Congressional Investigators Find Irregularities In FBI's Handling of Clinton Email Case




Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.

The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America’s top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton's $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme


By Dan Backer
Investors.com

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) outdated "aggregate limits," which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.

Anti-speech liberals railed against McCutcheon's win, arguing it would create supersized "Joint Fundraising Committees" (JFCs). In court, they claimed these JFCs would allow a single donor to cut a multimillion-dollar check, and the JFC would then route funds through dozens of participating state parties, who would then funnel it back to the final recipient.

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer claimed the Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC ruling would lead to "the system of legalized bribery recreated that existed prior to Watergate." The Supreme Court, in ruling for us, flatly stated such a scheme would still be illegal.

The Democrats' response? Hold my beer.

The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton's campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.

As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.

HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

Here's what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I've explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF's architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what's happening, no one would complain.

Here's what you can do, legally. Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.

Here's what you can't do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.

Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw  man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

Don't take my word for it. Our complaint is built entirely on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.

The only question that matters: Was the law broken? If the answer is yes, then the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.

  • Backer is a veteran campaign counsel, having served more than 100 candidates, PACs, and political organizations, including the Committee to Defend the President. He is founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Va.
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Clinton Cash


Taking the internet by storm, based on Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book!!!  Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150M, with over $2B in donations to their foundation.

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton Rich. New York Times bestselling book by Peter Schweizer, in which he investigates donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities, paid speeches made by Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the Clintons' personal enrichment since leaving the White House in 2001.

Mr. Schweizer claims: foreign governments and organizations that donated to the Clinton Foundation, and to the Clintons themselves in speaking fees, received favors in exchange from the State Department, headed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Ed Pilkington, The Guardian, wrote that "Even in the hyper-partisan world of American political publishing, the storm generated by the latest book about the Clintons has been impressive."

James Freeman, The Wall Street Journal "Almost every page of the fascinating Clinton Cash...will be excruciating reading for partisans on both sides of the aisle" and that "The fact that even liberal media outlets are taking the book seriously suggests that a post-election payday is getting harder to achieve."

"This film was not made to make money. It was made to alert the public to the appalling — and dangerous — corruption of the Clintons....
Who could deny the malignant corruption of a couple that used their political power to make money by propping up the world’s worst dictators, cutting down the rain forests, selling off our nuclear resources to our enemies, and bartering off the assets of the poorest nations on earth while their people live in abject poverty?  Stopping the Clintons is not about being a good conservative or a good progressive. It’s about being a decent human being." Andrew Breitbart

Eleanor Clift,The Daily Beast: The Clintons have a standard template for pushing back, and they’re going to use it to make questions about their finances seem part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, but character assassination only goes so far.
Galactic Connection: The chicanery and fraud of the Clinton Foundation is absolutely revolting, especially in the case of the so­called Haitian earthquake relief effort. It’s sickening and appalling how the super rich were enabled to become richer in the wake of a major natural disaster in the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. These lowdown grifters cannot be allowed to occupy the White House again!

FACT SHEET FOR “CLINTON’S CASH” http://edukcentral.com/KBfX0FIM
CLINTON CASH,Director's Cut, MOVIE,Bill & Hillary Clinton, Clinton Foundation, "Haitian earthquake relief", Peter Schweizer, Hillary Clinton, Donations, New York Times bestseller, White House, Secretary of State, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, money, dictator, rain forests, nuclear resources, poverty, humanity, Breitbart, fraud,Haiti

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

On The Origins of Russia-gate

The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate


As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know that the “scandal” started with Democrats funding the original dubious allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria.

 

By Joe Lauria

The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election — without providing convincing evidence — were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers. Think about that for a minute.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

We have long known that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine its computer server for clues about who may have hacked it – or even if it was hacked – and instead turned to CrowdStrike, a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian. Within a day, CrowdStrike blamed Russia on dubious evidence.

And, it has now been disclosed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for opposition research memos written by former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele using hearsay accusations from anonymous Russian sources to claim that the Russian government was blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump in a scheme that presupposed that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw Trump’s presidency years ago when no one else did.

Since then, the U.S. intelligence community has struggled to corroborate Steele’s allegations, but those suspicions still colored the thinking of President Obama’s intelligence chiefs who, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “hand-picked” the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 “assessment” claiming that Russia interfered in the U.S. election.

In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats.

If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama’s intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims.

Absent new evidence based on forensic or documentary proof, we could be looking at a partisan concoction devised in the midst of a bitter general election campaign, a manufactured “scandal” that also has fueled a dangerous New Cold War against Russia; a case of a dirty political “oppo” serving American ruling interests in reestablishing the dominance over Russia that they enjoyed in the 1990s, as well as feeding the voracious budgetary appetite of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Though lacking independent evidence of the core Russia-gate allegations, the “scandal” continues to expand into wild exaggerations about the impact of a tiny number of social media pages suspected of having links to Russia but that apparently carried very few specific campaign messages. (Some pages reportedly were devoted to photos of puppies.)

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Amazing True Story Of How Hillary Clinton Secretly Cheated Bernie Sanders Out of The Democratic Nomination



 


endoftheamericandream.com

Yes, Hillary Clinton really did steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, but most people have absolutely no idea how she actually did it.  In the end, it was all about the money.  A secret joint fundraising agreement that was made between the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America gave the Clinton campaign full control of the Democratic Party nearly a year before she officially won the nomination.  Normally, a presidential candidate for a major party would only be permitted to take full control once the nomination had been secured.  But in Hillary’s case, her campaign had a stranglehold over the Democratic National Committee virtually the entire time she was engaged in a heated battle with Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.

In her new book entitled Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House, Donna Brazile gives us the inside scoop about what really happened inside the DNC during this time period.  When she first took over the DNC, she actually had no idea of what had transpired, and when she finally discovered the truth it absolutely horrified her.  On Thursday, Politico published an excerpt from Brazile’s new book in an article entitled “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC”

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

Brazile ultimately found the proof that she was looking for by following the money.  The Democratic National Committee has been in terrible financial shape for years, and by the time Brazile took over it had become completely and utterly dependent on the Clinton campaign for financial support.  Here is more from her new book

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

But this dependence on the Clinton campaign did not begin once she had won the nomination.

Actually, it started all the way back in August 2015, which was just four short months after Hillary Clinton originally announced that she would be running for president.

Brazile was able to find the joint fundraising agreement that had begun this arrangement, and it is the “smoking gun” which proves that Bernie Sanders never had a fair shot at winning the nomination

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

How in the world was Bernie Sanders supposed to have a fair chance if Hillary was in full control of “the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised”?

The mainstream media has spent months trying to prove that President Trump colluded with the Russians and they haven’t come up with anything.

And yet now we have smoking gun evidence that Hillary Clinton actually did collude with the DNC to cheat Bernie Sanders out of a fair shot at the Democratic nomination, and the big media outlets so far are not making a big deal out of it.

Sadly, most Americans have just become resigned to the fact that our political system has become a cesspool of filth and corruption.  Most of us simply accept that it has always been this way and that things will never change.

Well, I happen to believe that things can change if we are willing to fight back.  The election of Donald Trump showed us that anything is possible, and we need a new generation of leaders that are willing to go to Washington and drain the swamp.

We cannot let Hillary Clinton off the hook, and so please share this article as widely as possible.  Just because she lost the election does not mean that we should forget about her crimes.  We tend to get on members of Congress for doing this, but it is our responsibility as well.

It has been said that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, and if we want to take our country back we have to hold corrupt leaders such as Hillary Clinton accountable.  Because if we don’t shine a light on this kind of corruption, it will just keep on happening…

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

~~~~~~~~~~

In an obvious move to protect herself, Donna Brazile comes clean about DNC collusion with the Clinton Campaign

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Dick Morris - Russia Bribed Hillary 2Xs for Uranium


Russia Bribed Hillary Clinton TWICE in Uranium Deal, according to Dick Morris, former senior political consultant to Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Uranium is the key element to making nuclear bombs. Today we are faced with the possibility of a nuclear attack waged by Iran or Korea--both key allies of Russia. And what would stop Russia from giving some of that Uranium to either rogue nation?

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)