Ukraine U.S. Election Fraud Real & Being Hidden: for $$$$

It is surprising to me that the Media would not even touch the self-professed blackmail of the former Ukrainian President by former Vice President Joe Biden. I’m sure you remember these few sentences at a public gathering in which Biden not only confessed his blackmail, he bragged about it:

Remember this: Biden was named by Obama to oversee the massive corruption in Ukraine for the Obama Administration. Biden had spent much time there purportedly to concentrate on the certainty that Ukraine had been — among other things — aggressively trying to interfere in the U.S. 2016 election. 

And then there’s the Burisma Holdings mystery.

Only foolish people believe that Biden’s son Hunter received a seat on the Burisma Board of Directors as a result of his expertise in oil and gas. Hunter Biden knew NOTHING about the energy business. Yet he was paid $83,000 a month to serve on the Board of the largest Ukrainian oil and gas company. The only explanation is that he got that position only because he was the son of the U.S. Vice President.

Why do you think today’s media pile-on all those who today mention the Ukraine election-interference story when those claims were accepted as fact by all a few years ago? (We’ll get into those reasons in a bit) Today’s news outlet leaders then touted Ukraine’s election interference on par with that of Russia. But today, they report that all those who believe Ukraine’s 2016 election interference happened are nothing more than conspiracy theorists.

  • Chuck Todd of NBC’s Meet The Press actually laughed at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for believing Ukraine tried to interfere in U.S. elections;
  • Even FBI Director Christopher Wray said there was no indication that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 U.S. elections. “We have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election;”
  • U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mitt Romney (R-UT) both state there was no Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election;
  • A Ukrainian Court found that Ukraine DID attempt to impact the U.S. 2016 election on the behalf of Hillary Clinton.

These denials — even from several Republican Senators — are odd. Why? In light of the approximate seven stories from reputable news sources that have NO leanings toward the Republican Party all ran investigative stories chronicling the 2016 election interference by Ukraine:

1. Financial Times, 08/28/2016

The Financial Times reported Ukraine attempted to intervene in the U.S. election.

“The prospect of Mr. Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr. Leshchenko but Kyiv’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election,” Financial Times reported.

2. Politico, 01/11/2017

Politico reported the Ukrainian government tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump.

“Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election,” Politico reported.

They also reported that a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C., to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.

3. Financial Times, 12/22/2016

The Financial Times reported Russia used Ukrainian technology to hack the DNC server in the 2016 election. Based on the reporting, it appears the technology used to hack the election was operated in eastern Ukraine.

“The discovery of an alleged Russian government hack of a Ukrainian mobile phone app has boosted investigators’ confidence that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee servers in the U.S.before the presidential election,” cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike said.

The firm, which was hired by the DNC to rebuild its cyber defenses after the attack, said “Fancy Bear”– a code name it assigned to hackers that it believes are associated with Russian military intelligence, the “GRU” — had implanted malware in an Android mobile phone application used by anti-Russian forces operating in eastern Ukraine.

4. Politico, 02/23/2017

In 2017, Politico reported that a Ukrainian parliamentarian attempted to contact Paul Manafort, claiming to have politically damaging information about Manafort as well as Trump.

“The undated communications, which are allegedly from the iPhone for Manafort’s daughter, include a text that appears to come from a Ukrainian parliamentarian named Serhiy Leschenko, seeking to reach her father, in which he claims to have politically damaging information about both Manafort and Trump,” Politico said.

5. New York Times, 12/12/2018

Ukranian courts ruled that releasing information to Manafort about the 2016 U.S. election was illegal interference.

“Both lawmakers asserted that if the release of the slush fund information broke the law, then it should be viewed as an illegal effort to influence the United States presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton by damaging the Trump campaign,” the New York Times reported.

Why The Sudden Denial of the 2016 Ukrainian Election Interference?

Ukraine has always struggled with government corruption. Ukraine depends heavily on its friendly neighbors and those from the West for military and other types of foreign aid. Its proximity to Russia and several other strategic considerations have for 20+ years kept Ukraine in the “political corruption” spotlight. There has been so much speculation about Ukraine’s interference in our 2016 election AND so much demonstrative denial by the Media, it is incumbent for the truth to be vetted and passed along to Americans.

We (with outside assistance) have tracked the Ukrainian 2016 U.S. election interference with great difficulty. What follows is a complete “roadmap” for all interested in providing proof that Ukraine DID attempt 2016 U.S. election interference.
As is our normal practice to make reading easier, these details are put in bullet format that are numbered from 1-18.
Please don’t get lost in these. It may appear to be much information, but this is a heretofore hidden roadmap showing how to get from “A” — how U.S. corrupted politicians — get to “B” — accessing the U.S. political process in our government for personal gain.
  1. The Ukraine Crisis Media Center was founded by Soros in March 2014. This organization is Ukraine’s version of Media Matters.
  2. Serhiy Leshchenko was a Ukraine Member of Parliament.
  3. NABU — Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bureau — is formed and, the Executive director is Artem Sytnyk.
  4. Another NGO (Non-governmental Organization) was founded by Soros called the AntAC (Anti-Corruption Action Centre). They received $1.7 million in funding, about $1 million from the U.S. Departments of State and DOJ, and $290,000 from Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation. THIS is the organization that the Obama Administration worked through.
  5. NABU and the Obama government were working closely with Soros NGO Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC) in Ukraine, as John Solomon reports on The Hill. When Ukrainian prosecutors investigated AntAC over a missing $4.4 million in U.S. funding, they were told to stand down by Obama officials. This is the missing money for Joe Biden’s son. Biden’s son was coordinating activity in Ukraine for the Obama Administration.
  6. AntAC (Obama administration and George Soros) pushed a Ukrainian investigation into then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business activities in Ukraine – WITH HELP FROM THE FBI, according to John Solomon from The Hill.
  7. On March 21, 2017, Leschenko and Sytnyk, held a press conference at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, alleging Manafort took $12.7 million in illegal payments from Ukrainians and made a claim of a “black cashbox ledger.”
  8. Leschenko gave the info to Alexandra Chalupa, a DNC operative who worked with Hillary Clinton. Both Chalupa and Arepovitch, the CEO of Crowdstrike, are connected to a hard left authoritarian fascist group in Ukraine.
  9. April 28, 2016 – Chalupa and Isikoff, a Yahoo Reporter who was deeply involved with Christopher Steele, held a press conference in Washington, D.C., and invited 68 Ukrainian journalists and distributed the dirt on Manafort. The program was called the Open World Leadership Center, held at the Library of Congress, and again, connected to George Soros.
  10. NABU and the Obama Administration worked closely with Soros NGO AntAC. When Ukrainian prosecutors investigated AntAC over a missing $4.4 million in U.S. funding, they were told to stand down by Obama officials. Again, this is all tied to Hunter Biden and the missing $3 million dollars from Burisma Holdings. “When the new prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko went to meet Obama Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, he says he was stunned when the ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.”
  11. Chalupa received details of the payments from Leschenko. Payment detail from 2007-2012 lists advertising, computers, polling, consultant fees, etc. NONE OF THE PAYMENTS OR Manafort’s signatures WERE EVER CONFIRMED.
  12. Chalupa also passed the Black Ledger info on to Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, who passed them on to DOJ staffer Nellie Ohr. Ohr passed the info on to her husband, Bruce Ohr.  On May 30, 2016, Nellie Ohr sent an email to Bruce Ohr and Justice Department staffers under the subject line “Reported Trove of Documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions’ ‘Black Cashbox,’” which means they were investigating Paul Manafort prior to the July 31, 2016, inception of “Crossfire Hurricane.”
  13. Isikoff broke the story on Yahoo on Aug. 18, 2016, one of the first public mentions of purported “collusion with Russia” by the Trump team. Manafort had to step down as Trump’s campaign manager the next day.
  14. In addition, Leshchenko served as a direct source of information for Fusion GPS—and their hired researcher—former CIA contractor Nellie Ohr. Yes, Nellie received info from Ukrainians, directly or via Fusion GPS, to influence a Presidential election.
  15. Ohr told congressional investigators on Oct. 19, 2018, when pressed, she recalled them, “mentioning someone named Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian.” She later admitted she knew of Leshchenko before her time at Fusion GPS as he was a “very well-known, Ukrainian, anti-corruption activist.” Leshchenko had adopted a robust anti-Trump stance (because Trump wanted to pursue a more friendly relationship with Russia). And remember, Putin is a nemesis to George Soros.
  16. Remember when Manafort was charged with witness tampering, by the Mueller Special Counsel? Manafort’s daughter’s phone was hacked, and a text message was discovered. It was reported by Politico in late February 2017, that a hack of the phone belonging to one of Manafort’s daughters revealed a text containing a blackmail threat that Manafort has attributed to Leshchenko. It’s not known with any certainty who sent the text, which includes an attachment that references “the Yanukovych accounting book” and lists an email address for Leshchenko. Manafort received additional charges because of the text.
  17. Leschenko and Sytnyk were found guilty. “December 2018, a Kyiv court ruled that Leshchenko, along with NABU Director Artem Sytnyk ‘acted illegally’ when they revealed that Manafort’s surname and signature were found in the so-called ‘black ledger’ of ousted President Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions,” the Kyiv Post reported on Dec. 12, 2018.
  18. Leschenko and Sytnyk interfered in an American election. ” The court noted the material was part of a pre-trial investigation and its release “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”

Summary

I know that’s a lot of information to follow. By way of explanation as we close today’s story, we’ll ask some pointed and salient questions to at least have all looking and listening in to get on the same page:

  • Why has there been so much intense interest in Ukraine by the American government during the Obama Administration?
  • Why would President Obama appoint his Vice President to head the corruption investigations by the U.S. of a foreign nation — ANY foreign country?
  • Why would the Ukrainian government (that was rife with corruption) investigate corruption of Burisma Holdings during the time Hunter Biden was a member of the Board of Directors?
  • Why would Vice President Biden even care about the Burisma investigation — a sovereign country and one of that country’s privately held corporations?
  • Why would the Vice President not only demand the firing of that Ukrainian prosecutor but give Ukraine eight hours to fire him?
  • Why would any foreign OR domestic energy resource company hire Hunter Biden paying him $83,000 per month to serve on their Board of Directors?
  • Are they protecting someone some others? If so, who?

Let’s fast forward to 2020:

  • Why would so many U.S. news sources vehemently deny Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election after thorough investigatory research found and reported previously that Ukraine DID interfere in the 2016 election?
  • Why would Congressional Democrats and former V.P. Biden pushback on Hunter Biden and the former V.P. testifying before a Congressional committee investigating Ukraine corruption?
  • Why would Senators Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham — in light of scads of evidence that prove Ukraine 2016 U.S. election interference — not only reject the alleged Ukraine interference but refuse to support the investigation to determine its validity and who was involved?
  • Why would the current FBI Director Chris Wray deny the Ukraine election interference when so much evidence exists confirming it?
  • With the 1999 Treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine specifically for both countries to collaborate on political corruption in each that pertains to the other NOT instigate a formal U.S. investigation into this corruption that John Solomon from The Hill along with information garnered by others uncovered?

Many feel if such an investigation is allowed to occur, it will lead not only to the Obama White House but to the Obama Department of Justice as well as to multiple current and former members of Congress.

What’s the common piece of evidence? “Show Me The Money!”

Play

FISA: Time to Reform or Time to Go?

Unless you live in a barrel, you have heard in numerous conversations the word “FISA.” “FISA” actually stands for “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” FISA legislation regulates the United States Government’s ability to surveil (or “spy”) American citizens who may be communicating with people outside the U.S. Such surveillance is governed by a special court called “FISC,” or “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.” Why would this ever be necessary?

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Such requests are made most often by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In 2013, a top-secret order issued by the court, which was later leaked to the media from documents culled by Edward Snowden, required a subsidiary of Verizon to provide a daily, on-going feed of all call detail records—including those for domestic calls—to the NSA. The Edward Snowden matter brought the FISA process to light and thrust it into the forefront of intelligence agencies’ process operations. This was the first time average Americans knew anything about this process.

How Does FISA Work?

Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is given to an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs. When the U.S. Attorney General determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of approval and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after approval of such surveillance, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1805.

If one judge of the court denies an application, the federal government is not allowed to make the same application to a different judge of the court but may appeal to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Such appeals are rare: the first appeal from the FISC to the Court of Review was occurred in 2002 (In re-Sealed Case No. 02-001), 24 years after the founding of the court.

Also rare is for FISA warrant requests to be turned down. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. (this is important and will be discussed later) Fewer than 200 requests were modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected applications were all from 2003, and all four were granted in part after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the applications that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven were rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court issued 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests. This total does not include the number of warrants that were modified by the FISA court.

FISA Corruption

It’s easy to see how the FISA process could easily be corrupted for partisan and covert purposes. The fact that FISA corruption is so easy to implement has given pause to numerous of those on Capitol Hill, who are both concerned with the obvious actual and attempted electronic intrusions into multiple U.S. companies and even the government itself. The most recent of such alleged FISA abuse occurred during the FBI Trump Campaign investigation. It allegedly began with a FISA warrant submitted to the FISC for authorization to surveil the communications of Carter Page, who was an associate of the Trump Campaign. Uproar ensued about alleged “wiretapping” of then Candidate Donald Trump shortly after a visit to Trump Tower by former NSA head Mike Rodgers. Speculation is that Rodgers, in that meeting, informed Mr. Trump that his campaign headquarters at Trump Tower was electronically surveilled. The next day, the Trump Campaign moved its headquarters to New Jersey.

NOTE: unless and until President releases to the American public the FISA warrant applications filed by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants, we will not know the specifics of the basis for that surveillance. It is expected for those to be released at any time

It is uncanny how partisan are the comments and analyses of the findings of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz as published in his 500+ page report a few days ago into FISA abuse alleged to have occurred during the Trump Campaign investigation. It depends on whom you speak or listen as to whether the Horowitz findings vilified the FISA process during the FBI investigation or supported it. Shortly after its release, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana made this request of the President:

“The Inspector General report showed the FBI was willing to do anything in order to spy on Carter Page, including making 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions. The American public deserves to know everything the FBI did,” Kennedy said in a statement. I’m asking President Trump to declassify the entire record so that Attorney General Barr and FBI Director Wray can release it to the American people. If the FBI wants to continue the employment of rogue, politically-motivated agents, then let the public read the entire record.”

As does Senator Kennedy, numerous Americans both inside and outside of Washington feel the structure of the Court gives the government an “open season” on surveillance of Americans — ALL Americans — that apparently have and could going forward be for partisan and political purposes. Remember this: only twelve of 33,942 FISA warrants filed in its history did the FISA Court deny.

Fix FISA or Dump FISA

The House recently voted against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702, proposed by Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and  Zoe Lofgren of California. FISA Section 702, which was inserted as an addition to the 1978 FISA Act in 2008, was intended to be used solely to monitor communications by foreign nationals outside of the United States.

In recent years, Edward Snowden’s revelations showed that Section 702 provided the government with a legal cover to collect data on communications between millions of U.S. citizens without warrants or probable cause. According to a National Security Agency (NSA) transparency report from April 2019, in 2018, communications by U.S. citizens or residents were queried 9,637 times, over 2,000 more queries than the previous year.

The Amash-Lofgren Amendment would have withheld funding for Section 702 in the budget for the fiscal year 2020. If it had passed, any requests for Section 702 funding by governmental bodies such as the NSA would have had to make an express commitment to not use those funds on the warrantless collection of U.S. citizens’ data.

Forty-seven organizations, including the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and FreedomWorks, urged Congress in a June letter to pass the amendment to “significantly advance the privacy rights of people within the United States.” Two Republican representatives, Chip Roy of Texas and Jim Jordan of Ohio, rose to defend the amendment during the ten minutes of debate that was afforded. Despite these endorsements, the change was struck down 252-175, with over 100 members of each party voting against it.

Unfortunately, as ordinary American citizens, we find ourselves in something of a conundrum. It’s hard for us to say, “Yes, we support FISA and want it to continue,” or “No, we think the Government with FISA has too many unchecked opportunities to abuse the FISA system, so we want it abolished.”

Summary

Here’s what a legal writer Mark Wauck stated about whether we should keep or abolish the FISA process:

“It seems to me that since Watergate our politics have been almost totally transformed, with the Left feeling ascendant, despite occasional setbacks. At the same time that the Left has taken over education and most other public institutions, the Intelligence agencies–and of course the FBI in particular–have assumed a huge role in domestic intelligence. It’s true that this is partly the result of the GWOT (“Global War on Terrorism”) and FISA’s application to it, but I believe it was happening anyway.

The current abuses that we’re seeing coming to light attributable to the Obama Administration, are very scary. However, given that the Left feels no constraints about our traditional liberties, is it possible that FISA actually gives them a bit of pause, slows them down a bit just to hide what they’re doing? If they were to have 8 years with no constraints, with the total and enthusiastic cooperation of Big Data companies, what might the result be?

This is what worries me. Would the abolition of what is undoubtedly unconstitutional lead to Big Brother?”

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul — a Libertarian at heart — has long questioned the validity of the FISA system in regards to the Constitutional protection of the rights of Americans. According to the Senator, the process in its purest forms should work correctly. But there is a problem: people with partisan opinions and perspectives of its purposes:

Should we fix the process hoping for good results? Or should we simply ax it to once again rely on a prosecutor presenting evidence to a judge sufficient to justify a surveillance warrant?

There is far too much corruption at the DOJ and FBI that has been exposed in the last few years for me to feel comfortable recommending continuation of the FISA process. Too many people in powerful positions that impact FISA investigations have been shown to be grossly politically biased. Unless and until the Intelligence agencies have demonstrated their commitment to strict adherence to not just the letter of FISA warrant applicant and subsequent warrants, but to the FISA process, I recommend that FISA be ditched and we return to the 250-year-old process to obtain warrants: convince a judge with facts of any case when presenting a sworn warrant application for a surveillance warrant. If facts in evidence justify such a warrant, that judge can issue it.

If there’s “meat on the bone,” justice will be served. And the personal lives of Americans will once again be protected from Big Brother or surveillance abuse who once gains power seldom every relinquishes it.

NEWS BULLETIN!!!!!!

In a rare public order Tuesday, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [FISC] strongly criticized the FBI over its surveillance-application process, giving the bureau until Jan. 10 to come up with solutions, in the wake of findings from Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.

The order, from the court’s presiding judge Rosemary M. Collyer, came just a week after the release of Horowitz’s withering report about the wiretapping of Carter Page, a former campaign adviser to President Trump.

“The FBI’s handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the [Office of Inspector General] report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above,” Collyer wrote in her four-page order. “The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

“As [FBI Director Christopher Wray] has stated, the inspector general’s report describes conduct by certain FBI employees that is unacceptable and unrepresentative of the FBI as an institution,” the bureau responded in a statement Tuesday night. “The director has ordered more than 40 corrective steps to address the report’s recommendations, including some improvements beyond those recommended by the IG.”

Horowitz said he did not find significant evidence that FBI agents were involved in a political conspiracy to undermine Trump’s candidacy in 2016. However, the report did find numerous errors and inaccuracies used by FBI agents to obtain permission to monitor Page’s phone calls and emails.

While Collyer’s order did not specify exactly what reforms the FBI needed to implement to its policies for obtaining permission to wiretap people under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the order did say that the FISA court will weigh in on whether the reforms are deemed sufficient.

“The [FISA court] expects the government to provide complete and accurate information in every filing with the court,” Collyer wrote. “Without it, the [FISA court] cannot properly ensure that the government conducts electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes only when there is a sufficient factual basis.” (FOX News)

Play

Ukraine: “Honey-Hole” for U.S. Political Corruption

Ukraine has certainly been in the news of late. It seems that its being in the U.S. news so much has to do with some pretty sketchy political corruption.

Former VP Joe Biden’s son Hunter has been stuck in the spotlight of Ukraine the past few months because of his excessive compensation from Burisma — a Ukrainian gas company — for which he served as a Board member. He received significant payment for his service.

The spotlight on Hunter was there because of his father’s intervention while Vice President in a Ukrainian government corruption investigation of Burisma. The Vice President forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor on that case in exchange for the U.S. release of $1 Billon of aid to Ukraine. That was the beginning of “Ukraine-Gate.” And “Ukraine-Gate” is alive and well. The Bidens are certainly not the only American political family involved in Ukraine’s corruption.

The husband of Democrat Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, reportedly took $700,000 from firms connected to a Ukrainian oligarch who has allegedly been “accused of ordering contract killings.”

      Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL)

The husband of Democrat Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, reportedly took $700,000 from firms connected to a Ukrainian oligarch who has allegedly been “accused of ordering contract killings.

Public records show that Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s husband, Robert Powell, spent much of the last ten years as general counsel for companies owned at least in part by Igor Kolomoisky, a wealthy Ukrainian businessman involved in banking and mining. In federal financial disclosures, Mucarsel-Powell reported that her husband of 15 years earned most of their household income during the previous two years — at least $695,000 — from a ferroalloys trading corporation associated with Kolomoisky.

The connections between Robert Powell and Kolomoisky were first reported by Daily Beast reporter Betsy Swan last year — who also highlighted some of the allegations that have been made against the Ukrainian oligarch.

Swan reported in April 2018 that the FBI was “investigating” Kolomoisky over “potential financial crimes, including money laundering, according to the sources, who say the probe is wide-ranging and has been underway for quite some time. Kolomoisky has not been indicted for ‘initiating or participated in any global crime,’ and a lawyer representing him said he denies any wrongdoing.”

“Kolomoisky has a host of enemies. He’s been accused of commissioning contract killings,” Swan continued. “And in 2016, Ukraine’s central bank nationalized Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank because it didn’t have enough cash. Billions of dollars disappeared from its coffers because it lent so much to Kolomoisky associates, according to the FT. The move was widely viewed in the West as a victory for transparency and good governance, in a country whose politics are impoverished on both counts.”

Robert Powell’s connections to Kolomoisky could create a significant distraction for Democrats during their impeachment hearings since they launched their inquiry into President Donald Trump over a July 25 phone call that he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Democrats claim that Trump pressured Zelensky into investigating former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in exchange for U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, which Democrats claim amounts to a quid pro quo or bribery.

So far, Democrats’ claims that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo or bribery have largely not been substantiated in their public impeachment hearings as multiple witnesses, including Ambassador Marie YovanovitchSenior NSC official Tim MorrisonAmbassador Kurt Volker, and Ambassador Gordon Sondland all testified that there was no quid pro quo during the phone call.

In a separate report, The Daily Beast noted that the connections between Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s husband and the Ukrainian oligarch left many concerned.

“Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who focuses on Russia and Ukraine, said the link is concerning, citing accusations that Kolomoisky has been involved in billion-dollar criminal schemes and contract killings,” The Daily Beast reported. “He called the ties ‘highly suspicious.”

“When you work for a guy like that, you know what you’re dealing with,” said Edward Chow, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “There should be no illusion of what you’re dealing with, even if the business you have to conduct for him in the United States is spotless. You know where the wealth came originated. There should be no reason not to know because everyone knows.”

We would be remiss if we did NOT mention the allegations that several other political heavyweights have sons connected directly or indirectly to Ukraine in business dealings. Those “heavyweights” include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, and former Secretary of State John Kerry. There are numerous stories from several sources that confirm the Ukrainian involvement of these. There are several stories that discredit these allegations. But it is factual that Ukraine has, in the past, been a “honey-hole” for financial corruption. After all, why would so many from the political and economic world in the U.S. have any ties to Ukraine? “Follow the Money.”

We’re not into Conspiracy theories at TruthNewsNetwork. But what we ARE into is ferreting out the truth. We learned that in the world of politics, where there is smoke, not only is there currently a fire, the fire started burning long before the smoke was noticed.

Steve Hilton of FOX News did a story on his Sunday night show detailing some more of Ukraine/U.S. political, financial “smoke:” (Hilton’s words in italics)

Remember Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s business partner in Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings? He had previously been a top fundraiser for John Kerry, who was Secretary of State at the time. And soon after Devon and Hunter joined the Burisma Board, the company channeled $90,000 to a lobbying firm called ML Strategies, which was headed by none other than David Leiter, John Kerry’s former chief of staff.

That’s handy because then-Secretary of State John Kerry himself has visited Ukraine with promises of U.S. aid and assistance. Well, Leiter registered as a Burisma lobbyist in mid-2014. But in the year leading up to that, he gave close to $60,000 to Democrats, including a select group of U.S. senators who would later be instrumental in pushing cash towards Ukraine’s energy sector, directly in line with Burisma’s interests.

He donated to Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., four times and to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., three times. A month after the last of those donations, both Markey and Shaheen were among four senators who wrote a letter to President Obama that said, “We should leverage the full resources and expertise of the U.S. government to assist Ukraine in improving its energy efficiency, increasing its domestic production and reforming its energy markets.”

This was at a time when Democrats were waging war on fossil fuels, opposing fracking, and trying to shut down U.S. energy production. American natural gas was terrible for the environment. Still, Ukrainian natural gas was good for the campaign coffers when it involves Hunter Biden’s business interests and John Kerry’s former chief of staff. As Hilton points out, Sen. Markey’s hypocrisy runs particularly deep:

Sen. Ed Markey was the Senate sponsor of the Green New Deal! He wants to shut down gas production in America. Yet he personally intervened with the Obama administration to send your tax dollars to boost Ukraine’s gas production. And not just once.

Not only did he write that letter to Obama, but he sponsored multiple pieces of legislation that called for more U.S. assistance and aid specifically to help Ukraine’s natural gas sector, including one that “directs the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to prioritize support for investments to increase energy efficiency, developed domestic oil and natural gas reserves and develop renewable energy sources in Ukraine.”

Democrat senators take campaign cash from Ukrainian interests while urging Ukraine to help remove a duly elected President from office, and these are the people who would vote in an impeachment trial.

Summary

In this Ukraine “thing,” there are indeed deep and intense financial ties between U.S. political heavyweights and family members and Ukraine oligarchs. We’ve heard of relations that include the sons of Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry in addition to those of Hunter Biden. Let’s be honest with each other:

  • What does Ukraine have that U.S. financial institutions (represented by the sons of these very-connected politicians) want or need?
  • Why have these ties with Ukraine been political rather than just one international company doing business with another international company put together by politicians?
  • In the case of the Bidens, why are they being given free passes — even the former VP who publicly confessed of his bribery of Ukraine officials?
  • What were ties to former top Ukraine government officials with Barack Obama? What were the details of those ties?
  • Why do Congressional leaders from both parties ignore discussions of past and current Congressional involvement in Ukraine?

We don’t have “for-sure” answers to these questions. But Americans want and deserve answers to these and other questions. What is now absolute is that there is an entirely different level of accountability for those who serve in the federal government from average Americans in regards to ties with foreign governments. It appears to ordinary American citizens that legislators have advantages. They and their family members are allowed to be part of “questionable” business interactions with a foreign government and elites in those countries approved to do work with the U.S. These people have been called the “Deep State” and other names. Regardless of the group name, it is real, IS working and functioning.

One good thing about our 24/7 news capabilities is that we are privy to much more news detail than ever before in history. That’s good. What’s terrible is that the determination to provide news facts is controlled totally by private news organizations. Each of those involved holds a political perspective. It seems that those political perspectives determine not only what see and hear; they decide the actual substance of the stories.

That’s at least as scary as the above-reported financial involvements of politicos and siblings with the nation of Ukraine.

“Follow the Money”

The Universal Seed of ALL Corruption: “SELF”

It’s hard for most Americans to fathom why there is so much venom spewed among members of Congress and this Administration these days. I’ve been asked over and over the last few years why there is so much anger and hatred. It’s not Democrat Party or Republican Party hatred and even violence. It’s an American problem. But what is its source?

First, please understand that it is not new — it’s been bubbling beneath the surface for decades. But its hidden agenda protected America from its penalties: hatred and anger. But as it began to be seen four or five decades ago, people began to implement its use more often and more boldly. Its basis is the commonality of all men and women: self.

Self

There are many different theories and definitions of “self” among professional psychologists. Many agree that the “self” consists of a person’s conscious and unconscious aspects, their personality, cognitions or thoughts and feelings. All these traits or aspects combine together into the person’s core identity. Other synonyms for “self” are soul, ego, personality, or individual. To dumb-down the definition of “self” to use in this conversation, let’s just consider “self” as “everything in our lives pertaining to you and me individually and seen, identified, and applied in our lives by OUR choices.” To simplify it, each of us though an individual “self” have much in common, including the basic traits of all humans. Self Actualization lives in all of us. That’s the trait that pushes us each to maximize what we can for ourselves in every way possible. The basic element of that is that it naturally pertains to us alone. Bring others into the picture, and the picture completely changes.

How does this apply to this minefield in which we find ourselves individually and as a nation?

Almost every American has asked at one time or another, “How do people go to Congress in one economic class, spend time on Capitol Hill, and leave Washington as multi-millionaires?” The answer to that is at the core of our discussion today.

Before we get into exactly what is going on, know this: from 2010 through 2016 — the last year for which we can find statistics — not a single person who served in the House of Representatives and the Senate has seen a decline in net worth. Net worth is the measure of the value of their total assets minus any debt they may hold. This includes the current 435 members of the House and 100 Senate members. Also included is every member of the House and Senate who has left office during that time. How does that happen when Congressional salaries are about $170,000 a year?

Indeed, some have invested smartly in the stock market, in commercial real estate, personally owned businesses that thrived, or added great inheritances. But I dare to say that if we looked at the net worths of 535 randomly selected Americans plus the several hundred others who were replaced in Congress, there would be a large number who saw actual decreases in their net worth during that period.

There is one benefit of being in Congress for which those average Americans are not eligible: the benefits of serving in Congress are known in Louisiana as “lagniappe.” Lagniappe is something that is added at no additional cost to whatever you purchase.

Congressional Lagniappe

The ”Big Lagniappe: Lobbying benefits. If you are unaware of these extras, every significant business, non-profit, labor union, and municipality from every sector in America pay for law firms to represent them in legislative matters before Congress that are of  importance to them. Those lobbying firms receive tens of millions of dollars to sway the votes of members of Congress who have votes within committees and on the floor of each House that directly impacts each of these entities.

Lobbyists are masters at using those millions to reach into the lives of members of Congress. We will not get into all the laws and regulations that control lobbying but know this: a significant amount of those lobbyist dollars find their way into the lives of Congressional members. They cannot simply write legislators checks as bribery, but they can find jobs for family members — Cush jobs that pay big bucks with incredible benefits. Universities are often “open” to scholarships for those close to members of Congress. Luxurious vacations in the Caribbean and the South Pacific, speaking engagements, all come with dollars and cents attached. And it’s all legal.

Don’t misunderstand what I am referencing: numerous honest and hardworking legislators have taken an oath of office and are straight-shooters and above reproach in the service of their constituents. These would NEVER participate in any underhanded financial home runs like these mentioned above. But many DO participate in those. History proves it.

Being in Congress means access to information that often is unavailable to ordinary Americans. Sometimes constituents do see some of that info, but not at the same time or same manners as do lawmakers. One example of this resulted in the House passing legislation signed into law to prevent insider trading. Do you want to know what that law is called? ”The Pelosi Law.” Nancy Pelosi and her husband received inside information about commercial real estate property far in advance of any information about it became public. They invested, news hit the media, property values soared, and they cashed in. It happens with stocks for which companies are about to receive approval for sale from the government, and their values assuredly will skyrocket when they hit the market. Members of Congress buy early before the public has that chance and make millions.

Then there’s merely selling Congressional influence. I doubt much of that is actual bribery. But it indeed happens. In Washington, a legislative opportunity is based on who you know. Then it became who you know and when you know any specifics. Now it’s getting access to people who make those things happen.

It all boils down to one thing and one thing only: Money.

“For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭6:10‬ ‭

I’ve heard this Scripture quoted this way: “Money is the root of all kinds of evil.” That’s not true. Money holds no inherent evil. It’s the way money is used. And the purpose for its usage is determined by who controls the money.

But it gets worse. Decades ago, D.C. hawkers discovered that while money got most things accomplished, there were other avenues to get to cash that made doing so quicker, smoother, and made getting Lagniappe along with money a sure thing. What is that thing? Power. Think about it: with sufficient power, one gets everything — including money!

”Self” is the driving force for money. “Power” is the driving force for cash with a bunch of Lagniappe. The seed formerly was money. Now it is power.

Here’s the Answer

Self Actualization starts all this. And that’s a necessary human trait that alone is not evil. It leads many to create jobs and establish and grow companies. It pushes those who want to help others to medicine, social services, and charitable operations. But the type that exists and is developed to gain and maintain power to accumulate everything that Self wants is plain evil.

Enter the Deep State.

Yep: it’s real. The Deep State is comprised of all kinds of folks. But today we concentrate on those in Washington, D.C. Through these last decades, politicians discovered the Power key to the accumulation of all the things they wanted. They built a bureaucracy. In that system, THEY make all the rules, THEY control who gets in and who is not allowed, THEY find opportunities for their members. In finding ways to protect their Dragon, they unify in attack mode to protect their domain and their fellow members against exposure and, when exposed, the rabid defense of all who might attack.

And that’s what we are seeing today.

  • Did you wonder why the rabid and unsubstantiated non-stop assault on Donald Trump? It began before his inauguration. Within an hour of his swearing-in, the Washington Post released a story with this headline: “The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already underway.”
  • Have you wondered why so many members of Congress suddenly decided to retire or not to run for re-election since Trump’s election? Never before have such numbers of those doing so occurred. What might be the reason for “some” of those not finishing terms or deciding to leave Congress?
  • Have you, like many Americans, tried to understand the hatred for Donald Trump in the shadow of the most significant economic recovery in at least 50 years that has dramatically impacted the lives of every living American? Most think it’s time to be happy and thankful. To this day, House Democrat leadership refuse even to mention these economic benefits.
  • Do you wonder why Democrats are rushing through this impeachment process? Do you wonder why they have refused to allow the President representation in these hearings, the right to question and cross-examine witnesses, bring in and present their witnesses, present evidence, question evidence presented by Democrats? Why has there been no due process, no consultation with the Minority about hearing structure and content? After all, in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes, the Minority party was offered the same hearing opportunities as the Majority. Dems operating this way with the Trump matter is historical.
  • Why would Democrats not understand that if this process stands, every future president will have a Democrat-controlled House holding a gun to his or her head? “If you as President don’t do our bidding, we’ll impeach you!” This impeachment process would permanently alter American history with no Constitutional authority.

Why are Democrats and other Deep Staters So Adamant?

Here’s the big reason for all of this. Deep Staters — try as they have — cannot take control of Donald Trump! That is driving them insane.

Think about it:

  1. He came to D.C. as a billionaire. He certainly doesn’t need the money. That’s unlike the Obamas and the Clintons who moved into the White House having moderate net worths. When both couples left, each couple left with $100 million+ of wealth. How did that happen and continue to blow-up after leaving? From influence and quid pro quo. (Heard that term lately?)
  2. He ran numerous billion-dollar corporations that employed hundreds of thousands of people with locations across the U.S. and around the World. His power and influence rivaled that of those “supporters” that enabled the Clintons to accumulate their wealth, peddling their influence both during and after their presidencies. Trump doesn’t need or want that.
  3. Trump’s predecessor was obsessed with what HE was and did do while in office, regardless of the impact on Americans — even when negative. Trump too obsesses, but his obsessions are outwardly for all to see, not just by what he says but what he does at improving the lives of Americans. And he’s the only president in my history who has fulfilled his campaign promises to voters immediately after taking the oath of office! 

The Deep State does not know what to do about Donald Trump. They knew after those accomplishments started piling up that if they let them continue uninterrupted, he not only would serve a second term, but his accomplishments would expose the Deep State’s true power and control methods to Americans. And they knew that exposure would ruin the Swamp they created for all Deep State compadres in which to thrive. In short, Trump immediately began destroying their “deal too good to be true.”

And expose those things, and the guilty parties are precisely what the President has done.

Summary

That’s it. It certainly is not an intricate mystery. But it certainly has been well-hidden. During the day today, think through the things that have happened in the U.S. the last decade or so that you have wondered, “How could they let that happen?” It is most likely, those in the Deep State were conducting “business as usual.”

Let’s watch and see. I, for one, desperately want this to get to the Senate for trial and for the Senate to use the test to (through public and continuous testimony of those guilty of numerous federal violations) expose the Deep State to Americans.

If that is not allowed, you can be confident the Deep State existence among Republicans will be confirmed. The only realistic explanation for those Conservatives in the Senate to not let such testimony happen is they are Deep State members who are desperate to maintain their status quo.

God help them! Their exposure would undoubtedly be known to the World.

They’ll be toast!

Play

Horowitz Report Realities: They Aren’t Good for Dems

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz appeared before Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) Intelligence Committee Wednesday to answer questions about his report on the FBI investigation’s basis and inception. The 434-page report, Horowitz penned one point and one only that gave the Lame-Stream Media and Democrats a possible out for the rampant corruption in the Trump investigation. He stated there was no provable partisan political bias that started the FBI investigation. He did not indicate there was no political partisanship among those who investigated.

The Media danced; Democrats threw victory parties; fired FBI Director James Comey and Obama former CIA director John Brennan decided to excoriate the President via Twitter for their exoneration they perceive from the Horowitz Report. Those thoughts are far from the truth.

First, Horowitz did not say there was NO political bias that started the investigation. He said his team could not PROVE it was the basis for its beginning. There’s a big difference. Why do I say that? Throughout the report, Horowitz detailed dozens and dozens of examples of the political bias of members of the F.B.I. and DOJ that certainly played into a one-sided investigation.

Further, he identified seventeen specific examples of what he termed severe “errors” by the FBI. He used errors instead of labeling those instances “criminal acts” because the job of his team was not to investigate criminal matters but to find facts to prepare a report. If there are exposed criminal acts — and there are positively egregious criminal acts — Federal Attorney John Durham, who is now conducting a separate and criminal investigation, will handle those.

Is the Horowitz report a slam-dunk for President Trump?  It depends on which media source to which you read, listen, or watch to get the “truth” of the report. No matter which source you use for your information, be confident of this one thing: there will be indictments, and people will be prosecuted for grave crimes before this is complete. This is complete…” is not going to be for some time. I can picture a scenario in which we are still dealing with F.B.I.wrongdoing during the 2016 election cycle and beyond for several years to come. The fishing net has caught-up a bunch of fish.

Let’s dig in.

There were serious errors in the applications for secret eavesdropping warrants.

  • Mr. Horowitz found that F.B.I. Officials appeared to discount evidence that did not support probable cause to wiretap Carter Page while playing up information that seemed to justify one. “That so many fundamental errors were made by three separate, handpicked teams on one of the most sensitive F.B.I. Investigators briefed to the highest levels, and that F.B.I. Officials expected it would eventually be subjected to scrutiny, raised important questions regarding the F.B.I. chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process,” the report said.

 

  • The Inspector-General did not speculate whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would have granted the application — renewed three times — to wiretap Mr. Page anyway. But he said the F.B.I. should review the actions of everyone who had a hand in drafting the applications. And he identified in each form where information verifying a fact was not included.

 

  • Relying on the F.B.I.’s information, the Justice Department first obtained court approval to wiretap Mr. Page in October 2016. The wiretap application portrayed Mr. Page, who had recently stepped down as a Trump campaign aide and had close ties to Russia, as a suspected unregistered agent of a foreign power. Mr. Horowitz found dozens of examples of missing or flawed documentation in the applications to wiretap Mr. Page. By the way, while the FBI intimated in all of the FISA warrant applications that Carter Page was a known Russian operative, Page was NOT working for Russia, but was a C.I.A. operative working directly with the CIA! Guess what: then CIA Director John Brennan knew that and hid it from all.

 

  • The applications relied heavily on information provided by Christopher Steele, a British former intelligence agent whose research was funded first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals, then by Democratic organizations. Mr. Steele told the F.B.I. that he based much of his information on a confidential source. But when the F.B.I. Interviewed that person, the source failed to back up some of Mr. Steele’s assertions, the report said. For instance, according to the F.B.I. Interview, the source saw “nothing bad” about communications between the Trump team and the Kremlin, and never discussed WikiLeaks with Mr. Steele, according to the report. The F.B.I.’s failure to inform the court of those discrepancies was a severe error, Mr. Horowitz said. “Despite the inconsistencies between Steele’s reporting and the information his primary sub-source provided to the F.B.I., the subsequent FISA renewal applications continued to rely on the Steele information, without any revisions or notice to the court,” the report stated.

 

  • The F.B.I. also failed to notify the court after it learned that Mr. Steele was “desperate” to undercut Mr. Trump, the report said. Kevin Clinesmith, a low-level F.B.I. lawyer, altered an email from the C.I.A. to incorrectly state that Mr. Page was not a source for the intelligence agency. That error was then repeated in an application to renew the warrant. Mr. Horowitz has referred his findings of Mr. Clinesmith to possible criminal investigation for making a false statement.

The Attorney General said the F.B.I. failed to justify the steps it took to investigate the Trump campaign.

John Brennan

Attorney General William Barr praised one element of the Inspector General’s findings, saying the report showed “malfeasance and misfeasance” and “clear abuse” of the wiretap application process by the F.B.I. But Mr. Barr also suggested that he disagreed with Mr. Horowitz’s conclusion that the F.B.I. had sufficient reason to open an investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia.

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Mr. Barr said in a statement.

John H. Durham, a federal prosecutor whom Mr. Barr appointed to run a separate criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, backed Mr. Barr’s findings in his own highly unusual statement. “Last month, we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened,” Mr. Durham said.

Were there problems with the use of informants?

Mr. Horowitz concluded that the F.B.I. did not attempt to place informants or undercover agents inside the Trump campaign, but he found that the current policy for using informants should include more oversight.

As part of the Russia investigation, F.B.I. Agents authorized the use of at least one informant to determine whether Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos were working with the Russians. The informant met with the two men while they were still associated with the campaign.

The use of the informant, Stefan A. Halper, a Cambridge professor, has led Mr. Trump and his allies to accuse the F.B.I. of spying on his campaign. The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, has defended the bureau against accusations of spying. On two separate occasions, A.G. Barr in interviews (one in testimony before a Congressional committee) stated that it is clear the F.B.I. DID spy on the Trump Campaign. When asked that question in Wednesday’s hearing, Mr. Horowitz also stated the F.B.I. spied on Mr. Trump.

Mr. Horowitz’s team scrutinized the F.B.I.’s roster of informants for any work they might have done in connection with the Russia investigation. He found that the F.B.I. did not try to infiltrate the campaign itself. And the inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. used informants to interact with anyone on the Trump campaign before the official opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

The inspector general said Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who met with Mr. Papadopoulos and offered him dirt on Hillary Clinton, was not an F.B.I. informant.

How Bad Was It?

In a partial example of just how vile was this investigation by the F.B.I., watch this snippet between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and I.G. Horowitz:

Put in perspective, Horowitz made it clear in Wednesday’s testimony that the Steele Dossier WAS part of the initial FISA warrant application and each FISA renewal. He also stated an F.B.I. attorney in dramatic fashion edited an email to prove that Carter Page was indeed working with Russia. The actual email said precisely the opposite.

Fired F.B.I. Director James Comey immediately after the Horowitz Report release ran to Twitter to say this:

In the Horowitz hearing, the Inspector General stated this: “No one was vindicated in this report.” Further, Horowitz noted that Comey violated numerous guidelines and broke federal statutes. Regardless of what Comey claimed, you can bet the John Durham investigation will result in Comey indictments with at least one trial to follow.

Peter Strozk

Who else was tagged for wrongdoing in the Horowitz Report? Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, John Brennan, James Clapper, that unnamed F.B.I. attorney who forged a FISA application, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and that list is just getting started. Many more will face the Grim Reaper when the dust settles on all this.

Summary

What this has exposed is what many have believed not only existed but has thrived in Washington for years: a Deep State. What precisely does that mean?

  • James Comey is likely going to be remembered as the most corrupt F.B.I Director in U.S. history.
  • John Brennan lied multiple times before Congress, and this report reveals he hid many facts from the DOJ attorneys, investigators, and conned the FISA courts to gain illegal access to surveillance of the Trump Campaign.
  • There was deep political bias through numerous levels of employees in several Intelligence agencies. While it was first thought that corruption was specifically within senior management members of several of those agencies, it now appears it made its way through numerous levels in the F.B.I., C.I.A., D.N.I., and other agencies. It is certain that even though F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray has stated he has already taken suggested “corrective actions” within the F.B.I. contained in the Horowitz Report. If he has done so, it is apparent that he had to have at least known about the wrongdoing that occurred under Comey if not personally complicit.
  • It is expected that in the Durham criminal investigation that members of the Obama F.B.I. and DOJ and probably even some from the White House staff will be implicated.

The Deep State is real. But the above government employees did not act alone. There were those in Congress that at least knew much of what was happening. If evidence confirms that, here’s what that means: some workers in the three Constitutional branches of government — Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches — will be implicated. But there’s one more:

Though not Constitutional, today’s Media took an active role in this fake collusion investigation into Donald Trump. The Media are guilty of suborning perjury, falsifying information used in news reports, and knowingly presented through corrupt government officials defaming information about Trump officials while publicly supporting the lies of those active in this coup d’état.

In the committee hearing in his opening remarks, Sen. Lindsey Graham finished with this advice to us all: “Don’t judge the personnel of our Intelligence Agencies based on this. This does not tell the story of those agencies. We’re better than this.”

I like Mr. Graham, who I consider a great conservative lawmaker. But, in this case, I am now inclined to disagree with the Senator. I feel that far more than have previously been thought to be “great Americans committed to the Rule of Law” that work within these agencies have been, and probably are, driven by gross political bias. And I’m not referring to political ideals which every American has the right to hold. For decades, members of the Government were undoubtedly encouraged to support and vote for their political preferences. But they were instructed to leave their political perspectives at home — no partisanship was allowed on the job in which they work for ALL Americans.

That’s changed: the Deep State has a much bigger choke-hold than I suspected on the heart that beats to keep our nation alive.

Wake up, America!

Play

Michael Horowitz Part II

Conservatives for months have been waiting breathlessly for the release of the Horowitz report on the sources and the basis for the inception of the FBI investigation into collusion with the Russians by the Donald Trump campaign. Horowitz is the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. His report was expected for release in the late Spring of 2019. It will be released to the public Monday, December 9.

Supposedly the delays are the result of witnesses who, for whatever reasons, did not cooperate with Horowitz regarding testimony early in the investigation but decided to come forward late. Their doing so is rumored to be because of fear of Federal Prosecutor John Durham, who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate all the 2016-2017 matters in the election. These matters include the Clinton Foundation, FISA warrant applications and all details about the warrants, and who the players were in the surveillance of members of the Trump campaign by the FBI. Durham, unlike Horowitz, has subpoena power. He can convene grand juries (and probably already has), interrogate witnesses, and has wide latitude to obtain evidence of wrongdoing. It is expected many who are included in the Horowitz report are subjects of Durham’s investigation. They are choosing to cooperate with Horowitz so as to not make themselves Durham’s targets for their lack of cooperation.

                   President Trump with U.S. Attorney General William Barr

Just a week after Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz’s report on the Obama administration’s spying on the Trump campaign in 2016 was published, The Washington Post released another supposed leak.

Attorney General Barr apparently disagrees with the Inspector General that Obama officials and agents were justified in spying on Trump’s campaign and Trump’s transition team, according to the Washington Post report.

Barr may include a formal letter in the report or may publicly state his concern.

According to leaks, behind the scenes at the Department of Justice, there appears to be a disagreement over one of Horowitz’s central conclusions about the origins of the Russian investigation. The conflict could be the beginning of a significant rift within the federal agency over the controversial issue of investigating a presidential campaign.

Barr has not been influenced by Horowitz’s “logic” to conclude that the FBI had a sufficient basis to open their investigation on July 31, 2016. Horowitz will testify in the Senate on Dec. 11 about the findings of the investigation into possible FISA abuses.

For more than a year and a half, Horowitz has been investigating an alleged abuse of FISA by the Obama Justice Department and FBI during the 2016 elections against President Trump.

But the report is more than just a FISA abuse; it is a whole conspiracy campaign against President Trump orchestrated by the Democratic Party in cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies. The IG report will also likely result in the declassification of documents requested by high-ranking Republican legislators for several years.

Republicans and President Trump had argued that the FBI’s alleged FISA abuses, which occurred when the federal agency sought criminal links between Trump’s campaign team and Russia during the 2016 campaign, were politically motivated.

In fact, in recent months, several documents have been uncovered that corroborate those claims, for example:

  • Text messages obtained by Fox News showed that before the FISA application was approved, FBI agents were dealing with a senior Justice Department official who had “continued concerns” about “possible bias” of a source pivotal to the application.
  • The 2016 messages, sent between Lisa Page and then FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also revealed that members of the intelligence bureau circulated at least two ‘anti-Trump’ blog articles.
  • These text messages were based in part on information from former British spy Christopher Steele who cited Page’s alleged links to Russia. The FBI assured the FISA court that the media independently corroborated Steele’s claims, but it later came to light that Steele had previously leaked those data to the press.
  • The FBI did not clearly state that Steele worked for a company hired by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Much of the Steele dossier has been discredited or unfounded. In fact, the extensive report by special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign members and the Kremlin.

The “Disagreement”

Reports are beginning to float to the surface that Barr is basically saying that Horowitz, confined as he is to examine issues related to the DOJ, doesn’t have the information he and Durham have uncovered as to what other agencies (such as the CIA) and entities may have been doing during the investigation.

He doesn’t have all the information, Barr says, so his conclusion might be appropriate within the limited parameters he had to work with, but there’s more to the story.

That’s it.

It’s not a slam against Horowitz, nor is it a slam against the report. Only an acknowledgment — and a necessary one, given the spin-doctoring that’s been happening in the lead up to the report’s release next week — that Horowitz was limited in the scope of his investigation.

This is actually how governing is supposed to work, with the players showing respect for each other’s roles and taking care not to step on toes. The Obama administration had a different view of how the intelligence agencies were supposed to function, and Barr seems to be thinking back to a time before super-sharing between agencies was a thing.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham warned that if you believe Horowitz and Barr are at odds with each other in their upcoming reports, you’re buying into the spin.

“Be wary of the Washington Post and the New York Times reporting on what is coming up with Horowitz. They have been trying overtime to spin this thing to diminish its effect, to downplay it,” Graham said Monday.

“I can tell you without any hesitation Attorney General Barr has every confidence in the world in Mr. Horowitz,” Graham added. “He believes that he has done a good job, a professional job, and he appreciates the work and the effort he has put into disclosing abuse at the Department of Justice.”

Summary

Uncharacteristically, Radio Host Rush Limbaugh has been skeptical of any blockbuster revelations of DOJ and FBI wrongdoing in the Russia collusion probe being included in the Horowitz report. Conservatives have been nervously anticipating the story, hoping that there will be certain damning information added that will result in criminal referrals to the DOJ for the prosecution of those who allegedly illegally created and maintained the allegations of Russia collusion by the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Many Conservatives will be sorely disappointed if no action is recommended by Horowitz.

On the other hand, Federal Attorney John Durham has all the power necessary to do exactly what Horowitz cannot do: grand juries, subpoena witnesses, issue indictments, even conduct arrests. And Durham made an announcement recently that his investigation is now considered a criminal investigation as compared to that of Horowitz.

All this means, Folks, is that we are set for waiting again for any definitive information about alleged wrongdoing by those in the Obama White House, the FBI under James Comey, the Department of Justice under Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, and by management at several of the intelligence community departments: specifically John Brennan and James Clapper.

Yes, this is a convoluted and intricate period of digging for the truth. What bothers many Americans is that no one seems to know for certain who are the “guys wearing the black hats” and who “wear the white hats.” Are the investigators in all this clean and objective, or are they “in the tank” for the perpetrators? In other words, millions have queasy stomachs when thinking through it all.

It’s sad to know that any people who work for the American people in government are evil. But there’s one thing that is indisputable: there are plenty of people in our government who are evil. Corruption runs amuck. We must discover who they are, identify their specific wrongdoing, and hold them accountable.

Do you think that will ever happen?

Play

The Hypocrisy of Impeachment ‘98 vs. ‘19

There is quite a bit of hypocrisy festering in the rush by Democrats to send President Trump the “big” Christmas present: Impeachment. Democrat Party leaders are foaming at the mouth about what would certainly be their Christmas gift: Trump’s D.C. departure. No American can truthfully question Dems disdain for the President, no matter what good has happened during his presidency as direct results of HIS policies — and there are many.

Who are the angriest, most voracious, and hate-filled of those Democrats? Nancy Pelosi, Jerrold Nadler, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, and others in Democrat leadership. They were all involved in Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment, all were unbelievably vocal, and all expressed very specific ideas about impeachment. Surprisingly, though, their ‘98 views are significantly different from their ‘19 views. That in itself is not surprising. What IS surprising is they seem to either forget or not care that there are recordings in abundance — both in audio and video — that document their flip-flops on not just impeachment of two different individuals, but on the impeachment process itself.

Here are the video and audio segments of those leaders sharing their varying views. We’ll leave the conclusions to the hypocrisy they each reveal when they addressed Bill Clinton impeachment in 1998 and impeachment of Donald Trump in 2019.

Summary

For reasoning and reasonable Americans, it is unconscionable that ANY activity on Capitol Hill (or anywhere in Washington D.C.) is initiated and action taken unless it happens for one and only one purpose: the Peoples’ business. Americans are not blind to the partisanship and purely political purposes of the 2019 impeachment activities initiated solely by Democrats.

Is it not stupid for any elected government official to stand and decry the evils of this or any President while all around the nation, far more great things than even Republicans expected in a Trump presidency play out every day? Most Americans find it difficult to even tiptoe past all that to walk down “Impeachment Row.” And with Thursday’s surprising economic numbers that reveal unemployment for Americans at a 50-year low in part due to 260,000 new jobs during the previous month, Americans’ jaws dropped and they shook their heads. Why? Americans do not understand how Congress could even consider impeachment now — not just because of wonderful economic news, but primarily because not a single Democrat witness who each was supposed to be qualified to factually confirm impeachable wrongdoing of Donald Trump when asked could even name one impeachable act on the part of the President!

Yet, according to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Monday, December 9, “evidence” will be presented to the House Judiciary Committee that will initiate votes in the House on several Articles of Impeachment that “will” justify the Senate trying President Trump, convicting him, and removing him from office.

On another day, we will example “Abuse of Power,” one of the allegations against the President Democrats are now claiming. The common denominator in all this: Adam Schiff. In that famous cartoon, Wiley Coyote spent his entire life trying to catch the Roadrunner but just could never get the job done. “Schiff Coyote” is pretty much daily duplicating his namesake’s efforts. But Mr. “Coyote” is chasing “Trump-runner.”

Clinton Donors Charged in Massive Campaign-Finance Scheme

Eight people, including major Hillary Clinton donors and a witness in the Mueller investigation, have been charged in a massive campaign-finance scheme, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday.

The individuals conspired to “make and conceal conduit and excessive campaign contributions” valued around $3.5 million in the 2016 election campaign and beyond, according to the announcement. Although the indictment does not explicitly name the recipient of the donations, it is clear that the contributions went to groups allied with Clinton’s presidential campaign.

One of those charged, George Nader, is a Lebanese American businessman who was a witness in the Mueller report. Nader was also caught in 2018 in possession of child pornography but received partial immunity in exchange for testimony in the Mueller investigation. He faces between 15 to 40 years in prison if convicted on child-pornography charges.

Also indicted on campaign-finance charges was Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, who hosted a fundraiser for Clinton in Los Angeles in 2016 and who conspired to conceal campaign donations from 2016 to 2018. Khawaja owns an online-payments company used by, among others, debt collectors, offshore gamblers, and pornographers. The company has made numerous campaign donations to both Democrats and Republicans.

Nader also gained access to the Trump administration, meeting with the president on several occasions. Nader has experience in international diplomacy, has served as a diplomatic conduit to the Middle East and Russia, and was an informal adviser to the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates.

Unreported History of Clinton Campaign Fraud: 2016

Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 was stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they made what was supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, according to multiple sources.

The overcharges were occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks received up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who was a victim of this fraud scheme, filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

“We got up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department stated. The source claimed that the Clinton campaign had been pulling this stunt since the Spring of 2016. The Hillary for America campaign overcharged small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically didn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we didn’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they stop the charges just below $100. We saw her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who worked for Wells Fargo for over ten years, said that the total amount they refunded customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varied” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1,200 per day.

The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who called in attempted to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never got anywhere. “They called the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never got resolved. So they called us, and we just issued a refund. The Clinton campaign knew these charges were small potatoes and that we’d just refund the money back.”

The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people were overcharged by Hillary’s campaign, and they had no idea.”

Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, was one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March of 2016, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her U.S. Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made. Mahre, who said in an interview she only contributed $25 because she’s “not rich” and that’s all she could afford, contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her dispute the unauthorized charges.

Roger, who is an attorney, stated that he called the Clinton campaign dozens of times in April and early May of 2016 in an attempt to resolve the issue. “It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger said. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”

Incredibly, the very next day, Carol’s card was charged yet again, and the campaign had never reversed the initial fraudulent charges. “I was told they would stop charging my mother’s card, but they never stopped.” He added that he knows his mother did not sign up for recurring payments. “She’s very good with the internet, so I know she only made a one-time payment.” Roger also pointed out that even if his mother mistakenly signed up for recurring monthly payments then she should’ve been charged for the same amount of money each month, not multiple charges for varying amounts on the same day or in the same month. Furthermore, Roger said that after the campaign was made aware of this situation, the charges should’ve stopped, but they never did.

The Clinton campaign overcharged Carol $25 three times and then overcharged her one time for $19, a total of $94 in fraudulent charges. The campaign’s overcharges to Carol were just a few dollars short of $100. This paralleled what the Wells Fargo bank source revealed.

Since the campaign failed to amend the problem for Carol, Roger contacted her bank, U.S. Bank. However, he ran into problems when he asked U.S. Bank to refund his mother’s money. Roger stated that the bank would not reverse the charges and that a bank spokesperson told him that they had no control over companies that make unauthorized charges. At that point, Roger decided to contact his local news and filed a fraud complaint with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office on behalf of his mother. After local TV news KARE-11 ran a story, someone from U.S. Bank contacted Roger the next day and said that they had reversed and stopped the charges to his mother’s card.

Roger did eventually get a letter from a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign. In the letter, the lawyer wrote that his mother would be removed from their donor list; however, the campaign did not take any responsibility for the fraudulent charges.

“They said that they weren’t accepting responsibility for this, but they’d remove my mom from the donor list,” he said. Roger is less than happy with the way the Clinton campaign handled this nightmare for him and his mother. “This is a load of crap!” Mahre said. “The self-righteousness of politicians drives me insane. If you and I did this, we’d be thrown in jail. This is theft, fraud or wire fraud—it’s a federal crime!”

When Carol’s story became public, Roger said he heard from other people who were ripped off by the Clinton campaign. “I’ve heard this happened to other small donors,” Roger said. “People donated $25, but then when they received their credit card statement, they were charged $25 multiple times.”

The Wells Fargo Bank source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department never received one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary did is so messed up, she stole from her poorest supporters.”

Nothing New

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign repaid.

A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her Visa card. Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit. Callahan said that after a month of “begging and pleading,” she wasn’t able to get her money back until she threatened to go to authorities. However, when she was finally refunded her money, the Clinton campaign refused to compensate her for the $400 in overdraft and bank charges.

Summary

Do we need even to discuss the obvious here? Consider this:

  • Since the Clintons both entered politics — first in Arkansas, then in Washington and New York — rumors of financial corruption have followed right along with them. Few Americans care to pay the price and invest the time and energy to investigate their financial wrongdoings. Quite honestly, there are quite a few  “wounded” Americans in their political wake! (“Wounded” here is an oxymoron!) You can even look outside the U.S. to Clinton Foundation issues. In Haiti, after the horrific earthquake, millions of dollars that flowed through the Clinton Foundation for aid to Haiti vanished. And financial nepotism put millions more in the pockets of Clinton cronies. Why should this latest DOJ report of Clinton Campaign fraud be surprising?
  • Why do we not hear anything about any of this until after the fact? It seems that either the American Media is oblivious to the “news” that Clintons’ financial wrongdoing has been rampant or that the “Lame-Stream Media” simply do not care. No matter if it’s because of one or both, their doing so is a travesty.

I’ll close with this undeniable thought — my conclusion: Can you imagine how the heads of U.S. Media pundits would be exploding if Donald Trump was implicated in any such matters?

Oh, and then there’s this: what would be happening if the Clintons were back in the White House?

Play

Obama Weaponized Foreign Aid

President Trump has been demonized in the latest chapter of the “Dump-Trump” movement for pressuring Ukraine to investigate the alleged corruption of former VP Joe Biden and his son. In that telephone call between Mr. Trump and the newly elected president of Ukraine Zelensky, the Biden corruption investigation in Ukraine was mentioned. While Vice President, Biden publicly threatened to withhold an approximate $1 Billion of U.S. aid to Ukraine unless that prosecutor investigating Biden and his son was fired. Biden gave them six hours to do so. They fired the prosecutor and the relief was released.

Democrats have parlayed that phone call into the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” to launch formal impeachment proceedings against the President. It has been a fiasco. Partisan witnesses one after another were paraded before Rep. Adam Schiff’s committee to each demean President Trump’s Ukraine actions in an effort to build support from Americans sufficient to drive Trump from the White House.

The fundamental premise for their actions is the alleged use of U.S. aid to force Ukraine to restart the investigation into the Bidens. Why the uproar? Democrats’ justification (though lame) is that it is somehow unethical to use foreign aid to pressure foreign countries to do the bidding of America.

First, that’s not illegal. Secondly, it has been common practice for president after president going all the way back to the very first time foreign aid from the U.S. was given. And, guess what? Barack Obama used foreign aid multiple times to force countries to subvert to his opinion and policies on various issues. He even weaponized his foreign support for purely social issues — NOT anything involved in U.S. or other nations’ laws!

Obama’s Foreign Aid Blackmail Scheme: “Quid Pro Quo”

In July of 2015, the eyes of the world were on Africa as President Obama welcomed Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari to the White House and, for the first time as president, Obama visited his father’s home country of Kenya.

Reports indicated that Buhari and Obama discussed the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram, as well as possible political and economic reforms for Buhari’s struggling country. Similar discussions took place during the Kenya trip.

While all seemed well on the public front, the reality is that both Buhari’s and Obama’s visits were used by the White House to promote what Pope Francis called “ideological colonization.” This agenda was let slip just days before Buhari arrived in Washington when the U.S. State Department indicated it would push the Nigerian government to redefine marriage.

According to the Nigerian Pilot, America’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told reporters that “as a policy, we will continue to press the government of Nigeria, as well as other governments which have provided legislation that discriminates against the LGBT community.”

Thomas-Greenfield defended the pressure, saying it was not international interference in Nigeria’s domestic affairs, but rather is “very much a work in progress…I think you will agree with me that the law in Nigeria went far in discriminating against this community but also people who associate with them. So, we will continue to press the government, to press the legislature to change these laws and provide human rights for all Nigerian people regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Across Africa, millions of people face starvation, war, oppression, poverty, and death due to a lack of essential aid. For decades, the United States has provided many forms of assistance designed to help nations resolve these problems.

Under the Obama administration, however, humanitarian aid often came with a price tag: Abandoning traditional values, especially those related to contraception, abortion, and marriage.

In 2011, Obama issued a memorandum that directed all U.S. embassies worldwide to promote LGBT rights, which he said were “central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights.”

“Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action to promote the fundamental human rights of LGBT persons everywhere,” he said.

That same year, the administration made aid to Nigeria dependent upon it’s not enacting the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act. And before she stepped down as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton compared same-sex relationships to race and sex in a speech that left African leaders furious.

In 2016, at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden both suggested that Africa’s war-torn, impoverished nations could attract economic and development aid from the West by becoming more gay-friendly.

This is social engineering at its finest, but it is not limited to redefining marriage. Contraception and abortion policies — carefully disguised as “family planning” — are also pushed upon Nigeria, whose citizens have rejected these mandates, which they consider harmful anti-women policies. (”Family planning:” sound familiar?)

Again, this “ideological colonization” is not limited to Nigeria. During his visit to Kenya, Obama publicly lectured President Uhuru Kenyatta on his nation’s laws against same-sex sexual relationships. According to CNN, sexual relations between males over 14 is illegal and punishable by as many as 14 years in prison.

Think about this: the Obama Administration is the same administration that spent tens of billions of dollars PLUS substantial political capital on that infamous Iranian deal Obama put in place without Congress that included virtually no requirements of performance of any kind by Iran. And Iran outwardly supports terrorists! And then Obama opened relations with Cuba despite requiring NO political reforms from the Castro dictatorship.

African leaders have long opposed Obama’s 21st-century imperialism, especially religious leaders. Ignatius Kaigama, an Archbishop in Nigeria – whose diocese is in the heart of the area affected by the terrorist organization Boko Haram – and Bishop Joseph Osei-Bonsu of Ghana said they were tired of international pressure to legalize gay marriage.

The Nigerian law explains, “Marriage is between a man and a woman… even outside of scriptural support, our culture tells us that, nature tells us that.”

And despite threats of denial of much-needed aid, he says, Africans will not give in to the demands. “These are our cultures, and we’re not going to compromise over them.”

Former Population Research Institute Media and Research Coordinator Anne Morse went to Kenya during the Obama Administration. An observation she made on Facebook explained a lot:

“Dear President Obama,” wrote Morse, “please justify why–for every dollar USAID spends on water and sanitation in Kenya–it spends TWELVE dollars on family planning.” Morse noted that she “had seen four television advertisements for condoms today, but hasn’t had a hot shower since Sunday.”

The worst example of America’s new-age imperialism was found in the growing evidence that President Obama purposely withheld aid to fight the terrorist group Boko Haram. While Buhari’s predecessor was accused of refusing U.S. aid to fight terrorism, what has been less reported is that the refusal came in part because the United States demanded Nigeria change its laws on marriage.

These accusations aren’t just coming from Catholic bishops. A former U.S. Congressman, a Pentagon Army spokesperson, a Nigerian official, and the Nigerian Ambassador to the United States all confirmed this was the case. To quote Ambassador Adebowale Adefuye in his statement to the Council on Foreign Relations, “the U.S. government has refused to grant Nigeria’s request to purchase lethal equipment that would have brought down the terrorists (Boko Haram) within a short time.”

Nigerian-American Winnie Obike, a candidate in political communications at the University of Maryland, said she was “appalled by the Obama administration’s foreign policy objectives for the African continent.”

“It was ironic that a president who passionately apologized for America’s 19th and 20th century imperialism adopted a twenty-first century imperialism toward Africa by forcing nations to change their beliefs on marriage, abortion, and contraception in exchange for basic humanitarian aid,” said Obike, who was the Minority Outreach Coordinator for the Minnesota for Marriage Campaign.

“Nigeria and other African nations need humanitarian aid and help fighting terrorist groups like Boko Haram, not the West’s declining values,” said Obike. “I urge President Buhari not to compromise traditional values in exchange for foreign aid.”

In 2009, President Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize because many hoped he would lead the world to greater peace and security. The world looked in, hoping that he would take action to justify the award. He could have easily done so by setting aside his ideology and focusing on the real aid needed by Nigerians, Kenyans, and many other Africans. As we all know, that did not happen.

Summary

Try as I might, I cannot find any way to reconcile the consistent and non-stop hypocrisy of the actions of House Democrats regarding their faux-impeachment process to rid Washington of Donald Trump. It is unconscionable that they somehow justify their doing so to an alleged demand by President Trump of Ukraine to investigate Biden corruption in Ukraine in exchange for U.S. foreign aid. I’ll say this one more time: Even if the President did just that it would not have been unusual, illegal, but would have been part of his (and that of any other U.S. president) duty as American president to honor the 1999 Treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine to work together to rid each country of corruption of every kind that involved in any way the other’s country or members of its government. 

If the truth were known, Rep. Schiff would probably have wanted to instigate impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump if he had NOT restarted corruption investigations by Ukraine IN Ukraine as part of the treaty.

All of the facts of this story have been in the public domain for some time. Yet no one in the Lame-Stream media has made any effort to report the facts. It’s far more palatable for them to continue their nonstop stream of vitriol at this President who refuses to play the Deep State D.C. games to perpetuate the flow of power, control, and money from D.C. to their minions to support their often illegal actions at the expense of the American people.

Isn’t it sad that President Obama was using same-sex marriage and abortion as a bargaining chit for the United States to send money to African nations to buy food, clean water, medical supplies, and to acquire military-grade equipment to destroy the Islamic Terrorist organization Boko Haram? Remember those several hundred young African girls kidnapped and held by Boko Haram for several years in which they were enslaved and turned into sex toys of those terrorists? All of those babies’ horrors and pain and brutality at the hands of those monsters fall on Barack Obama, who refused to fund measures to obliterate those terrorists. Those young girls would have never been kidnapped or turned into sex slaves. And the U.S. President refused because he demanded those African nations to mirror HIS values about sex, abortion, and same-sex marriage. And Obama did all that in the name of the American people.

I don’t know which is worse: Obama doing so or the Media hiding what he did and the details for years from the American people. And today’s Lame-Stream media are trying to turn what Obama DID do into something that President Trump did NOT do. And House Democrats are using the misrepresentations, lies, and lawlessness to impeach the President, and in doing so, subvert the wills of 63 million American voters who voted for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize WAS a joke and is now a travesty thrust on the World that has destroyed a large number of the African people in the name of political elitism. And the World thinks you and I supported his doing so.

Play

UkraineGate is Real: And it Is NOT Donald Trump’s

We are about to share a story with you that should be front page on every legitimate newspaper and lead story on every television news show in the nation. It may come as no surprise to you that you didn’t see it in news of any kind anywhere.

I’ve had enough of giving what we previously referred to as “Mainstream Media” any faith, any hint of professionalism or assumption of integrity in reporting. There is none. Hereafter, TruthNewsNetwork will apply to the group of all those in the media who hold as their default news basis all things “anti-Trump” a single name that, when used all will know to which we are referencing. That name: “Lame-Stream Media.”

Today’s news includes multiple revelations about political corruption ignored by those in the government Deep State and, of course, the Lame-Stream Media. It’s current news, applicable to everything we are seeing and hearing from Washington D.C., and ignored. If the bad players in this were Republican or some other brand of Conservative, it would be top of the news every day through the 2020 election. But it’s not about Republicans or other conservatives. It’s about Democrats — those from the last administration and some who carried over into the Trump Administration.

Ukraine-Gate

Remember: we nor any other legitimate news source has any right to discuss even a hint of corruption that includes the name “Biden” and “Ukraine.” Doing so is strictly taboo.

I guess we are “taboo.”

This story begins with the recent reports of Ukraine trips that included numerous meetings with Ukraine political leaders and Rudy Giuliani. The Lame-Stream media have perpetuated non-stop stories to somehow link Giuliani with bribery of Ukraine government officials by the Trump Administration. A Democrat watchdog group trying to quietly vindicate Vice President Joe Biden for allegations of corruption on his part and that of his son Hunter in Ukraine filed a Freedom Of Information Act request hoping to find evidence that exonerated the pair while implicating Giuliani. It backfired spectacularly.

Their Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request resulted in the U.S. State Department releasing detailed accusations of corruption against the Bidens – based on interviews with former Ukrainian officials who were in charge of the investigations.

Responding to a FOIA lawsuit from the group American Oversight, the State Department just released almost 100 pages of records detailing efforts by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani to investigate corruption, which includes contacts with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) earlier this year.

While American Oversight’s ‘gotcha’ is that Giuliani had “multiple contacts” with Mike Pompeo and others while investigating Ukraine’s corruption, they completely ignore interview notes containing detailed allegations by former Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

That’s who Joe Biden had fired, as well as his successor, prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko – who “believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is honest.”

To understand who Viktor Shokin is, on a January 23, 2019 phone call between Shokin and Giuliani, Igor Fruman, Lev Parnas, and George Boyle, Shokin said:

“He was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine from 2015 until April of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden, the Vice President of the United States.”

“He [Shokin] became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola Zlochevsky, the former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. The case was opened as a result of Mr. Zlochevsky giving himself company permits to drill for gas and oil in Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky is also the owner of Burisma Holdings.”

“Mr. Shokin stated that there are documents that list five criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevesky is listed, with the leading example being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following complaints are in the criminal case:

  • Zlochevsky was laundering money.
  • Obtained assets by corrupt acts of bribery.
  • Zlochevsky removed approximately $23 million US dollars out of Ukraine without permission.
  • While seated as the Minister, he approved two new entities to receive permits for gas exploration.
  • Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings and gave those companies permits, which made it possible for him to profit while he was the sitting minister.

“Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointments that were made in 2014 as follows:

  • Hunter Biden, son of Vice President Joseph Biden.
  • Joseph Blade, a former CIA employee, assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit.
  • Alesksander Kwasnieski, former President of Poland.
  • Devon Archer, roommate to the Christopher Heinz the stepson of Mr. John Kerry, United States Secretary of State

“Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect himself.”

Shokin then details how in July 2015:

“US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, that implied to do nothing. On or about September 2015, Mr. Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated correctly, and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.”

“Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of multiple people in Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received.”

“It is believed that Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission plus one million dollars.”

“President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko [who Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees] told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden.

Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko’s office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up $1 billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.

“Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016, Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden.

Mr. Biden told Mr. Poroshenko that he had evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired. Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the U.S. aid was delivered within 1 ½  months.”

“On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch denied his visa to travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden.

Mr. Shokin also stated that there were leaks by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated that there is possible deceit in the Manafort Black Book.”

Yuriy Lutsenko took Shokin’s interview one step further in a January 25 phone interview with Giuliani and associates – describing how Ukraine has two secretive units which are protected by a US Ambassador.

“Mr. Lutsenko went on to explain that there is a unit called Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) which has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau Ukraine (NABU) which investigates corruption cases that involved public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that the current U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU,” adding “His office has absolutely no control over SAP or NABU and can’t even ask what they are working on however they fall under his ‘control.‘”

Of note, NABU was established in October 2014 “by Mr. George Kent who was the Deputy Chief to the Mission in Ukraine.”

Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at (mentioned above) and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation from Burisma. He produced a document from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were distributed out of Burisma’s account. The record showed two (2) companies and four (4) individuals receiving approximately $16 million dollars in disbursements as follows:

Companies: Wirelogic Technology and Digitex

Individuals: Alexsander Kwasnewski Alan Apter

  1. $14,665,982
  2. $1,900,000
  3. $1,150,000
  4. $302,887

Devon Archer — Amount Unknown

Hunter Biden — Amount Unknown

“Mr. Lutsenko stated that there was also a payment of $900,000 to Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC for consulting fees. Hunter Biden is a partner in Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, along with Devon Archer, and the dates of this transaction are approximately anywhere from January to December 2015. According to Mr. Lutsenko the $900,000 invoice was for services rendered for lobbying by Joe Biden.”

Summary

I have never read a better spy novel. It actually could be a segment in the new season just released of “Jack Ryan.” If it wasn’t such a tragic inside look at gross corruption in a presidential administration, it might actually be a humorous example of someone getting caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

What makes this better than a novel is that this account includes the names of all those caught-up in the acts of corruption, dates of meetings, discussions, and even dates money changed hands.

Can the Lame-Stream Media actually continue to ignore this evidence of possible corruption acts committed by the second most powerful man in the World while serving as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. The fact that Obama’s VP was running the Ukraine corruption investigations on behalf of the U.S. pales when put in context of the financial windfalls for Hunter Biden who had no knowledge or expertise that put him in the Ukraine natural gas business where he made tens of millions of dollars, primarily for having the last name “Biden.”

One insignificant bit of information came from this FOIA release: Hunter Biden is not the only son of prominent U.S. political persons. The sons of former Secretary of State John Kerry, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s son, and even the son of current Senator Mitt Romney were all up to their eyeballs in Ukraine’s Petro-chemical industry. None of these had any experience in natural gas — certainly not sufficient to garner tens of millions of dollars in compensation.

Corruption. Quid Pro Quo. Extortion. Bribery. Ironically, those are the same words and terms being thrown at media viewers and readers by Democrats and the Lame-Stream media about President Trump and his administration. The old saying is to “accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty.”