Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 29      1   2   3   4   Next   »

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #1 
President Trump just tweeted reference to this per Gateway Pundit.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #2 

Imran Awan scandal explodes -- this could be the undoing for the DNC


Truth Feed News is reporting that for the past seven months, going back even further to the results of the election, Democrats have been beating the war drum against President Trump.

They've come together in formation, and have fought him relentlessly and in complete unison, doing their best to undermine everything he's attempted to do for America.

The Left has been on the offensive, and they've used lies, slander, and character assassination in their efforts to portray Trump as some kind of criminal, but now, Republicans have a chance to put the Democrats on the defensive.

Not only has the Democratic Party been thoroughly linked to a sordid collusion with the Ukraine, a tale that could pass for a spy novel, and involves DNC operatives working with foreign influences and even a convicted terrorist in a desperate ploy to steal the 2016 election for Hillary, but there's even more -- the DNC's shocking relationship with the Pakistani-born Awan family.

Democrats are not known for making the best choices when it comes to candidates or staff, ask Hillary Clinton and her horde of tainted cronies, but when they chose the Awan "gang" to be their IT support crew, they outdid themselves.

Lead by Imran Awan, and consisting of his brothers, his wife, and his best friend, the seemingly-innocent group of "computer nerds" managed to embroil the Democratic Party into a scandal that may just be their undoing.

As more and more damning information comes to light, the picture of the depth of the DNC corruption is becoming more clear, and it does not look good for the Democrats.

Imran Awan has worked with the Democratic Party for years, and has a long history with the now-disgraced Debbie Wasserman Schultz, having worked for her since 2004.

Awan is said to have made more than $4 million dollars in the past decade alone working for the Democrats, and seems to have been "protected" by Schultz for quite a while.

Over the past six months or so, Awan became the target of at least one serious investigation, and had multiple computers and other technical devices seized by federal agents.

Some of these devices, including laptops and iPads, belonged to high-ranking Democrat officials, including Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself, and almost certainly contained classified information.

Awan and his brothers also had access to passwords and networks used by the DNC, and apparently were privy to unbelievable amounts of secrets and other classified intel.

Schultz went so far as to make a very serious and ominous threat to a law enforcement official who was in possession of a laptop which had been seized from Awan as evidence, one that has been said to belong to her, but her threatening a police officer to defend her IT support staff member is more than a little strange.

As the investigation into the Awan crew got more intense, apparently he saw the writing on the wall, and began to withdraw large sums of money, which he wired to Pakistan.

In May, his wife was caught fleeing the country with $12k in cash, which was seized, but she was allowed to leave American and enter Pakistan anyway.

According to certain court documents, the Awan family members are considered VIPs in Pakistan, and are routinely given a police escort when traveling around the country, one of many odd red flags that has come to light.

In fact, other sources have alleged that the Awan brothers have direct ties to the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, and Imran has also been linked to at least one Hezbollah operative already.

All of this begs the question: what exactly were these guys doing with the information they had access to, and were they helping terrorists and foreign governments by spying on the United States?

Given the large sums of money Imran and his brothers made in just a short amount of time, having made upwards of $ 4 million dollars, with the average IT support leader earning no more than $100k yearly, the question has also been raised as to whether the Awan crew was blackmailing the DNC?
Awan has a history of making threats to get what he wants, even against family members.

Imran's brother's stepmother has alleged that he threatened to have her family arrested in Pakistan, and he also threatened a United States veteran who rented a home of his, after the veteran turned over a cache of routers, laptops, and hard drives "that looked like they tried to destroy" which Awan had left at the residence before renting it.

The culmination, or at least thus far, of these events occurred on Tuesday night, on July 25th of 2016, when federal agents arrested Imran Awan at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, as he tried to board a flight headed to Pakistan.

He has initially been charged with one count of bank fraud, stemming from a $165K home equity loan on a rental property, which he transferred to Pakistan as well.

Awan has pleaded not guilty, and was released on what a DOJ spokesman described as a "high-intensity supervision program" which requires him to wear a GPS monitor, adhere to a curfew, and keeps him unable to flee the country.

Who knows what exactly will come from Awan now, as it becomes more and more obvious that he is sitting on a treasure trove of ill-gotten information, and could be the final nail in the DNC coffin, should he choose to cooperate with authorities.

Enemies of the Democratic Party, as well as liabilities, do have a tendency to meet with questionable and untimely deaths, so Imran is almost certainly living in fear.

Right now, as the Democrats work around the clock to destroy President Trump, his administration, and even his family, the capture of Imran Awan and the knowledge he possibly holds could be exactly what Republicans need to turn the tables on the relentless onslaught by the left.

With the DNC already having been tied to an egregious collusion with a foreign power, this new evidence of corruption, spying, mishandling of classified information, fraud, and possible blackmail, could be instrumental in forcing the Democrats to back off President Trump.

The Democratic Party has been so brazen, arrogant, and sloppy in their operations for so long, it is not outside of the realm of possibility to think that they may have overplayed their hand, especially after their substance-less attacks on President Trump, and Imran Awan could be the card that leads to their undoing.

Related:  There's a complete media blackout on Wasserman Schultz IT scandal

Related:  Wasserman Schultz’s IT aide arrested at airport after transferring $300,000 to Pakistan from Congressional Federal Credit Union

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #3 

Awan brothers busted! FBI seizes smashed hard drives from Debbie Wasserman Schultz's computer guys


Daily Caller is reporting that Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back, the individual told The Daily Caller News Foundation's Investigative Group.

A high-level congressional source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, confirmed that the FBI has joined what Politico previously described as a Capitol Police criminal probe into "serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network" by Imran and three of his relatives, who had access to the emails and files of the more than two dozen House Democrats who employed them on a part-time basis.

Capitol Police have also seized computer equipment tied to the Florida lawmaker.

Awan's younger brothers, Abid and Jamal, his wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, Imran's best friend, are also under investigation. There have been no arrests in the case.

There is also evidence of financial schemes that extend beyond the Capitol Police's purview and may expand to Pakistan, where Imran spends significant portions of the year.

Pakistani IT specialists Jamal, Abid and Imran, Awan, who happen to be brothers, are all under criminal investigation by U.S. Capitol Hill law enforcement. The Awan brothers previously worked for 30 Democrat lawmakers. Frightening, right?

Congressional aides also feared politicians were being blackmailed by the Pakistani IT suspects in security breach.

TGP previously reported per The Daily Caller News Foundation back in February, that three brothers who managed office IT for government officials were relieved of their duties on suspicion that they accessed specific computer networks without permission, also known as hacking.

Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives. One of the brothers has a criminal record.

The three brothers funneled House data to an external server.

Imran Awan possessed the password to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz's iPad when DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks

The Daily Caller reported:

Imran Awan -- the lead suspect in a criminal probe into breaches of House of Representatives information security systems -- possessed the password to an iPad used by then-Democratic National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz when DNC emails were given to WikiLeaks, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.

Wasserman Schultz resigned the DNC post in the wake of WikiLeaks posting damaging internal emails, blaming the scandal on hacking by Russians.

Imran and his family members, all of whom worked as IT professionals for members of Congress, were banned from the House network Feb. 2, 2017, by the House Sergeant at Arms, but Wasserman Schultz has declined to fire him and circumvented the ban by having him "advise" her office.

WikiLeaks emails show that although Imran was employed by her taxpayer-funded House office, the Florida Democrat's world -- and iPad -- mixed DNC, House and campaign business, and that Imran was on call for, and on a first-name basis with, top DNC staff.

TGP also previously reported that former Chairman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with "consequences" for holding equipment that she says belongs to her in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani IT staffer suspected of massive cyber-security breaches.

Via The Daily Caller:

The Capitol Police and outside agencies are pursuing Imran Awan, who has run technology for the Florida lawmaker since 2005 and was banned from the House network in February on suspicion of data breaches and theft.

"My understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate Members' equipment when the Member is not under investigation," Wasserman Schultz said in the annual police budget hearing of the House Committee On Appropriations' Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

"I think you're violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences," Wasserman Schultz said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #4 
Hillary Clinton's motto:  Rules for thee, not for me.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #5 

Hillary admitted she colluded with foreign leaders against Trump

Eren Moreno (TruthFeed) says well, well, well…

This is a stunning admission that the liberal media is sure to ignore, as they do anything that reflects negatively on Democrats.

While everyone is freaking out over Russia's supposed meddling in the Trump campaign, Hillary Clinton  actually admitted to doing so during her 2016 campaign.

During a questionnaire in Columbus, Ohio, Hillary said she was in contact with foreign leaders who wanted to endorse her in order to "stop Donald Trump."

Yet again, Hillary thinks she's above the law.

Considering the way she's given a free pass from the media for any wrongdoing, who can blame her?

This is just another example of the glaring double standards held in place; had a Republican, especially President Trump or his family, done this, the media would never shut up about it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #6 

Ukraine sponsored the Clinton Foundation using IMF loans

Cyber berkut published this damning news today about the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Ukrainian government.

Ukrainian President meets with Hillary Clinton

According to Cyber Berkut the Ukrainian foundation transferred 10 to 25 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

The Ukrainian investigation case connected to commercial banks that laundered IMF's money from the National Bank of Ukraine is still going on. According to the investigation, such banks as Tavrika, Pivdenkom Bank, Avtokraz Bank, CityCommerce Bank, Finrost Bank, Terra Bank, Kyivska Rus Bank, Vernum Bank, Credit Dnepr Bank, Delta Bank were involved in the criminal scheme. Funds were transferred through Austrian Meinl Bank AG.

We, CyberBerkut, decided to contribute to the investigation.

Having examined the materials published on the Internet we focused on two financial organizations named Credit Dnepr Bank and Delta Bank. In comparison with other banks these two financial organizations offshored much more money. These banks are closely related to Victor Pinchuk -- one of the richest Ukrainian bankers. He is also a son-in-law of former Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma. As it turns out, the offshore organizations that received IMF's money such as Melfa Group LTD (Belize), Tandice Limited (Cyprus), Tosalan Traiding Limited (Cyprus), Agalusko Investment Limited (Cyprus), Winten Trading LTD (Cyprus), Silisten Trading Limited, Nasterno Commercial Limited, are also connected to this gentleman. Moreover, most of money went to the account of his main money-laundering machine -- the Victor Pinchuk Foundation.

So, we decided to track down the stolen funds.

We've hacked Thomas Weihe's email. This man is the Head of the Board of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation. As you can see from his correspondence the oligarch's foundation is closely cooperating with the Clinton Foundation. And it is worth to mention that Pinchuk and his wife often meet with former American president's family members. Mr. Weihe regularly communicates with the Clinton Foundation representatives and constantly arranges meetings between the Pinchuks and the Clintons. Here are some Mr Weihe's emails.

Cyber Berkut then posted this string of leaked emails between Ukrainian officials and the Clinton Foundation:


You will notice that long-time Democratic operative and Fox News contributor, Doug Schoen, was the pivot-man in this swindle.


Media's nothing-burger on Trump Jr. pales in comparison to Ukraine's proven 2016 election collusion with Hillary Clinton Campaign

Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern (Politico) are reporting that Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.

They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort, and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia.

Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one anothers elections.

Ukraine has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S. administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about Poroshenko's regime while sounding really friendly notes about Putin's regime.

Poroshenko is now scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."

Revelations about Ukraine's anti-Trump efforts could further set back those efforts.

"Things seem to be going from bad to worse for Ukraine," said David A. Merkel, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who helped oversee U.S. relations with Russia and Ukraine while working in George W. Bush's State Department and National Security Council.

Merkel, who has served as an election observer in Ukrainian presidential elections dating back to 1993, noted there's some irony in Ukraine and Russia taking opposite sides in the 2016 presidential race, given that past Ukrainian elections were widely viewed in Washington's foreign policy community as proxy wars between the U.S. and Russia.

"Now, it seems that a U.S. election may have been seen as a surrogate battle by those in Kiev and Moscow," Merkel said.

This is a really long and detailed article. You can read the entire article here . . .

Don't expect this story to be on CNN anytime soon!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #7 
What if Hillary Clinton had won the election . . .


Patricia McCarthy (AmericanThinker) says, to paraphrase Robert Frost, America has taken the road less traveled. We elected a political outsider. What might America look like today if Hillary had been elected? Had she won we would not be hearing a single word about Russia. Not a whisper. It was not on the left's radar at all. Ms. Clinton had embarrassed herself with that inane Office Depot reset button while she was Secretary of State. Obama had told Medvedev to tell "Vlad" he would have more flexibility after the election, presumably re: nuclear disarmament. The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion.

Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain. Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose. Besides, the Left has historically loved Russia and wanted to emulate its authoritarian governments. They laughed when Mitt Romney, in 2012, named Russia as our most serious foreign policy problem. And Obama, even when he knew/believed that Russia was attempting to meddle in the election, he did nothing. They've done it for decades and so what? Hillary was going to win.

Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before. She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us.  She would be further eviscerating our military and she would be raising taxes to fund ObamaCare even though it is a clear and present disaster. Anyone who doubts that should look up Hillarycare, the monstrosity she designed behind closed doors when her husband was in the White House. Her plan would dictate who could go to medical school, what specialty they would "choose," and where they would be compelled to practice. Her plan was the U.K.'s NHS on steroids. Her plan was rationed care and death panels from hell.

Had HRC won, she would be implementing thousands of new regulations on businesses to further hamstring the economy. She would let the fascist freaks at the Environmental Protection Agency have their way with every aspect of our daily lives: Our cars, our shower-heads, our toilets, our rainwater in our yards, etc. She would, like the EPA under Obama, privilege any species, no matter how insignificant, over humans. Central California has been devastated by the environmentalists' reverence for the delta smelt! Thousands of farm workers lost their jobs thanks to this lefty decision, turning a lush agricultural valley into a brown wasteland in the name of "going green." This is the American left today.

Dr. Ben Carson, Trump's Secretary of HUD has already uncovered $520 billion in fraud that occurred under Obama. Two-thirds of the people who got ObamaPhones at taxpayer expense, lied. That program was riddled with fraud.

Had Hillary been elected, the stock market would be tanking rather than booming. Every one of her policies would have been an economic wet blanket.  She would have instituted a minimum wage by executive order and thousands of more small businesses would be closing. Instead, the stock market has gained $2 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected. Hillary would have already increased our $20 trillion in national debt; Trump reduced it by $100m in his first hundred days. Job numbers would have fallen under Hillary; Trump added nearly 300k jobs in the first month after his inauguration. Housing sales would have fallen under Hillary because even fewer people would have been able to afford to buy a home. Under Trump, housing sales have increased for the first time since 2011.

Had Hillary won, she would, as promised, have increased the number of refugees from the Middle East, Mexico and Central America. There would be countless more potential terrorists in our midst, thousands more on public assistance on the taxpayer's dime. Under Trump, illegal immigration is down 67%. The DoJ, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is rounding up criminal illegals, most of them gang members, many of them released from prisons by Obama to roam our streets with impunity. Hopefully the citizens of sanctuary cities will realize how much safer they and their children will be once this pathetic policy comes to an end. Trump stands firmly behind our law enforcement officers; Hillary would be standing with Black Lives Matter and even more police would be sacrificing their lives to this domestic terrorist group and its anti-cop rhetoric.

Hillary, like the rest of the left, hates the Second Amendment. Had she won, it would likely have been abrogated out of existence. Law-abiding citizens would be relegated to victim status by decree, no longer allowed to defend themselves from the always armed criminals while the likes of Hillary and her crowd live in gated mansion and have armed guards. "For me but not for thee" is the mantra of the left. She would be taking the nation in the direction of Oregon, which is fast becoming the fascist state the left so admires.

Trump was vilified throughout the campaign for repeatedly calling out NATO members for not paying their minimal fair share. Since he won, allied spending is up $10 billion!  Then there is the Supreme Court. We now have another constitutional scholar, like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, on the bench who may just do Antonin Scalia proud. Trump will likely get the chance to appoint two more justices in the coming years. Given the power our courts have grasped for themselves, his appointments of jurists who revere our founding documents may be the only path back to a Constitutional Republic. Neil Gorsuch is the first step.

Trump took us out of the Paris Climate Accord, a $2.5 trillion economy killer. He got us out of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership that would have been great for the eleven other nations in it, and bad for America. As he promised, he is putting America and American workers first. The left and the media hate him for all this. They have been rendered apoplectic and thoroughly irrational. Their response to his glorious speech in Warsaw, was that it was racist, xenophobic, tribalist. How dare he preference Western Civilization! They no longer hear actual words spoken. They hear what their radical ideology dictates they must hear when Trump speaks. If he said it, it must be racist, it must be sexist, it must be nationalist, etc. They are completely unable to grasp the meaning of Trump. Had Hillary won, this miraculous nation would be continuing the death spiral Obama set in motion eight years ago. It's almost as though divine providence has rescued us once again as it has at so many crucial times over the past 241 years.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #8 

New report shows Guccifer 2.0-DNC files were copied locally -- not hacked


Joshua Caplan (GatewayPundit) is reporting that a mysterious IT specialist, who goes by the name The Forensicator, published a detailed report that appears to disprove the theory that the DNC was hacked by Russia.

The documents were copied on July 5th, five days before Seth Rich was murdered.

The Forensicator summarized the complex report into 10 bullet points.

The report as laid out by The Forensicator:

Based on the analysis that is detailed below, the following key findings are presented:

  • On 7/5/2016 at approximately 6:45 PM Eastern time, someone copied the data that eventually appears on the "NGP VAN" 7zip file (the subject of this analysis).  This 7zip file was published by a persona named Guccifer 2, two months later on September 13, 2016.

  • Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.

  • The initial copying activity was likely done from a computer system that had direct access to the data.  By "direct access" we mean that the individual who was collecting the data either had physical access to the computer where the data was stored, or the data was copied over a local high speed network (LAN).

  • They may have copied a much larger collection of data than the data present in the NGP VAN 7zip.  This larger collection of data may have been as large as 19 GB.  In that scenario the NGP VAN 7zip file represents only 1/10th of the total amount of material taken.

  • This initial copying activity was done on a system where Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) settings were in force. Most likely, the computer used to initially copy the data was located somewhere on the East Coast.

  • The data was likely initially copied to a computer running Linux, because the file last modified times all reflect the apparent time of the copy and this is a characteristic of the the Linux "cp" command (using default options).

  • A Linux OS may have been booted from a USB flash drive and the data may have been copied back to the same flash drive, which will likely have been formatted with the Linux (ext4) file system.

  • On September 1, 2016, two months after copying the initial large collection of (alleged) DNC related content (the so-called NGP/VAN data), a subset was transferred to working directories on a system running Windows. The ".rar" files included in the final 7zip file were built from those working directories.

  • The computer system where the working directories were built had Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) settings in force.  Most likely, this system was located somewhere on the East Coast.

  • The ".rar" files and plain files that eventually end up in the "NGP VAN" 7zip file disclosed by Guccifer 2.0 on 9/13/2016 were likely first copied to a USB flash drive, which served as the source data for the final 7zip file. There is no information to determine when or where the final 7zip file was built.

The most important aspect about the report is the "estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)" at which the documents were copied. It's inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

Disobedient Media reports:

Importantly, The Forensicator concluded that the chance that the files had been accessed and downloaded remotely over the internet were too small to give this idea any serious consideration. He explained that the calculated transfer speeds for the initial copy were much faster than can be supported by an internet connection.

This is extremely significant and completely discredits allegations of Russian hacking made by both Guccifer 2.0 and Crowdstrike.

This conclusion is further supported by analysis of the overall transfer rate of 23 MB/s. The Forensicator described this as "possible when copying over a LAN, but too fast to support the hypothetical scenario that the alleged DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania)." Guccifer 2.0 had claimed to originate in Romania. So in other words, this rate indicates that the data was downloaded locally,  possibly using the local DNC network. The importance of this finding in regards to destroying the Russian hacking narrative cannot be understated.

If the data is correct, then the files could not have been copied over a remote connection and so therefore cannot have been "hacked by Russia."

The use of a USB drive would also strongly suggest that the person copying the files had physical access to a computer most likely connected to the local DNC network. Indications that the individual used a USB drive to access the information over an internal connection, with time stamps placing the creation of the copies in the East Coast Time Zone, suggest that  the individual responsible for initially copying what was eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona under the title "NGP-VAN"  was located in the Eastern United States, not Russia.

During the presidential campaign, POLITICO reported what now appears to be a disproven story about Guccifer 2.0 hacking and releasing DNC documents:

The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure.

The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy.

DNC interim chair Donna Brazile immediately tied the leak to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

"There's one person who stands to benefit from these criminal acts, and that's Donald Trump," she said in a statement Tuesday night, adding that Trump has "embraced" Russian President Vladimir Putin and "publicly encouraged further Russian espionage to help his campaign."

POLITICO then suggests Guccifer 2.0 hacked into the DNC:

If authentic, the documents would represent the latest strike from the mysterious hacker persona that has already roiled the 2016 election with leaks of documents stolen from the DNC and the House Democrat's campaign arm, the DCCC. Earlier document dumps include the internal communications that forced the resignation of former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz this summer and fueled allegations of party bias against Bernie Sanders.

The bombshell report brings murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich back into focus, who many believe may have been the WikiLeaks source for the DNC emails.

WND reports:

Private investigators have claimed there is evidence Rich was the source WikiLeaks used to obtain thousands of DNC emails released on the eve of the party's presidential nominating convention last July. The emails, indicating the party was manipulating the primary race in favor of Hillary Clinton, led to the resignation of former DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. On July 22, just 12 days after Rich's death and days before the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks released 20,000 DNC emails.

Also as WND has reported, former detective Rod Wheeler was initially hired by Rich's parents through a third party to find their son's killer. Wheeler alleges former interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazille contacted the Metropolitan Police Department demanding to know why he was "snooping" after Wheeler began investigating Rich's murder. As a result, he said, law-enforcement authorities are now refusing to provide him with more details about the case.

The Gateway Pundit will update the story at hand as more information comes to light. As we have reported copious times, the "Russia Hacking" story was never on solid footing and the report above appears to demonstrate just that.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #9 

Why is the DNC still refusing to turn over its "hacked" server?


Truth Feed News says if the DNC really believed Russians hacked them, you would think they would be dying to turn their server over to intelligence to prove it.

However, the exact opposite is the case.

Why are they STILL refusing to turn it in?

What are they hiding?

From Zerohedge

If there were any actual crimes committed during the 2016 presidential election, then the origin of those crimes can be traced back to a single piece of hardware sitting at the DNC which housed the emails that were stolen and subsequently shared with WikiLeaks.

Ironically, despite the fact that they're apparently sitting on perhaps the most critical evidence available to prove that Russia "hacked the election," an allegation that has been hammered 24/7 on CNN for the better part of a year now despite a lack of actual tangible evidence to support the allegation, the DNC has completely refused to cooperate with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and/or Robert Mueller's independent investigation. This begs one very simple question, why?

As the Washington Times points out, a cybersecurity firm called CrowdStrike, is the only organization that has been allowed by the DNC to inspect their email server. An inspection which quickly resulted in the very "convenient" conclusion that Russia was the culprit of the hack. Even though minimal details supporting that conclusion were ever revealed to authorities.

It is perhaps the key piece of forensic evidence in Russia's suspected efforts to sway the November presidential election, but federal investigators have yet to get their hands on the hacked computer server that handled email from the Democratic National Committee.

Indeed, the only cybersecurity specialists who have taken a look at the server are from CrowdStrike, the Irvine, California-based private cybersecurity company that the DNC hired to investigate the hack -- but which has come under fire itself for its work.

Some critics say CrowdStrike's evidence for blaming Russia for the hack is thin. Members of Congress say they still believe Russia was responsible but wonder why the DNC has never allowed federal investigators to get a look at the key piece of evidence -- the server. Either way, a key "witness" in the political scandal consuming the Trump administration remains beyond the reach of investigators.

"I want to find out from the company [that] did the forensics what their full findings were," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is leading the Judiciary Committee's inquiry, told The Washington Times.

As you may recall, CrowdStrike is the very same "cybersecurity" firm that attributed the Sony hack to North Korea..

In 2014, it investigated the Sony Pictures leak, the disclosure of a trove of sensitive and embarrassing internal emails and executive salary data apparently orchestrated by hackers sympathetic to North Korea, and who objected to Sony's comic depiction of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Unfortunately, that "hack" was subsequently revealed to have been perpetrated by a Sony insider.

But, Crowdstrike's hacking attribution analyses have been questioned before, as have their ties to Ukranian funders and the Clinton Foundation.

Mr. Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank focused on international issues that is partially funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who reportedly has donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Late last year, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected British think tank, disputed CrowdStrike's analysis of a Russian hack during Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists. CrowdStrike later revised and retracted portions of its analysis.

Meanwhile, the ultimate publisher of the DNC emails, WikiLeaks, has very publicly confirmed on numerous occasions that their source was, in fact, not a state actor.

HANNITY:  "Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia."

ASSANGE:  "Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party… Obama is trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #10 

The ever-widening Hillary email scandal -- the gift that keeps on giving

Ari Lieberman (DirectorBlue) say Hillary Clinton will be remembered for many things but being a gracious loser is not one of them. Ever the narcissist, Clinton blamed Russia, fake news, WikiLeaks, Comey, anyone but herself for her humiliating defeat. The bare truth is that Clinton was a supremely flawed candidate who was perceived as untrustworthy. Her flirtations with identity politics while hobnobbing with the bicoastal elite did nothing to enhance her image among blue collar union folk and the middle class. 

But perhaps most damning for Clinton was her email scandal which dogged her campaign like a bad rash that wouldn't go away. Clinton believed that her troubles were behind her when Comey announced in July 2016 that "no charges are appropriate in this case." But her hopes were soon dashed when her emails once again popped up, this time on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Clinton's emails now had the stench of Anthony Weiner all over them. She was furious but there was nothing she could do. This was a problem of her own making. 


The emails were transferred by Clinton aide and confidant, Huma Abedin to her husband's laptop. They were inadvertently uncovered by FBI agents during their probe of Weiner for sending sexually explicit emails to a minor. The timing of the revelation could not have been worse for Clinton -- just 11 days prior to the election.  

If you thought that Clinton's loss in the general elections put her email scandal to rest, you thought wrong. Clinton's emails continue to ricochet like exploding shrapnel, tarnishing the Democratic Party and hampering its objectives.

The latest victims to succumb to the malignant email scandal are former attorney general, Loretta Lynch and current acting FBI director, Andrew McCabe. In open testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey stated that Lynch asked him to refer to the FBI's criminal investigation as a "matter," tracking the language employed by the Clinton campaign. 

Behind closed doors, Comey told the committee that he confronted Lynch with a sensitive document further implicating Lynch in a scheme to derail the FBI probe. It appears that Lynch may have been colluding with Democratic Party insiders on ways to decisively dispose of the investigation on terms favorable to Clinton. 

Adding to the cloud of suspicion that surrounds Lynch is the now infamous half-hour meeting she had with Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac, just days before Hillary was scheduled to testify before the FBI. Lynch alleged that she merely discussed innocuous things like "grandchildren" and "golf." Sure she did! 

Calls for her to recuse herself from the investigation or alternatively, appoint a special counsel, were ignored. Apparently, special counsel appointments apply exclusively to Republicans. 

Comey stated that Lynch's unscrupulous conduct during the email investigation forced him to publicly disclose his findings in July to protect the investigation's integrity. Of course Lynch was free to conduct her own investigation and pursue her own course of action but she nevertheless blindly chose to accept Comey's recommendations. 

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last year, Lynch refused to directly address any question relating to how she arrived at her decision except to note, ad nauseam, that she discussed the matter with "her team."  Members of the Committee asked her repeatedly if she reviewed any emails or testimony and she continuously demurred and deflected. 

Lynch's disquieting evasiveness on such a simple matter likely means that she had no interest or desire to review the evidence. All that mattered was that Clinton was exonerated and she had secured a cushy spot for herself in the next administration.

But Lynch's days of obfuscation are numbered. The Senate is now actively investigating her actions pertaining to the email probe. On June 23, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Lynch directing her to disclose any communications she had with the Clinton campaign or DNC staffers in connection with the email investigation. Letters were also sent to other Democratic Party insiders named by Comey  including Clinton staffer Amanda Renteria as well as Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell of George Soros' Open Society Foundations. 

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, "Comey laid out a case for misconduct in office for Loretta Lynch." The felony, if proven, could land her 5 to 10 years in prison.

Clinton's email scandal has claimed other victims as well including acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. McCabe is now the FBI's point man on various aspects of the Russia investigation including claims of collusion between Trump staffers and Russia. In a strange turn of events, McCabe has revealed himself to be a deeply problematic figure who is currently the subject of at least three separate investigations which include massive conflicts of interest and possible violations of the Hatch act.

One of those investigations centers on his deep involvement in the Clinton email probe. According to the Wall Street Journal, McCabe "was part of the executive leadership team overseeing the Clinton email investigation." While McCabe was ostensibly investigating Clinton, his wife Jill was accepting $500,000 for her state senate campaign from long-time Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe. McCabe failed to disclose this critical piece of information. Insiders believe that it is likely that McCabe will be relieved of his duties in the not too distant future. 

The Clinton email scandal has proven itself to be the gift that keeps on giving. It has taken on a living, breathing dynamic of its own, leaving a trail of carnage wherever it goes and destroying the reputations and careers of anyone it touches. It's safe to assume that Democrats are not too pleased with Clinton these days.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #11 

Jeh Johnson says the Russians did not "hack" the election

It appears that the Russian "hacking" consisted of accessing voter rolls in several states. There is no evidence that these "hacks" resulted in any manipulation of voter rolls.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #12 

Warner on vote hacking inquiry --  "This is not about relitigating 2016"

Charles Fain Lehman (FreeBeacon) is reporting that yesterday, Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) said on MSNBC that his push for more information on Russian interference in last November's election is "not about relitigating 2016."

Warner sent a letter Tuesday to the Department of Homeland Security, calling on Secretary Gen. John Kelly to "disclose additional information on the full scope of foreign attempts to interfere in the 2016 elections by hacking into, or attempting to target, state and local election systems."

"I am deeply concerned about the danger of future foreign interference in our elections," Warner wrote.

"Meet the Press Daily" host Chuck Todd asked Warner about his letter:

Todd:  "Are you at all concerned it could create a little panic?" Todd asked.

Warner:  "We're not trying to create a panic, we're not trying to relitigate the 2016 election or embarrass any state."

He went on to explain that he was focused primarily on keeping the American state-level electoral systems safe from further interference.

Todd:  "There has been a lot of comfort taken by officials both in the Obama administration and the Trump administration who have said definitively we have had no evidence, no proof, no anything that any vote totals were altered. Do you still have that same level of confidence given the more information we're learning about the state level of hacks?"

Warner:  "I do have a high level of confidence that no individual vote totals were changed. Again, this is not about relitigating 2016."

"But if we show you how extensive the Russian attempts were to penetrate state systems, that I think will put us on a higher level of guard and security."

For the record: It is impossible to hack a national election. Each state has its own election system and rules. Within each state there are disparities between counties. From a technical viewpoint, the random structure of our voting systems makes the notion that our national election was hacked is absurd.

Again, what was hacked was Hillary's illegal email system and the DNC's unsecure email system.

The Democrats, sooner of later, will have to have their "come to Jesus" moment and deal with the fact that they ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.

Warner's statement, "This is not about relitigating 2016," is true.

It's about obstruction -- obstructing the president's "Make America Great Again" agenda.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #13 

The #NeverTrump crowd is still waiting for the Apocalypse


Daniel Greenfield (FrontPage) says "Republicans of all stripes must be made to acknowledge and accept that Trumpism is an experiment that failed," Noah Rothman wrote in Commentary.

It was October 2016 and Rothman was declaring the terms on which Never Trumpers would accept the surrender of Republicans after Trump's defeat. Some "examples must be made", but after some political purges, the GOP could be reunited around "free trade" and "an internationalist foreign policy".  

But instead of losing, Trump won. The disasters that Rothman was predicting, the loss of Congress and the White House, never came about. And the scorned prophets of Never Trump, instead of apologizing or being offered terms for rejoining the GOP, continued forecasting disaster and doom for the heretics.

Like Democrats, Never Trumpers were still stuck on an election that Trump wasn't supposed to win. Democrats had predicted a Hillary victory and Never Trumpers predicted a Republican disaster. Both Democrats and Never Trumpers want to reverse the results of the election. The Democrats invent vast conspiracies and the Never Trumpers predict disasters that will never happen.

Never Trumpers are obsessed with proving to Republicans that electing Trump was a disastrous mistake.

So everything is a disaster. Trump is infuriating Europeans alienating Muslims, abandoning NATO and destroying the planet. The sky is always falling. The apocalypse is just around the corner. And when it finally arrives, Rothman and the rest of the gang can lay out their terms for reunifying the GOP around illegal alien amnesty, destructive trade practices and open borders for terrorist refugees.

Even after the election, President Trump still can't win.

"Donald Trump's Republican Party Will Be Defeated," George Will predicted in his Washington Post column before the November election. The National Review chose to reprint his warning that Republicans must break with Trump. That would "determine how many of them lose with him, and how many deserve to."

When Trump won, Will dubbed it a, "A Disruptive yet Ruinous Triumph for the GOP". Never mind that the GOP had won, it was really a defeat. "Will the Republican party learn the wrong lessons from its election victory?" he inquired.

And who better to turn to for the right lessons than the man who had predicted that Republicans would lose and who had declared "this was not my party anymore", but still insisted on lecturing Republicans?

When Trump was sworn in, Will called it, "A Most Dreadful Inaugural Address". He warned, "Donald Trump's Economic Policy Could Spell Disaster" and "Trump's Immigration Plan Could Spell Doom for the GOP."

And if the disaster isn't forthcoming on its own, Will pleaded with the public "to quarantine this presidency by insistently communicating to its elected representatives a steady, rational fear of this man." And there's the National Review wing of the "Resistance" -- the Left's effort to sabotage the Trump presidency and fulfill the prophecies that failed.

Back at Commentary, Noah Rothman had consistently predicted that Trump would lose. "When Trump's Republican presidential bid flames out -- and it will flame out," he wrote confidently. "This "plan" is a road to electoral ruin," he warned of Trump's common sense migration reform.

Everything was Trump's fault.

"Bilateral relations between the United States and Russia have cratered since Trump took office," Rothman mourned. Obama departed office with relations at their lowest point in decades. Hillary Clinton had compared Putin to Hitler. But to Never Trumpers, it's always Trump's fault.

Elsewhere, Rothman bemoaned that Trump had "prioritized renewed confrontation" with Iran and China. To Never Trumpers, common sense policies were bad if they had Trump's name on them.

But Rothman's constant predictions of disaster, before and after, were nothing compared to even madder voices at Commentary like Max Boot; the Republican answer to Keith Olbermann.

"Donald Trump represents the No. 1 security threat to the United States today," Max Boot declared. Greater even than Global Warming.

This month, Rothman echoed Boot's preposterous claim by invoking the conspiracy inside the conspiracy. "The Bannon wing is now a menace to global security."

But none of the Never Trumper hysterics can actually define this global security menace. Trump has taken a tougher line on every enemy from China to Iran to Syria to Russia to Cuba to ISIS. Despite all the innuendo about Russia, it was Trump not Obama, who enforced a red line in Syria. Obama made a deal with the devil in Iran. Trump is beginning to roll it back. And the Russians aren't remotely happy about it.

Trump stood up to China and North Korea. Unlike Obama's fake pivot, Trump is staying the course. ISIS is being defeated. And that's the problem for the Boot-Rothman fantasies.

Boot claimed that Trump was "embracing fascism" and had also embraced "war crimes". He argued that Trump was playing "right into the terrorists' hands" and "doing serious damage to American credibility and to collective security." Outside Commentary, Boot would go on to demand that "for the good of the country, Trump should resign before our new national nightmare gets worse."

"Republicans Need to Abandon the Trump Ship ASAP," Boot insisted. He closed by echoing the conviction that, "the security of the United States might now depend on electing a Democratic Congress in 2018." It would have been more honest of Boot to just join the Democrat Party.

The job security of Never Trump pundits certainly depends on a Republican defeat in 2018. If Trump doesn't fail, how will anyone know they were right? And so, with the logic of the Left, they insist that he must be made to fail. If Trump won't fail and Republicans won't abandon him, it's time to vote Democrat. As a number of Never Trumpers actually did.

But neither the National Review nor Commentary can hold a candle to the sheer derangement of the Weekly Standard. The Standard pushed 25th Amendment and Electoral College shenanigans to stop Trump that were hardly seen outside left-wing swamps. It compared Paul Ryan to a Nazi collaborator for endorsing Trump. All of this was spiced with doom headlines that could have come from the media.

"Trump the Loser", "Donald Trump, a One-Man Wedge Issue, Threatens GOP Future", "Donald Trump's Plan to Destroy the U.S. Economy", headlines shrieked. "With Trump, It Only Gets Worse from Here."

And even, "Is Trump Ruining Marriages?"

Is there anything wrong in the world Trump isn't responsible for? Everything he did was terrible.

Even if Trump won, a story speculated that, "It is doubtful that he will have a commanding legislative majority."  Even if he does, Schumer will filibuster a Trump nominee and "If you think the Senate Republicans will blithely go along with eliminating that procedural tool, then you haven't been paying much attention to the Senate Republicans in the last decade" and "It beggars belief to presume that Trump can build a majority coalition in favor of conservative principles".

The establishment that was always right had spoken. Yet it kept on being embarrassingly wrong. Over and over again.

According to "Trump's Position Is Even Worse Than You Think", the election was so hopeless that "the national polls are actually overstating Trump's strength." It's always hopeless for the Never Trumpers. And that's because their position is hopeless. The product they're selling is defeatism. And that's never been very popular. The only argument for defeatism is manufacturing a constant sense of crisis.

Throughout the election, the Standard warned that Republicans must break with Trump or go down with him. A single quote from "To Save the Party, Pull the Plug on Trump Now" will suffice.

"Understand this: Donald Trump is not going to win."

Even now, a Standard column insists that Trump will go the way of Nixon and Republicans must break with him. In the Never Trump camp, Trump and the GOP are always on the verge of destruction.

But the apocalypse never arrives.

In just one paragraph of one Weekly Standard article, President Trump is accused of undermining "legitimate checks on his authority", eroding "confidence in our electoral system" and tarnishing his office. And probably ruining your marriage too.

But after all this time the disaster still hasn't arrived. Trump won. The alarmists lost. The stock market is rising and our enemies are afraid. The alarmism of the echo chamber has added up to nothing more than failed predictions, falling subscriptions and encouragement to Democrat seditionists.

Never Trump is really Never Wrong. Like the Democrats, they refuse to adapt to reality. Rothman and his Never Trump colleagues need to accept that Never Trumpism is an experiment that failed, apologize to Trump and the American people whose progress they are obstructing, and go home.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #14 

Obama never warned state election officials about Russian election hacking


Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that A new and exclusive report by The Daily Caller -- neither Obama nor any member of his cabinet warned state election officials of any Russian effort to hack or interfere with the country's electoral systems, according to the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Via The Daily Caller exclusive:

"We did ask," Denise Merrill, Connecticut secretary of state and the association's top official, told The Daily Caller News Foundation's Investigative Group Wednesday.

"And over-and-over again, they did say there was no credible threat that they had found. And they said that right through the election, and the next administration reiterated that. Over and over again when we asked, we were told there was no actual threat that they knew of," Merrill said.

Asked if there were any private briefings for state election officials on possible Russian interference prior to the November 2016 voting, Merrill said, "No. We were not briefed on any of that. We were not told in advance."

Merrill also claimed the administration failed to take state officials aside about a potential or real Russian threat to election machinery.

"That's right because I don't really think there was one," she said.

Not only is there actual evidence of the Russians "hacking" the 2016 Presidential election, former DNI James Clapper said AGAIN in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd recently that he saw no "smoking gun" evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russian state actors.

The Trump-Russia hoax is an embarrassment to the U.S. The Democrats just won't accept that Hillary Clinton was a big fat failure so they created a scandal out of thin air. The Russia hoax is also being used to distract from the unmasking of Trump and his private associates by the Obama administration.

Read the full report here.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #15 

Did Obama tell the truth about Russia's election meddling?


Paul Mirengoff (PowerLine) says during a news conference last December, Barack Obama claimed that Russian interference in the 2016 election ended after he told Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out" in early September. In Obama's telling, he warned Putin of "serious consequences" if Russian interference continued. As a result the interference ceased.

Here is what Obama told the American public:

What I was concerned about in particular was making sure [the DNC hack] wasn't compounded by potential hacking that could hamper vote counting, affect the actual election process itself. So in early September when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn't happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out and there were going to be serious consequences if he didn't.

And in fact we did not see further tampering of the election process, but the leaks through WikiLeaks had already occurred.

However, Peter Hasson of the Daily Caller points out that Obama's self-serving claim is contradicted by leaked documents. These documents indicate that Russia attempted to interfere in the election just days before it occurred: Hasson writes:

NSA documents published by The Intercept on Monday revealed that as late as October 31 or November 1, hackers launched an election-related spearfishing operation "targeting U.S. local government organizations."

In other words, Russia was still tampering with the American electoral process after Obama said they ceased doing so. The documents' authenticity has been confirmed by U.S. officials, and the U.S. Department of Justice charged on Monday the woman who leaked the Top Secret documents to The Intercept.

"The NSA assessed that this phase of the spear-fishing operation was likely launched on either October 31 or November 1 and sent spear-fishing emails to 122 email addresses 'associated with named local government organizations,' probably to officials 'involved in the management of voter registration systems,'" The Intercept reported.

And that's not all:

The leaked documents reveal that two other election-related hacking efforts were launched in October -- one month after Putin supposedly "cut it out."

There's no reason to believe that the Russian efforts to "hack" the voting process succeeded, but it's noteworthy that Russia went after the exact target -- "actual election process itself" -- that Obama says he was determined to stopping them, and did stop them, from targeting.

It was always difficult to believe that Putin would take seriously a directive by Obama to "cut it out" ("it" being anything Putin wanted to do). As I reported in 2009, the Russians concluded, based on what they witnessed during Obama's visit to Moscow, that Obama was a lightweight. As one source told me, they felt they could "steal his pants."

Obama repeatedly confirmed this assessment. He did so most egregiously when he turned to Russia to bail him out after Assad crossed the "red line" by using chemical weapons on civilians. But this wasn't the only example.

Obama's assertion that he caused Putin to back away from interfering in the 2016 election is best viewed as an attempt to reclaim his trousers, or at least to substitute a fig leaf. But now we know that Obama's assertion was false.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #16 

NSA won't release the Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac transcript due to "national security risk"

Snakes on a plane

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Christopher Sign of ABC/15 in Phoenix, AZ broke the story on the secret meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona in June.

Christopher Sign said the FBI told local reporters they could not take in photos or video of the meeting:

Hillary Clinton told "Meet the Press" later that week that the controversial meeting between her husband and Attorney General Loretta Lynch was "purely social." Hillary insisted they talked about their grandkids and golf during their meeting on the tarmac.

Now this…

The NSA now says it will not release details of the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch due to the "national security" risk.
Via Freedom Outpost:

A citizen researcher from Florida is attempting to have the recording of the infamous Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac tape released to the public, but apparently, the National Security Agency claims they won't release it due to "national security."

The man researching and seeking to have the tape released is Florida orthodontist Larry Kawa.  You may remember him because of Judicial Watch's filing of a lawsuit on his behalf to obtain a week's worth of Hillary Clinton's emails regarding Benghazi.

It's being reported now that the NSA has declared the recording of the conversation that took place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in Phoenix, Arizona on June 27, 2016.

This is the "deep state" covering up for the Clintons, pure and simple.

We have seen Hillary Clinton's law-breaking for years -- from Benghazi, to the illegal server, the sending and receiving of highly classified material, the illegal transfer of monies to the Clinton Foundation for favors, the Russian uranium deal -- yet Hillary has never been held accountable.

It must be nice to be above the law.

Two observations:

For the NSA to classify a political conservation held during a political campaign as a national security risk tells you how political the NSA is.

The existence of this taped conversation tells you how extensive the NSA eavesdropping is. As I have said for years, if the NSA wants it, they have it.

How did the NSA get a private conversation held on a private airplane?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #17 

Andrea Mitchell says Hillary Clinton is creating Russian collusion conspiracy theories without evidence

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that on Wednesday Hillary Clinton blamed the DNC and others for her shocking loss in November at a Recode convention.


Nobody was buying Hillary's lies and crazed conspiracy theories, even her own party is turning on her. 

This did not go over well at the DNC.

The  former Director of Data Science at the DNC, Andrew Therriault, did not appreciate Hillary blaming the party for her loss.

Andrew Therriault posted a series of tweets after Hillary's speech -- "F*cking Bullsh*t!"

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell even called out Hillary Clinton for "drawing a conspiracy theory without evidence."

Andrea Mitchell: "She (Hillary) drilled down on the fake news, the role of Infowars and said it was very clear to her that there were Americans directing and colluding, conspiring really with the Russian hackers, with Guccifer, with the others who were involved in the hacking, the dropping of Wikileaks only an hour after the Access Hollywood tape was disclosed…

…and saying that they were doing so with such political sophistication. She's basically pointing to the Trump campaign, saying that the dots are now being connected in the investigation. She mentioned Jared Kushner, she mentioned Bannon and Kellyanne Conway…

…She is drawing a conspiracy theory, she doesn't have the evidence…"

Even CNN wishes Hillary would just go away.

For MSNBC's Mitchell -- a Hillary stalwart -- to say this on Maddow's show and for CNN to be making the same speech tells me that the DNC has put the word out that Hillary has gone over the deep end and to put distance between her and the Democratic Party.

Most of what Hillary said is 180 degrees from the facts of the campaign.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #18 

Hillary says she takes responsibility for every decision she made, BUT . . .

"Look, I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost, so I think it's important that we learn the real lessons from this last campaign."

Related:  Julian Assange slams Hillary Clinton -- "You can't blame Wikileaks for your failures"

If this woman really believes the words coming out of her mouth, she is beyond delusional.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #19 

Hillary's latest angry rant shows what a sore loser she is


Amy Moreno (TruthFeed) says I don't know about you, but I absolutely love the fact that 6 months after the election, liberals, most notably Hillary, are still "seething" and "raging" over the outcome.

It literally makes me giddy!

A new report says Hillary is "seething with RAGE" over her loss to President Trump, who she claims is "dumb" and a "soulless manipulator."

From the Blaze:

Losing 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is reportedly "seething with rage" because she lost to a "soulless manipulator," a reference to President Donald Trump.

According to Axios, citing Clinton's friends, the former secretary of state is now "seething with rage and haunted by losing to someone she considers a dumb, soulless manipulator."

It has been more than six months since Clinton lost to Trump in last year's presidential election. She mostly kept quiet in the following months and was frequently spotted in public living a normal life. But in the last month or so, Clinton has increased her number of interviews and speaking engagements.

In interviews and while speaking, Clinton refuses to take personal responsibility for her second unsuccessful run at the White House. She blames former FBI Director James Comey, Russia interference, sexism, racism, among other reasons, for her loss. She recently even blamed voter suppression.

But it's clear Clinton isn't yet over her loss.

She said earlier in May that if it weren't for Comey, then she would be president today -- not Trump. She was referring to Comey sending Congress a letter less than two weeks before the election informing them that the FBI potentially found new evidence in the criminal investigation against her. And during a commencement speech at Wellesley University on Friday, Clinton continued her line of attack against Trump, cementing her position in "the resistance."

Still, most say Clinton lost the election because she was a flawed candidate who ran a flawed campaign. After all, it was Clinton's campaign that chose not to dedicate lots of resources to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- three states that she lost and Trump needed to win to become president.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #20 

Newest piece of White House "art" will have Trump’s enemies fuming!

TruthFeedNews asks if you are ready for the newest piece of White House art?

No, it’s not a Monet, it’s not a Picasso, it’s not a Warhol.

It’s a large framed version of the 2016 ELECTORAL MAP:


Boy, there sure is a lot of red.

Other than a few big cities infected with the disease of liberalism, President Trump wants to remind all visitors he has a mandate from the people and won in a landside.

When you think about the alternative, a Hillary presidency that would result in never-ending corruption, open borders and endless refugees, this art is the most beautiful sight in the world.

Where will it be hung?

We don’t know yet but….

How about right next to THIS one?


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #21 

Kremlin connection confirmed -- Podesta's company was paid one billion rubles by Russian government

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that investigators have uncovered a kremlin connection in the 2016 election and it's not what you were rold!

The Putin Government gave John Podesta 35 millions dollars (1 billion rubles) while he advised Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Investigative reporter and author Peter Schweizer went on FOX and Friends to discuss Kremlin influence on US politics -- and how the Clinton camp was in bed with the Putin regime.

Peter Schweizer: In 2011 John Podesta joined the board of this very small energy company called Joule Energy based out of Massachusetts. About two months after he joins the board a Russian entity called RUSNANO puts a billion rubles, which is about $35 million, into John Podesta’s company. Now, what is RUSNANO? RUSNANO is not a private company, Steve. It is a fund directly funded by the Kremlin. In fact the Russian finance minister called RUSNANO “Putin’s Child.” So you have the Russian government investing in one of John Podesta’s business in 2011 while he is an adviser to Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Steve Doocy: OK. Does anybody in the Trump circle rise to the level that there is this kind of money involved?

Peter Schweizer: No.

And, once again, the frenzy on the Left is all a disguise to hide their own rampant corruption.

Related:  Podesta sues Daily Caller for story alleging that Podesta violated the law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of Kremlin company

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #22 

An "illegitimate president" -- let me count the ways


Pat Boone (WND) says: I honor and respect John Lewis, for his courageous stands for civil rights and his long service in Congress. Good man.

Just yesterday, though, I heard and saw another black representative on TV criticizing Lewis for his allegiance to the Democratic Party, which birthed the KKK all those years ago -- to prevent blacks from voting.

Yes, that was long ago, but Martin Luther King Jr. identified with the Republican Party, as much of his family does today, because much of the civil rights legislation and support for black equality came from that quarter when King was launching out.

I want the reader to be aware that I, too, have a record of support for civil rights and equality for all of us, regardless of color. Very briefly, I wrote songs like "Time Marches On," a story of the black man's journey from tribal power in Africa to slavery and injustice in "the Land of the Free." I recorded the song, and it was played on black radio, but nowhere else. Sammy Davis wanted to record the song himself, but his death intervened.

The day after MLK was killed in Memphis, I wrote "I Had a Dream," pairing his emotional and powerful words with a gospel melody. Eventually, I introduced a video of that tribute as MC of the 40th anniversary celebration of CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality. I was accorded that honor by founder Roy Innes and his son Niger.

Most people don't know about these public stands I've taken, and there are others. I only mention these to validate my right to take loving exception to John Lewis calling Donald Trump "an illegitimate president"!

Lewis seems mainly concerned with the Russians "hacking" into our political system and possibly having some influence on the outcome of our election. He states that the information they "leaked" was prejudicial to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

My question to Mr. Lewis: What did Donald Trump have to do with that? Answer: nothing.

Next question: Then who do we blame now?

Well, we only know, or think we know, what Trump will do when he assumes the presidency. Meanwhile, there was another president, in office for the last eight years, who obviously failed to secure America, to safeguard even our classified communication, as in the case of the private servers used by our secretary of state, with whom we've only recently learned they shared private passwords so they could communicate on her unsecured private server! Happy "hacking", Russia!

And if what was leaked, or revealed, by the "hackers" was detrimental to the Clinton campaign -- it was only what she and Podesta and others had shared in the over 40,000 emails back and forth -- MU

Again, Donald Trump had nothing to do with any of that.

And, on the subject of "hacking into" or influencing elections: What does John Lewis think about the president, our current president, spending over $300,000 of our taxpayer dollars to send his own social media experts to Israel to make their political expertise on the Internet available to Prime Minister Netanyahu's opponent in the Israeli election! At his behest, these experts hired buses to transport Arabs to the polls to vote against Netanyahu -- though the prime minister won anyway. What gives an American president the right to intervene so directly and overtly in another sovereign nation's election? Is it wrong for Russia but acceptable for our president to do it?

Is such meddling a right -- or a high crime? And is it legitimate?

Further, is it legitimate for a president to personally create 33 new regulatory agencies by executive order -- without so much as a nod to Congress? And to personally appoint 33 "czars" to head those agencies, reporting only to him and not the legislature? Is it "legitimate" for a president and his then attorney general, who had both sworn to uphold our laws, to openly and publicly state they would not enforce immigration laws they personally objected to?

What makes for "legitimacy," Mr. Lewis? Words and expressed intentions before assuming the presidency, or actual deeds and misdeeds and betraying the promise to "uphold the Constitution" during eight years as president?

I earnestly hope you'll pray and think carefully before you continue to foment rebellion and rejection of the duly elected incoming leader of the United States -- and ask yourself honestly which of the two men, the current president or the incoming one, should be thought of as "illegitimate?"

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #23 
As soon as January 20, 2017, Trump needs to start placing these terrorists in JAIL (E.G. Gitmo).  Prosecute every single one of them.

"Power perceived is power achieved."  As stated in the movie The Substitute by the rogue Principal to the Mercenary teacher.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #24 

Anti-Trump hysteria builds ahead of inauguration


Art Moore (WND) is reporting that re-counting the votes didn't change the outcome, convincing Electoral College electors to go rogue fizzled, blaming the Russians has had no real effect, but now, amid renewed cries by the left that Donald Trump was not legitimately elected, more than 50 House Democrats have declared they will not attend the inauguration Friday.

Along with alleged Russian interference in the election, Democrats and their progressive allies have complained of what they describe as divisive and troubling Trump policies that prevent them from acknowledging the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. Then, when Trump reacted strongly to Democrat Rep. John Lewis' statement in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" broadcast Sunday that Trump's victory was illegitimate, the number of Congress members skipping the inauguration spiked, the Washington Post reported.

Trump tweeted that Lewis, a prominent civil rights activist in the 1950 and '60s, is "all talk, talk, talk" and should "finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities."

One of the congressional boycotters, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., told MSNBC's Chris Matthew that impeachment proceedings against Trump should commence even before he is in office because, among other things, she claimed, Russia gave Trump the "crooked Hillary" slogan he used to defeat the Democratic Party candidate.

Referring to the inauguration, Waters, said she "never contemplated even going near any of those activities or those events."

"I don't like the way he has misled people, the way he has lied. I don't like the way he's disparaged folks," she said.

"I don't honor him, I don't respect him, and I don't want to be involved with him," Waters said.

Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., ran a Twitter poll asking whether she should attend the inauguration. She announced Tuesday she won't attend after declaring the poll closed with 84 percent of respondents saying she should boycott.

The Trump team said it will give away the tickets of Democrats who won't attend the inauguration.

"We'd love for every member of Congress to attend but if they don't, we've got some great seats for others to partake in," Trump transition spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday. "It's a shame that these folks don't want to be part of the peaceful transfer of power."

WND reported Monday an undercover video of leftists meeting in Washington, D.C., exposed a plot to use foul-smelling butyric acid to disrupt the "Deploraball" event in honor of Trump's inauguration.

The video released by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas showed the DC Anti-Fascist Coalition already had scouted the National Press Club building, and members were confident they could release acid there "with no negative consequences for our side, nor any collateral damage." ZeroHedge later reported a member of the coalition who appears in the video, Luke Kuhn, made a number of Internet posts online advocating for the legalization of pedophilia while a member of the Utopian Anarchist Party in the late 1990s.

The Hill reported gun-control advocates plan to protest policies supported by Trump during the Women's March on Washington on Saturday, asserting gun violence "disproportionately affects women."

"The NRA leadership's agenda is a threat to women everywhere," said a spokesman for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's group, Everytown for Gun Safety.

"Their leadership has a history of misogyny and the policies they back make it easy for domestic abusers to get their hands on guns."

'D.C. braces'

Establishment media outlets, meanwhile, cast a decidedly negative view of the upcoming Trump administration:

The Washington Post's opinion section also was full of bad news about Trump.

Related:  Shock video: Some Americans want martial law to stop Trump

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #25 

Michelle Obama praises hack John Lewis after he's caught in bold-faced lie

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Michelle Obama praised political hack and liar John Lewis.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) told NBC last weekend he will skip the Trump Inauguration.

"I don’t plan to attend inauguration. It will be the first one I miss since I’ve been in Congress."

But that was a big lie.

John Lewis did not attend George W. Bush’s Inauguration in 2001 and the reason for his absence was the same. Lewis claimed that Bush wasn't a legitimate president, saying Bush was not a "true elected president."


But the fact that Lewis skips all Republican inaugurations didn’t seem to matter to First Lady Michelle Obama. She praised Rep. Lewis today in a tweet after his horrible remarks against Donald Trump.


Yesterday, on Martin Luther King Day, Lewis gave an emotional speech at a breakfast in Miami.

Lewis told the audience he forgave a KKK member who attacked him and left him in a pool of blood. Lewis said several years later the man came to his office and asked for his forgiveness. And Lewis said he hugged him "in the power of peace and prayer" and forgave him.


But over the weekend, Lewis said it would be "very difficult" to forgive Donald Trump, although it’s not clear what Trump did to demand his forgiveness?

NBC reported:

Asked whether he would try to forge a relationship with the president-elect, Lewis said that he believes in forgiveness, but added, "it's going to be very difficult. I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president."

Good grief! This guy’s nothing but a political hack:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved