Monday, January 16, 2017

FBI & NYPD: Clinton Foundation Probed for Money Laundering!

True Pundit ^ | Jan. 15, 2017 | Investigative Bureau 

The FBI is opening a new investigation into the Clinton Foundation after discovering a major money laundering scheme. The Clinton Foundation has hit rocked bottom since the election. Many donors have pulled their funding and starting April 15, 22 employees from the Clinton's Global Initiative will be laid off. The Clinton Empire is on its way to total collapse.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Colorado City to Pay $325,000 For Unlawful Search and Seizure


An attempt to locate a bank robbery suspect is costing the city of Aurora $325,000.
The city agreed to settle a lawsuit brought forth by people who were detained at an intersection while police tried to find a man who robbed a nearby bank. Some motorists were approached at gunpoint by police following the robbery, handcuffed and made to wait two hours before the scene was cleared.
Stacks of money stolen from the bank contained a GPS tracking device that led police to the intersection. When police arrived in the area, they weren't able to use GPS to specifically pinpoint the suspected criminal. That's when officers began detaining drivers in the area in an attempt to locate the suspect.
Nearly 30 people were ordered out of their cars. Police eventually located a suspect in one of the vehicles.
Attorney David Lane, who represented the 14 plaintiffs, says the settlement was reached Thursday. The 14 sued the city for unlawful search and seizure after the June 2012 incident.

When Sen. Sessions takes the reins, justice can return to the Justice Department ^ | Robert Knight 

Eric Holder and Loretta E. Lynch have been perhaps the most flagrant partisans ever to hold the office of attorney general.
Year after year, they rubber stamped whatever the Obama administration wanted to do, legally or otherwise.
The attorney general, who heads the Justice Department, takes an oath to enforce federal laws and uphold the Constitution. We’re at the tail end of an administration in which the highest legal office in the land was weaponized along racial lines and openly attacked laws that the progressive left disliked, such as the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state voter ID statutes.
Under Mr. Holder, the Justice Department looked the other way as the Internal Revenue Service harassed tea parties and conservative groups. He aided and abetted the administration’s violations of labor law, environmental law and provisions of Obamacare again and again. He ignored the Federal Communications Commission’s unconstitutional seizure of authority over the internet. He actually sued states for helping to enforce federal immigration law.
Under Mr. Holder, the department stonewalled congressional investigations into the Fast and Furious scandal, in which federal agents inexplicably provided guns to Mexican drug cartels, including a weapon that killed a federal agent.
Even an ideologically divided Supreme Court routinely rejected the Obama Justice Department lawyers’ zany reasoning. From January 2012 to June 2013 alone, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s absurd positions nine times....
Finally, the Justice Department’s and FBI’s mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal is in a class by itself, epitomized by Ms. Lynch’s meeting with Bill Clinton aboard a plane at the Phoenix airport supposedly to discuss their grandchildren. Right.
When the Alabama senator takes the reins, the Justice Department will once again be worthy of its name.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump Promises ‘Insurance for Everybody’

New York Post ^ | January 15, 2017 

President-elect Donald Trump says his plan to replace the nation’s health care law will include “insurance for everybody.”

Trump made the comment in an interview with the Washington Post published on Sunday.

The president-elect says: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Protestors to Inauguration Paid In Tulsa

Back Page ^ | 12 January 2017 | Backpage 

 photo backpage-oc-575x577_zpsanhxmqze.jpg

Protestors are being paid and trained in Oklahoma. Our Community Organizer president wants to go out with a Bang!

Shall we accommodate him?

Finally, a Republican Leader Playing Offense!

American Thinker ^ | January 16, 2017 | Brian C. Joondeph 

In politics, as in sports, there is an offense and defense. In some sports the same players assume both roles, as in basketball and hockey, where a team may shift roles back and forth quickly as the game proceeds. In other sports, such as football, there are separate teams for offense and defense, specialists in their specific roles.

Political games often have separate teams for offense and defense; sometimes the political leaders, often their surrogates. In the case of Democrats, the media takes a prominent team role playing both ends of the field. The media can ignore unfavorable stories. A recent example is the sudden lack of interest or coverage of the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting after the shooter’s Muslim conversion was identified. And the media can play offense, as they are with ongoing and relentless attempts to discredit the incoming Trump administration.

What’s new this political cycle is a sportsman who can play both ends of the field, and well. The pitcher who can hit home runs. The quarterback who can also play safety and intercept passes. The Michael Jordan who can not only score points, but also block shots and steal the ball.

Traditional Republicans specialize in defense, although poorly, and have little offensive skill. Normally Republicans are defending themselves against being racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-immigration, Islamophobic, starving children, pushing granny off the cliff, and wanting blacks back on plantations.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Donald Trump’s Promise of More Jobs Could Mean Less Drug Abuse

The American Spectator ^ | January 16, 2017 | Maia Szalavitz 

Research shows that unemployment and low socioeconomic status are linked with higher risk for addiction, compared to having a job and being in the middle class. Although the media has focused on heroin and prescription opioid misuse these days as being a “middle class” problem, the risk of addiction is more than three times higher for people making less than $20,000 compared to those who make over $50,000. These facts make President Trump’s promises to increase employment — perhaps through an infrastructure program — critical if he wants to deal with the opioid epidemic in the long run.
Meaningful work is one of the best antidotes against addiction: employment is a key factor predicting who will avoid addiction, or will struggle with addiction for a short period of time and eventually recover.
This correlation runs both directions: people with addiction lose their jobs as a result of their impairment. Being hopeless and jobless makes escaping with drugs more attractive. The research shows that addiction does lead to some cases of unemployment — but also, unemployment itself increases drug use. For people to sustain recovery, having a job matters.
These links can be seen clearly in a recent analysis done by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which looked at how the increase in unemployment due to the Great Recession was accompanied by a rise of drug use by the unemployed. Although some of this could have resulted from methodological issues, the size of the increase suggests that unemployment, which is a source of stress, does put people at higher risk for drug problems.
Common sense suggests some reasons for these associations: employment is not only how many of us spend most of our time, it’s also a source of meaning, purpose and identity....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Scheme to Take Down Trump

Consortium News ^ | January 14, 2017 | Daniel Lazare 

Exclusive: The U.S. intelligence community’s unprecedented assault on an incoming U.S. president – now including spreading salacious rumors – raises questions about how long Donald Trump can hold the White House, says Daniel Lazare.

Is a military coup in the works? Or are U.S. intelligence agencies laying the political groundwork for forcing Donald Trump from the presidency because they can’t abide his rejection of a new cold war with Russia? Not long ago, even asking such questions would have marked one as the sort of paranoid nut who believes that lizard people run the government. But no longer.
Thanks to the now-notorious 35-page dossier concerning Donald Trump’s alleged sexual improprieties in a Moscow luxury hotel, it’s clear that strange maneuverings are underway in Washington and that no one is quite sure how they will end.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper added to the mystery Wednesday evening by releasing a 200-word statement to the effect that he was shocked, shocked, that the dossier had found its way into the press. Such leaks, the statement said, “are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.”
Clapper added: “that this document is not a US Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.”
Rather than vouching for the dossier’s contents, in other words, all Clapper says he did was inform Trump that it was making the rounds in Washington and that he should know what it said – and that he thus couldn’t have been more horrified than when Buzzfeed posted all 35 pages on its website.
But it doesn’t make sense. As The New York Times noted, “putting the summary in a report that went to multiple people in Congress and the executive branch made it very likely that it would be leaked” (emphasis in the original). So even if the “intelligence community” didn’t leak the dossier itself, it distributed it knowing that someone else would.
Then there is the Guardian, second to none in its loathing for Trump and Vladimir Putin and hence intent on giving the dossier the best possible spin. It printed a quasi-defense not of the memo itself but of the man who wrote it: Christopher Steele, an ex-MI6 officer who now heads his own private intelligence firm. “A sober, cautious and meticulous professional with a formidable record” is how the Guardian described him. Then it quoted an unnamed ex-Foreign Office official on the subject of Steele’s credibility:
“The idea his work is fake or a cowboy operation is false, completely untrue. Chris is an experienced and highly regarded professional. He’s not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip. … If he puts something in a report, he believes there’s sufficient credibility in it for it to be worth considering. Chris is a very straight guy. He could not have survived in the job he was in if he had been prone to flights of fancy or doing things in an ill-considered way.”
In other words, Steele is a straight-shooter, so it’s worth paying attention to what he has to say. Or so the Guardian assures us. “That is the way the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the British government, regarded him, too,” it adds, so presumably Clapper felt the same way.
What is Afoot?
So what does it all mean? Simply that U.S. intelligence agencies believed that the dossier came from a reliable source and that, as a consequence, there was a significant possibility that Trump was a “Siberian candidate,” as Times columnist Paul Krugman once described him. They therefore sent out multiple copies of a two-page summary on the assumption that at least one would find its way to the press.
Even if Clapper & Co. took no position concerning the dossier’s contents, they knew that preparing and distributing such a summary amounted to a tacit endorsement. They also knew, presumably, that it would provide editors with an excuse to go public. If the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency feel that Steele’s findings are worthy of attention, then why shouldn’t the average reader have an opportunity to examine them as well?
How did Clapper expect Trump to respond when presented with allegations that he was vulnerable to Russian blackmail and potentially under the Kremlin’s thumb? Did he expect him to hang his head in shame, break into great racking sobs, and admit that it was all true? If so, did Clapper \then plan to place a comforting hand on Trump’s shoulder and suggest, gently but firmly, that it was time to step aside and allow a trusted insider like Mike Pence to take the reins?
Based on the sturm und drang of the last few days, the answer is very possibly yes. If so, the gambit failed when Trump, in his usual high-voltage manner, denounced the dossier as “fake news” and sailed into the intelligence agencies for behaving like something out of “Nazi Germany.” The intelligence community’s hopes, if that’s what they were, were dashed.
All of which is thoroughly unprecedented by American political standards. After all, this is a country that takes endless pride in the peaceful transfer of power every four years or so. Yet here was the intelligence community attempting to short-circuit the process by engineering Trump’s removal before he even took office.
But the Guardian then upped the ante even more by suggesting that the CIA continue with the struggle. Plainly, the Republican congressional leadership has “no appetite” for an inquiry into Steele’s findings, the paper’s New York correspondent, Ed Pilkington, wrote, adding:
“That leaves the intelligence agencies. The danger for Trump here is that he has so alienated senior officials, not least by likening them to Nazis, that he has hardly earned their loyalty.”
What was the Guardian suggesting – that disloyal intelligence agents keep on searching regardless? And what if they come up with what they claim is a smoking gun?
Explained Pilkington: “To take a flight of fancy, what if it [i.e. Steele’s findings] were substantiated? That would again come down to a question of politics. No US president has ever been forced out of office by impeachment (Richard Nixon resigned before the vote; Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were acquitted by the Senate). Any such procedure would have to be prepared and approved by a majority of the House of Representatives, and then passed to the Senate for a two-thirds majority vote. As the Republicans hold the reins in both chambers, it would take an almighty severing of ties between Trump and his own party to even get close to such a place.”
It’s a long shot, but the Guardian’s recommendation is that rogue agents keep on digging until they strike pay dirt, at which point they should go straight to Congress and persuade – if not pressure – the Republican leadership to initiate the process of throwing Trump out of office.
This is not the same as sending an armored column to attack Capitol Hill, but it’s close. Essentially, the Guardian was calling on the intelligence agencies to assume ultimate responsibility regarding who can sit in the Oval Office and who cannot.
A Desperate Establishment
All of which demonstrates how desperate the military-intelligence complex has grown after Clapper’s report on alleged Russian hacking of Democratic emails met with such a derisory reception following its publication on Jan. 6. Even the Times admitted that it provided “no new evidence to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions” while the Daily Beast said it was “unlikely to convince a single skeptic” due to a notable absence of anything by way of back-up data.
The Steele dossier was supposed to take up the slack. Yet it has fallen short as well. It asserts, for example, that Trump attorney Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to discuss hacking with a Russian official named Oleg Solodukhin, a claim that both men have since denied. It misspells the name of a major Russian bank and gets its Russian geography wrong too.
As Owen Matthews points out in a very smart article in Newsweek, it “seems to be under the impression that the suburb of Barvikha on the tony Rublevskoe highway is a closed government compound, instead of just an expensive vacation home area favored by the new rich.”
The dossier misspells the name of an Azeri real-estate mogul named Aras Agalarov and “reports his association with Trump as news in August 2016 – when Agalarov publicly organized Trump’s visit to the Miss Universe pageant in 2013 and arranged a meeting with top Russian businessmen for Trump afterward, both of which were widely reported at the time.”
Other aspects of the dossier don’t add up either. It reports that the Russian government “has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years” in order to “encourage splits and divisions in the Western alliance.” But as Matthews points out, Trump wasn’t in politics five years ago and was considered a long shot for months after entering the presidential race in mid-2015. So how could the Kremlin be sure that their man would ultimately prevail?
The dossier says that Trump “accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on Democratic and other political rivals.” But Trump gave no hint of having inside information when he called for “Crooked Hillary” to be locked up for purging her email files; to the contrary, he did so on the basis of information available on every front page. The memo says that the Russians also had “compromising material” on Clinton. If so, then why wasn’t it used?
Hearsay Evidence
The discrepancies go on. But this is what one would expect of a document based entirely of hearsay in which Source A claims to have gotten a juicy tidbit from Source B, who heard it from Source C deep inside the Kremlin.
Grasping at straws, the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington conceded that no news agency has been able to verify the dossier’s findings. But, he said, they are “unlikely to be discarded as quickly or as conclusively as Trump would like” for the simple reason that “the flip side of information that cannot be classed reliable is that neither can it be classed unreliable.”
But the same could be said for information that someone got from a friend whose brother-in-law heard from a park ranger that Barack and Michelle like to while away their evenings snorting cocaine. It can’t be classed as reliable because no one can verify that it’s true. But it can’t be classed as unreliable because no one can prove that it’s wrong. So maybe the best thing to do is to impeach Obama in the few days he has remaining just to be sure.
This not to say that the so-called President-elect’s legitimacy is not open to question. To the contrary, it is questionable in the extreme given that he lost the popular election by more than 2.86 million votes. In a democratic country, this should count for something. But the intelligence community is not attacking him on democratic grounds, needless to say, but on imperial.
Trump is a rightwing blowhard whose absurd babblings about Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen reveal a man who is dangerously ignorant about how the world works. But he has managed to seize on one or two semi-good ideas over the years. One is that Obama administration’s confrontational policies toward Russia are a recipe for disaster, while another is that toppling Syria’s Bashar al-Assad with Al Qaeda and ISIS still up and about will only hasten their march on Damascus.
Both views are perfectly sensible. But because Washington’s endlessly bellicose foreign-policy establishment is wedded to the opposite, it sees them as high treason.
This is very serious. U.S. foreign policy has been marked by a high degree of continuity since World War II as Republican and Democratic presidents alike pledged to uphold the imperial agenda. But Trump, as radical in his way as William Jennings Bryan was in 1896 or Henry A. Wallace in 1948, is bucking the consensus to an unprecedented degree.
Even though its policies have led to disaster after disaster, the foreign-policy establishment is aghast. Consequently, it is frantically searching for a way to prevent him from carrying his ideas out. The intelligence agencies appear to be running out of time with the inauguration only a few days away. But that doesn’t mean they’re giving up. All it means, rather, is that they’ll go deeper underground. Trump may enter the White House on Jan. 20. But the big question is how long he’ll remain.

Head of Ethics Office is Obama Donor, now concerned about Trump nominees!

Washington Free Beacon ^ | January 15, 2017 | Elizabeth Harrington 

Director of the Office of Government Ethics Walter M. Shaub donated to President Obama before his appointment and defended Hillary Clinton’s decision to not disclose paid speeches to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state.
Shaub, the head of the little-known ethics office, has been on the attack against President-elect Donald J. Trump for months.
Shaub has called Trump’s plan to sign over control of his business to his sons “meaningless,” and engaged in tweet storms from the official ethics Twitter account encouraging Trump to divest.
A timeline compiled by the PAC America Rising of Shaub’s service at the ethics office revealed Shaub donated to Obama before his appointment in January 2013, and has a record of defending Hillary Clinton when she was a presidential candidate from ethics concerns.
Shaub donated $500 to Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012. When Clinton came under fire for not disclosing paid speeches to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state, his office said disclosure was not required.
Shaub has now become a “key player” in the presidential transition process, as his office is responsible for reviewing financial disclosures of executive nominees. He sent a letter to Senate Democrats urging the slowing of the confirmation process of Trump’s nominees because some of their financial disclosure reviews had not been completed.
This week Shaub trained his sights on Trump, criticizing the president-elect’s plan to avoid conflicts of interest by signing over control to his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and terminating all pending deals with the Trump organization.
“You don’t hear about ethics when things are going well. You’ve been hearing a lot about ethics lately,” Shaub said in a speech at the Brookings Institute this week.
“I need to talk about ethics today because the plan the president-elect has announced doesn’t meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting and that every president in the past four decades has met,” he said. “My hope is that, if the Office of Government Ethics can provide some constructive feedback on his plan, he may choose to make adjustments that will resolve his conflicts of interest.”
“We can’t risk creating the perception that government leaders would use their official positions for profit,” Shaub said.
Shaub struck a different tone when testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in December 2015, when he was asked about Secretary Clinton’s failure to disclose six-figure dollar speeches her husband gave to foreign governments and donors while they had interests before the State Department.
“The statute is a very long, very detailed statute,” he told Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) when defending the speeches as allowed under ethics rules.
“Why don’t we pursue maximum disclosure of anything that could be potentially relevant or interesting to anyone? It’s simply because we’re a nation of laws and OGE is specifically regulated by an extremely detailed, highly prescriptive statute,” Shaub said. “Congress left us almost no discretion in terms of interpreting this statute. We apply it uniformly to everyone across the board.”
Shaub said it was satisfactory to not disclose the speeches—which totaled $26.4 million to the Clinton Foundation from corporations, foreign donations, and universities—because Bill Clinton was acting as an “agent” for a charity.
The speeches included $500,000 Bill Clinton received for remarks before a Kremlin-tied investment bank in Moscow in 2010, while the Russians were negotiating to acquire a uranium company full of Clinton Foundation donors. The Uranium One deal was signed off by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, giving Russia control of 20 percent of uranium production capacity in the United States.
Several ethics lawyers said Clinton’s failure to detail the paid speeches ran afoul of disclosure rules and the ethics agreement between the Obama administration and the Clinton Foundation to disclose foreign donations to avoid conflicts of interests.
However, the “ethics mavens at the Office of Government Ethics,” run by Shaub, said the speeches were fine.
“Disclosure of speaking fees is not required when a public filer or the filer’s spouse is acting as an agent of an organization and payment is made directly to that organization,” a spokesman for the office said at the time. “The rule is different when the speaking is done in a personal capacity and the fees are directed or donated to charity, in which case disclosure would be required.”
Shaub now says he has “great concern” over the speed of the confirmation hearings for Trump’s nominees, sending a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and leftwing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.).
Citing the ethics office, Democrats have lobbied to have confirmation hearings for Trump’s nominees delayed, and hearings for four nominees have been postponed so far.
The speed of Cabinet confirmations was quick in 2009, as the Senate confirmed seven Cabinet nominees on President Obama’s inauguration day, with one exception.

You will die?




Islamic or not?


We're worried!












It gets worse!


The Problem!


Fake News!






Trump Train!


New Name!


Listen to me!


a following!


A clump!


White House!