Clinton Ca$H...

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:55 pm

Federal Court Orders Discovery on Clinton Email, Benghazi Scandal: Top Obama-Clinton Officials, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes to Respond to Judicial Watch Questions Under Oath

Judicial Watch announced today that United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that discovery can begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides will now be deposed under oath. Senior officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap — will now have to answer Judicial Watch’s written questions under oath. The court rejected the DOJ and State Department’s objections to Judicial Watch’s court-ordered discovery plan. (The court, in ordering a discovery plan last month, ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)

Judge Lamberth ordered written responses under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions from Obama administration senior officials Rice, Rhodes and Sullivan, and former FBI official Priestap. Rice and Rhodes will answer interrogatories under oath on the Benghazi scandal. Rejecting the State and Justice Department objections to discovery on the infamous Benghazi talking points, Judge Lamberth reiterated:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-roo ... nder-oath/

:wurms:

:doomed:
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12980
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:57 am

phpBB [video]
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:05 am

phpBB [video]
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Cactus Jack » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:46 am

Отличная работа, вы почти так же верны России, как Трамп
User avatar
Cactus Jack
 
Posts: 13741
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:15 pm
Location: Round yer somewhere

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:20 am

AG Bill Barr: "Spying On A Political Campaign Is A Big Deal"


Speaking to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, Attorney General Barr said he would investigate the origins of the Mueller probe and that he believes "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign in 2016.

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: And can you share with us why you feel a need to do that?

BARR: Well, you know, for the same reason we're worried about foreign influence in elections, we want to make sure that during elections -- I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It's a big deal.

The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam War period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government, and there were a lot of rules put in place to make sure that there's an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance. I'm not suggesting that those rules were violated but I think it's important to look at that. and I'm not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.

SHAHEEN: So you're not suggesting, though, that spying occurred?

BARR: Well, I guess -- I think spying did occur, yes. I think spying did occur.

SHAHEEN: Well --

BARR: The question was whether it was adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated. I need to explore that. I think it's my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane. I want to make sure that happened. We have a lot of rules about that.

I want to say that I've said I'm reviewing this. I haven't set up a team yet, but I have in mind having some colleagues help me pull all this information together and letting me know whether there are some areas that should be looked at. I also want to make clear. I also want to make clear, this is not launching an investigation of the FBI. Frankly, to the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that's endemic to the FBI.

I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon. So I don't like to hear attacks about the FBI because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization and I think Chris Wray is a great partner for me. I'm very pleased he's there as the director. If it becomes necessary to look over some former officials' activities, I expect I'll be relying heavily on Chris and work closely with him in looking at that information. But that's what I'm doing. I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused. I think that's one of the principal roles of the attorney general.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ation.html
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby wutang » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:27 am

Has Trump 'locked her up' yet? :ooer:

Seems to be taking his time

Image
User avatar
wutang
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Globalist Department, Frankfurt School

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:51 pm

COURT DOCS: Prosecutors Ask To Present Evidence That NXIVM Sex Cult Leaders Illegally Bundled Money For Hillary Clinton Campaign

Prosecutors have asked to present evidence in the NXIVM sex cult racketeering trial showing that NXIVM leaders including Nancy Salzman and Clare Bronfman illegally bundled money for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign by compelling members to donate to Clinton and then reimbursing the members. (READ: Ex-NXIVM Employees: Kirsten Gillibrand’s Father and Stepmother, Second Cousins, Were Very Active In The Cult, Acted As Broker To Democrat Politicians).

“I was there, and I knew that the contributions were made by more than a dozen NXIVM members to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign,” former NXIVM employee Frank Parlato tells Big League Politics, confirming that the court documents refer to Clinton’s campaign. Bronfman’s donations to Clinton are recorded here.

Document 414 – Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Government’s Motion To Admit Certain Rackleteering Evidence (03.12.2019)

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/court-doc ... -campaign/

:wurms: :wurms:

Don't worry though, she won't go to prison, she knows too many names to risk facing criminal charges.
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12980
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Stooo » Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:27 pm

Um there was a heavily redacted report released today by 45's lawyer (he should be the lawyer for the USA)and it looks like Cohen is going to spill the beans perhaps even before Muller is subpoenaed by Congress.

But. Her. Emails...

Is there something in the water that you drink?
User avatar
Stooo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 89520
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:24 pm
Location: 700k, 1milion +, for you.

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:34 pm

Stooo wrote:Um there was a heavily redacted report released today by 45's lawyer (he should be the lawyer for the USA)and it looks like Cohen is going to spill the beans perhaps even before Muller is subpoenaed by Congress.

But. Her. Emails...

Is there something in the water that you drink?


phpBB [video]


not to my liking but each to their own.
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12980
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Stooo » Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:10 pm

Fletch wrote:
Stooo wrote:Um there was a heavily redacted report released today by 45's lawyer (he should be the lawyer for the USA)and it looks like Cohen is going to spill the beans perhaps even before Muller is subpoenaed by Congress.

But. Her. Emails...

Is there something in the water that you drink?


phpBB [video]


not to my liking but each to their own.


Yeah but the actual report about the actual President, mate...
User avatar
Stooo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 89520
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:24 pm
Location: 700k, 1milion +, for you.

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby Fletch » Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:18 pm

Stooo wrote:
Fletch wrote:
Stooo wrote:Um there was a heavily redacted report released today by 45's lawyer (he should be the lawyer for the USA)and it looks like Cohen is going to spill the beans perhaps even before Muller is subpoenaed by Congress.

But. Her. Emails...

Is there something in the water that you drink?


[video][/video]

not to my liking but each to their own.


Yeah but the actual report about the actual President, mate...


This is about Clinton. Her emails problem is firstly hiding them after they were discovered to exist and then deleting them whist under subpoena. It's what they reveal that is the issue. pay to play, arms running, trafficking, (Haiti) fraud and much more. The cry of 'emails' has been propagated to divert attention from what's in them.

Her behaviour and lawlessness does not mean I favour Trump. Not does Trump's behaviour mean hers should be ignored.

Stick it in the Trump Regime thread. As far as I can see, it says what I said all along. The Russia collusion was a set up by the Dems and there was no collusion or meddling. Doesn't make him squeaky clean, the Russia idea was just too dumb and easily found out to stick.
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 12980
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:35 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:33 am


Admit it: Fox News has been right all along


By Gary Abernathy
April 15, 2019 at 4:57 PM

Gary Abernathy, a contributing columnist for The Post (AKA WAPO :wink: ), is a freelance writer and former newspaper editor based in Hillsboro, Ohio.

Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.

People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.

But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong. For at least two years, MSNBC and CNN devoted hour upon hour, day after day, to promoting the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was going to prove it. That turned out to be wrong.

Along with defending Trump, Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and, especially, Sean Hannity have been slammed for spending nearly two years clamoring for an investigation of the investigators, aligning themselves with the president’s claim of a politically motivated witch hunt. Most of the media portrayed such accusations as preposterous, designed merely to divert attention from Trump’s alleged misdeeds.


But then comes Attorney General William P. Barr, dropping a bombshell last week by declaring during congressional testimony that he thinks “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016, and that he is looking into it. Democrats and many in the media immediately blasted Barr for carrying Trump’s water. Barr soon clarified his remarks, saying, “I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred. I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it.”

Just three weeks ago, before Mueller wrapped up his report, The Post — in a story representative of mainstream sources at the time — produced a mostly flattering profile of the new attorney general. “A Justice Department official told The Washington Post last month that Barr is viewed at the department as ‘a lawyer’s lawyer’ and is seen as less politically minded than his predecessors,” the story noted.

Timothy Flanigan, a former Barr colleague at the Justice Department, described Barr’s independent streak, saying, “If Bill starts getting the tweet treatment, Bill is a tough guy. He’s a tough, tough guy. Not that Jeff Sessions wasn’t, but I don’t think Bill’s just going to sit there and take it. I think he would make sure that the president understood that it is not really a smart thing to be lambasting the attorney general.”

Now, Barr is being cast by the liberal cable channels and others as an unscrupulous political hack attached to the president’s leash. On CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that Barr “may be whitewashing” his summary of the report. Such accusations represent an unlikely turn of events for a 68-year-old professional with an impeccable record and a career more behind him than in front of him.

For Fox News devotees in southern Ohio and other Trump strongholds, nothing from the Mueller investigation has provided cause to waver from their preferred news source. Meanwhile, even regular viewers of CNN and MSNBC must certainly recognize the straws being grasped to justify sticking with a conspiracy theory that has been largely debunked — although the expected release of Mueller’s report this week will probably provide just enough juice for one last effort.

After two years of conjecture from all sides, some hard truths have emerged. Russia did try to influence the 2016 election. Neither Trump nor his campaign conspired with Russia. The president’s actions did not rise to criminal obstruction of justice. And how and why this all began may well turn out to be the most troubling story of all.

During his confirmation hearing in January, Barr told senators, “I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong. By anybody. Whether it be editorial boards, or Congress or the president. I’m going to do what I think is right.” Observers at the time took Barr’s comments as reassurance of his independence from Trump, but in hindsight it should be noted that he mentioned editorial boards and Congress first.

Barr’s career does not paint a portrait of someone who chases tin-foil-hat conspiracies. There’s enough evidence in the public record to raise valid suspicions that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was motivated not by real concerns about national security, but rather by a loathing of the candidate. And though new facts may emerge in the full, redacted report, they won’t change the larger truth. It would behoove serious journalists to put aside their political biases and delve into a story that might actually be worthy of Watergate comparisons — even if it includes the painful admission that Fox News has been right all along.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... all-along/
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:36 am

Ten post-Mueller questions that could turn the tables on Russia collusion investigators

Soon, the dust will settle from special counsel Robert Mueller's report, and Americans will have a fuller understanding of why prosecutors concluded there wasn't evidence to establish that Donald Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016 election.

At that point, many voters exhausted by the fizzling of a two-year scandal, once billed as the next Watergate, will want to move on like a foodie from an empty-calorie shake.

But a very important second phase of this drama is about to begin, as Attorney General William Barr, Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.) put the Russia collusion investigators under investigation.

Their work will be, and must be, far more than just a political boomerang.

It must answer, in balanced terms, whether the FBI was warranted in using the most awesome powers in the U.S. intelligence arsenal to spy on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's campaign at the end of the 2016 election.

Investigators must determine, with neutrality, whether the bureau improperly colluded with paid agents of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's campaign - Fusion GPS and its British operative, Christopher Steele - and then tried to hide those political ties and other evidence from the nation's secret intelligence court.

For the likes of FBI castoffs James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok, or Obama-era intelligence bosses John Brennan and James Clapper, there will be the additional uncomfortable reality that the Russia collusion narrative that they so publicly weaved through testimony, TV appearances, for-profit books and leaks, turned out to be as unsubstantiated as the Loch Ness monster.

The process of meting out accountability has begun.

Horowitz, my sources tell me, has interviewed between 50 and 100 witnesses in his exhaustive probe. Graham and his predecessor as Judiciary chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), laid out the most important investigative issues they saw in a letter last year. This month, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) sent a letter to DOJ identifying eight potential criminal referrals. His committee last year also released a memo on abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that may have occurred during the Russia probe.

And President Trump reportedly is readying an order to declassify five key buckets of documents on alleged FBI abuses.

My sources agree these 10 questions are the most important to be answered in the forthcoming probes:

1.) When did the FBI first learn that Steele's dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party and written by a partisan who, by his own admission, was desperate to defeat Trump? Documents and testimony I reviewed show senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr first told his colleagues about Steele's bias and connections to Clinton in late summer 2016. Likewise, sources tell me a string of FBI emails - some before the bureau secured its first surveillance warrant - raised concerns about Steele's motive, employer and credibility.

2.) How much evidence of innocence did the FBI possess against two of its early targets, Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page? My sources tell me that agents secured evidence of the innocence of both men from informants, intercepts and other techniques that was never disclosed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges in the case. I'm told learning exactly the sort of surveillance used on Page also may surprise some people.

3.) Why was the Steele dossier used as primary evidence in the FISA warrant against Page when it had not been corroborated? FBI testimony I reviewed shows agents had just begun checking out the dossier when its elements were used as supporting evidence, and that spreadsheets kept by the bureau during the verification process validated only small pieces of the dossier while concluding other parts were false or unprovable. And, of course, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted that, after nine months of investigation, the dossier's core allegation of Trump-Russia collusion could not be substantiated.

4.) Why were Steele's biases and his ties to the Clinton campaign - as well as evidence of innocence and flaws in the FISA evidence - never disclosed to the FISA court, as required by law and court practice?

5.) Why did FBI and U.S. intelligence officials leak stories about evidence in the emerging Russia probe before they corroborated collusion, and were any of those leaks designed to "create" evidence that could be cited in the courts of law and public opinion to justify the continuation of a flawed investigation?

6.) Did Comey improperly handle classified informationwhen he distributed memos of his private conversations with Trump to his lawyers and a friend and ordered a leak that he hoped would cause the appointment of a special counsel after his firing as FBI director?

7.) Did the CIA, FBI or Obama White House engage in activities - such as the activation of intelligence sources or electronic surveillance - before the opening of an official counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016?

8.) Did U.S. intelligence, the FBI or the Obama administration use or encourage friendly spy agencies in Great Britain, Australia, Ukraine, Italy or elsewhere to gather evidence on the Trump campaign, leak evidence, or get around U.S. restrictions on spying on Americans?

9.) Did the CIA or Obama intelligence apparatus try to lure or pressure the FBI into opening a Trump collusion probe or acknowledge its existence before the election? Text messages between alleged FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page raised concerns about "pressure" from the White House, the "Agency BS game," DOJ leaks and the need for an FBI "insurance policy." And, as Strzok texted at one point in August 2016, quoting a colleague: "The White House is running this."

10.) Did any FBI agents, intelligence officials or other key players in the probe provide false testimony to Congress? McCabe already has been singled out by the inspector general for lying about a media leak to an internal DOJ probe, and evidence emerged this year that calls into question Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson's testimonyabout his contacts with Ohr.

If Barr, Horowitz and Graham can answer these questions and release the still-secret evidence underlying their conclusions, Americans finally will have the wherewithal to answer the most troubling of all the questions raised about the Russia collusion narrative:

Was this a case of bureaucratic bungling, or an intentional effort to use the U.S. intelligence community for a political dirty trick aimed at defeating Trump at the polls and, later, delegitimizing his election?

It's a question we all should want to be answered.


https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... lusion?amp
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:21 am

phpBB [video]
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:30 pm

Re: Clinton Ca$H...

Postby ATXn;D » Sun May 05, 2019 5:03 pm

phpBB [video]
User avatar
ATXn;D
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests