Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGOESPOT.COM
Tuesday, Dec. 12, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Dick Morris: Criminal Chinese Company Had Strong Links to Clintons
By Dick Morris
Former President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary Clinton, left, talk during the funeral service for Aretha Franklin at Greater Grace Temple, Aug. 31, 2018, in Detroit. (Paul Sancya / AP Photo)
When the chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies, Meng Wanzhou, was arrested in Canada on Dec. 1 through an extradition warrant from the U.S., American media described, in detail, how the company had conspired to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Huawei has long been involved in helping terrorist states and seeking to thwart U.S. sanctions. Meng is the daughter of Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei.
As details of Huawei’s complicity with Iran emerge, it is time to look back on the Clinton family and its close relationship with Huawei
When their connection was first exposed more than a decade ago, it just seemed like another shady Clinton deal.
But now, it becomes clear that Huawei has been central to the Iranian efforts to evade first U.N. and then U.S. sanctions.
The Clintons were, indeed, conspiring with the enemy.
Huawei has long been a bad actor seeking to undermine U.S. foreign policy. But what is new is that the Trump administration won’t stand for it.
By contrast, the company has had a deep and long-term relationship with the Clinton family.
Their ties began when Terry McAuliffe, the Clintons’ top fundraiser and future governor of Virginia, bought a Chinese car company — Green Tech Automotive — and moved it to the U.S. in the hopes that it would produce electric cars.
McAuliffe got Huawei to invest in Green Tech through a financing firm called Gulf Coast Funds Management, headed by Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham.
Gulf Coast, boasting the Rodham name, agreed to help Huawei get visas for its top executives under the EB-5 program that awards visas to those who invest at least $500,000 in the U.S. to create jobs.
The feds had already turned Huawei down because of its links to the Chinese military.
Huawei’s misdeeds are plentiful.
-
It helped Saddam Hussein install fiber optic cable in violation of U.S. sanctions.
-
It helped the Taliban by installing a phone system in Kabul, Afghanistan.
-
It stole proprietary material from U.S. high tech company Cisco Systems. This material ended up in Chinese hands.
-
In 2013, Huawei tried to sell telecom equipment made by Hewlett Packard to Iran, in defiance of sanctions and, until a few weeks ago, the parent company of Hyawei’s Iranian business partner was partly owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is playing the key role in Iran’s nuclear program.
According to South China News, the U.S. action against Huawei “will severely damage, even cripple, the Chinese company. Of Huawei’s 92 core suppliers, 33 are U.S. corporations, including chip makers Intel, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Marvell and Micron. If Washington now prohibits these companies from selling to Huawei, the Chinese telecoms giant will struggle to survive.”
And, if the full role of the Clintons in their liaison with Huawei comes out, so will Bill and Hillary.
One-Eyed-Jack Law
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON 
Robert Mueller on Capitol Hill in 2012. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
Criminals and partisans, accusing others of criminality and partisanship
Robert Mueller’s legal team may write a damning report on Trump’s ethics, based mostly on flipping minor former business associates of Trump’s and transient campaign officials by threatening them with long prison sentences.
So far, we know that the U.S. government decided to intervene in a political campaign to help one candidate and to smear the other — under the pretext of Russian “collusion.” And so it hired or made use of spies and informants including Hank Greenberg, Stefan Halper, Felix Sater, and others to contact Trump campaign officials to catch them in supposed collusion traps. It enlisted the help of foreign intelligence agencies, specifically the British and Australians. It misled FISA courts into granting warrants to spy on Americans and, post factum, threatened long prisons sentences with those surveilled and interviewed. And as a result, it has so far found no collusion but may well find some misleading statements in hundreds of hours of testimonies from the likes of Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and perhaps Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone.
Mueller cannot fulfill the hype of the past 18 months, which forecast that the “all-stars,” the “dream-team,” and the Mueller “army” would make short work of the supposedly buffoonish Trump by proving that he colluded with Russia to swing an election. Collusion, remember, was hyped as doing what the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, the 25th Amendment, impeachment, media frenzy, and assassination-chic rhetoric had not.
By indicting a number of minor characters on charges that so far have nothing to do with collusion — for purported crimes mostly committed after the special-counsel appointment — Mueller has emphasized the quantity rather than the quality of indictments.
Mueller was tasked to find collusion (itself not a crime) committed during 2015 and 2016, not to prompt more purported crimes by setting perjury traps, and purported obstruction-of-justice liabilities. If in May 2017 the frenzied media had known that 18 months later Mueller would end up targeting the provocateur Roger Stone and Inforwars’ Jerome Corsi, it would have been sorely humiliated.
Mueller has already weaponized politics, making a crime out of the tawdry business of opposition research — but only sort of, since his interests in doing so are highly selective. And so his chief legacy will have little to do with whatever he finds on Donald Trump. He has already established the precedent that there is now no real equality under the law, at least as Americans once understood fair play and blind justice.
Once Mueller deviated from his prime directive of determining whether Donald Trump colluded — sought help from the Russian to win the 2016 election in exchange for the promise of later benefits — and turned to indicting political operatives for supposedly giving false testimonies about political shenanigans and engaging in illegal business practices, lobbying, and tax avoidance, he either knowingly or unknowingly established a precedent that the serial misdeeds of 2016 would be treated unequally under the law.
Russian Collusion
The 13 Russian nationals whom Mueller symbolically indicted will not come to the U.S. to face trial, and they will certainly not be extradited, a fact known by Mueller.
Yet Christopher Steele, a British subject and de facto unregistered foreign agent, is eminently indictable and extraditable. He was paid through two firewalls (Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie) by Hillary Clinton to tap Russian sources to compile a smear dossier on her opponent, with the intent of warping the U.S. election — a classic example of foreign-agent interference in an American campaign. If we were to take away that one purchased document, then the FISA court warrants, the informants, and all the CIA, FBI, and DOJ machinations would likely have disappeared or never arisen.
Obama-administration officials Bruce Ohr (whose wife worked on the dossier) at Justice, James Comey at the FBI, and John Brennan at the CIA all in some manner colluded with Steele, either directly or indirectly, to monitor the Trump campaign and then to seed the dossier among government agencies and courts, both to ensure its leakage and to brand it with a stamp of official seriousness, warranting investigations and media sensationalism.
Speaking of FBI informants, quite a different one has testified that Putin’s Russia had sent millions of dollars to a U.S. lobbying firm, in hopes of persuading Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to use her influence with federal officials to close the so-called Rosatom Uranium One deal. At roughly the same time, Bill Clinton was given a lucrative half-million-dollar fee for speaking in Moscow, while millions of dollars from Uranium One investors had poured into the Clinton Foundation — which after Clinton’s 2016 defeat has seen its contributions precipitously decline.
In another related matter of Russian collusion, Barack Obama in a hot-mic exchange with then–Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, in March 2012, eight months before Obama’s reelection, asked Medvedev to give Putin the assurance that if Putin would give Obama “space” during his reelection campaign, then Obama in turn would have “more flexibility” on issues such as missile defense “after my election.” That quid pro quo was clarified six months later when an unusually quiet Putin darkly announced to the world that any deployment of U.S.-led NATO missile-defense systems would be targeted against Russia in a Romney administration — as compared with the actions in supposedly less bellicose Obama presidency. And after expressing no interest in interfering in an American election, Putin clearly made it evident that he preferred an Obama victory.
Most observers now laugh off this entire sordid incident. But in the present climate, if Donald Trump had been caught in a similar hot-mic exchange with a top Russian official, and had Putin later expressed the idea that he preferred a Trump presidency to a Democratic one, and had U.S.-led missile-defense efforts abruptly stalled in Eastern Europe, then Robert Mueller would be hot on Trump’s trail — given that such an overt quid pro quo, benefiting a candidate’s reelection campaign, is far more explicit than anything Mueller’s 18-month investigation has yet turned up.
Perjury and False Testimony
Bruce Ohr filed a false federal disclosure affidavit, in that he did not reveal, as required, that his wife was employed by Fusion GPS to work on the Steele dossier. Nor did he disclose that after the election he had been in contact with Steele, offering his help in the effort to find proof of collusion.
James Comey, along with Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and Sally Yates, at various times submitted requests to a FISA court that deliberately never disclosed that their chief evidence for such surveillance was 1) paid for by Hillary Clinton (instead, the applications claimed vaguely that it was a product of generic opposition research, likely and by design confusing its Republican-primary origins with its maturity under Clinton auspices), 2) used as a circular source for news accounts produced in turn to establish its fides, 3) unsubstantiated and either not fact-checked or found to be impossible to verify, 4) compiled by an author already dismissed by the FBI as a unreliable asset.
Either Andrew McCabe or James Comey has likely perjured himself; or both may have. Their conflicting testimonies about leaking information to the media, and the relative importance of the Steele dossier for FISA court warrants, cannot be reconciled.
Comey deliberately leaked memos of presidential conversations to a friend in the media; these memos were classified as secret or confidential and perhaps in at least one case actually contained classified info. His intent, according to his own testimony, was to alter the nature of a Department of Justice investigation by having a special counsel appointed. A short time later Robert Mueller, a friend and former working associate of Comey’s, was appointed as the special counsel.
John Brennan has never fully or honestly explained his conversations with Senator Harry Reid concerning the Steele dossier, or Reid’s purported version that Brennan was briefing Reid in order to make sure that such intelligence — leaked widely — would be seeded with the FBI. And the FBI has never explained whether, at the height of a presidential campaign, it hired informants to be inserted into the Trump campaign or to associate with minor Trump officials in order to draw them out about the Steele dossier or set perjury traps for them.
Brennan has never faced consequences for admittedly lying under oath to Congress about collateral drone damage and surveillance of Senate staff computers; James Clapper likewise admittedly lied to Congress about NSA surveillance and faced no consequences. Has any administration ever had its two top intelligence officials admit to lying under oath on matters of national policy and security, and with impunity to a congressional committee?
Both Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills likely lied to FBI investigators about the extent of their knowledge of Clinton’s private email server. In Orwellian fashion, FBI investigator Peter Strzok claimed that Abedin and Mills were not truthful to the federal investigators, while he concluded that General Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national-security adviser, had been.
Yet Flynn was targeted for giving false information to federal officials, while Abedin and Mills never were. Of course, Clinton herself lied when she insisted that she had transmitted no classified information over the server, and she destroyed over 30,000 emails Congress had subpoenaed — all without any criminal liability.
Obstruction of Justice and Conflicts of Interests
Bruce Ohr, while a Justice official, was negotiating with Fusion GPS on a variety of matters, while his spouse was employed by Fusion founder Glenn Simpson to research the Steele dossier.
Glenn Simpson deliberately misled a congressional investigation about his post-election efforts to collect anti-Trump information, and he sought to disguise the fact that he was actively operating with donors and activists to smear the Trump team during their transition to the White House.
No one has ever seriously investigated the activities of Daniel Jones, who worked for Fusion GPS and was apparently a former FBI agent and staff investigator for Senator Dianne Feinstein, and who as a freelancer received millions of dollars from anti-Trump donors (reportedly Silicon Valley activists and George Soros) and, after Trump was president, in March 2017, met with FBI officials to share information gathered by his Penn Quarter Group designed to harm the Trump presidency.
Andrew McCabe’s spouse was a recipient of huge contributions from a Clinton-affiliated super PAC for her 2016 candidacy in Virginia, and not much later her husband was tasked to exercise key oversight in the Clinton email scandal.
Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel, signed a dubious FISA warrant request. Such surveillance was apparently useful to his appointee Robert Mueller’s ability to issue indictments against some minor Trump officials. Was Mueller ever going to examine whether Rosenstein improperly helped produce a FISA court warrant that was central to Mueller’s own investigation?
The Podesta brothers had long had ties with Russian business interests approximating Paul Manafort’s own Russian connections, and John Podesta occupied a key role in Hillary Clinton’s reelection bid (analogous to Manafort’s in the Trump campaign) — with the difference that he was never fired but played an increasingly important role in Clinton’s campaign efforts.
Leaking and Improper Transfer of Classified Information
In addition to the leaking by the FBI’s two top officials, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, we know that several top Obama officials requested the unmasking of names of U.S. citizens swept up in FISA surveillance. And some names then found their way into the media cycles before the election and during the presidential transition.
In the voluminous text correspondence between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, there is also reference to a planned joint “media leak strategy with DOJ” to smear Carter Page. Again, no one has been charged with the deliberate leaking of government documents and communications to the media for the expressed intent of harming a presidential campaign and transition.
CNN, relying on government and congressional officials’ leaks, falsely reported a number of damaging Trump stories: that transition official Anthony Scaramucci had colluded with a Russian financial official about easing sanctions; that Donald Trump knew in advance of a meeting that his son had agreed to with a Russian operator; that Trump Jr. knew in advance of the contents of the WikiLeaks Podesta trove; and that James Comey would testify to Congress that he never had assured Trump he was not under investigation.
These were all fake news stories, prompting retractions or resignations, and they came from deliberate government leaks floated to harm the Trump administration — in the manner later outlined in a September 5, 2018 op-ed by a Trump-administration official who admitted to actively impeding, with other veritable saboteurs, the actions of the president, in the belief that many of the “resistance” like him in the executive branch had a moral duty to thwart the actions of a duly elected president.
One-Eyed Jacks
In sum, a group of Obama-administration officials and appointees in 2016 colluded with Clinton-campaign personnel to ensure that Donald Trump would not be elected in 2016 and, later, to make sure that his transition and early presidency would fail or be aborted.
Such officials took great risks (some 25 FBI and DOJ officials subsequently retired or were fired or reassigned) in working with foreign interests such as Christopher Steele and by extension his Russian sources to break U.S. laws and to attempt to warp an election — in the belief that there was almost no chance that Trump would be elected. In a Clinton presidency, their beyond-the-call-of-duty insurance work would be rewarded rather than punished.
These efforts failed to stop Trump from winning, and they did not derail his transition. Yet deliberate leaking to the media of the now-stale Steele dossier, “research” from FBI informants planted among minor Trump campaign officials, and improperly warranted government surveillance of former Trump-related officials created a media frenzy, out of which a fired James Comey helped engineer a new lever against Trump: the special-counsel investigation.
In the subsequent 18 months, Robert Mueller assembled a highly partisan team of lawyers and investigators that included a number of Clinton donors; lawyers who had represented either the Clinton Foundation, a Clinton aide, or an Obama official; and rank anti-Trump partisans such as Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. Their task was to investigate the charges of Russian collusion as planted by those in government and Christopher Steele and his abettors.
Such skullduggery poses the question of whether Mueller’s investigation has been simply derailed by partisanship. Or has it effectively served as a deliberate distraction from the felonious behavior of dozens of Obama-administration and Clinton-campaign officials — all determined to ensure, by any means necessary, that Trump would never be president?
Hillary Flees The Country
In what appears to be an attempt to escape from the humiliating reality of her failed speaking tour, Hillary Clinton has fled the country, canceling a scheduled date in Texas. She was spotted over the weekend at a wedding in India.
The Daily Wire reports:
Last week, the pair, who failed to draw any significant attention at either of two appearances in Canada, announced that they’d be “postponing” the Sugar Land appearance because of former President George H. W. Bush’s funeral, but promised a new tour date “soon.”
This weekend, though, Hillary Clinton was spotted getting her groove on at a high society wedding in Udaipur, India, according to The Hill, and is expected to be in India all week, celebrating…
…The Clintons probably won’t go quietly into that dark night — after all, the pair have made the majority of their wealth in the interim since Bill Clinton was president — by charging outrageous sums of money to speak and appear at corporate events, but this may be the end of the line for this tour, at least.
This is a typically Clintonite maneuver – instead of admitting failure, the Clintons are choosing to lie about “cancellations,” while they skulk away to nurse their wounds at a posh overseas location, surrounded by sycophants and donors.
As far as we’re concerned Hillary, you can leave the country for good.
Washington Swamp Tied To Khashoggi Murder
A bombshell exclusive report has just been released by the Daily Caller – and it may have huge implications.
While the media has been eager to tie Donald Trump to the brutal murder of Saudi gadfly Jamal Khashoggi, it appears that the real evidence points to ties between the murders and the Washington swamp, not President Trump.
The Daily Caller reports:
At least two prestigious and very influential Washington, D.C. lobbying firms collaborated directly with the high-ranking Saudi royal aide who allegedly orchestrated the brutal murder of journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi as part of an expansive Saudi campaign to influence Congress.
In its effort to influence U.S. politics, Saudi Arabia has spent tens of millions of dollars and enlisted another dozen or so lobbying and consulting firms in addition to BGR Group and Squire Patton Boggs. These firms include Sphere Consulting, Glover Park Group, the Podesta Group and Hogan Lovells.
Since the beginning of his campaign, President Trump has waged war on the corrupt pay for play world of big money politics, making the pledge to “drain the swamp” a key part of his platform, and passing a 5-year lobbying ban. Now it remains to be seen if the media will target the perpetrators here, or whether their desire to attack Trump is stronger than their desire to expose the real culprits.
Read the full story here.
Trey Gowdy goes after James Comey in closed-door testimony: Transcript
by Jerry McCormick
Image via Video Screenshot
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) has once again proved to be a champion of the people.
During Comey’s closed-door testimony with the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees, Gowdy consistently put Comey on the spot over his actions — and inactions — during the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s misuse of a private email server, an issue to which Gowdy has been personally and professionally connected.
Ready for a Fight
Gowdy clearly showed up to the Friday interview ready to absolutely crush James Comey when he got his turn with the microphone.
The central theme to his questioning was the conduct of former FBI staffers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page during the Clinton investigation.
The South Carolina congressman hammered the content of the texts between Strzok and Page as well as a third party that was not identified.
These texts made it quite clear that everyone involved not only supported Clinton and disliked Trump, but also assumed that Clinton was clearly going to win the election.
Dodging Answers
Time and time again, Gowdy asked Comey if he would have fired them if he had known the content of the texts during the investigation.
But time and time again, Comey tried to sidestep the answer, pointing to a disciplinary procedure and talking in absolutes for something he did not know at the time.
Comey was well-prepared for the interrogation, but he did eventually fold.
The final exchange between the two made it game, set, and match to Gowdy.
The congressman said:
Well, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I do want to gain as much clarity as I can into this. You – if I understand you correctly, you believe you would have not kept them on either investigation, but you would be open to an explanation, but you can’t think of what that explanation could have been that would have persuaded you to keep them?
Comey responded simply: “That’s right.”
Running Out of Time
While this was definitely a major win for Republicans, they are running out of time.
There are only a few weeks left with Republican control in the House, so much of this may end up getting buried as soon as Democrats take over.
It behooves Republicans in Congress to finalize their investigation and release their report on these investigations before that happens.
Once again, though, Gowdy has shown why he will be missed once the term rolls over and his political career comes to an end.
The Democrats’ Delusions Drive The Trump Impeachment Narrative
George Rasley, CHQ Editor
If the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation battle taught MAGA team members anything it should have been that radical Leftist Democrats and their fellow travelers in the liberal establishment will do anything and stop at nothing to get Donald Trump, or anyone associated with him.
That is why the Nation and the President have been put through the Russian collusion hoax, and why Democrats stick with that narrative, even as the evidence for it has proven to be a complete fabrication.
However, as the evidence for Russian collusion has evaporated, or proven to be a fabrication bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrats, the narrative has begun to shift.
The last few days have seen a big pivot in the campaign against Donald Trump observed Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. For two-plus years, it was Russia, Russia, Russia. But despite various revelations in the Russia probe, the case for collusion remains as sketchy as ever.
Now, however, prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have given Democrats a new weapon against the president: Attorney Michael Cohen pleading guilty to two campaign finance felonies related to paying hush money to Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels”).
However, as our friend former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in an August 22 article for National Review, while it was illegal for Michael Cohen to make contributions exceeding $2,700 per election to a presidential candidate (including contributions coordinated with the candidate); and illegal for the candidate to accept contributions in excess of that amount. It was also illegal for corporations to contribute to candidates (including expenditures coordinated with the candidate), and for the candidate to accept such contributions. The latter illegality is relevant because Cohen formed corporations to transfer the hush money.
The law, however, does not impose a dollar limit on the candidate himself, and Trump on Monday morning described the payments as a "private transaction" that "was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine." He added that it was the "lawyer's liability if he made a mistake, not me."
As Andy McCarthy explained, Donald Trump could lawfully have made contributions and expenditures in excess of $2,700 per election. Because of that, and because — unlike Cohen — Trump is a non-lawyer who may not have fully appreciated the campaign-finance implications, it would be tough to prove that the president had criminal intent.
Moreover, noted McCarthy, the Justice Department has a history of treating serious campaign-finance transgressions as administrative violations, not felonies. A prominent example: The 2008 Obama campaign accepted nearly $2 million in illegal campaign contributions, but was permitted to settle the matter with a $375,000 fine.
However, the incoming chairs of two powerful House committees have predicted legal peril for President Trump, with one referring to recent accusations about Michael Cohen's hush-money payments as "impeachable offenses," reports Alexandra Ma of the Business Insider.
"There's a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office the Justice Department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time," Rep. Adam Schiff, the incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee, told the CBS show "Face the Nation" on Sunday according to Ms. Ma’s report.
Alexandra Ma also reported Rep. Jerry Nadler, the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told CNN that if Trump were found to have directed the payments, it would amount to "impeachable offenses," though he did not commit to pursuing impeachment in that scenario.
"They would be impeachable offenses — whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question," he told CNN's Jake Tapper.
"But certainly they'd be impeachable offenses because even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office — that would be an impeachable offense."
Notice, that while the narrative has shifted from Russian collusion to real or imagined campaign finance violations, the underlying concept that Donald Trump was “fraudulently” elected President hasn’t shifted at all.
Democrats have convinced themselves that Donald Trump’s election was obtained by fraud and they will go to any length to prove that the 2016 election did not constitute a radical and long overdue revolution against the Left Wing establishment consensus in Washington. They may even invent some new campaign finance crime with which to charge the President, but that won’t change the fact that Americans still support the Trump agenda of economic growth and secure borders.
You Won’t Believe Who Is The Mastermind Behind Mueller’s Rigged Witch Hunt
Robert Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation is a coup to overthrow Donald Trump as President of the United States.
Up until now, the identity of who helped originate this plot had remained a secret.
But now the cat is out of the bag and you won’t believe who masterminded the idea of Mueller’s rigged witch hunt.
For months, the story floated around the media that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was the man behind the Mueller probe.
And it is true that Rosenstein holds the disgraceful distinction of signing off on appointing Mueller as special counsel.
However, the idea’s genesis came from a surprising source.
Virginia Democrat Senator Mark Warner planted the seed in Rosenstein’s mind of appointing a special counsel to terrorize President Trump.
CNN exclusively reports:
ON MAY 11, TWO DAYS AFTER COMEY WAS FIRED, ROSENSTEIN BRIEFED REPUBLICAN SENATE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN RICHARD BURR OF NORTH CAROLINA AND THE PANEL’S TOP DEMOCRAT, VIRGINIA SEN. MARK WARNER, WHO WERE RUNNING THEIR OWN RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. ACCORDING TO CONTEMPORANEOUS TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN FBI OFFICIALS, “WARNER CONVEYED THAT HE WANTED (A) SPECIAL COUNSEL” AND ROSENSTEIN “SAID HE TOOK THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT.”
CNN’s story makes two facts perfectly clear.
First, forces within Trump’s government are not loyal to the President or the country.
Rosenstein allowed a fiercely partisan Democrat to influence him into appointing a special counsel whose goal is nothing short of overturning American democracy.
Second, the Deep State is very, very real.
Fake news reporters have viciously mocked Donald Trump and his supporters for alleging that there are rogue forces within the government working to sabotage him and his agenda.
But CNN reported that Rosenstein and then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe conspired in secret to remove Trump from office.
Previous reporting already revealed that Rod Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire to secretly record Trump and that he approached cabinet officials about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office.
CNN now claims that in addition to those acts of sedition, McCabe opened up an obstruction of justice investigation over Trump firing then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump’s own law enforcement agency worked behind his back and set the wheels in motion to thwart the will of the American people and subvert American democracy.
This is the very definition of the Deep State.
And it proves Trump was correct to fire both Comey and McCabe.
Now many Trump supporters are demanding he fire Rosenstein.
Rosenstein saddled Trump with the Mueller probe at the urging of one of the President’s sworn political enemies.
But now that there is an acting attorney general in place—and Trump has nominated William Barr to serve as the permanent replacement—Rosenstein no longer has a role in overseeing the Mueller probe.
Trump can finally send Rosenstein packing without any worries of Congress accusing him of sacking Rosenstein to shut down the Mueller probe.
We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.
Trump Puts an End to U.S.Foreign Oil Reliance
by: TTN Staff
Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 3.0
President Trump promised to put an end to the United States reliance on foreign oil, and for the first time in 75 years that has become a reality
According to The Daily Wire:
For the first time in 75 years, the United States exported more oil than it imported, carrying out a pledge from President Trump that America can achieve "energy independence."
While the U.S. has been a net oil importer since 1949, over the final week of November, U.S. net imports of crude oil and petroleum products fell to minus 211,000 barrels per day (bpd) — which means America exported more than it imported, according to data from U.S. Energy Information and Administration.
Oil production has been booming in the U.S. as the shale revolution swept the nation. America is now the world’s largest producer of petroleum, passing Russia and Saudi Arabia. As the U.S. oil boom spread, the power of OPEC was reduced and gas prices in the U.S. have dropped from the $4+ highs under former president Barack Obama.
Net imports peaked in 2005, topping 14 million bpd, but in the last few months, the U.S. has imported an average of 2 million bpd. U.S. production has more than doubled since 2012 because of the new technologies for extracting oil.
Despite the surge in U.S. oil production President Trump is continuing his calls for OPEC to continue producing oil in order to keep gas prices down for consumers.
Issa Puts It All Together on Hannity: Russia Link to Dossier Will Show Hillary’s Guilty of Collusion
In an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Friday, the House Oversight Committee chairman said that, since the dossier was a major part of obtaining a FISA warrant against Trump campaign employee Carter Page, the role of Russian agents in the document should be examined more closely.
BY CILLIAN ZEAL
Is Hillary Clinton the agent of Russian collusion in the 2016 election? Well, if her campaign helped fund the Trump dossier, then yes, argues California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa.
In an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Friday, the House Oversight Committee chairman said that, since the dossier was a major part of obtaining a FISA warrant against Trump campaign employee Carter Page, the role of Russian agents in the document should be examined more closely.
Issa had been in on the closed-door testimony that former FBI Director James Comey gave on Capitol Hill last week before two House committees, much of which centered around how the warrant against Page was obtained.
Hannity began by asking Issa if he believed the bulk of the information that led to the FISA warrant came from the controversial dossier.
“That’s exactly right — that it not only came from the dossier, but as you know, Christopher Steele hasn’t been in Russia in 20 years,” he said. “So even the people, the unknown people responsible for it could easily, easily have in fact been agents of the Russian government, which would mean that Hillary Clinton is the one guilty of the so-called ‘collusion.’
“That’s a great irony there,” Hannity said, stifling a laugh.
Comey’s testimony was remarkable for a number of reasons. CNN, somewhat predictably, called him “exasperated” over the proceedings and wondered why he was answering questions about Hillary Clinton’s email two years on.
However, the fact that Comey couldn’t seem to remember a lot seemed to take up most of the headlines.
“His memory was so bad I feared he might not remember how to get out of the room after the interview,” one lawmaker told The Hill’s John Solomon.
Another said, “It was like he suddenly developed dementia or Alzheimer’s, after conveniently remembering enough facts to sell his book.”
However, what he did remember about the dossier could have been the most damning part of his testimony.
“The towering ex-FBI boss confessed that the FBI had not corroborated much of the Steele dossier before it was submitted as evidence to a secret court to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the final weeks of the election,” Solomon wrote.
“And Comey admitted much of the dossier remained uncorroborated more than six months later when he was fired by President Donald Trump.
“I won’t waste too much time harping on the enormity of this confession. Everyday Americans now know that the FISA court process is an honor system and that the FBI may only submit evidence it has verified to the judges.”
But this wasn’t verified. It was paid opposition research, mostly conducted second- or third-hand, often with paid informants who made wild accusations.
And some of it, assumedly, came from members of Russia’s intelligence community. That’s what’s particularly dangerous here. For all of the talk of Russia offering campaign “synergy” with the Trump campaign, the only actually verifiable synergy probably came via the Trump dossier, which remains as uncorroborated as the day it was used in court to obtain a FISA warrant.
Meanwhile, even after all this, nothing has been found to indicate Trump colluded with the Kremlin.
Given that the DNC and Hillary campaign paid huge sums of money to compile the dossier, perhaps it’s time we started talking about their collusion with elements in Russian intelligence that had every reason, if they were connected in any way to the Kremlin, to destabilize the American political process
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/2018/12/www_11.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment