Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:44 am

blah blah blah blah.....typical

you are hysterical.....calm down.....you just can't quit me ...what a riot :)

you are obsessed maybe you need a hobby like maybe start posting at KOS again :lol:

it takes two minutes to find posts that make you look like a total hypocrite
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:31 am

seemslikeadream » Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:47 pm wrote:
No, Actually, This Is What a Fascist Looks Like
Friday, 18 January 2013 11:07
By The Daily Take Team, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed

Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, doesn’t know what a fascist is.

Speaking with NPR this week, multimillionaire Mackey tried to express how much he hates Obamacare. Back in 2009, he hated Obamacare so much that he called it “socialism.” But now, in 2013, Mackey thinks Obamacare is “fascism.”

“Technically speaking, [Obamacare] is more like fascism,” he said. “Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it, and that’s what’s happening with our healthcare programs and these reforms.”

Mackey has since walked back this description saying he “regrets using that word now” because there’s “so much baggage attached to it.”

But, whether Mackey meant to or not, it’s about time someone injected the word fascism back into our political debate. Especially now that corporations wield more power today than they have in America since the Robber Baron Era.

First, let’s take on Mackey’s definitions of socialism and fascism, which he likely procured from the Google machine after typing in, “What are the differences between socialism and fascism?”

Yes, socialism encourages more democratic control of the economy. Or, if Mackey insists, more government ownership of the economy – in particular, ownership of the commons and natural resources.

Fascism, on the other hand, is something completely different. Reporter Sy Mukherjee, who blogged about this story over at ThinkProgress.org notes, “Although fascist nations do often control their ‘means of production,’ Mackey seems to have forgotten that they usually utilize warfare, forced mass mobilization of the public, and politically-motivated violence against their own peoples to achieve their ends.”

The 1983 American Heritage Dictionary defined fascism as: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Fascism originated in Italy, and Mussolini claims to have invented the word itself. It was actually his ghostwriter, Giovanni Gentile, who invented it and defined it in the Encyclopedia Italiana in this way: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

In other words, fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream. It’s a government in which the Atlas’s of industry are given free rein to control the economy, just how they’re regulated, how much they pay in taxes, how much they pay their workers. It should be noted here that, ironically, John Mackey describes himself as a Libertarian.

In 1938, Mussolini finally got his chance to bring fascism to fruition. He dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Members of the Chamber were not selected to represent particular regional constituencies, but instead to represent various aspects of Italian industry and trade. They were the corporate leaders of Italy.

Imagine if the House of Representatives was dissolved and replaced by a Council of America’s most powerful CEOs – the Kochs, the Waltons, the Blankfeins, the Dimons, the Mackeys, you get the picture.

Actually, that’s not too difficult to imagine, huh? But, that’d be similar to what Mussolini defined as fascism.

As we know, fascism was eventually defeated in World War 2. But just before the end of the war, with the fascists on the ropes, the Vice President of the United States at the time, Henry Wallace, penned an op-ed for the New York Times warning Americans about the creeping dangers of fascism – or corporate government.

He defined a fascist as, “those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.”

Under that definition we can throw those CEOs who’ve decided to evade Obamacare’s mandate to provide health insurance to their employees, like New York City Applebee’s franchise owner Zane Terkel, Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter, and executives at Darden Restaurants.

Or, perhaps, Wallace is referring to the banksters at Goldman Sachs who knowingly evaded laws and sold investors “shitty deals” or scammed entire cities into bankruptcy or illegally foreclosed on thousands of Americans through fraudulently robo-signing all in the name of short term profits and all in the name of preserving their monopolistic, too-big-to-fail status.

Either way, evading laws meant to protect the public in order to pad your own pockets has become the name of the game in Corporate America today.

Wallace goes on to write, “The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism.”

Can anyone say Fox News, or the rest of the Conservative media complex? Or, those on the Right who divide working people and turn them against each other: makers versus takes, public sector workers versus private sector workers, and white people versus brown people.

“They use every opportunity to impugn democracy,” wrote Wallace. Does that sound familiar after months of Republican efforts to disenfranchise large swaths of the electorate with voter suppression ID laws, as well as restrictions on early voting and voter registration in largely Democratic areas?

Or what about what Republicans in Pennsylvania are doing right now to rig the next Presidential election by changing how Electoral votes are counted in the state?

Wallace continues, “They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”

We often hear of free enterprise from the likes of Wall Street, Big Oil, and the defense industry. Yet these are the same corporations that also lobby to keep generous taxpayer subsidies, bailouts, and no-bid contracts in place that allow them to reign supreme over the markets and crush their smaller, more independent competition.

And the common man suffers as a result. Wages as a percentage of GDP are lower than they’ve ever been. Unionization rates are lower than they’ve ever been in more than a half-century. And yet, corporate profits as a percent of GDP are higher than they’ve ever been in American history.

At the time Wallace was writing this op-ed, he was confident that the fascists had been adequately held in check in America by the Roosevelt Administration. As he wrote, “Happily, it can be said that as yet fascism has not captured a predominant place in the outlook of any American section, class or religion.”

But, he went on to warn that in the future, “[Fascism] may be encountered in Wall Street, Main Street or Tobacco Road. Some even suspect that they can detect incipient traces of it along the Potomac.”

Sure enough, the bastions of fascism can be found on Wall Street. Main Street, which used to be lined with local independent businesses, is now lined with predatory, transnational giants. And along the Potomac, we find politicians who are more than happy to do the bidding of their corporate overlords.

Today in America, we are dangerously close to seeing Wallace’s fascistic, dystopic America come into fruition. We see the traces of it everywhere.

Unfortunately, too many Americans just didn’t have a word to define what’s happening. But, thanks to John Mackey, and thanks to the foresight of Vice President Henry Wallace, we do have the right word now: Fascism.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/1 ... looks-like



seemslikeadream » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:46 pm wrote:
‘INTEGRITY QUESTIONED’
Meet Donald Trump’s Top FBI Fanboy
Trump supporters with strong ties to the agency kept talking about surprises and leaks to come—and come they did.

WAYNE BARRETT

11.03.16 12:03 AM ET
Two days before FBI director James Comey rocked the world last week, Rudy Giuliani was on Fox, where he volunteered, un-prodded by any question: “I think he’s [Donald Trump] got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”
Pressed for specifics, he said: “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”
The man who now leads “lock-her-up” chants at Trump rallies spent decades of his life as a federal prosecutor and then mayor working closely with the FBI, and especially its New York office. One of Giuliani’s security firms employed a former head of the New York FBI office, and other alumni of it. It was agents of that office, probing Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting of a minor, who pressed Comey to authorize the review of possible Hillary Clinton-related emails on a Weiner device that led to the explosive letter the director wrote Congress.
Hours after Comey’s letter about the renewed probe was leaked on Friday, Giuliani went on a radio show and attributed the director’s surprise action to “the pressure of a group of FBI agents who don’t look at it politically.”
“The other rumor that I get is that there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion [not to charge Clinton] being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity,” said Giuliani. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.”
Along with Giuliani’s other connections to New York FBI agents, his former law firm, then called Bracewell Giuliani, has long been general counsel to the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), which represents 13,000 former and current agents. The group, born in the New York office in the early ’80s, was headed until Monday by Rey Tariche, an agent still working in that office. Tariche’s resignation letter from the bureau mentioned the Clinton probe, noting that “we find our work—our integrity questioned” because of it, adding “we will not be used for political gains.”
When the FBIAA threw its first G-Man Honors Gala in 2014 in Washington, Giuliani was the keynote speaker and was given a distinguished service award named after him. Giuliani left Bracewell this January and joined Greenberg Traurig, the only other law firm listed as a sponsor of the FBIAA gala. He spoke again at the 2015 gala. The Bracewell firm also acts as the association’s Washington lobbyist and the FBIAA endorsed Republican Congressman Mike Rodgers, rather than Comey, for the FBI post in 2013. Giuliani did not return a Daily Beast message left with his assistant.
Back in August, during a contentious CNN interview about Comey’s July announcement clearing Hillary Clinton of criminal charges, Giuliani advertised his illicit FBI sources, who circumvented bureau guidelines to discuss a case with a public partisan. “The decision perplexes me. It perplexes Jim Kallstrom, who worked for him. It perplexes numerous FBI agents who talk to me all the time. And it embarrasses some FBI agents.”
Kallstrom is the former head of the New York FBI office, installed in that post in the ’90s by then-FBI director Louis Freeh, one of Giuliani’s longtime friends. Kallstrom has, like Giuliani, been on an anti-Comey romp for months, most often on Fox, where he’s called the Clintons as a “crime family.” He has been invoking unnamed FBI agents who contact him to complain about Comey’s exoneration of Clinton in one interview after another, positioning himself as an apolitical champion of FBI values.
Last October, after President Obama told 60 Minutes that the Clinton emails weren’t a national security issue, Megyn Kelly interviewed Kallstrom on Fox. “You know a lot of the agents involved in this investigation,” she said. “How angry must they be tonight?”
“I know some of the agents,” said Kallstrom. “I know some of the supervisors and I know the senior staff. And they’re P.O.’d, I mean no question. This is like someone driving another nail in the coffin of the criminal justice system.”
Kallstrom declared that “if it’s pushed under the rug,” the agents “won’t take that sitting down.” Kelly confirmed: “That’s going to get leaked.”
When Comey cleared Clinton this July, Kallstrom was on Fox again, declaring: “I’ve talked to about 15 different agents today—both on the job and off the job—who are basically worried about the reputation of the agency they love.” The number grew dramatically by Labor Day weekend when Comey released Clinton’s FBI interview and other documents, and Kallstrom told Kelly he was talking to “50 different people in and out of the agency, retired agents,” all of whom he said were “basically disgusted” by Comey’s latest release.
By Sept. 28, Kallstrom said he’d been contacted by hundreds of people, including “a lot of retired agents and a few on the job,” declaring the agents “involved in this thing feel like they’ve been stabbed in the back.” So, he said, “I think we’re going to see a lot more of the facts come out in the course of the next few months. That’s my prediction.”
Kallstrom, whose exchanges with active agents about particular cases are as contrary to FBI policy as Giuliani’s, formally and passionately endorsed Trump this week on Stuart Varney’s Fox Business show, adding that Clinton is a “pathological liar.”

Kallstrom, who served as a Marine before becoming an agent, didn’t mention that a charity he’d founded decades ago and that’s now called the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, was the single biggest beneficiary of Trump’s promise to raise millions for veterans when he boycotted the Iowa primary debate. A foundation official said that Trump’s million-dollar donation this May, atop $100,000 that he’d given in March, were the biggest individual grants it had ever received. The Trump Foundation had contributed another $230,000 in prior years and Trump won the organization’s top honor at its annual Waldorf Astoria gala in 2015.
The charity, which Kallstrom has chaired without pay since its founding, says it has given away $64 million in scholarships and other aid to veteran families. Rush Limbaugh is a director and has given it enormous exposure on his show and helped it fundraise. Its executive director also worked at the highest levels of New York Governor George Pataki’s Republican administration, and its vice president is also the regional vice president for Trump Hotels in the New York area. The FBI New York office, the charity’s 2015 newsletter noted, then employed 100 former Marines.
Kallstrom, who first worked with Giuliani when the future mayor was a young assistant prosecutor in the early ’70s, was Pataki’s public safety director for five years after the 9/11 attacks and claims he was the one who recommended Comey to Pataki, who got the Bush White House to name him to Giuliani’s old job, U.S. attorney for the Southern District in 2001. Comey had worked in the Southern District for years, hired as a young assistant in 1987 by Freeh, then a top Giuliani deputy.
Kallstrom’s victory tour this weekend also included an appearance on Fox with former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, another close associate of Pataki’s, who complained on air that she’d been the victim in 2006 when word emerged that the U.S attorney and FBI were probing her in the midst of a race she eventually lost to Andrew Cuomo to become New York Attorney General.
Her concern about the political impact of law enforcement leaks, though, didn’t extend to Democrat Hillary Clinton. “He couldn’t hold on to this any longer,” Kallstrom said of Comey. “Who knows, maybe the locals would’ve done it,” he added, a reference to leaks that elicited glee from Pirro, who echoed: “New York City, that’s my thing!”
In a wide-ranging phone interview on Tuesday with The Daily Beast, Kallstrom first repeated his claim that he gets hundreds and hundreds of calls and emails but stressed they all came from retired agents, adding that he didn’t “want to talk about agents on the job.” Then he acknowledged that he did interact with “active agents.” The agents mostly contacted him before the recent Comey letter because “in all but two cases,” they agreed with what he was saying in his TV appearances, noting that those two exceptions both thought “I should be more supportive of Comey.”
Kallstrom adamantly denied he’d ever said he was in contact with agents “involved” in the Clinton case, insisting that he didn’t even know “the agents’ names.” He asked if this story was “a hit piece,” and contended that it was “offensive” to even suggest that he’d communicated with those agents. When I emailed him two quotes where he made that claim, he responded: “I know agents in the building who used to work for me. I don’t know any agents in the Washington field office involved directly in the investigation.”
Later, though he acknowledged that “the bulk” of the agents on the Weiner case are “in the New York office,” even as he insisted that the “locals” he told Pirro would’ve leaked the renewed probe had not Comey revealed it were not necessarily agents.
He declined to explain why Megyn Kelly stated as a fact that he was in contact with agents “involved” in the case. Asked in a follow up email if he suggested or encouraged any particular actions in his exchanges with active agents, Kallstrom replied: “No.”
“Now, I’m supporting Comey,” Kallstrom told me on the phone, adding that he can’t do or say anything else before election day. “He can’t characterize” what the bureau has from the Weiner emails. “The FBI can’t say anything without having all the information,” Kallstrom contends, just after telling me he supports the FBI director who’s under fire for having done just that.
And, though he predicted in September that more facts about the Clinton case would soon come out, he told me he was “surprised” by the Comey letter. Calling Giuliani a “very good friend,” who he’s seen in TV studios a couple of times recently when they were both doing appearances, Kallstrom said he thought Giuliani was more likely referring to WikiLeaks revelations or videotapes from Project Veritas when he teased big surprises to come.
Kallstrom said he hasn’t spoken to Trump for months, though he did email Trump’s office the day he endorsed him and got a thank you response from an aide. He says he first met Trump when he solicited a donation from him for a Vietnam Vet memorial and that they’d see each other—usually at public events and dinners—over the years, sometimes as often as two or three times a year. Kallstrom said he’d have breakfast at the Plaza with his wife and visit with Trump and his kids, who he got to know at an early age.
When Trump owned casinos in Atlantic City, he allowed [b]Kallstrom’s organization to hold fundraisers “pro bono” there. Trump became a major supporter of New York’s Police Athletic League, run for decades by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, all moves that endeared him to law enforcement officials in jurisdictions where he did business[/b].
Despite his ties to Pataki, Limbaugh, and Trump, Kallstrom says he’s apolitical and has never been involved in a campaign, including Trump’s now. He says he’s a registered independent, and that the people he’s known in the FBI over all his years are as nonpartisan as he is.
But, as quiet as it’s kept, no Democrat has ever been appointed FBI director. Four Democratic presidents, starting with FDR’s selection of J. Edgar Hoover in 1935, have instead picked Republicans, including Obama’s 2013 nomination of Comey, who was confirmed 93 to 1. This tally does not include the seven acting directors, who were named for brief periods over the last 81 years. For the first time in FBI history, the agency is now run by a director who isn’t a Republican, since Comey announced in a congressional hearing this year that though a lifelong Republican, having donated to John McCain and Mitt Romney, he had recently changed his registration (he did not say how he is currently registered).
Six months into his first term in 1993, President Bill Clinton tapped Freeh, a onetime FBI agent who’d worked under Kallstrom, and Freeh spent much of his eight years at the bureau’s helm trying to put Clinton in jail, even dispatching agents to a White House side room to get the president’s DNA during a formal dinner. When Freeh stepped down in 2001, shortly after George Bush replaced Clinton, he went to work for credit-card company MBNA, a giant Republican donor where Kallstrom and another top Freeh FBI appointee were already working. He’s still hunting for the Clintons, though—delivering a speech assailing them at an annual FBI office event in New York last year.
It’s not just the man at the top who’s invariably a Republican. Like most law enforcement agencies, the FBI hierarchy and line staff has a Republican bent—it’s a white, male, usually Catholic, and conservative culture.
Giuliani and Kallstrom claim that the agents revolting against Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton were doing it because they want apoltical investigations, with all targets treated the same. But neither of them, much less FBI brass or agents, were publicly upset when the worst Justice Department scandal in modern history exploded in 2007, with Karl Rove, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and the Bush White House swamped by allegations that they’d tried to force out nine U.S. attorneys and replace them with “loyal Bushies,” as Gonzales’s chief of staff put it. Democratic officials, candidates and fundraisers were five times as likely to be prosecuted by Bush’s justice than Republicans.
Then at the top of the polls in the 2008 presidential race, Giuliani had to answer questions about it and said that he thought Gonzales should get “the benefit of the doubt,” calling him “a decent man” a few months before he resigned. “We should try to remove on both sides as much of the partisanship as possible,” lectured Giuliani. He recalled that strict rules were put into place while he was at the top levels of justice in the aftermath of Watergate limiting contact between law enforcement and political figures, a particular irony in view of the fact that he talks freely today about engaging in just such conversations on national television, oblivious to the fact that he is now a “political figure.”
Giuliani’s mentor, Michael Mukasey, who succeeded Gonzales as attorney general, appointed a special investigator to examine the U.S. attorney scandal and she concluded that no laws had been broken. It was later reported that four days before Mukasey named this special prosecutor, a federal appeals court vacated seven of eight convictions in a case she supervised in Connecticut, ruling that the team suppressed exculpatory evidence, including the notes of an FBI agent. Kallstrom contends he didn’t say anything about the blatant partisan interference then because he was “never asked to comment,” though he had been a law enforcement consultant for CBS News in about the same time frame. How he became a frequent Fox commentator now is unclear.
It’s clear enough, though, why when Comey sent a note to FBI staff on Friday explaining his decision to inform Congress about the renewed Clinton probe, the scoop about that internal memo went to Fox News. Why Kallstrom gets booked to talked about the Clintons a “crime family.” Why Clinton Cash author Peter Schweitzer, caught in a web of Breitbart and Trump conflicts, would announce on Fox that he was asked in August to sit down with New York office FBI agents investigating the Clinton Foundation (with The New York Times reporting this week that the agents were relying largely on his discredited work when they pitched a fullscale probe).
Fox is the pipeline for the fifth column inside the bureau, a battalion that says it’s doing God’s work, chasing justice against those who are obstructing it, while, in fact, it’s doing GOP work, even on the eve of a presidential election.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... anboy.html


INDICTED Turkish Minister Former General Manager...GIULIANI?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40682


John Mercer..the financier of the book Clinton Cash

FBI used a book put out by Briebart(campaign chair for Trump) which is a witch hunt against Hillay to convince Comey to change mind

Billionaire father and daughter linked to Trump shake-up

By Jonathan Swan - 08/17/16 04:37 PM EDT

Donald Trump’s dramatic staff shake-up on Wednesday revealed the growing influence wielded on his campaign by a Republican megadonor duo.

The fingerprints of Robert Mercer, a New York hedge fund billionaire, and his middle daughter, Rebekah, can be seen all over the new Trump staffing appointments and other decisions being made by the GOP presidential nominee.

The Mercers, who previously put $13.5 million into a super-PAC supporting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential bid, have recently converted the group into the Defeat Crooked Hillary PAC, targeting Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Robert Mercer has reportedly made a “substantial” additional investment of at least $1 million in the new super-PAC, which has already spent $500,000 on digital ads attacking Clinton in eight battleground states. Additionally, he and particularly Rebekah have become influential figures in Trump World in the past few months.

Rebekah Mercer “lives in a beautiful apartment in one of Trump's buildings on the Upper West Side [of New York City] overlooking the Hudson River,” a source who knows her told The Hill.

A Heritage Foundation trustee and director of the Mercer Family Foundation, Rebekah takes the lead on the details of the Mercers’ political operation, while her father provides the funds.

She’s known as a hands-on operator who won’t open up the Mercer checkbook without strict conditions about which vendors are used and which consultants are hired.

Now loyal to Trump, the Mercers were furious when Cruz didn’t endorse the nominee at the Republican National Convention last month. And because they are among the few megadonors to get fully behind Trump, they now increasingly have his ear.

Stephen Bannon, the Trump campaign’s newly appointed CEO, is “tied at the hip” with Rebekah Mercer, said a source who has worked with the Mercers in their political activities.

The Mercers are united with Bannon in their deep opposition to Clinton. They worked with Bannon and provided funds for the "Clinton Cash" movie, based on the book by Peter Schweizer.

And Trump’s other major appointment Wednesday — his promotion of veteran pollster Kellyanne Conway from senior adviser to campaign manager — also bears the hallmarks of the GOP megadonor family’s influence, according to sources who have worked with the Mercers.

“The Mercers basically own this campaign,” said a source who has worked with Rebekah Mercer in her political activities. “They have installed their people. ... And now they’ve got their data firm in there.”

That assertion is possibly overselling the Mercer’s influence because the GOP nominee is his own man and has strong personal relationships with both Bannon and Conway, a source close to Trump said.

But even this source, who said Trump would not be swayed by any donor, conceded that the Mercers have built significant influence over the campaign in a relatively short time.

Trump’s recent decision to employ the data firm Cambridge Analytica, a company in which Robert Mercer is an investor, is another clear sign of Rebekah Mercer's influence, two sources who have worked with Cambridge said.

“As a donor, this is reflective of how she operates,” one of these sources said of Rebekah Mercer, who has both a dual bachelor's degree and a master's degree from Stanford University.

“She’s very nice and very unassuming ... but she’s also no bullshit. Her style is, 'If you want my money, you have to do things the way I want.'"

Neither Cambridge Analytica, the Trump campaign, nor representatives for the Mercers would comment for this report.

Conway, who also did not respond to a request for comment, led the Cruz-aligned Keep the Promise super-PAC funded by the Mercers and is a trusted political adviser to the family.

Rebekah Mercer has been known to recommend that people she works with travel to Los Angeles to meet with Bannon.

“And it’s not a recommendation; it’s happening. It’s understood that it’s happening. She’ll set up the dinner with Bannon,” said a source who has worked with Mercer.

Bannon, a former Goldman Sachs banker and Navy officer, predated Trump in pushing the populist nationalism that now dominates the GOP nominee’s campaign.

To lead Trump’s campaign, he’s taking temporary leave from running Breitbart News, a pro-Trump news website also funded by the Mercers.

Rebekah Mercer has been known to indicate to people in the public policy world that she can influence Breitbart coverage where needed.

During the Republican convention, Bannon and Breitbart’s Washington political editor, Matt Boyle, were listed as invited guests of Mercer in a private donor suite, according to a document published by Bloomberg Politics. The Hill could not confirm their attendance in the suite.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Mercer spoke to Trump on Saturday evening at a Hamptons fundraiser hosted at the home of New York Jets owner Woody Johnson. She reportedly spoke highly of Bannon, who has long been a confidant of Trump’s.

Little has been written about the Mercers because they avoid the public spotlight, but conservative sources who know the family, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described them as “kind, civic-minded people and consensus-builders.”

“Bekah and her two sisters have a side cookie business,” one of these sources said when asked to give a flavor of Bekah's personal style.

“She will serve these delicious gourmet cookies at her apartment, at conservative fundraisers. ... She sends people on their way with hand-wrapped cookies."

But that source, who has worked with Mercer in some of her other political ventures, said it was a surprise to some people that the Mercers had swung so forcefully behind Trump, given her ideological bent.

“She identifies as a libertarian. At least she always did,” the source said, adding that Mercer was a big supporter of libertarian think tanks like the Goldwater Institute and Cato.

“With Bekah you always had to prove your libertarian racing stripes,” the source added. “This seems really strange.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/29 ... mp-shakeup


Donald Trump Finds an Easy Mark in Urine Mogul Robert Mercer

Jon Schwarz
October 13 2016, 12:30 p.m.
EVEN AS DONALD TRUMP’S campaign has exploded like the Krakatoa volcano in 1883, his primary financial backer, billionaire hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, has never wavered.

In a recent statement Mercer declared, in language reminiscent of an early John Birch pamphlet, that “America is finally fed up and disgusted with its political elite. Trump is channeling this disgust and those among the political elite who quake before the boombox of media blather do not appreciate the apocalyptic choice that America faces on November 8th. We have a country to save and there is only one person who can save it.”

Mercer, the co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies on Long Island, is the most generous conservative donor of this election, contributing more than $20 million so far. Mercer began the cycle as a key supporter of Ted Cruz, creating Keep the Promise I, a Super PAC devoted to electing Cruz, and giving it $13.5 million. But when Cruz dropped out, Mercer changed its name to Make America Number 1, gave it millions more, and set it to work electing Trump. Mercer is also one of the main investors in Breitbart, and his daughter organized the August campaign shakeup that put Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon — both longtime Mercer intimates — in charge.

So why does Mercer feel such allegiance to Trump? Is it Trump’s policies, élan, and extraordinary judgement and poise?

Maybe. But based on Mercer’s past, it’s more likely that it’s that Mercer is an incredibly easy mark. He has a long history of falling for cranks and grifters, and Trump is just the largest.

Mercer is a relative newcomer to big-time Republican politics, but not to writing big checks to people with exciting proposals to change the world.

For instance, in 2005 Mercer’s family foundation sent $60,000 to Art Robinson, an Oregon chemist, so Robinson could expand his huge collection of human urine. Robinson, who believes that a close analysis of urine can “improve our health, our happiness and prosperity, and even the academic performance of our children in school,” has now received a total of $1.4 million from the Mercer foundation. He’s used this to buy urine freezers and mail postcards to puzzled Oregonians asking them to send him their urine, among other things.

Robinson, who also feels public education is America’s “most widespread and devastating form of child abuse and racism,” ran for Congress in 2010 against Democrat Peter DeFazio. Mercer, smitten with Robinson’s vision of low taxes and large-scale urine collection, co-funded a Super PAC that spent $600,000 on ads supporting him.

Mercer also funds the peculiar organization Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, to which Robinson belongs. The group’s other members hold varied beliefs, such as that low doses of radiation are good for you, that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that the U.S. government did not stop the San Bernardino terrorist attacks because it’s “on the other side.”

More recently, Mercer contributed $425,000 to the Super PAC “Black Americans for a Better Future.” The other donors — all of whom appear to be, like Mercer, white — have given only $38,350 combined, making Mercer responsible for 92 percent of the haul. BABF seems to exist only to employ Raynard Jackson, an African-American political consultant in Washington, D.C., who has accused Barack Obama of “relentless pandering to homosexuals.” Given that BABF’s stated goal is to deliver “at least 15% of the black vote” to the GOP presidential nominee this year, it’s fair to say it hasn’t been a rousing success. In the small world of black Republicans, Jackson is viewed as an embarrassment and a conman.

Then we come to Trump, whose portfolios of scams seems as infinite as the stars. Remarkably, Trump has also been involved in urine solicitation — his multilevel marketing scheme The Trump Network asked members to send in a urine sample so they could receive vitamins perfectly tailored to their metabolism. Perhaps it was hearing about the urine angle that ultimately sold Mercer on Trump’s trustworthiness and acumen.

In the end, Mercer’s story seems a little sad. It’s easy to imagine Trump, Bannon, and Conway explaining to him that with just a little more of his money they can win the election by proving that two wrongs in fact do make a right. “We’ve got trouble, right here in New York City,” they must tell him on conference calls. “And that starts with T, and that rhymes with C, and that stands for Clenis.”

Then everybody hangs up and Mercer goes back to playing with his $2 million model train, overjoyed that he’s finally got some nice, smart friends who really like him.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/don ... rt-mercer/



As Trump Ally, Rudy Giuliani Boasts of Ties to F.B.I.
About New York
By JIM DWYER NOV. 3, 2016


Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, seemed in a giddy mood when he was interviewed last week on the “Fox & Friends” morning television show.

Tireless if often wildly inaccurate in his attacks on Hillary Clinton’s ethics, health and work as a United States senator and as secretary of state, Mr. Giuliani has been spending every minute in the public spotlight as a surrogate for Donald J. Trump.

His most remarkable claim is that he has a pipeline into the Federal Bureau of Investigation and that agents tell him they are “outraged” that they have not been able to bring Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to justice.

But his television appearance on Tuesday of last week appeared, at the time, to be in a softer hue.

Brian Kilmeade, a Fox News host, asked Mr. Giuliani about the presidential campaign during its last two weeks.

“Does Donald Trump plan anything except a series of inspiring rallies?” Mr. Kilmeade asked.

“Yes,” Mr. Giuliani replied.

Another host, Ainsley Earhardt, jumped in.

“What?” she asked.

“Ha-ha-ha,” Mr. Giuliani laughed. “You’ll see.”

Appearing to enjoy his own coy reply, Mr. Giuliani resumed chuckling: “Ha-ha-ha.”

“When will this happen?” Ms. Earhardt asked.

“We got a couple of surprises left,” Mr. Giuliani said, smiling.

This enigmatic reply roused the show’s third host, Steve Doocy.

“October surprises?” he asked.

Mr. Giuliani expanded a bit.

“Well,” he said, “I call them early surprises in the way we’re going to campaign to get our message out, maybe in a little bit of a different way. You’ll see. And I think it’ll be enormously effective. And I do think that all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton finally are beginning to have an impact.”

Three days later, James B. Comey, the director of the F.B.I., said agents were reviewing emails “that appear to be pertinent” to a closed investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server while secretary of state.

Mr. Comey said he did not know whether the material was significant but felt Congress should know because he had testified at hearings in July about the investigation.

Against the ceaseless droning buzz of the presidential campaign, Mr. Comey’s revelation boomed like a sudden, unexpected crack of thunder — though a poll by The New York Times and CBS News released on Thursday found that it had not changed people’s minds.

Did Mr. Giuliani have an inside track on the F.B.I.’s discovery of emails, apparently on a laptop belonging to Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of the Clinton aide Huma Abedin?

Oh, not at all, said Jason Miller, a spokesman for the Trump campaign.

“Rudy was just having fun,” Mr. Miller said. “To keep the other side on their toes.”

Since August, Mr. Giuliani has publicly claimed that F.B.I. agents were telling him that Mrs. Clinton should have been criminally charged for the email server.

“It perplexes numerous F.B.I. agents who talk to me all the time,” Mr. Giuliani said during an August interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN. “And it embarrasses some F.B.I. agents.”

Mr. Giuliani has not named the embarrassed or perplexed agents, and as Wayne Barrett noted in The Daily Beast on Thursday, it is a violation of F.B.I. policy for agents to share investigative information.

This week, Mr. Giuliani opened a new front. He attributed what might be seen as a commonplace difference of opinion about law and evidence to rampant corruption at the highest levels of the Justice Department, specifically naming the attorney general, Loretta E. Lynch, who began her career as a prosecutor in the New York area in 1990 and has obtained convictions of politically corrupt Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. Giuliani provided no substantiation of this grave accusation, but instead staked his claims on information that he said came from unnamed law enforcement sources.

“You have outraged F.B.I. agents that talk to me,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Wednesday with Megyn Kelly on Fox News. “They are outraged at the injustice. They are outraged at being turned down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury. They are convinced that Loretta Lynch has corrupted the Justice Department.”

Asked about Mr. Giuliani’s statements, Mr. Miller said that, in fact, the former mayor had not been speaking with any active F.B.I. agents. “He has only had conversations with retired F.B.I. agents who no longer work inside the building,” Mr. Miller said.

So Mr. Giuliani was apparently basing his charges on second- or thirdhand information when he declared, “This is worse than Watergate.”

A bit much? Maybe. But he is giving Joseph McCarthy a run for his money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyreg ... e-fbi.html


FBI fear of leaks drove decision on emails linked to Clinton: sources

By Mark Hosenball | WASHINGTON
FBI Director James Comey was driven in part by a fear of leaks from within his agency when he decided to tell Congress the FBI was investigating newly discovered emails related to Hillary Clinton, law enforcement sources said on Thursday.

The examination of the email traffic is now being carried out under the tightest secrecy by a team at Federal Bureau of Investigations headquarters in Washington, the sources said, requesting anonymity because of the inquiry's sensitivity.

Several sources said it was unclear whether the FBI would make any further public disclosures about its latest review before Tuesday's presidential and congressional elections. Two sources said such disclosures were unlikely.

Another source, recently in contact with top investigators, said: "It depends on how it goes and what they find." The source said that, as of Thursday, "nobody really knows" whether the FBI will have anything further to say before the election.

Dropping like a bombshell on the U.S. presidential campaign, Comey's disclosure last Friday in a letter to senior lawmakers just days before the elections raised questions about his motives and drew criticism from some over his timing.

Comey disclosed that the FBI was looking at emails as part of a probe into Clinton's use of a private email system while secretary of state, without describing the emails' content or how long the inquiry might take. The FBI normally does not comment on ongoing inquiries.

The latest emails examination was moving forward "expeditiously," said one source close to the review.

The new emails turned up as FBI investigators were examining electronic devices used by former Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner in connection with an alleged "sexting" scandal. Weiner's estranged wife, Huma Abedin, is a Clinton confidante.

Two law enforcement sources familiar with the FBI's New York Field Office, which initially discovered the emails, said a faction of investigators based in the office is known to be hostile to Hillary Clinton. A spokeswoman for the FBI's New York office said she had no knowledge about this.

Democratic Party sources said such a faction was likely responsible for a recent surge in media leaks on alleged details of an ongoing FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

The FBI has made preliminary inquiries into Clinton Foundation activities and alleged contacts between Trump and associates with parties in Russia, according to law enforcement sources. But these inquiries were shifted into low gear weeks ago because the FBI wanted to avoid any impact on the election.

The FBI previously had spent about a year investigating Clinton's use of the unauthorized server at her home in Chappaqua, New York, instead of the State Department system after classified government secrets were found in some of her emails.

Comey had said in July that while there was "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKBN12Y2QD




HAS THE F.B.I. GONE FULL BREITBART?
New reports reveal how the F.B.I. relied on an infamous Breitbart source as the basis for its investigation into the Clinton Foundation—and that agents see Clinton as “the antichrist personified.”
BY ABIGAIL TRACY NOVEMBER 3, 2016 12:48 PM


Throughout her campaign, Hillary Clinton has battled accusations of fostering a “pay for play” culture at the State Department, giving undue access to major Clinton Foundation donors. So far, Republicans have failed to find a smoking gun, but the narrative has served its purpose: tarnishing the public perception of the Democratic nominee and her family’s namesake charity. For this, no one deserves more credit than Peter Schweizer, Breitbart editor-at-large and the author of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. The controversial, mostly discredited book has been held up by many as irrefutable proof of wrongdoing, or at least common venality, by the Clintons. It also found plenty of eager readers within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Wall Street Journal and New York Times report, galvanizing a number of F.B.I. agents to launch an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, based mostly on assertions made by Schweizer in the book.

On Thursday, the Journal reported that last summer, shortly after Clinton Cash was published, a number of F.B.I. agents began investigating claims made against the Clinton Foundation in the book, ultimately prompting an internal battle between the agents and F.B.I. and Justice Department officials. The agents secretly recorded conversations with two informants—both of whom were involved in separate public-corruption investigations—about the Clinton Foundation, and believed that they had enough evidence to build a case. Senior officials in the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, however, were skeptical of the evidence and the primary source, Schweizer’s book. Public-integrity prosecutors reportedly “weren’t impressed” and “thought the talk was hearsay and a weak basis to warrant aggressive tactics, like presenting evidence to a grand jury, because the person who was secretly recorded wasn’t inside the Clinton Foundation,” according to the Journal’s report.

The argument is certainly a compelling one. Even Schweizer—whom the Journal reports was interviewed on several occasions by the F.B.I. agents interested in the Clinton Foundation—has conceded that he does not have any “direct evidence” to prove that the Clintons have done anything beyond the pale. During an interview with ABC’s This Week in April 2015, the author said, “The smoking gun is the pattern of behavior,” and when pressed by host George Stephanopoulos, added, “It’s not up to an author to prove the crime.” Schweizer is also hardly without his own agenda. At Breitbart, Schweizer worked under former executive Stephen Bannon, now the campaign C.E.O. for Donald Trump. He is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Bannon that seeks to build criminal cases against political figures. The institute helped publish Clinton Cash, and Bannon co-wrote and produced a film based on the book.

CLINTON IS “THE ANTICHRIST PERSONIFIED TO A LARGE SWATH OF FBI PERSONNEL.”

Despite a questionable source and orders from the Justice Department and senior F.B.I. officials to “stand down,” F.B.I. agents reportedly continued to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The Journal reports that the dispute reached a fever pitch on August 12, when a Justice Department official called the deputy director of the F.B.I., Andrew McCabe, to complain about the agents’ continued inquiry, prompting him to ask, “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” to which the official replied, “Of course not.” The F.B.I. agents, meanwhile, were reportedly furious that leadership seemed to be trying to rein them in. As the Times reports, senior F.B.I. officials originally agreed with the Justice Department to wait until after the election to decide how to proceed against the Clintons. Now, with F.B.I. director James Comey’s decision to publicize the investigation into Clinton’s e-mail server—and the subsequent explosion of leaks and counter-leaks emanating from the agency—the infighting and partisan politics within the bureau are open for all the world to see.

The implications of an increasingly partisan F.B.I. are deeply troublesome. If Clinton becomes president, the bureau will likely become the primary tool of Republicans seeking to investigate her. The word “impeachment” is already on the lips of several lawmakers eager to resurrect the scandal-driven Clinton mania of the late 1990s. And if Trump becomes president, he may find in the bureau an army of sympathetic law enforcement officers ready to assist his political agenda—or vendetta, as the case may be. During interviews with The Guardian, published Thursday, a number of F.B.I. agents described an intensely anti-Clinton atmosphere at the F.B.I., with one characterizing it as “Trumpland.” Clinton, the agent said, is seen as “the antichrist personified” to many people within the bureau, and “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/ ... -breitbart


THURSDAY, NOV 3, 2016 03:58 AM CDT
FBI takes a page from Breitbart: Far-right “Clinton Cash” book used in Foundation investigation
The New York Times report on the FBI's Clinton Foundation investigation reveals a pretty sketchy information source
GARY LEGUM

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has gone full Breitbart.

OK, not really. But this nugget from a New York Times story on how the bureau kept two investigations under wraps this summer so as not to appear to be meddling in the presidential campaign could lead you to wonder.

In August . . . the F.B.I. grappled with whether to issue subpoenas in the Clinton Foundation case, which . . . was in its preliminary stages. The investigation, based in New York, had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book “Clinton Cash,” according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case.

Oh, neat, “Clinton Cash,” the partisan hit job published last year by Breitbart’s editor-at-large, Peter Schweizer, and later adapted into a documentary that was executive produced by former Breitbart chairman and current Trump campaign CEO Stephen Bannon. Next the FBI will tell us that Roger Stone was the special agent in charge of the investigation.

If you have forgotten about “Clinton Cash,” Digby laid out a nice case against it and Schweizer. The short version is that the book was one in a long, long line of thinly sourced tales about the Clintons that have made millions of dollars for various right-wing writers and publishing houses since the early 1990s. For that matter, these tales sold a lot of copies of the Times as well, when it went all in chasing Whitewater stories early in Bill Clinton’s presidency.

“Clinton Cash,” published just as Hillary Clinton was announcing her own campaign for the presidency, is an obvious effort to cash in early to what will likely be four to eight years’ worth of salacious and worthless investigations of her upcoming administration. It immediately ran into the same problem that dozens of anti-Clinton books have encountered over the years: It contained more bullshit than a waste pond on a cattle ranch. The publisher had to make revisions to the book’s later editions. Schweizer was forced to admit in both interviews and in the conclusion of his book that he had not quite made the case he was trying to present.

Senior FBI and Justice Department officials came to the same conclusion, much to the apparent dissatisfaction of some agents, as the Times reported:

In meetings, the Justice Department and senior F.B.I. officials agreed that making the Clinton Foundation investigation public could influence the presidential race and suggest they were favoring Mr. Trump. . . . They agreed to keep the case open but wait until after the election to determine their next steps. The move infuriated some agents, who thought that the F.B.I.’s leaders were reining them in because of politics.

Or possibly the agents were being reined in because they were being snookered by the right-wing noise machine. The right has been doing this for 25 years — trying to turn the nation’s criminal investigatory apparatus into an arm of the Republican Party for the sole purpose of destroying the Clintons.

And if it can’t get the GOP what it wants? Just this week Rep. Elijah Cummings, ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, mentioned the pressure that Republicans on the committee have been putting on the FBI to turn up something — anything — on Hillary Clinton regarding her private email server and suggested the GOP is going to start investigating the bureau and its director, James Comey, over the agency’s failure.

This latest blowup is simply the newest chapter in better than two decades of Republicans co-opting the FBI and other investigative agencies in service of chasing whatever dark Clintonian shadows they can conjure from the fever swamps of right-wing media and websites. No charge is too spurious or absurd, which is how the nation wound up with the specter in the 1990s of a Republican congressman shooting cantaloupes in his backyard to “prove” that Vince Foster could not have committed suicide.

It is not new, of course, for right-wing demagogues to use the FBI to chase down false and inflammatory garbage. But even with its history, one of the ways the bureau maintains legitimacy as an institution is by giving the appearance of a nonpartisan actor. If its agents are so determined to base investigations on right-wing con jobs that their bosses do have to rein them in, then it will lose whatever moral authority it wants to claim.
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/03/fbi-tak ... stigation/



Fox’s Bret Baier Walks Back Flawed Reporting About “Likely” Clinton Indictment
Blog ››› 6 hours 55 min ago ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

Fox News’ Bret Baier walked back his November 2 claim, which was based on two unnamed sources, that FBI investigations relating to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will “continue to likely an indictment.” On the November 3 edition of Fox’s Happening Now, Baier described his comments as “inartful,” acknowledging that “that’s not the process.” Baier’s uncritical reporting of anonymous, unvetted sources has been parroted by a stream of Fox hosts and correspondents, as well as right-wing blogs.

The Daily Beast has reported on a pipeline between conservative FBI agents (both active and retired) -- angered by FBI Director James Comey’s conclusion in July that there was insufficient evidence to recommend any indictment in the review of Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state -- and Fox News. According to The Daily Beast, “Trump supporters with strong ties to the agency kept talking about surprises and leaks to come -- and come they did.” From the November 3 edition of Fox News’ Happening Now:


MARTHA MACCALLUM (CO-HOST): The FBI sources that you spoke with suggest that an indictment is likely. That would prove -- go ahead.

BRET BAIER: I want to be clear -- I want to be clear about this, and this was -- came from a Q and A that I did with Brit Hume after my show and after we went through everything. He asked me if, after the election, if Hillary Clinton wins, will this investigation continue, and I said, “yes absolutely.” I pressed the sources again and again what would happen. I got to the end of that and said, “they have a lot of evidence that would, likely lead to an indictment.” But that’s not, that’s inartfully answered. That’s not the process. That’s not how you do it. You have to have a prosecutor. If they don't move forward with a prosecutor with the DOJ, there would be, I'm told, a very public call for an independent prosecutor to move forward. There is confidence in the evidence, but for me to phrase it like I did, of course that got picked up everywhere, but the process is different than that.
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/0 ... ent/214274



Image

Seth Abramson‏Verified account

2/ If you go to the TTA and search Don's tweets for "NYPD", you get two stunning results: a) Trump Jr. retweeted the True Pundit story (via Mike Flynn) then deleted it and b) he retweeted WIKILEAKS retweeting the True Pundit story and then un-retweeted it.

3/ Trump friends, advisors, aides, and boosters we now know voluntarily associated themselves with the false True Pundit story in October/November (a story aimed at coercing Comey to reopen the Clinton case) include:

Assange
Bannon
Flynn
Giuliani
Kallstrom

Pirro
Prince
Trump Jr.

4/ Moreover—as in the Trump-Russia probe—a pattern has emerged: some of these people tried to cover their tracks after the fact. Giuliani and Kallstrom tried to retract their claims of receiving Hatch Act-violative leaks from active FBI agents, and Don Jr. deleted tweets and RTs.

5/ The True Pundit Hoax is quickly becoming a whole sector of the Trump-Russia case—almost as complex, and with as many connections to Donald Trump, as other parts of the case. And here, too, it looks like laws were violated and there may well have been coordination (conspiracy).

6/ One of the key figures won't reveal his identity ("Thomas Paine"); another is now a convict (Flynn); another mysteriously turned down a Cabinet post—apparently to avoid Congressional testimony (Giuliani); another is Julian Assange; another has gone off the rails on TV (Pirro).

7/ Another involved figure is Trump's son; another was CEO of Trump's campaign; another is an ex-Assistant FBI Director who went rogue by speaking to "50 current and former" FBI agents on Clinton (current agents can't discuss their cases); another just lied to Congress (Prince).

8/ And we are very, *very* fortunate that the House GOP has just announced plans for a *thorough investigation* of bias and corruption at the FBI in the lead-up to the election—and specifically involving the Clinton probe—so *all of this* will be aired publicly, with GOP support.

9/ Understand that in the True Pundit Hoax we're *not* discussing an amorphous nonlegal term like "collusion"—we're discussing a criminal conspiracy to Obstruct Justice at the FBI and thereby *directly and immediately* influence the result of a presidential election. This is big.

10/ A "theory of the case" can't be developed yet, but—given the timeline we have now and Hagmann's claims (see prior threads)—it remains possible that Giuliani and NYPD spread the hoax under the cover of NYPD holding onto some of Wiener's hardware, then leaked it to True Pundit.

11/ Giuliani's motive to—as Hagmann claimed, trying to laud him—"being behind" the NYPD hoax would be straightforward: at the time he was to be the U.S. Secretary of State or Attorney General if Trump won, and all he had to do was spread a wild rumor about Clinton. Easy winnings.

12/ The problem is, threatening to release emails that don't exist—but that the FBI *doesn't yet know* don't exist—to force the FBI to re-open an investigation is undoubtedly illegal (albeit one of the more *unusual* Obstruction of Justice plots you'll ever encounter in the law).

13/ I'd be remiss if I didn't note the eerie similarity between this plot—which, at a minimum, Rudy Giuliani was *involved* in—and one hatched by Giuliani's friend: Donald Trump. Both men were involved in an illegal digital-recordings hoax to try to get Comey to do their bidding.

Image

14/ (If you've just arrived and are looking for the two primary threads in the "True Pundit Hoax" series of threads, please see the first two "unrolled" threads—single links with entire threads in them—in the "Likes" section of my Twitter page. They'll get you caught up quickly.)

15/ I've been working on this story since I first wrote three investigative articles about it for The Huffington Post at the end of last year, but these new revelations—regarding True Pundit, Trump Jr., Giuliani, Kallstrom, and Pirro—are now opening up a *whole new* can of worms.

16/ UPDATE: The day of the True Pundit Hoax story, Don Jr. *also* retweeted Alex Jones' partner repeating the false claim—*from the True Pundit story*—that Anthony Wiener's PC contained an "avalanche of new emails." See this entry from the Trump Twitter Archive (Don Jr. Section):

Image

17/ UPDATE: Don *also* retweeted *this* FNC report on November 2, 2016, which report likewise echoed the True Pundit Hoax regarding an "avalanche" of new Clinton emails on Wiener's PC. One now wonders if Bret Baier's sources were Kallstrom and/or Giuliani.Seth Abramson added,

2:32
Paul Joseph Watson
Verified account

@PrisonPlanet
Avalanche of evidence in Clinton Foundation investigation. Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop are NEW - not copies.

18/ Note that Baier's report repeats the claim—aired that same day by Doug Hagmann on the Alex Jones Program—that rogue federal law enforcement agents refused to destroy evidence they were supposed to destroy. This (alleged) fact gave life to the True Pundit Hoax of "new" emails.

19/ Don's interest in the Clinton Foundation case is longstanding: it was the reason he met with Kremlin agent Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in June 2016. So if Giuliani and/or Kallstrom was feeding this disinformation to FNC, they created a Trump-FNC echo chamber *very* quickly.

20/ Note: Wherever I've written "Wiener" in this and/or other threads, I of course mean "Weiner." (Unfortunately, I studied the late great author John Wieners in my PhD program—so I tend to instinctively put the "i" before the "e." I'll endeavor to be more careful in the future.)



I'd pay $1,000 to watch sworn Congressional testimony by this man live.


Seth Abramson‏Verified account
@SethAbramson

NOTE/ ATTENTION to the members of Congress who questioned Erik Prince recently: please recall that the point at which he threatened to storm out of the room and end his testimony was the point at which you asked him to *name his sources* for the True Pundit Hoax. *Remember that*.


VIDEO: On 10/30/16, 96 hours after Giuliani teased on FNC a big surprise upcoming in the Clinton probe, his "very good friend" (Daily Beast) Jim Kallstrom predicted the same on FNC with "local" (NYPD) leaks—anticipating the "True Pundit" story by 72 hours.

2/ Note Trump friend Pirro telling Kallstrom ("very good friend" to Trump friend/advisor Giuliani) that she thinks Comey "had to do it"—regarding the letter to Congress that swung the election—because of threatened leaks by NYPD. That was her "take"—where did that take come from?

3/ The point is that 3 days before True Pundit comes out with its fake news story, two Giuliani pals and Trump supporters (Kallstrom/Pirro) are teasing that story, even as Hagmann says Giuliani was behind it—which seems true, given that 96 hours before *that* Rudy was teasing it.

4/ Keep in mind that all of this was enabled by "Trumpland" (the New York field office of the FBI) disobeying Comey's early-October command to find out what was on Wiener's PC. They had numerous means to do it, and did nothing—which made fake news about the PC's content possible.


5/ And just to close the circle, (a) True Pundit used to work for Kallstrom and is friends with "Jimmy," and (b) Giuliani says he was in contact with both current/former New York field office agents about their anger toward Clinton (the same MO of and claim made by True Pundit).




TruePundit[.]com is #1 domain shared by Russian-linked propaganda accounts, per @SecureDemocracy's Hamilton 68 dashboard.

Coincidentally, True Pundit was the subject of a DOJ document request today. Congress wants to know if they have ties to Russian govt or state media...

Image

Allege a "coordinated effort by some in the FBI to change the course of the #Clinton investigation by leaking sensitive information to the public"

Image

They allege "a coordinated effort by some in the FBI to change the course of the Clinton investigation by leaking sensitive information to the public" and that senior trump advisors *knew* in advance

Image

The Democrats are digging into "fringe conspiracy website TruePundit & its connections with FBI, Wikileaks, Russia and Team trump

Image

FINALLY, *someone* is asking Why did the FBI *delay* its investigation of HRC emails on Anthony Weiner's computer from Oct 2 to Oct 30

Image

Here is the final page of the 5-page letter

Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Alaya » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:15 pm

I agree with Nordic. SLAD used to be a reasonable, good poster. I came back to visit an saw something quite different. Couldn't believe my eyes, really. Such a change. Maybe she is one of the paid people Brooks hired. I'd rather think that than wonder about her sanity. God, I used to love this place. Very sad.
User avatar
Alaya
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:41 pm

Alaya » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:15 pm wrote:I agree with Nordic. SLAD used to be a reasonable, good poster. I came back to visit an saw something quite different. Couldn't believe my eyes, really. Such a change. Maybe she is one of the paid people Brooks hired. I'd rather think that than wonder about her sanity. God, I used to love this place. Very sad.


I'm among those who have criticised SLAD's postings from time to time since Trump fever set in, but at least she contributes something to the forum beyond personal insults, unlike Nordic these days, as well as a few others.

I have a tendency to get annoyed by anyone who posts reams of similar articles on the same subject(s), but in the end, I appreciate anyone posting actual discussion material here instead of just attempting to foment a clash of personalities and hurl derogatory comments at individuals. So perhaps you should save your tears and speculation, Alaya. There are a lot sadder things worthy of word and deed these days than your apparent disappointment with someone's posting habits.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:51 pm

Alaya » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:15 pm wrote:I agree with Nordic. SLAD used to be a reasonable, good poster. I came back to visit an saw something quite different. Couldn't believe my eyes, really. Such a change. Maybe she is one of the paid people Brooks hired. I'd rather think that than wonder about her sanity. God, I used to love this place. Very sad.



My dear Alaya

Despite your Buddhist training.....you roll with personal attacks? Is that what a Buddhist does?

I am not paid by anyone...you suggesting that is against the rules here. And please refrain from pretending to be a doctor, I am just fine..please take you pseudoscience elsewhere

disgusting bullying personal attacks are not allowed here and if you are agreeing with someone that does that constantly (and then proceed to personally attack me by questioning my sanity and accuse me of being a paid poster) then so be it I have nothing else to say to you except I never knew that you liked me at all in the first place

I deal in facts not personal attacks if you do not like that please put me on ignore I will not miss you since I have many friends here and I really don't care what you or your good buddy Nordic think

I am always surprised by people who rarely find the time to start an interesting OP but have the plenty of time to criticize...post something interesting make this place what YOU want it to be instead of contributing NADA

cry babies....complainers....why don't people post something I am interested in :roll:


Alaya » Sun Aug 03, 2014 6:36 pm wrote:Reason I left this forum? American Dream and his ilk.

If bluenoseclaret gets banned, you can take this forum and flush it down the the toilet forever.

Interesting though how evil hates a bright light.


So you don't think trump is evil?

I rest my case and actually GTK that you do not like me anymore boo hoo

I love when people repeatedly talk about leaving this forum only to come back again and again just like Nordic does to tell us over and over how much they hate this place...why come back at all?

bluenoseclaret was banned and this forum is not being flushed down the toilet much to your dismay Alaya and if it had been where would you go to complain?

Did you notice my avatar Alaya? You know the elephant you should be well acquainted

Image

As an elephant in the battlefield withstands arrows shot from bows all around, even so shall I endure abuse.
-----Dhammapada, verse 320.

btw Nordic is always longing for the mysterious golden days of RI .....yea like way back when Jeff had had enough of him and Mac ..he's been pulling this crap for years and it is so tiresome same tactic (disruption) different target


What did Jeff call it over 7 years ago.....vulgar thuggery not much has changed



Jeff » Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:00 pm wrote:
- Macruiskeen
- Nordic


It wasn't agent-baiting, so much as incorrigible, vulgar thuggery. I don't care on which side of an argument it's found, it's disruption. Their accounts are currently active, and probationary.



Jeff » Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:11 am wrote:
Mac's and Nordic's accounts have been reactivated, so it's up to them if they want to return, and how.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby The Consul » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:24 pm

Old once I remember not so long ago, before whatshisname did whatchacallit; it is important to note it was before, not after, which would be now, temporarily active, in action inaction a fraction thereof enough to sustain the want to still be wanted without being wanting. Yes, I remember how it was, wasn't it? When all the masters and fools played together on the same spindles and threads like so many particles in a communal helix designed to pull together the great grand uncovering of....wait, I forgot what it was. Was it before? Yes, I remember now. Old once I remember not so long ago, before Hugh Manatee. Oh, wait, maybe during. Lofty moments. Pointy foils. Ergo the something important phenomenological or other, admitting the door was left open too long and the mice got in. Admiring their persistence, running round the glass, up the stools, over the mirrors, pour another one, Finn, I don't care what's already in it. Lift that glass, wish everyone the the swiftest of answers & the easiest of cancers, challenge not a thought, presume your own ignorance before you assume your beaming magnifi...nevermind, yes, old once. I remember. It seemed like it was possible then. Before. Now we have to continue to pretend we are not pretending and it's been so long, long since before, anyone even knows.....or cares or thinks about...WHAT?
" Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."
— B. Traven
User avatar
The Consul
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Ompholos, Disambiguation
Blog: View Blog (13)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby norton ash » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:01 pm

^^^ Bravissimo. You are one gone cat, Consul.

Let SLAD be SLAD. Roll tide.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:24 pm

Oh to have the amazing talent of The Consul :lovehearts:

I very much appreciate let SLaD be SLaD :hug1:

girl's gonna be what the girl's gonna be...back to the Garden of Dicks
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby peartreed » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:06 pm

“Rigorous Intuition” implies more than just a recitation of objective facts, figures and findings on forum topics of interest. It, by definition, features the intuitive insights of individuals participating by posting about their rigorous thought probes into these subjects. That feature forgives mind formulations beyond the factual.

It also forgives deductive reasoning by connecting the dots and extrapolating data.

Like formal detective work and legal court proceedings, it’s not just the facts alone.

The human element reigns supreme and brings with it the baggage of the psyche.

Intuition also involves emotions, and interpreting the intangible elements of accounts. The forum regulars gathered here become known for their favorite causes, convictions, compulsions and campaigns created by their own comfort connections and familiarity, not to mention obsessions and addictions and political positions.

Simply by joining in the exchanges under this forum heading, participants expect a high level of subjectivity saturating the sessions, and a sharing of tolerance for that.

What accelerates the turnover of membership and messaging is mean-spiritedness, personal insults, noxious negativity, sexism, misogyny and immature bullying. All that diverts from – and diminishes – the discussion of subjects we’re all here for.

Hillary Clinton is in my town today promoting and selling her book, and neither of them radiates any danger my intuition radar picks up.
User avatar
peartreed
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Harvey » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:02 pm

My intuition tells me I was correct in my assessment of November last year, an assessment which (briefly) got me banned when argued forcefully with the gatekeepers among us. Not only that, the facts agree with me and everyone but the most stubborn arsehole sees which way the wind is blowing. Should have impeached Trump for the things he'd actually done but impeachment was never the long range objective. Covering up his real crimes and subverting foreign policy, exactly as after 9/11, was.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby PufPuf93 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:36 pm

Harvey » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:02 pm wrote:My intuition tells me I was correct in my assessment of November last year, an assessment which (briefly) got me banned when argued forcefully with the gatekeepers among us. Not only that, the facts agree with me and everyone but the most stubborn arsehole sees which way the wind is blowing. Should have impeached Trump for the things he'd actually done but impeachment was never the long range objective. Covering up his real crimes and subverting foreign policy, exactly as after 9/11, was.


If I understand what you are saying Harvey, I agree.

I don't think that Trump will be impeached and I think the Russian connection will be the cover for the actual crimes of Trump. The Russian connection with be deemed circumstantial rather than causal, though some minor payers will take a hit. Lots of foreign and domestic mischief will occur in the meantime and as a result, much as you say like 9-11. Covering up real crimes and subverting foreign policy (and domestic policy) is the conclusion.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:03 pm

Immediately after September 11, 2001, Sater received a call from the chief of a new section in the FBI who wanted to talk to him about Stingers, according to Salvatore Lauria in The Scorpion and the Frog, co-authored with journalist David S. Barry. Months later, Sater joined Bayrock — the real estate development company with offices in Trump Tower — and he was soon partnering in business deals with Donald Trump himself. This raises some interesting questions: Did Sater take the job at Bayrock at the FBI’s direction? Indeed, was Sater’s business relationship with Trump at the FBI’s behest?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40670&p=642965&hilit=But+the+Feds’+stonewalling+risks+something#p642965



The Federal Bureau of Investigation cannot tell us what we need to know about Donald Trump’s contacts with Russia. Why? Because doing so would jeopardize a long-running, ultra-sensitive operation targeting mobsters tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin — and to Trump.

But the Feds’ stonewalling risks something far more dangerous: Failing to resolve a crisis of trust in America’s president. WhoWhatWhy provides the details of a two-month investigation in this 6,500-word exposé.

The FBI apparently knew, directly or indirectly, based upon available facts, that prior to Election Day, Trump and his campaign had personal and business dealings with certain individuals and entities linked to criminal elements — including reputed Russian gangsters — connected to Putin.

The same facts suggest that the FBI knew or should have known enough prior to the election to justify informing the public about its ongoing investigation of potentially compromising relationships between Trump, Putin, and Russian mobsters — even if it meant losing or exposing a valued informant.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/05/17/fbi-c ... -russia-2/


EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT FELIX SATER

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40670&p=642965&hilit=But+the+Feds’+stonewalling+risks+something#p642965



At the end of 2015, the Justice Department’s criminal division, headed by Leslie Caldwell — the former Eastern District prosecutor and later Sater’s attorney — removed Mogilevich from the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, an extremely rare occurrence. Suspects are usually removed from the list for only two reasons: arrest or death.

Image

“However complicated an investigation might become, it goes to the heart of our democracy and it must go forward. This time, unlike other investigations, including the Kennedy assassination, CIA-Chile, and Iran-Contra, it has to go to the heart of the matter no matter how long it takes and no matter how shocking the conclusions.” - Jack Blum
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40670&p=642965&hilit=But+the+Feds’+stonewalling+risks+something#p642965
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby RocketMan » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:29 am

norton ash » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:01 am wrote:^^^ Bravissimo. You are one gone cat, Consul.

Let SLAD be SLAD. Roll tide.


The Consul - defusing flame wars through scintillating prose.

:lol2: :lovehearts:
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:01 am

peartreed » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:06 pm wrote:“Rigorous Intuition” implies more than just a recitation of objective facts, figures and findings on forum topics of interest. It, by definition, features the intuitive insights of individuals participating by posting about their rigorous thought probes into these subjects. That feature forgives mind formulations beyond the factual.

It also forgives deductive reasoning by connecting the dots and extrapolating data.

Like formal detective work and legal court proceedings, it’s not just the facts alone.

The human element reigns supreme and brings with it the baggage of the psyche.

Intuition also involves emotions, and interpreting the intangible elements of accounts. The forum regulars gathered here become known for their favorite causes, convictions, compulsions and campaigns created by their own comfort connections and familiarity, not to mention obsessions and addictions and political positions.

Simply by joining in the exchanges under this forum heading, participants expect a high level of subjectivity saturating the sessions, and a sharing of tolerance for that.

What accelerates the turnover of membership and messaging is mean-spiritedness, personal insults, noxious negativity, sexism, misogyny and immature bullying. All that diverts from – and diminishes – the discussion of subjects we’re all here for.

Hillary Clinton is in my town today promoting and selling her book, and neither of them radiates any danger my intuition radar picks up.



thank you for your continued support and taking the time to speak on the situation here


What accelerates the turnover of membership and messaging is mean-spiritedness, personal insults, noxious negativity, sexism, misogyny and immature bullying. All that diverts from – and diminishes – the discussion of subjects we’re all here for.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby peartreed » Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:43 pm

SLAD – Your posts and persistence and personality are very much enjoyed and appreciated despite the immature and angry attackers resenting your deserved prominence as a valued forum participant.

Back to the topic of this thread – Hillary left town yesterday leaving a wake of reactions about her book and her former campaign. The most common comment was that she should have been President, given the popular vote majority, and that the Electoral College twist, combined with Russian interference and manipulation, passed the presidency on to Trump instead. Hillary is perceived as conceding too easily to corrupted circumstance, as well as earlier campaign stops missed because they were mistakenly assumed to be politically loyal. Trump captured the disenchanted and, thus, the silent constituency that was disillusioned by politics.

Both of these comments illustrate why strong women need to overcome adversaries by staying the course and "keep on trucking"!
User avatar
peartreed
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Elihu and 44 guests