar Bear Pic
Nat. Geographic Admits They Were Wrong About Famous Climate Change Polar Bear Pic
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
They say the retraction never gets as much attention as the original mistake did. That’s doubly true when the picture in question went viral and the correction came months later.
You perhaps remember the photo of an emaciated polar bear that appeared in National Geographic last December. It was captured by photographers Cristina Mittermeier and Paul Nicklen on the Baffin Islands in Canada.
This is what you probably saw last winter:
Heart-breaking scene of emaciated polar bear searching for food in Arctic Canada http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/animals/heart-wrenching-video-shows-starving-polar-bear-on-iceless-land.aspx … @NatGeo
The original article describes, in horrifying fashion, “the polar bear clinging to life, its white hair limply covering its thin, bony frame. One of the bear’s back legs drags behind it as it walks, likely due to muscle atrophy. Looking for food, the polar bear slowly rummages through a nearby trashcan used seasonally by Inuit fishers. It finds nothing and resignedly collapses back down onto the ground.”
“We stood there crying — filming with tears rolling down our cheeks,” Nicklen said.
However, in an article for the August 2018 issue of National Geographic titled “Starving-Polar-Bear Photographer Recalls What Went Wrong,” Mittermeier says that the narrative that grew up around the photograph — in particular its relation to climate change — was inaccurate.
“Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy. With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral — and people took it literally,” Mittermeier wrote.
“Paul spotted the polar bear a year ago on a scouting trip to an isolated cove on Somerset Island in the Canadian Arctic. He immediately asked me to assemble our SeaLegacy SeaSwat team. SeaLegacy, the organization we founded in 2014, uses photography to spread the message of ocean conservation; the SeaSwat team is a deployable unit of storytellers who cover urgent issues. The day after his call our team flew to an Inuit village on Resolute Bay. There was no certainty that we would find the bear again or that it would still be alive.”
The implication here, of course, is that this wasn’t a dispassionate attempt to convey the effects of climate change but a deliberate attempt to dramatize things. Also, we don’t know why the polar bear was wasting away — it could have been some form of disease. However, Mittermeier argues that she and Nicklen didn’t mean for it to take off the way it did.
“When Paul posted the video on Instagram, he wrote, ‘This is what starvation looks like.’ He pointed out that scientists suspect polar bears will be driven to extinction in the next century,” Mittermeier wrote.
“He wondered whether the global population of 25,000 polar bears would die the way this bear was dying. He urged people to do everything they could to reduce their carbon footprint and prevent this from happening. But he did not say that this particular bear was killed by climate change.” (Emphasis mine.)
Mittermeier said their “mission was a success, but there was a problem: We had lost control of the narrative. The first line of the National Geographic video said, ‘This is what climate change looks like’ — with ‘climate change’ highlighted in the brand’s distinctive yellow. In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption. Other news outlets ran dramatic headlines like this one from the Washington Post: ‘‘We stood there crying’: Emaciated polar bear seen in ‘gut-wrenching’ video and photos.’”
“Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story — that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn’t know what had happened to this particular polar bear.”
It is a relatively frank admission by the photographer and the magazine, especially given the leanings of both. Still, this isn’t something that should have happened in the first place. In a rush to tie this to climate change, National Geographic was willing to usher its readers past the actual facts of the picture and instead paint it as a pure result of climate change. And then there’s the fact that this comes eight months later.
Let this serve as an example for other publications: In a rush to fill a leftist narrative, don’t ignore reality. If they do, readers are going to be there to hold them accountable.
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/07/www_28.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment