Oct 19, 2019
Failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton voiced another Putin inspired conspiracy theory, stating during a podcast that the Russians are “grooming” Hawaii congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard to be a third-party candidate in 2020. Hillary then went on to assert that 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein is a Russian asset.
Tulsi hit back at Hillary via twitter, calling the former Obama Secretary of State a “warmonger.”
Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.
“It was fantastic, Obama’s capacity to deliver beautiful speeches, but the next day nothing happened, nothing, nothing. I think the United States was too big for Obama, he was too young, too inexperienced.”
Sept 10, 2019
Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,
This is the last of a three-part series from a world exclusive interview with Lula, the former Brazilian president, who remains in jail.
Lula on fights with Hillary, talks with Ahmadinejad, Obama “good but nervous and too young”…
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, left, with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, center, and Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan celebrate the signing of a nuclear fuel swap deal in Tehran in May 2010. Photo: AFP / Wilson Pedrosa / Agenciia Estado
As we advanced past the first hour of a historic interview – see here and here – at a Federal Police building in Curitiba, southern Brazil, where Lula has been incarcerated for over 500 days as part of the lawfare endgame in a complex coup, former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was on a roll.
“Let me tell you about Iran.”
He felt relaxed enough to start telling stories of political negotiation at the highest level. He had already set the context. Nuggets abounded – especially focusing on the sometimes rocky relationship between Brasilia and Washington. Here are only three examples:
1) On the overall relationship with the US:
“People think that I’m angry at the Americans. On the contrary, we had a very healthy political relationship with the US, and that should be the case for Brazil. But to be subservient, never.”
2) On dealing with George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
“Bush accepted ideas with more fluidity than Obama. Obama was much tougher with Brazil. I’m certain that Hillary Clinton does not like Latin America, and she didn’t like Brazil. I had two big fights with her, one in a meeting in Trinidad-Tobago and another in Copenhagen [at the climate conference COP-15]. She arrived late, bossing everyone around. I said, ‘Lady, hang on. Wait for your turn. I’ve been here for three days.’ The petulance and arrogance of the Americans disturbs me, even if I think that the United States is always an important nation, and we should always maintain a good relationship.”
“Our main political gesture was Dilma [Rousseff, then the Brazilian president] traveling to the US, but Obama, it seems to me, had very little influence.”
“It was fantastic, Obama’s capacity to deliver beautiful speeches, but the next day nothing happened, nothing, nothing. I think the United States was too big for Obama, he was too young, too inexperienced.”
“And you know that the US State Department is very powerful…. I think Obama was a good man. When I went to visit him the first time … I left with a lingering doubt: there was no one remotely similar to him in the meeting. I said to myself, ‘This guy has no one matching him here.’ And in our conversation, I said, ‘Obama, you may be the President of the United States who has the greatest possibility to effect change in this country. Because you only need to have the audacity that black people had to vote for you. The people have already granted you the audacity. Make the best of it.’
But then, nothing much happened.”
3) On hybrid war:
“We tried to organize intelligence in the Air Force, the Navy, along with Federal Police intel, but among them there were some pretty serious fights. Whoever has intel has power, so no one wants to relay information to the competitor…. I imagined that after it was clear [from Edward Snowden’s revelations about National Security Agency surveillance] that … the United States was investigating Brazil … I imagined we would have a tougher position, maybe talking to the Russians and the Chinese, to create another system of protection. “
And that would set the scene for the inside story of the first Iran nuclear deal, clinched in Tehran in 2010 by Iran, Brazil and Turkey, and centered on a nuclear fuel swap, years before the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached in Vienna in 2015 by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany.
History will register that as Donald Trump smashed the JCPOA, Hillary Clinton scotched the original deal less than 24 hours after it was clinched, calling instead for a new round of sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council.
This is how I reported it for Asia Times. Lula, in early 2010, had already told Hillary in person it was not “prudent to push Iran against the wall.”
So what really happened in Tehran?
“I was in New York. And [then Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad didn’t like me. He showed respect, but his preferential relationship here in the continent was with [Bolivian President] Evo Morales and my friend [Venezuela’s Hugo] Chavez… Then one day in New York, I decided to talk to Ahmadinejad, because he had said it was a lie that six million Jews had died. And then I said, ‘Look, Ahmadinejad, I came here because I wanted to know if it’s true that you said that the Jews want to be heroes because they died in the war. I wanna tell you something: The Jews did not die in the war. The Jews were victims of a genocide. They were not soldiers fighting. They were free men, women and children who were taken to concentration camps and killed, that’s different.’
“He said, ‘I know,’ and I said, ‘If you know, tell it to everyone, it’s not possible to deny that six million people were killed.’ … Well, during this conversation I said, ‘I’d like to go to Tehran to talk to you about the nuclear bomb. What do I want from you? I want you to have the same right that Brazil has. Brazil enriches uranium for scientific and peaceful purposes. I want you to do enrichment the same way as Brazil. But if there’s an atomic bomb, I’m against it.’
Iran’s religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in Tehran on February 2019. Photo: AFP / Anadolu / Religious Leader’s Press Office
“Then I sent [Foreign Minister] Celso Amorim ahead, a few times. We cultivated a relationship with Turkey. It was something very funny. I met the great Ayatollah Khamenei, I had a meeting with him, I think he fell in love with me because I told him my life story. When I told him that I ate bread for the first time when I was seven years old, I thought, ‘I think I won this guy.’ He lavished extraordinary attention on us. We talked for over two hours. Then I left Khamenei and went to talk to the president of their congress; he looked like a czar. Then I went to dinner with Ahmadinejad, while Celso Amorim was negotiating with their prime minister.
“Ahmadinejad was not getting to the point, and I said, ‘Let me tell you something.’ And we had two interpreters: one who translated him into English, and Celso, who translated from English to me. I said, ‘You know that I’m here being bashed by the Americans. Hillary Clinton called the Emir of Qatar to tell me that I could not come, to tell me that I would be fooled. When I arrived in Moscow, [then-president Dmitri Medvedev said, ‘Hillary called, asking me to tell you not to go [because] the Iranians are liars.’ There was even a media joke: They were asking about the chance of a deal. Medvedev said ‘10%,’ and I said ‘99% – we are going there and we are going to do it.’
“Then I arrived, I was sitting down with Ahmadinejad, and I said, ‘Hey, little guy [laughs], you know that I’m here, I’m losing my friends. Obama is nervous with me – Obama was the most nervous among them all, Angela Merkel does not want me to be here. The only one more or less favorable was [then-French president Nicholas] Sarkozy, and I came here because I think Iran is a very important country, not only from the point of view of your population but from the point of view of your culture. And I want Iran not to suffer the consequences of an embargo because an embargo is worse than war. In war, you kill soldiers. With an embargo you kill children, you kill people with serious illnesses.’
“It was already 10pm at night and I said, ‘I’m not leaving here without a deal.’ Up to this moment, there was no chance of a deal. Around midnight I was discussing things with my aides at the hotel. I was even imagining the headlines in Brazil, against my trip. Then Celso arrived at one in the morning and said, ‘There’ll be a deal.’
“Then we went there the next day, lots of talking, there was this guy who was an aide to Ahmadinejad and was always whispering in his ear, and Ahmadinejad demanded to change a word. So I told him, ‘Damn, get this guy outta here. Every time he comes here you change your mind.’ Then he said, ‘Lula, can we make a deal without signing it?’ And I said, ‘Nah…. Do you know what Sarkozy thinks about you? Do you know what Obama thinks about you? Do you know what Angela Merkel thinks about you? They all think Iranians are liars. So, in Brazil, we’ve got a thing called ‘black on white’. You gotta sign.’ So he agreed. We signed, Brazil, him [Iran] and Turkey.
Lula and US President Barack Obama, on left, meet with other leaders in Copenhagen in December 2009 at the COP15 Climate Conference. Photo: AFP
“I imagined I would be invited to the White House, or to Berlin by Angela Merkel…. So imagine my surprise when they were so nervous. You know that kid that goes to school, gets an ‘A,’ tells his mother and the mother thinks it’s a bad thing? I think they were pissed because Brazil could not possibly have achieved what they did not. They started to diss us, so what did I do? I took a letter that comrade Obama had sent, saying what would be good for the United States. And the Reuters news agency released Obama’s letter. And the letter was the same thing as the deal we clinched.
“It happened that Mrs. Hillary didn’t know about Obama’s letter…. Later, I was at a G-20 meeting, I approached Angela Merkel and said, ‘Have you talked to Ahmadinejad?’ I talked to Sarzoky, said, ‘Have you talked to Ahmadinejad?’ No. Approached Obama, said, ‘Have you talked to Ahmadinejad?’ ‘No.’ ‘Damn, how come you want a deal, but you don’t talk? You subcontract the negotiation? Then I understood that the world in the past had had leadership much, much more competent, left and right, people who knew how to discuss foreign policy.”
After hearing this story I asked Lula – the ultimate instinctive politician – if he felt Obama had stabbed him in the back: “No,” he replied. “I think, have you ever received a gift you didn’t know how to put it together?”
Give it 2 minutes. That pic of her sitting on a man’s lap holding her hands is beyond creepy.
After eight years of Donald Trump, Americans will certainly be ready for some ‘radical’ change.
Source: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be the first female US president | USA | Al Jazeera
Jan 15, 2019
![Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a House of Representatives seat in the 2018 midterm elections in the US [Reuters/Carlos Barria]](https://talesfromtheloublog.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/e9c1d75ce7e74b9ba86794c3bb69d4e4_18.jpg?w=627 "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be the first female US president")
Donald Trump’s shocking victory in the 2016 presidential race caused liberals across the United States to question whether the country was indeed ready for a woman president. Since then, there has been much speculation about various female politicians and celebrities running for office, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Kamala Harris, Oprah, Michelle Obama, and others. There have even been rumours that Hillary Clinton might run again.
I, however, don’t see any of these women making it to the White House. I think the first female president of the US will be New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or AOC as she has come to be known). It may take her another six years to get there, but the youngest woman elected to the US Congress will win the presidency. Here is how and why.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election but lost key swing states and, under our complicated and arguably unfair Electoral College system, this meant losing the presidency.
But the biggest political upset in recent US history cannot simply be blamed on the unfairness of the electoral system, under which countless Democrats managed to defeat opponents stronger, and more experienced, than Donald Trump.
Clinton lost the election because she failed to convince working-class voters that she would be able to understand and address their growing grievances. While she started her journey as a young, educated, idealistic feminist believing in social justice and equality, over the course of her life in the political limelight, she (and her husband) made a fortune of over $50m, including $21m in speaking fees she was paid by Wall Street businesses and other interest groups. She gradually became an unrelatable poster-child of corporate America’s greed. This, combined with the proliferation of fake news and misinformation provided by Trump’s campaign were the proverbial “nails in the coffin” for her presidential bid.
Unlike Clinton and most politicians for that matter, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rejected donations from corporate political action committees, or PACs. She didn’t take millions from Wall Street and then preach to blue-collar Americans that she understood their struggles. This helped her not to be perceived as a member of the Washington establishment like Clinton and her peers Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, for example.
Moreover, Clinton just offered middle-of-the-road policies that simply promised more of the same. By contrast, Ocasio-Cortez, as an out and proud democratic socialist, advocated for federally guaranteed jobs and “Medicare-For-All,” called for tuition-free public colleges and the dismantling of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. With this, AOC made it clear that she offers a different kind of politics that is unadulterated by corporate and lobbyist connections. This is, in fact, what helped her defeat a 20-year incumbent and the fourth-ranking House Democrat, Joe Crowley, in the Democratic race for New York’s 14th Congressional District.
After she was sworn into Congress, she continued talking about progressive policies, calling for a return to John F Kennedy’s 70 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans and supporting a “Green New Deal”, a proposed economic programme addressing climate change and inequality. If Ocasio-Cortez continues down this path and successfully rejects cooptation by PACs, working-class Americans across party lines would undoubtedly be moved to vote for her.
AOC is also a master of grassroots organising and, while her actions convey that she is in touch with the challenges ordinary Americans face, her greatest asset may be her ability to connect with them in a way that feels genuine and not contrived. Millennials, for example, find AOC more relatable than any other potential presidential candidate. With her 2.37 million Twitter followers and growing, she is a skilled social media user who knows how to connect and communicate with the younger generation and will certainly be able to secure their vote. And in the coming decade, it increasingly seems that it will be the millennials who will become the most important voting bloc within the US electorate.
And finally, AOC was also able to capture the attention of the press and has already shown much skill in fending off public attacks. Even before she was sworn into office on January 3, conservatives had already launched a smear campaign against her, which is indicative of how much she scares them.
First, there was noise about the house she grew up in in a New York suburb; then much discussion about designer clothes she wore during a 2018 photo shoot. Just after her swearing-in, the right-wing news site The Daily Caller posted a fake picture of her in a bathtub. And then the conservative media tried to troll her with a video on the internet of her dancing in her college days. But this turned out to be a media boost for the freshman Congresswoman and she trolled them right back by making a wildly popular video of herself dancing into her Congress office.
With the election of Trump and AOC’s rise to stardom, one thing has become undoubtedly clear: US voters are desperate for new politics and fresh faces who can offer real change. And with her charisma, presence and political acumen, Ocasio-Cortez is able to tap into these sentiments. To put it in Trump’s words, Ocasio-Cortez is a “winner”, she is “winning”.
Her popularity in the press parallels Trump’s during his presidential bid in 2016 when he proved true the cliché “any press is good press”. Yes, it was thanks to the media’s obsession with him, both on the right and the left, that he remained a constant figure in the public eye, which ultimately paved the way for the unimaginable to happen – his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
The same is already proving true for AOC. She is the Democrat that Republicans (and even some Democrats) love to hate, and she will be all the better for it.
Although Alexandria has much political potential, she is unlikely to run in 2020 and challenge Trump. After Clinton’s upset in 2016, the Democratic establishment does not want a socialist to run for president, who would be seen as “a radical” and would risk alienating more conservative Democrats.
The Democratic Party is more likely to nominate someone like former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke, who will stick to the traditional Democratic centre-left talking points: “compromise, compromise, compromise”. If that happens, Trump will certainly bully him into a corner on the campaign trail and during the debates and will go on to win the 2020 presidential election, to the despair and shame of millions of Americans.
Another Trump presidency will certainly drag the country into deeper political, social and economic crises and will convince disillusioned voters once and for all that the Donald was never the man who could or even wanted to “drain the swamp”. It could finally be the wake-up call for millions of Americans to realise that they need to try something drastically different – something “radical”. That something, as Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly pointed out, could be what has already been done successfully in Scandinavian countries, for example.
At the same time, these five years will also give AOC the time to understand how Washington works, build her political profile and prove herself as a house representative. She will also quietly make more allies in the Democratic Party and after her two-year-term as congresswoman is over, she may choose to move up the political ladder by running for office as a senator for her home state of New York, in order to broaden her political experience before a run for president in 2024.
Yes, it will take all of that for Ocasio-Cortez to win the 2024 Democratic nomination. I would even venture to predict that she will run on a ticket with a female vice-presidential candidate, perhaps Senator Kamala Harris, if the forces that are the Democratic National Committee (DNC) permit such a scandal. Don’t forget how the DNC buried Senator Bernie Sanders in his run for the nomination in 2016. But after eight years of Trumpism, I believe that America will make sure that doesn’t happen again to AOC.
But apart from resistance within the DNC, perhaps the greatest challenge Ocasio-Cortez will face along the way to 2024 is remaining true to herself and her principles and withstanding the ineluctable and incessant weathering of the lobbyists who effectively run Congress behind the scenes. In her 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper, she admitted she is worried about how Washington would change her because it inevitably changes everyone.
If she manages to “survive” Washington and emerge stronger, the 2024 Democratic nomination for president definitely has “Ocasio-Cortez” written all over it. I, for one, will definitely vote for her.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Tubularsock is having a little bit of trouble with this Putin-Trump-Thingee.
Now what does it tell you that Donnie and Vlad met in “secret” under “rib vaults, and flying buttresses” in The Presidential Palace’s Gothic Hall in Helsinki?
Followed by a wider working lunch in The Hall of Mirrors.
Think on this, just a moment.
The Gothic part may show that Putin has been influenced more than we have been led to believe by Pussy Riot, the feminist Russian punk-rock collective based in Moscow.
Pussy Riot may seem a little Goth at times to Vlad and Donnie’s proclivity toward grabbing pussy makes it a great reminder of the “pee-pee-tape” so as not to have to remind Donnie of Vlad’s influence. Always best unsaid though loud and clear.
And then of course ………. The Hall of Mirrors.
On the one hand there is the problem that meddling in our elections is something new and our moral high ground on this activity is ludicrous. Like we have never done this constantly to nearly every country on the globe. What was the CIA created to do anyway?
So lets get this straight, once again.
Killery DID NOT lose the election because of Russian meddling!
Killary lost the election because she IS/WAS a lying, conniving, corrupted corporate-Democrap bitch!
Plain and simple!
And the American public knew it.
Can we lay that to rest now?
And hasn’t it been convenient that Killery’s total corrupt rigging of the Democrap primary edging Bernie out has all but disappeared. EVEN BY FUCKING BERNIE!
Talking about collusion ……. fuck Bernie too!
On the other hand …….. that fucking pee-tape must be one hell of a show! There is no doubt that Vlad has got Dump by the balls! Wow, that is gross just thinking about this!
And then third …….. Tubularsock is in favor of working with the Russians and ending this neo-con cold war bull shit.
Remember back in 2009 Step-en-fetch-it-Obummer and Killery-of-state wanted to “reset” U.S. relations with Russia. So why all this backlash when Dump is going after it?
The U.S. might try something new this century and get along with others rather than attempting to control others. Tubularsock knows how unreasonable this seem to the rabid and stupid deplorables but they seem to love their Imbecile-In-Chief and with his love fest with Vlad we might get peace in our time.
Oh sure, if it all goes well Dump with get brand new hotels in Moscow AND Vladivostok and the rest of us will get sauerkraut for dinner.
Hell …… that is pretty good faire for peasants!
It would seem that Hillary Clinton has a new dance for all the kids to try.
This feeble woman belongs in a nursing home, not politics. She could be the President today. Shivers… (No, I am not a Trumpster, he’s even worse than her)
I have received a letter from Margaret Huang, Amnesty International’s executive director. She is fundraising on the basis of President Trump’s “chilling disregard for our cherished human rights” and his exploitation of “hatred, misogyny, racism and xenophobia,” by which he has “emboldened and empowered the most violent segments of our society.”
Considering the hostility of Identity Politics toward Trump, one can understand why Ms. Huang frames her fundraiser in this way, but are the Trump deplorables the most empowered and violent segments of our society or is it the security agencies, the police, the neoconservatives, the presstitute media, and the Republican and Democratic parties?
John Kiriakou, Ray McGovern, Philip Giraldi, Edward Snowden, and others inform us that it is their former employers, the security agencies, that are empowered by unaccountability and violent by intent. Certainly the security agencies are emboldened by everything they have gotten away with, including their conspiracy to destroy President Trump with their orchestration known as Russiagate.
The violence that the US government has committed against humanity since the Clinton regime attacked Serbia was not committed by Trump deplorables. The violence that has destroyed in whole or part eight countries, murdering, maiming, and displacing millions of peoples, was committed by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes, their secretaries of state such as Hillary Clinton, their national security advisers, their military and security establishments, both parties in Congress. The murder of entire countries was endorsed by the presstitute media and the heads of state of Washington’s European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals. Trump and his deplorables have a long way to go to match this record of violence.
Whether she understands it or not, Ms. Huang with her letter is shifting the violence from where it belongs to where it does not. The consequence will be to increase violence and human rights violations.
The most dangerous source of violence that we face is nuclear Armageddon resulting from the neoconservative quest for US hegemony. Since the Clinton regime every US government has broken tension-easing agreements that previous administrations had achieved with Moscow. During the Obama regime the gratuitous aggressions and false accusations against Russia became extreme.
Why doesn’t Amnesty International address the reckless and irresponsible acts of the US government that are violating the rights of people in numerous countries and pushing the world into nuclear war? Instead, there have been times when Amnesty International aligns with Washington’s propaganda against Washington’s victims.
By jumping on the military/security complex’s get Trump movement, human rights and environmental organizations have increased the likelihood that rights and environment will be lost to war.
There can be no doubt that Trump is undoing past environmental protections and opening the environment and wildlife to more destruction. However, the worst destruction comes from war, especially nuclear war.
Would things be different if the liberal/progressive/left had rallied to Trump’s support in reducing tensions with Russia, in normalizing the hostile relations that Obama had established with Moscow? Would the support of the liberal/progressive/left have helped Trump resist the pressures from the neoconservative warmongers? In exchange for support for his principal goal, would Trump have mitigated industry’s attacks on the environment and vetoed the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that violates human rights?
We will never know, because the liberal/progressive/left could not see beyond the end of its nose to comprehend what it means for the environment and for human rights for nuclear powers to be locked into mutual suspicion.
Thanks to the failure of the liberal/progressive/left and to the presstitute media to understand the stakes, the military/security complex has been successful in pushing Trump off his agenda. The damage that a mining company and offshore drilling can do to the environment is large, but it pales in comparison to the damage from nuclear weapons.
Covering the Trump presidency has not always been the media’s finest hour, but even grading on that curve, the month of December has brought astonishing screwups.
Professor and venerable political observer Walter Russell Mead tweeted on December 8, “I remember Watergate pretty well, and I don’t remember anything like this level of journalistic carelessness back then. The constant stream of ‘bombshells’ that turn into duds is doing much more to damage the media than anything Trump could manage.”
On December 1, ABC News correspondent Brian Ross went on air and made a remarkable claim. For months, the media have been furiously trying to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Ross reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had just pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, was prepared to testify that President Trump had instructed him to contact Russian officials before the 2016 election, while Trump was still a candidate. If true, it would have been a gamechanger. But Ross’s claim was inaccurate. Flynn’s documented attempts to contact the Russians came after Trump was president-elect, allegedly trying to lay diplomatic groundwork for the new administration. Ross was suspended by ABC for four weeks without pay for the error.
Later that same weekend, the New York Times ran a stoy about Trump transition official K. T. McFarland, charging that she had lied to congressional investigators about knowledge of the Trump transition team’s contacts with Russia. The article went through four headline changes and extensive edits after it was first published, substantially softening and backing away from claims made in the original version. The first headline made a definitive claim: “McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts, Congressional Testimony Shows.” The headline now reads “Former Aide’s Testimony on Russia Is Questioned.” The website Newsdiffs, which tracks edits of articles after publication, shows nearly the entire body of the article was rewritten. (The Times website makes no mention of the changes.)
Still in that first weekend of December, Senator Orrin Hatch criticized the excesses of federal welfare programs, saying, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves.” The quote was taken wildly out of context. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough as well as journalists from Mic, Newsweek, and the Los Angeles Times reported that Hatch was directly criticizing the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with some suggesting Hatch thought children should be put to work to pay for subsidized health care. Not only was Hatch not criticizing the CHIP program, he cowrote the recent bill to extend its funding.
On December 5, Reuters and Bloomberg reported that special counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank account records of President Trump and family members, possibly related to business done in Russia. The report was later corrected to say Mueller was subpoenaing “people or entities close to Mr. Trump.”
Then on December 8, another Russia bombshell turned into a dud. CNN’s Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb reported Donald Trump Jr. had been sent an email on September 4, 2016, with a decryption key to a WikiLeaks trove of hacked emails from Clinton confidant and Democratic operative John Podesta—that is, before the hacked emails were made public. (WikiLeaks is widely surmised to act as a front for Russian intelligence.) MSNBC and CBS quickly claimed to have confirmed CNN’s scoop. Within hours, though, CNN’s report was discredited. The email was sent on September 14, after the hacked Podesta emails had been made publicly available. CNN later admitted it never saw the email it was reporting the contents of.
This is just eight days’ worth of blundering.
The errors always run in the same direction—they report or imply that the Trump campaign was in league with Moscow.
For a politicized and overwhelmingly liberal press corps, the wish that this story be true is obviously the father to the errors. Just as obviously, there are precedents for such high-profile embarrassments in the past. (Remember Dan Rather’s “scoop” on George W. Bush’s National Guard service?) But flawed reporting in the Trump era is becoming more the norm than the exception, suggesting the media have become far too willing to abandon some pretty basic journalistic standards.
Editors at top news organizations once treated anonymous sourcing as a necessary evil, a tool to be used sparingly. Now anonymous sources dominate Trump coverage.
It’s not just a problem for readers, who should rightly be skeptical of information someone isn’t willing to vouch for by name. It’s a problem for reporters, too, because anonymous sources are less likely to be cautious and diligent in providing information. According to CNN, the sources behind the busted report on Trump Jr.’s contact with WikiLeaks didn’t intend to deceive and had been reliable in the past. Maybe so, but given the network’s repeated errors it’s difficult to just take CNN’s word for it.
But it’s one thing to use anonymous sources; it’s quite another to be entirely trusting of them. CNN decided to report the contents of an email to Donald Trump Jr. based only on the say-so of two anonymous sources and without seeing the emails. “I remember when I was [a staffer] on the Ways and Means committee and I would try and give reporters stories, and I remember the Wall Street Journal demanded to see a document,” former Bush administration press secretary Ari Fleischer tells The Weekly Standard. “They wouldn’t take it from me if I didn’t give them the document, and I thought, ‘Good for them!’ ”
What makes the botched story of the WikiLeaks email more troubling is how quickly MSNBC and CBS ran with CNN’s scoop. “It’s hard to imagine how independent people could repeatedly misread a date on an email and do so for three different networks,” says Fleischer. “Whose eyesight is that bad?”
This points to an additional problem with the sourcing on these unfounded reports. The only way three networks could claim to have verified the same specious story is if they were all relying on the very same sources. Many of the flawed Trump reports appear to be sourced from a very narrow circle of people, who no doubt share partisan motivations or personal animus.
Certainly, it appears a number of recent spurious stories have originated as leaks from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. In Raju and Herb’s report, they revealed that Trump Jr. had been asked about the WikiLeaks email in closed-door testimony before the committee. After CNN’s scoop imploded, a spokesman for Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, issued a classic non-denial denial, telling Politico “that neither he nor his staff leaked any ‘non-public information’ ” about Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony.
Meanwhile, the Russia investigation has been very good for raising Schiff’s profile. A December 13 press release from the Republican National Committee notes the congressman has at that point spent 20 hours, 44 minutes, and 49 seconds on television since Trump took office, talking mostly about the investigation (pity the low-level staffer who must have had to do the research for that release). During that time, Schiff has always declined to discuss the particulars of the intel committee’s work. Nonetheless, consideration of his sensitive position hasn’t stopped him from offering all manner of innuendo to national TV audiences about evidence suggesting Russia collusion.
For their part, the media don’t seem to be coming to grips with the damage they’re doing to their own credibility. CNN, which calls itself “the most trusted name in news,” didn’t retract their WikiLeaks report but rewrote it in such a way as to render the story meaningless. They also came to the defense of Raju and Herb, saying the reporters acted in accordance with the network’s editorial policies. And of course they didn’t out their sources—the ultimate punishment news organizations can mete out to anonymous tipsters who steer them wrong.
It understandably infuriates the media that President Trump remains unwilling to own up to his own glaring errors and untruths, while news organizations run correction after correction. And it also understandably upsets the media to watch the president actively attack and seek to undermine their work, which remains vital to ensuring accountability in American governance.
What they haven’t grasped is how perversely helpful to him they are being: On a very basic level, President Trump’s repeated salvos against “fake news” have resonance because, well, there does indeed appear to be a lot of fake news.
“There is nothing wrong with holding powerful people accountable. There’s nothing wrong with investigating whether or not collusion took place. But there’s a lot wrong when because you want to believe in the story so much you suspend skepticism,” says Fleischer.
“You let your guard down. You abandon the normal filters that protect journalistic integrity. And you fail to also hold to account powerful leakers, or powerful members of Congress who themselves have an anti-Trump agenda. It’s called putting your thumb on the scale.”
Is Washington the Most Corrupt Government in History?
The man who died twice
Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor “investigating” a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So where is the evidence?
It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump’s Russiagate. The real scandal is Hillary Clinton’s uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous evidence for Hillary’s scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html
Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the “New Hitler” is not a threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump’s aim of normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the “enemy” it requires to justify its massive budget and power.
Why hasn’t President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn’t the Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump’s government is allied with his enemies?
How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn’t Trump have Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United States?
Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee’s investigation into “Russian active measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?” There were no such active measures, but the uranium sale was real.
Why haven’t the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can’t make a pass at a woman?
Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.
The failure of the US and European media is extreme.
The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public’s head.
Consider, for example, the Obama regime’s claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his “compound” in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs’ helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to have watched the killing became a “miscommunication.” The staged photo of the top government officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html
The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife, was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the “terrorist mastermind” from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American superpower?
Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama’s body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?
Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no media interested that the ship’s crew wrote home that no such burial took place?
Why was there no presstitute interest in the fact that the SEAL unit, from which the SEALs on the alleged raid on bin Laden’s compound were drawn, was loaded against regulations in one 50-year old Vietnam era helicopter and shot down in Afghanistan, with all lives lost? Why was there no presstitute interest in the parents of the SEALs complaints about inappropriate procedures that cost their sons’ lives and about fears expressed to them by sons that something was wrong and they felt endangered? http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/navy-seals-father-obama-sent-my-son-to-his-death/
and https://www.military1.com/navy/article/403494-navy-seals-parents-sue-biden-panetta-over-sons-deaths/ and http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/families-of-seal-team-6-to-reveal-why-they-think-the-govt-is-as-much-responsible-for-the-death-of-their-sons-as-the-taliban
Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, “who was on that raid?” “Were you on the bin Laden raid?” When in fact no one was on the raid.
Why wasn’t Congress interested?
Why was the live Pakistani TV interview with an eye witness of the alleged raid on bin Laden’s compound not reported in the US media? The witness contradicted every aspect of the official story. And this was immediately after the event. There was no time for anyone to concoct an elaborate counter-story or motive to do so. Here is the interview: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/15/pakistan-samaa-tv-interview-eyewitness-alleged-osama-bin-laden-killing/ and here is a verified translation that confirms the accuracy of the English subscripts: https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Pakistan-TV-Report-Contrad-by-paul-craig-roberts-110806-879.html
Osama bin Laden had been dead for a decade prior to the false claim that Navy SEALs murdered him in Pakistan in May 2011. Here are the obituaries from December 2001: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/20/bin-ladens-obituary-notice/ and this one from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/12/26/report-bin-laden-already-dead.html
Here is bin Laden’s last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating “the world’s only superpower” fail to boost his movement by claiming credit?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/
See also:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/07/another-fake-bin-laden-story-paul-craig-roberts/
http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2013/334-int-32
Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public’s consciousness.
And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington’s self-serving control over explanations has removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.
So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?
Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free.” Goethe
Source: Event Horizon Chronicle
With permission from
eventhorizonchronicle.blogspot.ca
Richard Sauder
Aug 10, 2017
Let me say at the outset that the increasingly tired, Trumpie canard that “Hillary would have been so much worse!” is both trite, annoying and completely irrelevant.
The Deep State didn’t want Hillary. They wanted Trump, precisely because he is vain, narcissistic, weak, incompetent, very geo-politically ignorant, incapable, intellectually lazy, in short: tractable, docile, manipulable, a multi-billionaire, New York City bloviating buffoon with a seriously bad case of the “wannabes”.
The Deep State is accordingly playing Trump like a fiddle. They’re playing him for the chump that he is.
What’s that? You think that you “elected” him? And that he’s a great man?
If you really do think that, then shame on you for not being more astute, and electing a chump, but in reality you did nothing of the sort.
You were deviously guided down a very cunningly crafted, political decision tree to think that you elected him; i.e., the Deep State presented to you a carefully groomed and pre-selected candidate that punched your political hot buttons, and you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
Deep State jokers are wild, and the joke’s on you.
Or maybe you voted for Hillary or Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, in which case — same thing, the joke’s on you, and your candidate was pre-selected to lose. It’s all phony and rigged, it’s all massively corrupt and your vote doesn’t select the President of the USSA. Any other understanding is deficient and represents a refusal on your part to face reality as it is.
Have you ever seen a hamster in a cage on its exercise wheel — sprinting all out and going nowhere, really fast! The analogy applies very well to USSAers in their red-white-and-blue Ameri-cage voting for their candidates! — and getting absolutely nowhere, other than more deeply enslaved, more deeply mind controlled, more thoroughly economically exploited, and all the while falsely imagining that they are free.
Johann von Goethe, the great German author and philosopher, famously remarked two hundred years ago that: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free.”
He could have been writing about the USSA, even then — and who knows, maybe he was.
About To Ratchet Up To Another Level
So now Donald Trump is beset by the very officials whom he personally appointed to high office! He loaded up his government with Neocons, military-industrial-espionage complex war hawks, Goldman Sachs Wall Street banksters, Zionists and more.
He’s under political assault by his own, back-stabbing appointees — and he has no one but himself to blame. If he had such a weak, unprepared understanding of the political environment in Washington, DC, such a weak and poorly thought out philosophy of governance, and such a deficient understanding of the various power factions, major political players and operatives in Washington, DC, that he appointed a government full of individuals opposed to his own political program, then he had no business offering himself as a candidate for President.
As one of my friends remarked in recent days, Donald Trump is revealing himself to be a “hollow shell” of a man.
Or as Russian Prime Minister Medvedev remarked last week, after the USSA Congress voted to impose draconian trade sanctions against Russia, effectively neutering Trump’s foreign policy, weak as it is at this point: Trump has revealed himself to be an “incompetent player” who has shown “complete impotence.”
I’m more than sure that’s diplomatic Russian for: “F*ck you.”
Rockets Bursting In Air
All of which certainly has caught the attention of the little-big man of the moment, who has very publicly been called a p*ssy by the Russian Prime Minister.
And what do weak men do when they are being publicly humiliated for being a p*ssy? They over compensate, and lash out in a transparent effort to prove that they really are the strong, capable man that they, in fact, are not.
Trust me on this. The Deep State has set all of this up. Trump is just the chump that they need, and they have skillfully maneuvered him into position, to undercut him, knowing that the inevitable reaction of the weak, narcissistic, little-big man is to overcompensate, to try to save face.
In this case, what the Deep State wants is war, a big one, a nuclear war, by the looks of things.
And Trump is the chump they have selected to push the button.
Not to worry, we’re almost there. They’re carefully herding him into position, into the desperate political and psychological space where he will reach out and do what they want: unleash nuclear hell.
In recent days, Donald Trump has said that North Korea “…will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen…” if they persist in threats against the USSA. Today he followed up that statement by remarking that his earlier “fire and fury” threat: “…wasn’t tough enough…”, that North Korea would be in trouble “like few nations have ever been” and that “Things will happen to them that they never thought possible.”
Those are nuclear fighting words, to be sure.
In response, in recent days North Korea has variously threatened to nuke Guam, Honolulu, San Diego, Austin and Washington, D.C.
And so the world drifts toward nuclear war. Much is being made in the western press of the unreasonable bellicosity of North Korea, and yet, by any objective measure, it is the USSA who is by far the most bellicose power in the world, with a long history of invading and destroying other countries and stealing their resources, one after the other, all over the world. Say what you will about North Korea, but they have not done this.
There is a psychopathic power on the global stage which is Satanically threatening another nation with nuclear destruction and that power is the USSA.
There is a real danger of nuclear false flag attacks in the coming days, weeks and months, in order that the generals in the Pentagon may have their nuclear war, with a disingenuous cover of false deniability.
There is a great risk that a weak, imperiled President will “strike out” in an aggressive display of hyper-kinetic violence, to compensate for the manly strength and political savvy that he sorely lacks. There is a maniacal leader on the loose, a nuclear-armed, little-big man trying to be tough, and the entire world is endangered as a result.
Have no doubt, as things now stand, the world is on course for nuclear war, and the Pentagon and the USSA Deep State bear the lion’s share of the blame for the situation. They are a menace to all humanity.
********************************************
I really depend on your contributions and donations to support my writing. I have an immediate, pressing need of financial support at this time. My work represents views that you will not find in the mainstream news media, but unlike columnists at mainstream newspapers, websites and/or commentators on television and radio, I receive no salary, no benefits, nothing. I am an independent operator, barely surviving.
As the system becomes more and more controlled, independent voices like mine are increasingly shut out, including from the so-called “alternative media” itself, much of which is, in fact, the controlled opposition.
If you find personal value or meaning in this or any of my other blog articles, I implore you to please support my continued work. Contact me at: dr.samizdat1618@gmail.com for how to donate.
I also gratefully accept Amazon.com gift cards in any amount, small or large, to my e-mail address: dr.samizdat1618@gmail.com
If proven and true, these people are truly vile and disgusting. Where’s the justice department? Heck, even without proof these people are vile and disgusting.
With permission from
humansarefree.com
By Kyle Becker, Guest author
July 21, 2017
The source for this claim is Erik Prince, the founder of the security firm Blackwater (yes, that one.) In an exclusive interview at Breitbart News, Prince first states that the NYPD is “ready to make arrests in Weiner case.”
The Breitbart — PizzaGate Connection: Was Andrew Breitbart Killed To Conceal This Story?
Prince, who is a Trump supporter and major donor to pro-Trump Super PAC Make America Number 1, had plenty to say about the hot water that Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin may be in, according to his NYPD sources.
“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago.
“That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince claimed.
Prince then went into the alleged lurid material he says is on Weiner’s laptop:
“NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop,” Prince elaborated.
“Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government.
They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton’s own homebrew server, which contained classified information.
Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found.”
“So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week.
“The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn’t,” Prince contended.
DNC Staffer Arrested For Possessing ‘Infant Porn’ Featuring Babies as Young as 6 Months Old
The Blackwater Founder then leveled the charge that there is evidence of criminal activity:
“There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they’ve seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs,” he stated.
“So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that’s the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue,” Prince said.
Prince pivots from the Weiner laptop investigation to claiming that Hillary Clinton accompanied Bill Clinton and billionaire convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to “sex island” (aka “sex slave island”).
As we hurry past the disturbing picture that paints, let’s go to the transcript:
“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails.
“They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.
“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
“Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times.”
In May, Fox News reported that Bill Clinton indeed frequented Sex Slave Island with Epstein several times:
Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.”
The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls… Official flight logs filed with the Federal Aviation Administration show Clinton traveled on some of the trips with as many as 10 U.S. Secret Service agents.
However, on a five-leg Asia trip between May 22 and May 25, 2002, not a single Secret Service agent is listed.
Not only has Bill Clinton been aboard the “Lolita Express” multiple times on the way to the secluded island, reportedly Donald Trump has “at least once,” according to sworn testimony reported by Vice News.
Trump has called Epstein “a terrific guy” and “a lot of fun to be with.”
Huge Pedophilia Lawsuit: Slave Children Forced to Have Sex With ‘Royalty, Politicians, Academicians’ — Bill Clinton Also Visited the Villa
Vice News claims that Trump’s one-time visit with Epstein has effectively taken the attack off the table for the campaign.
Breitbart News argues that if there were actual evidence that Trump had visited the island, it would be all over the press.
“But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they’d be talking about it. They’d be shouting it from the rooftops.”
“This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don’t have to make any judgments,“ he added. ”Just release the emails,” he urged. “Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth.”
“The Clinton Foundation, they are criminals, they are thieves, they are liars, they are a disgrace,” Eberwein said at a protest outside the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan last year.
Source: Haitian Clinton Foundation Whistleblower Suicided | Covert Geopolitics
With permission from
geopolitics.co
July 19, 2017
According to the Miami Herald,
Klaus Eberwein, a former Haitian government official, was found dead Tuesday in a South Dade motel room in what the Miami-Dade medical examiner’s office is ruling a suicide.
“He shot himself in the head,” said Veronica Lamar, Miami-Dade medical examiner records supervisor. She listed his time of death at 12:19 p.m.
… During and after his government tenure, Eberwein faced allegations of fraud and corruption on how the agency he headed administered funds. Among the issues was FAES’ oversight of shoddy construction of several schools built after Haiti’s devastating Jan. 12, 2010, earthquake.
Eberwein was scheduled to appear Tuesday before the Haitian Senate’s Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the head of the commission, Sen. Evalière Beauplan confirmed. The commission is investigating the management of PetroCaribe funds, the money Haiti receives from Venezuela’s discounted oil program.
Eberwein was, by all indication, fully committed to bring the Clinton Foundation to justice.
According to Eberwein, a paltry 0.6 percent of donations granted by international donors to the Clinton Foundation with the express purpose of directly assisting Haitians actually ended up in the hands of Haitian organizations. A further 9.6 percent ended up with the Haitian government. The remaining 89.8 percent – or $5.4 billion – was funneled to non-Haitian organizations.
“The Clinton Foundation, they are criminals, they are thieves, they are liars, they are a disgrace,” Eberwein said at a protest outside the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan last year.
Partners in high crimes, Bill and Hillary, have been scheming the White House for personal profit.
Klaus Eberwein, a former Haitian government official who was expected to expose the extent of Clinton Foundation corruption and malpractice next week, has been found dead in Miami. He was 50.
Eberwein was due to appear next Tuesday before the Haitian Senate Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission where he was widely expected to testify that the Clinton Foundation misappropriated Haiti earthquake donations from international donors.
According to Miami-Dade’s medical examiner records supervisor, the official cause of death is “gunshot to the head“. Eberwein’s death has been registered as “suicide.”
Eberwein, who had acknowledged his life was in danger, was a fierce critic of the Clinton Foundation’s activities in the Caribbean island, where he served as director general of the government’s economic development agency, Fonds d’assistance économique et social, for three years.
According to Eberwein, a paltry 0.6% of donations granted by international donors to the Clinton Foundation with the express purpose of directly assisting Haitians actually ended up in the hands of Haitian organizations. A further 9.6% ended up with the Haitian government. The remaining 89.8% – or $5.4 billion – was funneled to non-Haitian organizations.
“The Clinton Foundation, they are criminals, they are thieves, they are liars, they are a disgrace,” Eberwein said at a protest outside the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan last year.
Source: Bill and Hillary received $2.85M selling U.S. uranium to the Russians
With permission from
The Clintons actually did business with the Russians and the media is ignoring it
(INTELLIHUB) — At least $2.85 million dollars flowed to the Clinton Family through a series of five Russian-backed donations after a massive uranium deal was signed off by the State Department and other agencies during Hillary’s tenure.
Shockingly, between the years of 2009-2013 Russian-backed interests assumed control of one-fifth (20%) of the U.S. uranium supply along with several highly-lucrative mines in Kazakhstan through a secret backdoor deal with the Clintons, as reported by Joe Becker and Mike McIntire in April of 2015.
The report was groundbreaking. And if you think about it, the report should have triggered the real Russian narrative. You know, the one where the Clinton’s sold America’s most strategic asset (i.e. uranium: used to produce nuclear fuel and weapons of mass destruction). Of course, such a narrative never came to pass because to the contrary the fake Trump-Russia narrative was born, sidetracking the general public from what’s really going on.
According to Becker and McIntire: “Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”
And if that’s not enough, Mr. Clinton received an additional $500,000 from a Russian investment bank with ties to Uranium One, bringing the grand total influx from Russia to $2,800,000. To top it off, the donations went unreported by the Clinton Foundation.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Clintons actually did shady business with the Russians against the best interest of the United States of America and personally benefited from doing so. They must be held accountable.
Please share this powerful report with everyone you know. Get the truth out!
Source: Bodies Have Been Stacking Up: The Video Hillary Clinton Does Not Want You To See…
Mac Slavo
May 16th, 2017
Following the breaking report from Fox News that third-party investigators in the Seth Rich murder have linked the former high level DNC staffer with Wikileaks as the possible source of over 44,000 emails, we thought it appropriate to post the following video.
While we’re not claiming there was any direct involvement by the DNC or Party heads with the killing of Rich on a D.C. street, we’re also not going to rule it out because… well, just see for yourself:
For years America depended on cheap oil from Saudi Arabia and its other OPEC goons and likewise, many Americans liked to lavish themselves in the easy money which flowed from the repressive desert kingdom. Hillary Clinton was a prime example of a politician bought and sold in Saudi gold.
Source: James Comey’s legacy: Blaming Russia rather than Saudi Arabia and Israel
theduran.com
Russia has never influenced US policy making but Saudi Arabia and Israel have and continue to do so.The last time Donald Trump fired an important official prior to an important foreign visit was when Steve Bannon was fired from his position on the National Security Council the day before a Chinese delegation led by President Xi was to meet with Trump. It was also incidentally a day prior to Trump’s infamous 6 April 2017 attack on Syria.
Steve Bannon was known to favour Russian reconciliation, particularly over Syria cooperation. He was also a leader of the anti-Chinese camp, especially in the aftermath of Mike Flynn’s resignation. The dots were not difficult to connect.
Now, within hours of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov holding talks with US Secretary of State Tillerson and apparently Donald Trump in Washington, FBI Director James Comey has been fired.
Donald Trump is quoted in an official statement as saying,
“The FBI is one of our Nation’s most cherished and respected institutions and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement”.
The liberal mainstream media are all ready saying that this is a ‘gift of Russia’ as if Trump will hand over Comey’s firing notice to Mr. Lavrov on a silver plate, not that Russia particularly cares. Russia does not.
Theories about Trump firing Comey to placate Russia are not only literally stupid, but it makes a mockery of the United States. Then again, so too did the entire ‘Russiagate’ investigation that Comey’s FBI was leading.
In a democracy, important checks and balances held keep each branch of government scrutinised when any powers are abused or laws are broken. It is important to have an impartial FBI willing to investigate any branch of government when anything untoward is suspected. But it’s a two way street.
The un-elected FBI can go rogue as much as a President or Senator and that is what the FBI has done over investigating the non-issue of Donald Trump’s non-existent connections with Russia.
Any patriotic American should be ashamed of what Comey has done, continuing to investigate such a totally bogus set of entirely political/opportunistic accusations.
Not only is there zero evidence of any Trump-Russia connnections but more importantly, America is too powerful to be influenced by ANY foreign power. So too are Russia and China.
The fact that America still can be influenced by foreign powers is not due to capitulation, but instead due to greed which leads to a voluntary surrender of US interests whilst those of a foreign state are elevated.
But is Russia one of those states? No it is not.
There are no signs historically nor presently that Russia has ever had any positive influence on the United States Federal government at any level.
The same cannot be said of Saudi Arabia and Israel, states which are far weaker than Russia, but states which never the less have influenced US policy making for decades.
America doesn’t depend on Saudi or Israel for survival, but in a corrupt country, money talks and this is what America has become: a corrupt country that is so rich and so powerful it doesn’t even need to be corrupt, but greed has got the better of integrity.
For years America depended on cheap oil from Saudi Arabia and its other OPEC goons and likewise, many Americans liked to lavish themselves in the easy money which flowed from the repressive desert kingdom. Hillary Clinton was a prime example of a politician bought and sold in Saudi gold.
Likewise, the US based Israel lobby is extraordinarily powerful in terms of monetary influence. Groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) donate millions to political causes. By contrast, groups which oppose Israel’s foreign and internal policies do not have that kind of money and therefore do not have that kind of influence.
One can love or hate Saudi Arabia/love or hate Israel, but these are facts and they are as American as baseball and burgers. They have nothing to do with Wahhabism or Zionism per se.
What a shameful state it is, that US politicians feel the need to rely on foreign money for personal enrichment. I can understand why leaders in the poor countries that America dominates feel the need to go along with American money and influence in order to enrich themselves or even keep their nation from total collapse or invasion, but what is America’s excuse? America has the biggest military in the world and is the world’s wealthiest nation.
There is no excuse other than old fashioned greed on an extreme scale.
In this sense, I do not blame Saudi Arabia or Israel for their disproportional influence on US policy. They are simply purchasing something that is de-facto for sale.
One must blame the US politicians who put money before country and they do so in a country that doesn’t even need the money. Hillary Clinton’s husband gets millions just for opening his mouth (to speak that is, not the Monica Lewinsky style of mouth opening), does she really need that much more?
This knowledge must lead to questions of both how far to expand America’s legal definition of corruption. This also much raise questions about the heart and soul of American democracy.
No country should unduly influence another. But the fact is, Russia is not now and never has influenced America. Russiagate was a political crusade and a deeply un-creative one at that. The fact that the FBI took it seriously was shameful.
James Comey had to go and although the move was probably motivated by Donald Trump’s personal anger rather than any wider philosophical sense of justice, the result is the same and it is the correct one.
Tales from the Conspiratum 