Updates from December, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Jack 3:49 am on December 11, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: belgium politics, brussels violence, drieu godefridi, , , , , , , , , , , ,   


    When then-candidate Donald Trump noted in January 2016 that, thanks to mass immigration, Brussels was turning into a hell hole, Belgian and European politicians presented a united front at the (media) barricades: How dare he say such a thing? Brussels, capital of the European Union, the very quintessence of the post-modern world, the avant-garde of the coming new “global civilization,” a hell hole? Of course assimilating newcomers is not always easy, and there may be friction from time to time. But never mind, they said: Trump is a buffoon, and anyway, he has zero chance of getting elected. Such were the thoughts of those avid readers of The New York Times International Edition and regular watchers of CNN International.

    However, Donald Trump, in his unmistakable, brash style, was quite simply right: Brussels is rapidly descending into chaos and anarchy. Exactly two months after that dramatic Trumpism, Brussels was eviscerated by a horrific Islamic terror attack that left 32 people dead. And that was only the tip of the monstrous iceberg that has built up over three decades of mass immigration and socialist madness.

    Last month alone in Brussels, there were three separate outbreaks of rioting and looting on a major scale.

    First, there was the qualification of the Moroccan team to the soccer World Cup: between 300 and 500 “youths” of foreign origin took to the streets of Brussels to “celebrate” the event in their own way, looting dozens of shops in the historical center of Brussels, wreaking havoc in the deserted avenues of the “capital of civilization” and, during their riot, injuring 22 police officers.

    Riot police, backed by a water cannon, attempt to push back rioters in the center of Brussels, Belgium, on November 12. Hundreds of “youths” of foreign origin “celebrated” the World Cup qualification of Morocco’s soccer team by rioting and injuring 22 police officers. (Image source: Ruptly video screenshot)

    Three days later, a social media rap music star nicknamed “Vargasss 92,” who is a French citizen of foreign origin, decided to organize another unauthorized “celebration” in the center of Brussels, which quickly turned into another riot. Again, shops were destroyed and people assaulted for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Short clips of the event streamed onto the social networks, showing the world (and Belgians) the true face of Brussels without the politicians’ makeover. No wonder the European political elite hate social media from the depths of their hearts; they prefer the sanitized (and, in both France and francophone Belgium, heavily subsidized) traditional press.

    Finally, on November 25, the socialist authorities in charge of the City of Brussels had the bright idea of authorizing a demonstration against slavery in Libya, which quickly descended into yet another riot: shops were destroyed, cars set on fire, 71 people arrested.

    This lawlessness, with not even the remotest political justification, is the new normal in Brussels. Politicians may not like that fact, which is the result of their lamentable failure, but it is nonetheless a massive and unavoidable fact. The new Brussels is characterized by riots and looting by people of foreign origin, as well as the ongoing heavily-armed military presence in the streets of Brussels, in place since March 22, 2016, the day that European Islamists murdered 32 and wounded 340 people in the worst-ever terrorist attack in Belgium.

    One may wonder why these fine Belgian soldiers patrolling the streets do nothing to stop the rioters. For the simple reason that it is outside of their remit; should a soldier actually hurt a looter, he would probably be publicly chastised, pilloried by the media, put on trial and dishonorably discharged.

    It would be funny if it were not so serious. After the first two recent riots, Belgian state television (RTBF) organized a debate with politicians and pundits from Brussels. Among the participants was Senator Alain Destexhe, from the center-right Reformist Movement (the party of Belgium’s Prime Minister).

    Destexhe is an interesting figure in Belgian politics. In French-speaking Belgium, he has been among the few to say publicly that the mass-immigration Belgians are inflicting upon themselves is unsustainable, that Islam may not be such a peaceful religion, and that school classes in which 90% of the children are of foreign origin, who do not speak French or Dutch at home, are not a recipe for success. Such may be taken as a given in much of the Western world, but in the French-speaking part of Belgium, heavily influenced by the French worldview, he was considered right-wing, if not an extremist, a racist, and other such niceties the Left often utters.

    When, during this debate, Destexhe tried to make his point — that there is a connection between the non-integration of many people of foreign origin in Brussels and the decades-long high level of immigration — the moderator literally yelled at him that “Migration is not the subject, Monsieur Destexhe! MIGRATION IS NOT THE SUBJECT, STOP!”, before giving the word to a “slam poet”, a young woman who explained that the problem was that women wearing the Islamic veil (such as herself) do not feel welcome in Brussels. The audience was then instructed to applaud her. Also on the set was a Green Party politician who affirmed that “nobody knows the origin of the rioters.” Hint: they were, in their own idiosyncratic way, “celebrating” Morocco‘s victory. A great moment of Belgian surrealism? No, just a typical political “debate” in French-speaking Belgium, except that normally Destexhe is not invited.

    The picture would not be complete without mentioning that the very night that the first riot began, November 11, an association called MRAX (Mouvement contre le racisme, l’antisémitisme et la xénophobie) published on its Facebook page an appeal to report any case of “police provocation” or “police violence”. The results of the riot? 22 police officers hurt, zero arrests. MRAX is not only a bunch of leftist Islamist sympathizers, they are heavily financed by taxpayers. Are movements from the right also financed by taxpayers? Simply put: No. In Brussels, the unemployment rate is a staggering 16.9%, a mind-boggling 90% of those on welfare have foreign origins, and although taxes are among the highest in the world, the public coffers are nonetheless bleeding. A sad snapshot of yet another socialist failure.

    But there is hope. Brussels is not only Molenbeek and rioting, it has a robust tradition of entrepreneurship, and Belgium’s federal government, particularly its Flemish component, is extremely conscious of the challenges that need facing. But nothing is going to change if people do not recognize that in many respects Brussels has, from the opulent conservative and “bourgeois” city that it was 25 years ago, morphed into a hell hole.

    Ironically, what Brussels now obviously needs is another Donald Trump.

    Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l’Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.


    See Also:

    (1) Anti-Trump protesters in Beirut clash with security outside US embassy

    (2) Twenty masked men throw Molotov cocktails at synagogue as terrified youngsters huddle in the basement

  • Jack 3:26 am on December 7, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , gary dimmock, michael clairoux, msn,   

    Justice Denied 

    It’s not the first time former Hells Angel Michael Clairoux beat a drug rap down at the Elgin Street courthouse.

    But this was different, this was a big joint-police force investigation targeting an Ontario Hells Angels drug trafficking ring that yielded more than 20 arrests — including two federal prison employees.

    Last week, the case against its chief target — 43-year-old Michael Clairoux — fell apart after his defence lawyer, Diane Condo, won a stay in a successful motion for unreasonable delay — 37 months — because it took too long to get to trial.

    “It’s been a very long and difficult time for my client, and he’s happy to have his life back,” Condo said.

    The Crown had already dropped proceeds of crime and possession charges against Clairoux and an associate before their marijuana trafficking charges were dropped last week in Ottawa’s latest stay under the delay-to-trial Jordan ruling.

    Ontario Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips said the case started out unusually slow when it hit court and spun its wheels for 10 months, with a lot of judicial pre-trial meetings in an uncomplicated case.

    The federal Crown’s office wanted all the accused to be tried by the same judge even though they were selling different drugs in different cities at different times, the judge noted in his ruling to stay the charges.

    The federal prosecutors set about having a case-management judge assigned and, for whatever reason, that took three months.

    Clairoux was arrested on Feb. 25, 2015. The federal Crown’s initial disclosure of evidence was given to the defence on April 17, 2015. Full disclosure of all defence requests was handed over on Aug.14, 2017.

    The Crown argued that the bulk of the delay between the assignment of a case-management judge and the time allowed to set a preliminary inquiry should be laid at the feet of the defence.

    But the judge didn’t entirely agree and questioned the Crown attorney’s request for a case-management judge in the first place.

    The judge failed to see why the cases needed to be presented as a mega-trial, let alone why they should all be tried by the same judge.

    The Crown also argued that going with one judge for all would make it easier to decide sentencing ranges for all, if they were convicted.

    The judge, a former Ontario Crown attorney, said the federal prosecutor’s arguments were valid but not compelling.

    “The offences alleged involve the trafficking of marijuana, hardly a novel or hard-to-grasp scenario.”

    The judge said the request by the Crown for a case-management judge created a delay.

    “It is always harder to get time before a judge than any judge,” Phillips said.

    The judge said the bottom line is that the simple case moved at a snail’s pace and breached Clairoux’s right to a timely trial.

    In this case, the prosecution was stayed in part because of bureaucratic delays.

    “The Crown set up a case management system that was both unnecessary and ill-suited for the task at hand and stuck with it rather than bringing applications under the sections of the Code meant to accelerate the pace toward committal to stand trial in the Superior Court,” Phillips ruled.

    The judge had one more thing to consider before staying the drug trafficking charges against Clairoux.

    In an affidavit filed in court, Clairoux said his bail conditions for the past two years have been gruelling.

    In order to get bail, the now-free Clairoux was required to live under strict conditions with a surety in Ottawa public housing.

    “There is mold in my bedroom and the mold is so bad that I have respiratory issues that include me having to use an inhaler. … My surety has complained about this problem to Ottawa Housing. … It has not been fixed to date. In addition, when it rains, my bedroom in the basement floods,” the former Hells Angel wrote in an August affidavit filed in court.

    “I have overwhelming feelings of doom and persecution as I return to the room,” wrote Clairoux, who went on to say that while his bail conditions were aggravating his mental health issues, they were way better than jail.



  • Jack 2:57 am on December 5, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: fraudulent science, lucy johnston, , uk law enforcement, uk politics, , , ,   

    Make It So 

    SCIENTISTS who carry out fraudulent medical research would face criminal charges under new laws being considered by MPs.

    The proposal is among a raft of measures to tackle drug company fraud being examined by a Commons committee.

    Members have been told that misleading claims about the effectiveness of drugs have led to patients dying.

    Whistleblowers have also received death threats. Norman Lamb, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, has written to each UK university to ask them to ensure staff who expose misconduct are protected.

    The all-party committee has received testimony claiming prominent academics are paid large sums of money to publish false data.

    Consultant cardiologist Dr Peter Wilmshurst, who submitted evidence to the report, said: “If someone was to falsify data about aircraft performance and planes started crashing they would likely face a criminal prosecution. But falsifying data about drugs is highly unlikely to lead to a sanction, even if it kills people.”

    “The real scandal is the extent of this problem is covered up by senior people in the profession and major institutions.

    “Regulators deal with it ineffectively even when people repeatedly offend but they do not seem to understand misconduct can lead to deaths of patients. It’s absolutely outrageous.”

    Dr Wilmshurst, who is based at Royal Stoke University Hospital, started investigating misconduct 35 years ago when a drug firm offered him a bribe to falsify research on a drug with life-threatening side effects.

    Lib Dem MP Mr Lamb said: “This evidence raises serious concerns about the failure of the system to protect patient safety.

    “We need to have total confidence in the integrity of medical research.

    “Regulators have to treat this with utmost seriousness and we will consider whether there is a case for new criminal offences.”


  • Jack 3:35 am on December 4, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , , , , ,   

    Mission Impossible 

    Two years ago in Kiev, I met with Artem Sytnik and his colleagues at the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, along with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, of Ukraine, and wrote a profile headlined, “Can this man save Ukraine?” Mr. Sytnik at the time had just been installed as the head of NABU.

    The two newly minted organizations, part of a group of four anti-corruption agencies set up in concert with Western partners, were fresh, shiny entities filled with hope and promise. Young, newly hired prosecutors and detectives roamed the halls, radiating a fascinating yet naive energy to correct their country’s course in preparation for eventual association with the European Union. I wondered at the time what the future would bring. Mr. Sytnik even asked me to return and follow up on the unit’s progress at some point.

    To the disappointment of the European Union and American and European diplomats in Kiev, it seems the promise of these organizations has fallen victim to the old ways of the Soviet Union. Anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine are on the brink of collapse.

    The image of NABU and its sister service, the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption, have been badly tarnished, possibly irreparably. This is in spite of good funding, good salaries for the employees and support of the West.

    No senior Ukrainian government official has been convicted on corruption charges. The NAPC has yet to set up a functioning system to track assets of government officials.

    With NABU in particular, high-profile corruption cases have simply been sidelined. Corrupt officials in Ukraine want nothing better than to curb the organization’s work, and it seems they are succeeding.

    A perfect example of this is the case of the Privat Group of oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. The state nationalized the PrivatBank to prevent its collapse. However, it was found out later that on the eve of the nationalization, the owners withdrew all the money.

    Mr. Sytnik put the losses at approximately $600 million, a massive amount for the national financial system. NABU detectives seized relevant documents, but no action has been taken in the case. Mr. Sytnik has not mentioned the case for over two months. There are rumors of a lucrative secret deal between Mr. Sytnik and Mr. Kolomoisky to keep the case under wraps.

    Then there is the case of the large energy company Zaporozhye Oblenergo, one of the first actions initiated by NABU after its creation. The estimate of internal losses resulting from corruption is $12.8 million. Shareholders of the company include the oligarchs, the Surkis brothers, one of whom is the president of the famed Kiev soccer club Dynamo. According to parliamentary member Serhiy Leshchenko, appointments in power companies run by the Surkis brothers are vetted by Igor Kononenko, deputy chairman of the faction loyal to President Petro Poroshenko.

    Again, Mr. Sytnik and his office have not mentioned the situation for over six months, blocking the prosecution of one his first high-profile cases. Again, there are whispers of large bribes being paid to stop NABU in its tracks.

    Now a public feud between NABU and NAPC has erupted after a review of Mr. Sytnik’s activities was initiated by NAPC. Mr. Sytnik responded by launching a probe of NAPC’s chief, Natalia Korczak. Both sides subsequently hurled confrontations, threats, lawsuits and allegations. As the infighting continues, any momentum to fight corruption in Ukrainian society seems to be lost.

    An audio recording has come to light in which Mr. Sytnik disparages NAPC in comments to a colleague. Mr. Sytnik confirmed the conversation took place. NABU also has leaked classified information, causing possible legal problems for the agency and its leader. Calls for Mr. Sytnik’s resignation have begun to be heard, in Ukrainian public circles and in Western embassies in Kiev.

    The West may very well push to replace the leadership at NABU with more impartial figures in order to preserve the agency’s future capability, or even existence.

    The alleged corruption in the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office has been widely discussed in Washington, Brussels and Kiev. It now seems the anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine also deserve more scrutiny. The Ukrainian people deserve as much. The fate of future aid from international agencies also rests on Ukraine’s ability to put the legacy of Soviet corruption behind it.

    I wonder if that invitation from Mr. Sytnik still stands.

    L. Todd Wood is a former special operations helicopter pilot and Wall Street debt trader, and has contributed to Fox Business, The Moscow Times, National Review, the New York Post and many other publications. He can be reached through his website, LToddWood.com.


  • Jack 3:11 am on November 27, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: ebola virus, , , news one, red crescent, red cross,   

    Donation Theft 

    An internal investigation at the Red Cross revealed that nearly $6 million in funds that were allocated to fight the Ebola crisis were stolen and wasted by corrupt employees at the organization and other culprits, NBC News reported.

    According to the news outlet, a probe was launched by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies surrounding how the organization managed $124 million in funds that were donated between 2014 and 2016. The money was supposed to go towards combating the disease that was rapidly spreading throughout African countries that included Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.

    During the investigation, it was discovered that at least 2.13 million Swiss francs went missing during a transaction between the Red Cross and a Sierra Leone-based bank due to an inaccurate exchange rate. Similar things occurred in Liberia and Guinea where large amounts of money went missing due to illegal billing practices and fraudulent increased prices for relief items and staff and volunteer payroll. According to the news outlet, there were 1.17 million Swiss francs lost in Guinea and 2.7 million Swiss francs lost in Liberia.

    Red Cross representatives were disheartened by the findings of the investigation and plans to take the necessary steps towards battling fraud within the organization. The organization will now have auditors travel with relief staff in the case of an epidemic or natural disaster and stricter spending limits will be implemented.

    “We are pursuing every possible avenue to reclaim all funds that have been misappropriated, diverted, or otherwise illegally taken. This includes working with authorities in affected countries and elsewhere as appropriate,” IFRC undersecretary general for partnerships Dr. Jemilah Mahmood told NBC News. She also added that the individuals that were involved will be held accountable and she hopes that these incidents don’t overshadow the organization’s efforts to provide relief. She stated that the organization played a “critical and widely recognized role in containing and ending the outbreak.”

    The Ebola virus claimed the lives of over 11,000 individuals in the three countries that were impacted by fraud.


    World Health Organization Confirms 2 More Ebola Cases In Congo Outbreak

    Doctors Discover New Ebola Case In Sierra Leone


  • Jack 2:41 pm on November 24, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: baltimore police, david mcfadden, dirty cops, sean suiter, , ,   

    Terrible News 

    BALTIMORE (AP) — A Baltimore detective killed by a gunman last week was slain a day before he was set to testify in a corruption probe into activities of indicted officers, the city’s police commissioner confirmed Wednesday.

    Commissioner Kevin Davis announced the news to reporters a week after the detective was shot in the head in a West Baltimore vacant lot. Rumors have been running rampant about the unsolved slaying of Detective Sean Suiter.

    The police commissioner’s latest revelation will do little to quell speculation. Davis emphasized that Suiter was not the target of any criminal investigation, but he was scheduled to testify before a grand jury “the day after he was murdered.”

    The Baltimore police and the FBI do not have any evidence to suggest that Suiter’s slaying is “part of any conspiracy,” according to Davis. But he added “there’s nothing we won’t consider” and said he understands why there is speculation.

    “It certainly makes for great theater,” Davis said.

    The federal grand jury is investigating a group of Baltimore officers who worked together on a firearms crime task force and have been charged with stealing money, property and narcotics from people over two years. An indictment has described the members of the Gun Trace Task Force, a small unit dedicated to getting illegal guns off Baltimore’s streets, as using their position to allegedly threaten the innocent, detain people on false pretenses and steal their money. They are also accused of faking police reports, lying to investigators and defrauding their department.

    Davis emphasized that the evidence collected in Suiter’s unsolved killing points to a “spontaneous encounter” the homicide detective had with a suspicious man he observed while working in a high-crime neighborhood with his partner. Evidence indicates a violent struggle, Davis said, including a roughly three-second-long radio transmission in which what seem to be gunshots are heard and Suiter appears to be in distress.

    Investigators have recovered the detective’s gun from the gritty lot where he was shot and have determined that the 18-year veteran of the department was shot with his own weapon. Ballistic tests show that recovered shell casings were matched to the recovered firearm.

    An autopsy conducted four days after the attack showed that the gunshot was fired in “close contact” to Suiter’s head, Davis said.

    Davis knocked down speculation that Suiter’s partner might have somehow been involved.

    “The fact that we have not yet made an arrest creates an environment for rumors to flourish,” he said, adding that “many people” have been interviewed and interrogated.

    A reward of $215,000 is being offered for information leading to the arrest of the person who killed Suiter.


    David McFadden on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dmcfadd


  • Jack 3:21 am on November 24, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , kim jong un, , north korean border security, north korean poliics, norther korean dictatorship, , ,   

    Of Course 

    NORTH Korea has switched out ALL border guards at the demilitarised zone (DMZ) with South Korea as a furious Kim Jong-un comes to terms with this month’s humiliating defection.

    North Korea suffered acute embarrassment on November 13 when a border guard fled first by jeep and then on foot across the joint security area (JSA) with South Korea.

    The defector, identified only by his surname Oh, sped in a jeep towards the South before losing control and crashing into a ditch. He sprinted the final few metres as North Korea guards opened fire.

    Now those border guards are believed to be taking the full force of Kim Jong-un’s fury for the incident – with all believed to have lost their positions.

    Yonhap News, a Seoul-based news agency, believes all border guards have been replaced at the border in a huge security overhaul.

    And they said an intelligence source had told them the guards were also in danger of cruel punishment at the hands of Kim’s security agents.

    The unnamed source told the agency: “Signs were detected that North Korea has replaced all border security officials following the defection.

    “Given this situation, commanders of the responsible military unit and senior officers might have undergone punishment.”

    Four of those guards punished breached the rules of the 1953 Armistice Agreement, the news agency said.

    It said: “The United Nations Command said Wednesday that North Korea clearly violated the 1953 Armistice Agreement twice last week when its border guards tried to hunt down the soldier fleeing to South Korea via the truce village of Panmunjom.

    “Four armed North Korean guards chased the defector, who tried to dash toward the South. He was shot five times and some of the gunshots flew over the Military Demarcation Line (MDL).

    “A North Korean guard also crossed the MDL for a few seconds and then returned to the North’s side.”

    The source also claimed North Korea is now tightening its screening of those entering and leaving the demilitarised zone as well as other aspects of security in the joint security area.

    The news agency said: “The intelligence source also said that North Korea appears to have temporarily closed the so-called 72-hour bridge, over which the defector drove the jeep at high speed to reach the northern side of the JSA.”


  • Jack 3:25 am on November 16, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , john bolton, , taryn tarrant-cornish, , , weapons smuggling   


    NORTH Korean weapons were seized aboard Iranian smuggling ships as authorities seek to stamp out smuggling, a UN report has revealed.

    The weapons were on their way to war-torn Somalia when they were caught by an inspection looking for contraband.

    A UN diplomat earlier asked: “Why are Iranian and North Korean small arms finding their way into Somalia from Libya? Do they date from before the arms embargoes (against both North Korea and Iran)? How did they get there from Libya?

    “It certainly emphasises the point that Somalia is a country awash with arms and still very fragile.”

    It is believed the weapons were sent by Iran in an attempt to arm militants fighting in Somalia.

    The ships were intercepted in the Arabian Sea by a French vessel.

    The Type 73 machine guns were manufactured in the prison country before being sold to Iran between 1970 and 1980.

    The hermit kingdom has repeatedly taken part in a series of illegal activities to fund its nuclear and missile programmes.

    Kim Jong-un’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung sanctioned the production of opium and other drugs, including fake prescription medicine.

    In 2001 the income from these activities was estimated to be as high as £800,000 ($1billion).

    The news follows shocking claims that Kim Jong-un was prepared to sell nuclear weapons to “anybody with hard currency” including to Iran and terrorist groups, an ex-UN ambassador has claimed.

    John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, said North Korea could also sell nuclear weapons to aspiring nuclear powers unless the rogue nation was stopped.

    North Korea has continued with its development of a nuclear weapons arsenal despite international condemnation.

    After the rogue state’s despot leader Kim Jong-un started a furious war of words with US President Donald Trump fears of the possible outbreak of World War 3 intensified.

    Mr Bolton added his “preferred outcome” to the growing US-North Korea crisis would be to “reunite the two Koreas” but conceded talks with the hermit state would be a “complete non-starter.

    He said: “My preferred outcome is to reunite the two Koreas. That wouldn’t happen overnight.

    “There are a variety of possibilities, one possibility is the Chinese said ‘we’re doing all we can, why don’t you sit down and negotiate with the North Koreans’, which is a complete non-starter in my view.

    “I think then the outcome is nearly certain that North Korea will get nuclear weapons and not just North Korea since they’ll sell to anybody with hard currency, Iran, terrorist groups, other aspiring nuclear powers.

    “That’s why the resolution of the North Korea issue is so important because the proliferation impact of North Korea visibly getting nuclear weapons around the world would be considerable.”


  • Jack 2:48 am on November 14, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: brooke crothers, computer hacking, , google search results, , mail fishing, , seo   

    Banking Online 

    According to a blog post by Cisco-owned Talos, the Zeus Panda malware essentially “poisons” Google search results to push fake bank-related results to the top of a key word search. Then, the unwary user, looking for quick answers to a search related to their bank, is fooled into clicking on malicious links.

    The malware utilizes search engine optimization (SEO) “to make their malicious links more prevalent in the search results…[which] will enable the attacker to quickly obtain credentials, banking and credit card information,” Talos said.

    “[It’s] a clever way…to serve malicious files,” a spokesperson for the internet security firm Avast told Fox News. “Although it’s not completely new, it’s rarely seen as a mechanism of spreading malware such as banking Trojans.”

    Computer security website Bleeping Computer covered the malware in a recent post.

    “This group has taken a novel approach, never before seen in the distribution of banking Trojans,” Bleeping Computer wrote.

    The ultimate goal is to trick you into going to the hacked site, then redirecting you until you reach a site offering a Microsoft Word document for download, according to Talos.

    “Ironically we have observed the same redirection system and associated infrastructure used to direct victims to tech support and fake [anti-virus] scams,” Talos added.

    So far, the malware seems to be targeting customers in Sweden, India, Australia and Saudi Arabia. But that’s never stopped successful malware from spreading to other countries.

    How to protect yourself

    Malware often needs you to proactively click on links and buttons. In this case when the Microsoft Word document is opened, it prompts pop-ups such as “Enable Editing,” “Enable Content” and “Macros have been disabled.” If you do enable the macro, an executable download will infect your system.

    The biggest red flag you’ll get is from Microsoft itself. By default, macros are disabled. And Microsoft wants you to keep it that way to protect you from documents coming from untrusted sources.

    Avast told Fox News that it is currently “blocking most of these sites, [which] prevents users from being infected.”

    “Defending against this attack requires not only vigilance by companies to make sure the sites and servers are compromised, but that consumers pay attention to what they are clicking on and not enabling macros or open unknown attachments,” according to a post at SC Media, a cybersecurity website.


  • Jack 2:36 pm on November 13, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , criminal conspiracy, , , , , , , , , , jed babbin, , , , , , , , ,   


    Presidential elections come and go. Some cause great wounds that take years, sometimes decades, to heal. Last year’s election caused some deep injuries and revealed still more that we hadn’t been aware of until the furious fighting was even under way.

    Don’t get me wrong: 2016 wasn’t 1860. But we have to realize that we went into 2016 more divided, more balkanized than we had been in generations. In eight years, Barack Obama had not only divided the nation, he had seeded every part of the government with loyalists. From the judiciary to the Pentagon and the intelligence community, people dedicated to Obama’s radical left agenda were put in place.

    What’s more, the entrenched bureaucracy — it’s called the “deep state” in current lingo — had its natural cravings for power unleashed, its denizens herded — faster and faster — to achieve his agenda.

    Three wounds, created or revealed in 2016, have become infected, and the infections are not yet cured. First is the so-called “Russia dossier,” which became the basis for the Robert Mueller investigation that is running away in the manner that Lawrence Walsh’s “Iran Contra” investigation did. The second is the “Uranium One” scandal, which the media still try to bury. And the third is the fact that Hillary Clinton and her closest staff, such as Huma Abedin, committed felonies in handling classified information. The then-FBI Director James Comey saw the proofs of their actions and nevertheless decided to protect them from punishment.

    There is every reason not to write about these scandals, especially considering the enormous amount that has already been written. So why try now?

    Simply because the three all flow together in a symphony of corruption, misgovernment, and media misbehavior that cannot be ignored.

    Let’s start with the “Russia dossier,” created for a company called Fusion GPS by one Christopher Steele, reputedly a former British spy.

    Let’s set aside the fact that Mr. Steele, or whatever his real name is, is probably as much a “former British spy” as Valerie Plame was a CIA spy. The more important facts are that a Republican opponent of Donald Trump’s candidacy hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump some time in 2015.

    We still don’t know who that Trump opponent was. At some time in 2016, he/they stopped the funding of Fusion GPS’s efforts. Hillary Clinton’s campaign stepped in and reportedly paid — through the Perkins Coie law firm — several million dollars to continue Fusion GPS’s work.

    The final product implied collusion between the Russian government and both Trump and Trump’s campaign. It also made allegations of dirt on Trump such as him cavorting with Russian prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. Trump and his campaign team have always vigorously denied any such cavorting, collaboration, or collusion with Russia.

    The dossier also claimed that the Russian government tried to interfere in our election, which is no surprise to anyone. The only surprise was the innovative ways the Russians undertook to do it through social media.

    During the campaign, Hillary Clinton made much of the fact that someone, perhaps the Russians, intercepted emails or invaded email servers to expose embarrassing (to her) information. Clinton and her campaign insisted that Putin had a vendetta against her for her criticism of him, which was the reason the Russians interfered in the election to benefit Trump.

    The dossier was leaked and became a huge issue in the campaign, beginning in about September 2016.

    Though Putin may have disliked Clinton, because — as we shall see in a moment — she was bought and paid for, he would have vastly preferred her to Trump who, at best, was an unknown quantity. Putin — personally and through his placeholder Dmitri Medvedev — had taken her measure and knew enough about her and her politics to understand that he could rely on her to continue Obama’s failures to contain or end Russian aggression in places such as Ukraine and Syria. To believe Putin preferred Trump to her was, and is, preposterous.

    In January 2017, Sen. John McCain admitted that it was he who passed the dossier on to FBI Director Comey in 2016. Not to the FBI: to Comey directly.

    On January 6, 2017, according to Comey’s congressional testimony last June, he and other leaders of the intelligence community briefed Trump on the dossier and informed him of its imminent release (even though, as Kim Strassel reported in the Wall Street Journal, Steele had briefed U.S. reporters on it in September 2016). Comey also testified that, after that meeting, Trump asked him to stop the ongoing investigation of then-national security advisor Gen. Michael Flynn.

    When Comey declined to do so, Trump fired him. Months prior to the firing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from any investigation of the campaign, in which he had played a significant role. Comey published a memo about the conversation with Trump which he said was intended to cause Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel to investigate collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Rosenstein appointed Comey’s close friend Robert Mueller as special counsel.

    Mueller has, so far, obtained indictments of Paul Manafort, once Trump’s campaign manager, and Rick Gates (a Manafort associate) for crimes unrelated to any collusion with Russia. He has also obtained a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign advisor, for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.

    Leaks, probably from the Mueller investigation, say that he is soon to indict Flynn and possibly Flynn’s son on a variety of charges.

    Trump, after meeting briefly with Putin in Vietnam, last week insisted that he believed Putin’s denials of any interference in our election. He also called Obama’s leadership of the intelligence community “political hacks.” Last year, they — former CIA director John Brennan and former director of national intelligence James Clapper — had declared that Russia had interfered in the election and condemned the leak of the Russia dossier.

    In February, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had planned — weeks before the election — to pay Fusion GPS to continue its research into Trump, but that deal had fallen through.

    Another aspect of the Russian dossier is the allegation that Fusion GPS had bribed reporters to write and broadcast news about the dossier. There is no evidence to suggest that the FBI is investigating that allegation, which has been raised by congressional investigators. Fusion GPS has, so far, concealed from Congress the bank records that might show payments to reporters.

    Another festering wound is the FBI’s — Comey’s — handling of the Uranium One deal.

    In 2010, the Obama administration approved the sale of about 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets to a Russian entity, Uranium One. According to an October report in the Hill, before the deal was approved the FBI had uncovered a substantial amount of evidence that Russians “were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.”

    The approval was made by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, “CFIUS,” of which both the Justice Department and the State Department were members. Hillary Clinton denied any role in the approval.

    But the Clinton Foundation had received at least $2 million in donations from Russian interests around the time that the Uranium One deal was being made. Bill Clinton reportedly was paid $500,000 for a speech in Russia during that period.

    The FBI — Comey again — had to be involved in the CFIUS approval of the Uranium One deal. The FBI or the Justice Department could have, and obviously should have, stopped the deal before it was approved. Just as they — Comey — should have decided to prosecute Clinton for her crime of mishandling classified information dozens if not hundreds of times.

    During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton used a private email system — “Clintonmail.com” — instead of the State Department’s government system, evidently to conceal what was written from government eyes. That system wasn’t protected against email interceptions, I am informed, by even the rudimentary protections that Gmail provides.

    On that email system she and her staff routinely exchanged top-secret information. That information included information on special access programs — the top-secret covert operations based on special “presidential determinations” that involve espionage operations. It also included “SI/TK” materials — special intelligence/Talent Keyhole information — which is gathered by satellites the mere existence of which is classified.

    Sometime in 2016, then-attorney general Loretta Lynch instructed Comey to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter” rather than an investigation. Lynch then met privately with Bill Clinton in the infamous runway encounter in which we are told was an innocent meeting having nothing to do with the investigation.

    A few days later, in early July 2016, Comey held a press conference to declare that while Clinton and her staff had handled classified information with “extreme carelessness” there was no prosecutable case against any of them because, he said, there was no intent to damage the United States. But the relevant statute has nothing in it about intent.

    We now know that Comey had drafted a memorandum making that determination long before Clinton and her closest staff had even been interviewed.

    Comey had originally drafted the memo to say that Clinton and her staff had exchanged classified information in a “grossly negligent” manner. Title 18 US Code Section 793(f) uses the term to describe the crime, a felony that can be punished by a prison term of ten years for each violation, of mishandling classified information. It doesn’t require intent to damage the United States in the elements of the crime. Comey obviously changed the term he used to avoid the precise term used in the criminal statute.

    To those of us who have had security clearances enabling access to top-secret information, Clinton’s — and her staff’s — crimes are obvious and unforgivable. But none of these perpetrators have been investigated seriously for them. It’s beyond galling.

    Comey’s repeated actions have destroyed the credibility of the FBI. If we can’t trust the FBI, what can we trust?

    I knew Attorney General Sessions when he was a senator. We spoke occasionally, even after I left my post at Human Events. I haven’t spoken to him since he became involved in the Trump campaign. He has said that he has no reason to investigate Clinton and company further.

    But why? Why isn’t Comey being investigated for his role in the Uranium One deal? Why isn’t Clinton being investigated and prosecuted for her email trafficking in top-secret information and how the Clinton Foundation received what appear to be bribes in the Uranium One deal?

    We don’t, like a banana republic, prosecute people for political actions. But this is vastly different. There would be no prosecution of Clinton for any political act in any of these possible prosecutions.

    Comey probably isn’t guilty of obstruction of justice. The obstruction statute requires someone to, either by corruption or threat, preventing the administration of justice. He’s not dumb enough to have taken bribes, and didn’t use threats to obtain the results he wanted. But he is guilty of using his position for political ends.

    Attorney General Sessions must act. Crimes have been committed, serious crimes, that undermine our laws and our system of government. It all comes back to James Comey. He could, at least, be a witness for the prosecution.


  • Jack 4:03 pm on November 3, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   

    Organized Crime? 

    Hours before leaving the U.S. for his trip to Asia, President Donald Trump gave a wide-ranging interview on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” Thursday night, revealing his thoughts on this week’s terror attack in New York City and the campaign actions of the Democratic National Committee.

    Trump responded to claims from former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile alleging that the committee rigged last year’s Democratic presidential primary between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

    “It’s illegal, number one, and it’s really unfair to Bernie Sanders,” Trump said of the Vermont senator. “I’m not a Bernie Sanders fan, although I must say I got a lot of his votes when he was thrown out. Many of those people voted for me because of trade because I agreed with him on trade. … But that was, I thought that was terrible.”

    Trump slams Dems for the lottery-based diversity visa program

    Trump also responded to recent revelations that the Democratic National Committee — along with the Clinton campaign — funded the now-infamous “opposition research” dossier released last January. The president called the findings “absolutely inconceivable.”

    “That dossier, which is totally fake and made up it’s like a novel … is a disgrace and it should not have been allowed to be used and then I hear the kind of money they spent,” Trump said, referring to reports Democrats paid as much as $9 million on it. “I think it’s a disgrace that a thing like that can take place.”


    After Tuesday’s terror attack in Lower Manhattan, allegedly carried out by a man from Uzbekistan — whom Trump called a “horrible animal” — who was granted a green card through the Diversity Visa Program, Trump called for Congress to end the lottery-based immigration program.

    Democrats and the dossier

    “The justice system has to go quicker and it has to be really stronger and fairer,” the president said, one day after he referred to the U.S. justice system as a “laughingstock” and a “joke.”

    “It’s very sad when you look at a lottery system and you have people coming into the country through the form of a lottery,” Trump said. “The countries aren’t putting their finest in there, they’re not putting their best and their greatest and their finest in there.”

    Trump added he’s “already instructed Congress” to bring the Diversity Visa Program to an end.


    Jumping to Trump’s tax reform plan, the president says his proposed tax cuts are “the biggest cuts in the history of our country.”

    “We have reform and we have simplification and honestly I’m surprised a little bit to hear what you’re saying because we’ve really gotten great reviews people are loving it,” Trump said when he was told he was getting criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.

    He alluded to a Washington Post report that recently gave Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., “four Pinocchios” for “not telling the truth” about the tax plan, which Trump said is “really not for the rich, it’s for the middle class and it’s for jobs.”


    See Also:

    (1) Former Sanders surrogates pounce on the DNC after Donna Brazile’s bombshell reveal of a Clinton takeover

    (2) Clintons Now Involved in 3 ‘Watergate-Level’ Scandals

    (3) Trump: Why isn’t DOJ investigating Clinton rigging of 2016 primary?

    (4) Donna Brazile Comes Clean After Doing Bernie Sanders Dirty

    (5) Sayfullo Saipov, Winner of Chuck Schumer’s Diversity Lottery

    (6) Rep. DeSantis: ‘We Know Now Without a Shadow of a Doubt’ Hillary and Democrats Colluded with Russia


  • Jack 3:07 am on November 2, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , elliot friedland, , , , , , nyc attack, , , ,   

    NYC Aftermath 

    Tuesday’s terrorist attack in New York was carried out by a 29-year-old man who rented a Home Depot truck and drove it onto a bike path. Such forms of attack are extremely simple to carry out. They need no planning, no coordination with a central organization and are not difficult to obtain equipment.

    They are therefore impossible to completely stop with security measures alone.

    Counter-extremism organization the Quilliam Foundation said of the attack:

    “This unfortunate incident once again highlights the importance of focusing resources on deradicalization work and implementing a better strategy to prevent extremism, as incidents of this nature are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for security services to predict and stop.”

    New York is not unguarded. Entering the United States requires extensive security checks. Immigration from countries like Uzbekistan (the nationality of the terrorist) is complex and requires background checks.

    Not only that, but once an attack is underway there are armed police everywhere. In this case, the terrorist was shot very promptly at the scene by a nearby uniformed officer.

    The FBI and CIA carry out extensive surveillance operations around the world. They monitor correspondence, tap phone conversations and pay informants. They have spies inside foreign governments and inside terrorist organizations. They have reconnaissance satellites in space.

    America’s security services work tirelessly to protect the country from every conceivable foe, and most of the time they succeed. The United States government spends over $16 billion annually to counter terrorism. They can even use drones to kill any designated target pretty much anywhere in the world.

    But with all this technology and money, they cannot read people’s minds and cannot prevent someone from just deciding to run people over with a truck.

    People decide to carry out attacks like that in the name of an ideology. An ideology they find powerful enough to die for it. All the security in the world cannot prevent individuals who believe in something from acting in the name of that belief: That killing random civilians will trigger the war between Muslims and the West that they crave and enable them to usher in a totalitarian caliphate.

    They will always find new ways to attack and new ways to hide because it simply isn’t possible to eliminate every potential avenue of terror.

    The only way to end radical Islamic terrorism once and for all is to discredit the ideology which fuels it.


    See Also:

    (1) NYC Terrorist: Lone Wolf … or Not?

  • Jack 3:18 pm on October 30, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , , info wars, , jerome corsi, , paul manafort, , , ,   

    Botched Already?* 

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s case is in danger of being thrown out of court when the FBI is forced to admit FISA court authority to conduct electronic surveillance on former Trump campaign Paul Manafort was based on the fraudulent Fusion GPS “Russia dossier” that the FBI, the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic National Committee paid to be produced.

    On Sept. 19, 2017, CNN reported that U.S. investigators conducted electronic surveillance on Manafort both before and after the election under a FISA court warrant.

    The CNN article cites only unnamed sources, strongly suggesting the leak was based on an illegal leak to the press that could end up being traced back to the FBI, to Mueller’s Special Counselor office, or to both.

    Under the “fruit of the poison tree doctrine” established by the Supreme Court in Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure cases, the FBI and/or Mueller may have compromised their entire investigation of Paul Manafort by either using the fraudulent “Russia dossier” paid for in part by the FBI, or by illegally leaking information derived from the FISA-authorized electronic surveillance to CNN and other mainstream media publications known to be partisan “Never Trump” mouthpieces.

    CNN reported the secret FISA warrant was obtained after Manafort became the subject of the FBI investigation that began as early as 2014 under then FBI Director James Comey, and centered upon work Manafort conducted consulting with Ukraine.

    “Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive,” CNN reported.

    “Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which is leading the investigation into Russia’s involvement in the election, has been provided details of these communications,” the CNN report stressed.



    (*) Did Mueller’s Team Violate Manafort’s Constitutional Rights? They May Have.

    See Also:

    (1) Exclusive: Manafort Indicted As Cover For Democrat Russia Crimes

    (2) After First Indictments, Still No Evidence of Trump Collusion with Russia

    (3) Robert Mueller’s Questionable Timing in First ‘Russia’ Indictments

    (4) Trump, GOP leaders: Manafort charges no relation to campaign, alleged ‘collusion’

    (5) Manafort, Gates plead not guilty in grand jury indictment

    (6) What Did Dems Know About Dossier? Their Handling Of Imran Awan Affair Is Instructive

    (7) Honeypot: Was the Trump Camp’s Meeting With Russian Lawyer All a Clinton Set-Up?

    (8) Who is Rick Gates, the Campaign Aide Indicted Along with Manafort?

    (9) George Papadopoulos, former policy adviser for Trump campaign, pleads guilty to lying to the FBI

    (10) Paul Manafort judges: Who are Deborah A. Robinson and Amy Berman Jackson?

    • Jack 4:57 pm on October 30, 2017 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Off Topic: I just deactivated the comment system I was using because it has a serious security problem. This one should be alright.

    • Northern Phoenix 3:39 pm on October 30, 2017 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      “To be clear”…I am not a big fan of Alex Jones. Most days I find he goes way over the top with rabid conspiracy theories but today I think he hit pay dirt. I will add that if the Jones information is accurate (and I believe it to be so) Manafort is already off the hook because of the tainted evidence which was used to obtain the indictment and if THAT turns out to be true Robert Mueller, in his panic to appease a slobbering media that smells blood (his blood), may have just indicted himself. What a turn of events that would be.

      Time will tell.

  • Jack 3:03 am on October 30, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: brad hunter, , , , ,   


    On a warm Sunday, October afternoon, the kind of fall day when it seems anything is possible, I went to a funeral.

    I knew the dead man by proxy. I never met him.

    One of those things a dutiful partner does because it’s the right thing to do.

    He was dead at 36.


    Another casualty of the opioid epidemic ravaging cities and towns alike.

    Last summer a hometown buddy told me his daughter’s friend, 14 at the time, with her whole life in front of her was having a limited-time engagement at a local funeral parlour.

    Popped a pill at a party. Didn’t know. Dead.

    I was ahead of the curve on the whole opioid epidemic.

    In 2004, I was sent to rugged Appalachia to do a story on something called Oxycontin or as cops called it, Hillbilly Heroin.

    Huge swaths of rural West Virginia, western Pennsylvania, Kentucky and other luckless podunk towns were being ravaged by the deadly new drug.

    Main Street — they all had Main Streets — looked like the zombie-fied set of The Walking Dead. Stiletto-thin with lifeless eyes, the addicts’ faces told a heart-stopping tale of misery.

    Loved ones spilled their guts, telling me of their despair of not being able to get help. Standing over their child’s coffin.

    Now, the days of the Oxycontin plague seem like a trip to Canada’s Wonderland.

    The latest viral death machine started in Canada on the west coast, as these things frequently do.

    Wave after wave of the killer pharmaceutical fentanyl began hitting our shores, courtesy of clandestine labs in China, aided and abetted by the greedy and cruel here. And the bodies began piling up: in suburban homes, downtown alleys and in the morgue.

    What’s being sold is murder.

    Cash has no conscience.

    Up to the end of July this year, 368 people had died of fentanyl overdoses in British Columbia. The death toll in Canada last year was nearly 3,000.

    This year will be worse.

    Now, the judiciary appears to have had enough as broken family after broken family trudge their way to court and watch as their child’s killer takes a tap on the wrist. No more.

    Joshua Eyamie-Binks, 31, and Cortney Rattray-Johnson, 27, of Ottawa, cried crocodile tears as they pleaded guilty to selling fentanyl. He got a 10-year jolt in the Big House, she went down for an eight spot last summer.

    Greasy Todd Dube, 22, a frequent flier in the criminal justice system got sorted with nine years in the slammer for his fentanyl flirtation in Edmonton.

    Kristy Dyroff saw her son, Wesley Greer’s corpse put in a bodybag, the child she had nurtured was now cold as ice. She has pushed the courts to hit fentanyl dealers with manslaughter charges when a death is involved.

    “When I read his death certificate and it said ‘homicide,’ it changed everything in my mind,” the Georgia woman told the Orlando Sentinel. “I had to make sure whoever did this had to be stopped.”

    She is also tackling websites selling the poison.

    “I think… Wesley would be proud of his mother,” she said through her tears.



    (*) Carfentanil: Canada’s drug of mass destruction

    See Also:

    (1) Police report five fatal overdoses in one day in Abbotsford, B.C.

    (2) The Chinese connection fueling America’s fentanyl crisis

    (3) Synthetic Fentanyl Deaths Rise in Americans Opioid Epidemic

    (4) This Is the New Threat Driving the Opioid Crisis

    (5) Opioid Arrest: Insys Therapeutics founder indicted

    (6) Opioid crisis: Sellers tout prescription drugs on social media

    (7) 1-year-old dies after ingesting powerful synthetic opioid

    (8) Deadly opioid epidemic that is crippling the US is set to spread to Europe

    (9) Walgreens now sells overdose antidote over-the-counter without a prescription as the US battles deadly drug epidemic

    (10) Doctor admits accepting nearly $200,000 in kickbacks to illegally prescribe fentanyl spray to patients who did not need it

  • Jack 3:02 am on October 30, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , , , , , prince george, royal family, thomas mackie,   

    He’s a Child! 

    ISIS has threatened to kill Prince George on a social media platform labelled by cyber-security experts as a “breeding ground” for terrorists.

    Using the encrypted instant messaging app Telegram the terrorists said: “Even the royal family will not be left alone.”

    The brain-washed ISIS followers chilling added a picture of Prince George next to his school, Thomas’s Battersea, in south London, according to the Daily Star Sunday.

    There was a national outcry on social media as the news broke of the sick plot. Britons took to twitter to declare their outrage.

    One wrote: “There are threats to kill Prince George?! Wtf he’s just a child!!! What is wrong with some people?!”

    Another wrote: “Where is the National outrage at the discovery of a plot by ISIS to assassinate Prince George? What the f*** is wrong with this country?”

    Milica Delrey said: “I hope Prince George is safe and sound, he is just a little child, damn.”

    Stephen Curl said: “A plot to kill any child is evil”.

    Alex Bus wrote on Twitter: “Some twisted people about. Wanting to murder a child.

    “I pray and hope nothing that sickening ever happens to our Prince George.”

    The four-year-old’s photo was posted on the messaging app with the caption “school starts early”.

    The vile post also included Arabic words taken from a jihadi song which translates as “when war comes with the melody of bullets, we descend on disbelief, desiring retaliation”.

    British intelligence have been heavily monitoring the anonymous messaging service in an effort to stop potential terror attacks in the UK.

    Cyber-security experts said it it was critical to keep monitoring the service and warned the Telegram app was a “breeding ground” for terrorists.

    Barry Spielman, whose internet surveillance company, Sixgill, has been tracking Telegram channels since the start of the year, said: “Our intelligence suggests that these threats are to be taken seriously.

    “Over the last 12 months, we have seen both official and non-official Isis channels move over to Telegram.

    “It’s an encrypted platform, making it a lot safer to communicate without being traced.

    “We used to just track the Dark Web and Deep Web but now we are tracking Telegram.”

    It comes as people living and working near the future king’s school have also raised concerns about security at Thomas’s Battersea after a woman filmed herself walking through the corridors unchallenged.

    Sarah Burnett-Moore walked into the £17,600-a-year private school, days before the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s four-year-old son started on September 7th.

    She said the lack of security at the private schools “astonishing.”

    The 54-year-old doctor said: “I could have walked in with an IED and set it to go off.

    “I live just 200 metres from the school and myself and lots of neighbours are worried about the security implications of the prince’s presence will make the area a target for attacks.”

    Mr Spielman said his firm has uncovered plans by ISIS to arm drones for a possible attack.

    He warned: “Now we are seeing explicit threats.

    “It seems that as ISIS continues to lose ground in Syria and Iraq, it has stepped up its threats to hit the West.

    “This threat to Prince George is chilling.

    “We have also seen evidence terrorists are planning a strike at the World Cup in Russia.

    “These are very worrying times and it is critical we try to uncover these plots.

    “Telegram is where many of them are being hatched as we speak.”

    Meanwhile, a British Muslim convert, Jack Letts has been charged with being a member of ISIS after being captured in Syria.

    Jack Letts, from Oxford, was caught by Kurdish forces in May after fleeing the ISIS stronghold city of Raqqa earlier this year

    The son of an Oxford farmer who converted to Islam and travelled to Syria, he has been charged with being a member of ISIS.

    Letts – known as ‘Jihadi Jack’ – was captured by Kurdish forces after fleeing Raqqa, which was then the group’s de facto capital, earlier this year.

    In a statement given to the BBC, the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (DFNS) said Letts had been taken to a prison in Qamishli, in north-eastern Syria, on the Turkish border.


  • Jack 2:48 am on October 28, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , russian crime, , , , yulia tymoshenko   

    Freedom Denied 


    Corruption in Ukraine is not exactly a fresh news story, but I don’t think most people understand the depths of the problem.

    As President Petro Poroshenko pleads with the Trump administration for aid and weapons under pressure from the Russian bear, it seems the machinery of government below him is engaged in an orgy of illegal activity. The picture is one better suited to 1920s Chicago than to a developing country in Europe, particularly one demanding Western largesse and support.

    In May, two dozen heads of regional tax administrations employed under ousted President Viktor Yanukovych were detained and flown to the international airport in Kyiv and then transferred to the domestic airport by helicopter in a big, expensive show produced for the television cameras. The showy event was the culmination of a campaign by Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko to highlight the successes of his agency. The spectacle was arranged by Chief Military Prosecutor Anatoly Matsios. It is interesting to note the case had nothing to do with military affairs and should have been beyond Mr. Matsios’ purview. The reason this is important becomes clear later.

    The suspects were charged with severe crimes against the Ukrainian people, essentially embezzling money to enrich themselves. One of those detained was the ex-head of the State Tax Administration of the Kharkiv region, Stanislav Denisyuk.

    But now, 20 of the suspects have already been released. Anti-corruption watchdogs in Ukraine charge that the military prosecutor used intermediaries to extort money from the detainees, easing the way for their quick release.

    Mr. Denisyuk’s case is interesting because he was dismissed from his position due to a staff reduction and suspended from his duties during the period in which the alleged crimes took place. It seems his real crime was becoming aware of corruption in the activities of those above him at the time — yes, you guessed it, Mr. Matios.

    Mr. Denisyuk’s family tells me they have been asked to pay $2 million to settle his case and obtain his release. They say they have audio recordings of the offer in which Mr. Matios and Mr. Lutsenko are mentioned as the offer is being made through an intermediary. Mr. Denisyuk’s family paid $200,000 and appealed to the Ukrainian inspector general to investigate the incident. At this point the money was returned. Mr. Denisyuk remains in prison. The intermediary was not detained and was even allowed to leave the country.

    The military prosecutor’s office in Ukraine is supposed to be investigating war crimes. In reality, these cases seem uninteresting to these officials.

    There’s the case of Mark Paslovsky, an American citizen who was fighting with the Donbass Battalion during the initial years of the conflict with Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. He gave $300,000 of his own money to buy drones to assist in the fight, but the equipment was never purchased. Mr. Paslovsky demanded the money back and was subsequently killed in a battle two days later in 2014. His business property in Ukraine was allegedly stolen after his death. The case remains unresolved.

    Mr. Matios’ position also remains a mystery. As a member of the disgraced Yanukovych regime, he was allowed to stay in government, perhaps owing to his wealth and importance to other officials in the Ukrainian government. He is alleged to control large financial flows which, again, are beyond the responsibility of the military prosecutor’s office.

    The bottom line is that the persistent corruption endemic to Soviet times has not been rooted out of Ukraine after a quarter-century of independence. In many ways, the situation is worse under Mr. Poroshenko than it was during the Yanukovych regime. Perhaps international organizations should make sure that significant progress is made cleaning up the situation before more hard-earned tax dollars are spent to support the Poroshenko government. This is not too much to ask.

    • L. Todd Wood is a former special operations helicopter pilot and Wall Street debt trader, and has contributed to Fox Business, The Moscow Times, National Review, the New York Post and many other publications. He can be reached through his website, LToddWood.com.


    See Also:

    (1) Recent Ukraine History…

    (2) A woman fights and loses

    (3) Car-Bomb Murders Terrify Ukraine’s Capital, and Many Suspect the Kremlin’s Behind Them

    (4) Apparent Assassination Attempt Injures Ukrainian Lawmaker, Kills 2 People

    (5) ‘Fundamental Differences’ Remain After NATO-Russia Council Meeting

  • Jack 2:34 pm on October 26, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: andrew mcabe, , , , , , , , , frank gaffney, , , john hayward, lorreta lynch, , , , , , , ,   

    Dirty Cop? 

    Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily to talk about the latest revelations regarding the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, the politicized Obama Justice Department, and actual collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign.

    Gaffney said the current news environment provided a “target-rich environment” for punditry, but was regrettably “hard on the country.”

    “I particularly am thinking of this dossier business and the attacks on Donald Trump that have been relentlessly pursued,” he said. “Interestingly enough, with the help – in some cases more than just help, the active participation – of some people who have prominently featured in an actual case of Russian collusion at the highest levels of the United States government.”

    “You can’t make this stuff up,” he exclaimed. “It’s an extraordinary tale. It’s worth exploring.”

    “There now seems to be, at long last, a willingness on the part of congressional Republicans – amazingly! – to conduct the kinds of investigations into this actual saga of collusion by Hillary Clinton, by Bill Clinton, apparently by the Democratic National Committee – and, by the way, by people like Robert Mueller, and James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, and Rod Rosenstein, and Eric Holder.”

    “These are people who have been prominently featured, either in condemning Donald Trump for the putative collusion of members of his campaign with the Russians, or are actively involved in the investigation thereof,” Gaffney explained. “The trouble is, I don’t see how a one of these people, if they’re not actually going to be subject to criminal prosecution – and I say that advisedly – at the very least are now completely incapable of performing an independent and honest investigation into these so-called allegations against Donald Trump.”

    Gaffney added that the latest developments in the story put another organization in the crosshairs: the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States or CFIUS.

    “It is an inter-agency group that has a critically important responsibility. That responsibility is to try to make sure that we are not selling off assets of this country that will have grievous national security implications. It’s got a whole cast of Cabinet officers as its members, including the Secretary of State, including the Secretary of the Treasury,” he said.

    “It turns out that as this so-called Uranium One transaction was being considered by CFIUS for approval – this was, of course, the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium stocks to the Russians – and the voting on that idea was going to be conducted by, among others, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder – then the Attorney General of the United States, she was the Secretary of State of course – Hillary Clinton was taking in, either personally or through her husband or through her foundation, $145 million dollars from Russian interests associated with this transaction,” he continued.

    “And Eric Holder knew that! The Mueller team knew it at the FBI, Comey, McCabe, others, and Rod Rosenstein. This is scandalous in the first order. They did nothing to prevent this transaction. It went through. The Clintons were enriched. We sold, I believe, national security assets in the form of this uranium to Russians,” Gaffney charged.

    “And CFIUS – get this – at the same time this was going down, a guy who was the staff director in effect of this organization, a fellow by the name of Amin Mir, is a Pakistani expat with sharia supremacist ties both personal and familial, including to the Muslim Brotherhood,” he added.

    “Now, you’ve just got to ask yourself, as the Pakistanis are all over this saga with the Capitol Hill Democrats IT scandal, who is in charge of actually monitoring what’s in the national security interests of the United States? Certainly not CFIUS. Certainly not the Attorney General, or the Secretary of State, or for that matter President Obama himself during this critical period of time,” he said.

    Gaffney called for “public hearings, as well as investigations,” which he deemed likely to result in “criminal prosecution of at least some of these individuals.”

    “At the bare minimum, they cannot in good faith proceed with their own investigations now underway – again, without evidence of actual collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians,” he said. “It is high time that the Washington Post get around to covering this. I’m delighted that they are. But let’s be honest, Raheem: this saga would not have gotten the attention that it has, finally, were it not for the work that you guys at Breitbart and the Daily Caller and others have been doing on it. It has to now go to the next step for sure on Capitol Hill.”

    On the crucial question of whether special counsel Robert Mueller has been compromised by the latest revelations, Gaffney replied, “Absolutely. Indisputably.”

    “Here’s the charge: he knew that Hillary Clinton and her circle were involved in what can only be described as a pay-to-play scheme, and he did not bring that information forward at the time that the scheme was being essentially blessed by this organization, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. That’s malfeasance, I believe. That is certainly incompatible with the kind of assignment and responsibilities he now has,” Gaffney contended.

    “There are lots of good people in the FBI, thank God,” he reflected. “But the leadership has been, I believe, corrupt for some time. Jim Comey, for example, has been called by many a ‘dirty cop.’ Bob Mueller has been shown now, I think, to be compromised. Andrew McCabe, for crying out loud, took money from Hillary Clinton’s best friend – through his wife, of course – $750,000 while he’s investigating Hillary Clinton. You just can’t make this stuff up.”

    “The people in the bowels of that bureau are poorly served, as is the country, by this kind of leadership,” he said. “It’s high time that Donald Trump cleans the place out, I think.”

    As another example of corruption, Gaffney cited the case of “this Pakistani national at the heart of the CFIUS process,” linking it to how “Imran Awan and his family were deeply tied to a number of these members of Congress through IT services.”

    “At the very time that the FBI is telling us that they’re satisfied – this is Jim Comey – that the Democratic National Committee’s computer services were penetrated by the Russians, it turns out that Imran Awan, who may have ties to Pakistani intelligence, by the way, had the passwords for Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s access to that system,” he said.

    Gaffney cited Republican representatives in an informal meeting saying there is “much more evidence of Pakistan’s intelligence service being involved in the compromise of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC and so on than there is of the Russians.”

    “And the FBI, under this corrupt leadership, claimed without actually investigating this computer system itself, the servers of the DNC itself – they took the word of, get this, a Russian-tied company that indeed it was Russian involvement, not somebody else’s,” he continued. “We’ve got so many strings to pull. We need rigorous congressional oversight. I pray the logjam is finally broken, that Paul Ryan will let that kind of work be done on the Hill, as it should have been long before now.”

    Kassam concluded by asking if it was time for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “un-recuse” himself from matters related to the 2016 election.

    “I think there’s plenty of things that he can do, including getting into the issues that we’ve just talked about now on Uranium One, for example, without un-recusing himself,” Gaffney replied. “Whether he can do that with respect to the rest of it, I just am not in a position to say.”

    “We need his leadership on certainly the evidence of Hillary Clinton’s collusion, and Bill Clinton’s and the Clinton team’s, with the Russians on Uranium One and so much more,” he added. “Skolkovo is another story which we’ll have to come back to some other day, I know. This is ripe for criminal investigation. We need it on the Hill, and probably in the Justice Department as well.”

    Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern.



    See Also:

    (1) Team Obama’s stunning cover-up of Russian crimes

    (2) Hillary Campaign, DNC Accused of Violating Election Law with Dossier Payments

  • Jack 2:36 pm on October 25, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: adam lanza, ashley collman, , , document release, , sandy hook massacre, , ,   


    Four years before the Sandy Hook shooting, a man says he overheard Adam Lanza threaten to murder his mother and students at the school, newly released FBI documents reveal.

    However, when the man told police they said there was nothing they could do.

    The FBI on Tuesday released more than 1,500 pages of documents related to its investigation of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 20 first-graders and six educators dead.

    The documents include reports by FBI agents who interviewed people about shooter Adam Lanza, who killed himself as police arrived at the school. Large portions of many of the documents were redacted, including the names of the people who spoke to the agents.

    The documents offer a window into the early days of the investigation, as agents chased false leads and gathered evidence of Lanza’s isolation. A year after the massacre, state police released a final investigative document that concluded Lanza was obsessed with firearms, death and mass shootings, but that the motive may never be known.

    One man who spoke to police said he heard Lanza threaten his mother sometime in December 2008.

    Lanza’s mother Nancy reportedly told the unidentified source that her son ‘had an assault weapon and that she was scared of him’.

    The source claimed Lanza said ‘he planned to kill his mother and children at Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut.’

    The man says he went to the Newtown Police to report the threats, but they told them there was nothing they could do since Lanza’s mother was the official owner of his weapons cache.

    The source also claimed that Lanza hated his mother and Sandy Hook because she had worked there.

    ‘Lanza apparently felt that his mother loved the students more than him,’ the source said, according to an interview summary.

    The reports also hint that Lanza may have been pedophile.

    FBI agents found a file on Lanza’s computer ‘advocating pedophiles’ rights and the liberation of children’ as well as a screenplay about a relationship between a 10-year-old boy and a 30-year-old man.

    The FBI’s behavioral analysis unit also assessed Lanza’s mental state and found that he ‘had an interest in children that could be categorized as pedophilia’.

    Another person who spoke to the FBI said Nancy Lanza had become concerned about her son before the shooting because he had become a ‘shut in’ who hadn’t gone anywhere in three months. Adam Lanza shot his mother dead in their home before going to the school on December 14, 2012. During that time he also dropped to just 85 pounds.

    The person also told the FBI agent that Lanza never completely accepted that he had Asperger’s syndrome, a condition on the autism spectrum, and never took any medication he was prescribed.

    ‘Nancy would take care of all of Adam’s needs,’ the person said. ‘However, she never cleaned his room, nor was allowed in his room. Adam’s room was his personal space that no one else was allowed into.’

    Lanza’s mother was apparently so dedicated to helping him that they had planned to move cross country to Seattle the following year. She apparently thought that a change of scenery would help her son.

    One person said that Lanza owned at least four guns and all were kept in a gunsafe in his closet. Another person said that Lanza had two rifles, but didn’t know about him having a pistol.

    A report by the Connecticut child advocate in 2014 concluded that Lanza’s autism spectrum disorder and other psychiatric problems did not cause or lead directly to the massacre.

    The report said Nancy Lanza rejected recommendations from Yale psychologists that her son be medicated and undergo rigorous treatment as a child for anxiety and other conditions. It also said Adam Lanza, his parents and educators contributed to his social isolation by not confronting his problems.

    Another person told the FBI that Lanza essentially had become a ‘recluse’ who shut himself in his bedroom and played video games all day. The person said Lanza had no friends, was computer savvy and became very interested in firearms.

    Another person called the FBI to say that her son had been playing Call of Duty: Black Ops online with someone the night before the shooting, who told him to ‘watch the news tomorrow’. The documents do not reveal whether the FBI confirmed Lanza was the person who made the comment.

    A woman who he met on a website devoted to the Columbine school shooting said Lanza used screen names to honor infamous school shooters like German gunman Tim Kretschmer and Canadian killer Kimveer Gill.

    Lanza was ‘the weirdest person online,’ the woman said.

    ‘He was singularly focused and obsessed with mass murders … Lanza devoted almost all his internet activity to researching and discussing mass murders and spree killings,’ read an FBI summary of the December 2012 interview.

    ‘Lanza spoke about school killings and those who committed them with respect and understanding.’

    She described him as depressed and cynical with a very negative view on life.

    Before the shooting, Lanza had withdrawn from social media, something he told the woman was his ‘virtual suicide’.

    When she learned he was responsible for the Sandy Hook shooting, the woman said she realized he was ‘more f***** up than I thought’

    Lanza shot the children and educators with an AR-15-style rifle that was legally purchased by his mother, who took her son to shooting ranges, authorities have said.

    The documents also reveal that Lanza didn’t put up a fight when officers responded at the school. When they stormed the school, Lanza turned and ran into a classroom where he committed suicide.

    A Newtown resident – who called Lanza ‘a troubled kid’ – told the FBI that Nancy Lanza said Adam had once hacked into a government computer system and federal authorities — either FBI or CIA agents — showed up at their door.

    Nancy Lanza told the person that she had to convince the agents that her son was just very intelligent and was challenging himself to see if he could hack into a government system. She said agents told her that if Adam was that smart, he could get a job with their agency someday.

    Several Newtown residents told authorities they received death threats after the shooting during phone calls from someone identifying himself as Adam Lanza.


    • Northern Phoenix 3:25 pm on October 25, 2017 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This story has me very upset because it should never have happened. Gross police incompetence literally screams from the column but no doubt there will be more added in the days ahead. I’ll wait to see what others have to say.

  • Jack 4:00 am on October 24, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , clarice feldman, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Thickening Plot 

    The major developing stories this week have been so scantily and poorly covered in the mainstream press that you may want an easy primer. To fully understand it you have to look at alternative media, because just as Harvey Weinstein counted on complicit enablers — his colleagues, victims and the press — Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller and a cast of characters, including a press determined to cover for them have hidden what occurred. It’s taken some time, to be sure, but the evidence of their wrongdoing is becoming harder and harder to hide. Stalling and misdirection are their last redoubt.


    Here are some of the principal figures:

    Robert Mueller. Former head of the FBI and now special counsel purportedly investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election.

    Andrew McCabe, appointed by former president Obama, was Assistant FBI Director in charge of investigating charges by the FBI’s own underground informant to the effect that the Russians, engaged in bribery to obtain uranium supplies in the U.S. His wife received nearly half a million dollars from Hillary Clinton buddy Terry McAuliffe for her 2015 Virginia state senate campaign which he had not disclosed to the Department nor sought clearance for from its ethics office. Presently he is the deputy attorney director of the FBI and is himself under investigation by the Justice department inspector general respecting this contribution.

    The unnamed FBI undercover informant, represented by criminal attorney Victoria Toensing, was witness to the scheming, kickbacks and corruption in the Russian effort to obtain 20% of U.S. uranium supplies held by Canadian-based Uranium One. He reported to his bosses at the FBI — which is to say McCabe and Mueller — prior to the October 2010 approval of the sale to Uranium One. He says Lynch has threatened him with criminal prosecution if he reveals what he knows to Congress. Senator Grassley has asked present Attorney General Jeff Sessions to waive the nondisclosure agreement — which appears in any event to be untoward and unconstitutional — so he can tell the Senate Judiciary Committee what he knows.

    CFIUS (The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US) is the interagency organization which is supposed to review such transactions to be sure they did not jeopardize national security. If it determines such sales will harm national security, they are supposed to block them.

    The U.S. Intelligence Community – through the Director of National Intelligence – serves as ex officio member and is required to provide an intelligence assessment to CFIUS for review.

    The Secretary of Labor was also added as an ex officio member.

    In total, CFIUS is comprised of nine agencies, two ex officio representatives and other members as appointed by the U.S. President representing major departments and agencies within the U.S. federal executive branch. In addition to Treasury, the U.S. Departments of Energy, Commerce, State, Homeland Security, Justice, Trade, Science and Technology Policy and Defense are represented.

    Author Jim Rickards claims that James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, disbanded the CFIUS advisory for the intel community just before the Uranium One deal was approved.

    The Chairman of Uranium One is on the Clinton Foundation Board and a close friend of the Clintons, and as the deal was being considered by approval by CFIUS, nine members of Uranium One contributed more than $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, long exposed as a Clinton family piggy bank. Yellow cake from these uranium mines “has gone to some unknown destination” since the sale was approved.

    Loretta Lynch, Obama’s Attorney General, reportedly threatened the informant that he’d be subject to criminal prosecution if he revealed to Congress what he’d find out.

    Hillary Clinton, former first lady and most recently failed candidate for President, was Secretary of State when the Uranium Sale was approved by the CFIUS.

    Mystery witness claims millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds went to “an entity” assisting the Clinton Foundation.

    Bill Clinton, former president and husband of Hillary Clinton and recipient of a $500,000 dollar speaking fee for a speech in Russia from Renaissance Capital (a Russian finance corporation) prior to the approval of the sale to Uranium One.

    Rod Rosenstein, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, presently Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice overseeing the Mueller investigation into claims that the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign (2005-2017).

    Andrew Weisman, presently a member of Mueller’s team, and former prosecutor of the Russian briber Vadim Mikerin and the American Trucking executive whom Vadim worked with and through. (the latter pleaded guilty June 2015, but the court record shows he has not yet been sentenced.)

    He pursued those convictions under Rosenstein’s supervision.

    Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining mogul, with whom the Clintons had a long relationship, sought and obtained uranium in Kazakhstan (UrAsia Energy). Uranium One bought his company, and the Russians were sniffing around about how Giustra had obtained the Kazakhstan deal.

    Rosatom, a Russian government corporation, which bought into Uranium One, but needed U.S. approval to obtain Uranium One, because the latter held 20% of U.S. uranium supplies.

    Ian Teifer, Chair of Uranium One (since 2007 when it merged with Ur Asia) and other individuals contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation from 2009-2013, which were not disclosed publicly as she had pledged to do.

    There are actually three Russian Collusion Stories – two, involving Hillary and present and past FBI and DOJ officials, have merit. The third, the subject of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, is nonsensical.

    1. Hillary and the Uranium One deal

    What is Being Charged About the Clinton’s Role in the Uranium One Sale?

    Daniel Greenfield explains:

    The same year that Hillary brought over her ‘Reset Button’, the FBI was investigating a top Rosatom figure in America for racketeering, extortion, bribery and money laundering. The investigation was supervised by the controversial current Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe who has his own financial ties to the Clintons. The investigation dragged out for five years. Just enough time for the Rosatom deal to be approved. When the charges were brought in ’14, the Russians had gotten it all…

    Holder’s DOJ, like Hillary’s State, signed off on the Rosatom-Uranium One deal despite the ongoing investigation. Holder and his associates at the DOJ kept the investigation under their hats. The trails leading to the Clintons were closed off…

    “Victim 1”, the FBI’s confidential witness in the case, was an American businessman who was making payments to a Rosatom figure. He knew firsthand about the Russian efforts to influence Bill and Hillary, and through them, the Obama administration, but wasn’t allowed to talk about it. Instead Obama’s DOJ threatened him with criminal charges if he revealed what he knew. And what he knew included comments by FBI agents about political pressure from the DOJ during the Uranium One-Rosatom approval process.

    Meanwhile, during the approval process, Bill Clinton was getting paid $500,000 by a Russian bank with Russian government ties, even as his wife had the power to block a deal by Rosatom. While Clinton and Obama cronies are scurrying around to tie Trump to Russia, their own bosses were giving a Russian state corporation whose branches included the nuclear weapons complex access to our nuclear materials.


    Not only did Obama and his people at the DOJ and FBI turn a blind eye to Russian nuclear malfeasance in America, but they covered up evidence tying that malfeasance to the Clintons, and then threatened an informant to protect that cover-up. Democracy really does die in darkness. Just ask the media.

    The Hill takes up the narrative:

    At the same time the Russians were paying Clinton half a million dollars to speak and topping up the Clinton Foundation coffers to the hilt, Bill Clinton sought permission in May 2010 to meet with Arkady Dvorovich, one of the highest-ranking members of the Russian government to sit on Rosatom’s Board, and then when approval dragged on, he met directly with Vladimir Putin. [snip] Inside the Clintons’ inner circle, there also was a debate in 2010.

    A close associate of Bill Clinton who was directly involved in the Moscow trip and spoke on condition of anonymity, described to The Hill the circumstances surrounding how Bill Clinton landed a $500,000 speaking gig in Russia and then came up with the list of Russians he wanted to meet.

    The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president’s speaker’s bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.

    Documents show Bill Clinton’s personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later.

    The Clinton friend said the former president’s office then began assembling a list of requests to meet with Russian business and government executives whom he could meet on the trip. One of the goals of the trip was to try to help a Clinton family relative “grow investments in their business with Russian oligarchs and other businesses,” the friend told The Hill.

    “It was one of the untold stories of the Russia trip. People have focused on Uranium One and the speaking fees, but opening up a business spigot for the family business was one only us insiders knew about,” the friend said.

    But that is not the end of the story. Without revealing anything about the Rosatom-Uranium One background of bribery and corruption, Rosenstein-McCabe supervised the investigation and two people, including Russian Vadim Mikerin, were prosecuted.

    Although the FBI and DOJ knew of the corruption involved in getting the Uranium One deal approved before the CFIUS approved the deal, no charges were brought until 2014, and neither the public, the intelligence community, nor the Congress were informed of the cases until after a plea was entered with little fanfare by the defendants.

    Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap.

    But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged.

    The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.

    By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.

    The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.

    The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.

    The Second Hillary-Russian scandal (The Ghost Story)

    So here are the key facts: the FBI found that Russian intelligence had targeted Hillary Clinton before and during her time as secretary of state. Clinton’s spokespersons denied that this was so. Clinton opposed the Magnitsky sanctions on officials tied to Putin. After her husband received his half-million dollars… Clinton moved with unusual speed to whisk the ring of 10 Russian spies out of the country and back to Moscow. She had the lopsided swap take place over a long summer weekend, before the FBI was finished with the spies, and before the spies could stand trial. While the FBI was separately investigating Russians involved with buying Uranium One, she approved the sale of American uranium to Russia’s nuclear weapons agency. Principals in the sale then plowed $145 million into her family foundation and projects.

    Several questions come to mind. Precisely what did the FBI know about Russia’s spy service targeting Hillary Clinton and her inner circle? Why did Clinton deny through spokespersons that she had been a Russian target? Why did she work so feverishly to get the spies out of the United States and back to Russia? Why has the FBI leadership not been more vocal in touting one of its greatest counterintelligence successes ever? And why did nobody in the FBI leadership raise this issue during the 2016 Russian election meddling controversy?

    Once again, the person who should have been and certainly was most knowledgeable about the details of this scandal is Robert Mueller, then head of the FBI and now special counsel pursuing the dead end assertion that Russia colluded with Trump.

    Russia and Trump

    The overwhelming evidence suggests that Hillary and Bill, consumed with greed, colluded with the Russians, handed them the right to one-fifth of U.S. uranium reserves in exchange for cash for themselves and their slush fund foundation. When she lost, she projected her conduct onto everyone else, including Trump. It is beyond doubt — because it has been admitted by James Comey, the head of the FBI — that he began his investigation into her charges based on the GPS-Fusion “Dossier” which even its author Christopher Steele asserts was “raw intelligence,” not verified and not verifiable.

    This week Steele refused a Congressional demand that he testify as to who paid him and who were his sources.

    Fusion is known as a ruthless firm that excels in smear jobs, but few have noticed the operation it’s conducting against the lawmakers investigating it. The false accusations against Mr. Nunes — that he’s acting unethically and extralegally, that he’s sabotaging the Russia probe — are classic.

    This is a firm that in 2012 was paid to dig through the divorce records of a Mitt Romney donor. It’s a firm that human-rights activist Thor Halvorssen testified was hired to spread malicious rumors about him. It’s a firm that financier Bill Browder testified worked to delegitimize his efforts to get justice for Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer beaten to death in a Russian prison.

    It’s the firm behind the infamous “dossier” accusing Donald Trump of not just unbecoming behavior but also colluding with Russia. Republicans are investigating whether the Fusion dossier was influenced by Russians, and whether American law enforcement relied on that disinformation for its own probe.

    But Fusion’s secret weapon in its latest operation is the Democratic Party, whose most powerful members have made protecting Fusion’s secrets their highest priority.

    As Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) notes: “The obvious inference is that Fusion’s secrets are their secrets, and they’re devastating.” Underscoring Reynolds’ point,GPS is  even trying an unlikely gambit — seeking judicial blocking of Congressional access to its bank records.

    Molly Hemingway eviscerates the journalists who claimed to be shocked about GPS-Fusion, itself a collection of former journalists. She quotes them and shreds them for their purported ignorance, and remarks, not without warrant,

    I mentioned earlier the Washington Post and New York Times had anonymously sourced stories alleging that the FBI tried to pay one of the dossier’s authors but ultimately did not. Well, CNN has anonymous sources that say the FBI did give him money for his work. “FBI reimbursed some expenses of dossier author,” CNN reported in March. To quote Jake Sherman: The FBI is in the U.S. government.

    So let’s go back to that tweet. We have reports at CNN of the FBI paying expenses for the dossier, and trying to pay him even more, according to the Post and Times. We have Fusion GPS already claiming that Democratic supporters of Clinton paid for it. And we have New York Times and various other reports that Russians paid Fusion GPS for allegedly unrelated work, though no evidence that those funds were not used on the dossier. So who paid for it? Russia? The FBI? The Democrats? Or all? Gosh, wouldn’t it be nice to know? If only we had some means of finding out the answers to these questions!

    While the fever swamps of the left are still playing on the credulity of their readers, there’s still no evidentiary basis for claiming any of the Russian propaganda efforts on Facebook, or Google, or You Tube influenced the election in Trump’s favor. More likely a “woke” citizenry fed up with Hillary’s greed, corruption, lies, and incompetence and able to communicate directly with each other through the internet did it all by themselves.

    Correction: Andrew McCabe’s current title is deputy director of the FBI, not deputy attorney general.


  • Jack 4:46 am on October 23, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    This Stinks! 

    Let’s put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads — the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

    The Facebook-ad buy, which started in June 2015 — before Donald Trump entered the race — was more left-wing agitprop (ads pushing hysteria on racism, immigration, guns, etc.) than electioneering. The Clintons’ own long-time political strategist Mark Penn estimates that just $6,500 went to actual electioneering. (You read that right: 65 hundred dollars.) By contrast, the staggering $500,000 payday from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank for a single speech was part of a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the time, Russia was plotting — successfully — to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.

    Here’s the kicker: The Uranium One scandal is not only, or even principally, a Clinton scandal. It is an Obama-administration scandal.

    The Clintons were just doing what the Clintons do: cashing in on their “public service.” The Obama administration, with Secretary Clinton at the forefront but hardly alone, was knowingly compromising American national-security interests. The administration green-lighted the transfer of control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining capacity to Russia, a hostile regime — and specifically to Russia’s state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom. Worse, at the time the administration approved the transfer, it knew that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was engaged in a lucrative racketeering enterprise that had already committed felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses.

    The Obama administration also knew that congressional Republicans were trying to stop the transfer. Consequently, the Justice Department concealed what it knew. DOJ allowed the racketeering enterprise to continue compromising the American uranium industry rather than commencing a prosecution that would have scotched the transfer. Prosecutors waited four years before quietly pleading the case out for a song, in violation of Justice Department charging guidelines. Meanwhile, the administration stonewalled Congress, reportedly threatening an informant who wanted to go public.

    Obama’s ‘Reset’

    To understand what happened here, we need to go back to the beginning.

    The first-tier military arsenal of Putin’s Russia belies its status as a third-rate economic power. For well over a decade, the regime has thus sought to develop and exploit its capacity as a nuclear-energy producer. Naïvely viewing Russia as a “strategic partner” rather than a malevolent competitor, the Bush administration made a nuclear-cooperation agreement with the Kremlin in May 2008. That blunder, however, was tabled before Congress could consider it. That is because Russia, being Russia, invaded Georgia.

    In 2009, notwithstanding this aggression (which continues to this day with Russia’s occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton signaled the new administration’s determination to “reset” relations with Moscow. In this reset, renewed cooperation and commerce in nuclear energy would be central.

    There had been such cooperation and commerce since the Soviet Union imploded. In 1992, the administration of President George H. W. Bush agreed with the nascent Russian federation that U.S. nuclear providers would be permitted to purchase uranium from Russia’s disassembled nuclear warheads (after it had been down-blended from its highly enriched weapons-grade level). The Russian commercial agent responsible for the sale and transportation of this uranium to the U.S. is the Kremlin-controlled company “Tenex” (formally, JSC Techsnabexport). Tenex is a subsidiary of Rosatom.

    Tenex (and by extension, Rosatom) have an American arm called “Tenam USA.” Tenam is based in Bethesda, Md. Around the time President Obama came to power, the Russian official in charge of Tenam was Vadim Mikerin.

    The Obama administration reportedly issued a visa for Mikerin in 2010, but a racketeering investigation led by the FBI determined that he was already operating here in 2009.

    The Racketeering Scheme

    As Tenam’s general director, Mikerin was responsible for arranging and managing Rosatom/Tenex’s contracts with American uranium purchasers. This gave him tremendous leverage over the U.S. companies. With the assistance of several confederates, Mikerin used this leverage to extort and defraud the U.S. contractors into paying inflated prices for uranium. They then laundered the proceeds through shell companies and secret bank accounts in Latvia, Cyprus, Switzerland, and the Seychelle Islands — though sometimes transactions were handled in cash, with the skim divided into envelopes stuffed with thousands of dollars in cash.

    The inflated payments served two purposes: They enriched Kremlin-connected energy officials in the U.S. and in Russia to the tune of millions of dollars; and they compromised the American companies that paid the bribes, rendering players in U.S. nuclear energy — a sector critical to national security — vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.

    But Mikerin had a problem. To further the Kremlin’s push for nuclear-energy expansion, he had been seeking to retain a lobbyist — from whom he planned to extort kickbacks, just as he did with the U.S. energy companies. With the help of an associate connected to Russian organized-crime groups, Mikerin found his lobbyist. The man’s name has not been disclosed, but we know he is now represented by Victoria Toensing, a well-respected Washington lawyer, formerly a federal prosecutor and counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    When Mikerin solicited him in 2009, the lobbyist was uncomfortable, worried that the proposal would land him on the wrong side of the law. So he contacted the FBI and revealed what he knew. From then on, the Bureau and Justice Department permitted him to participate in the Russian racketeering scheme as a “confidential source” — and he is thus known as “CS-1” in affidavits the government, years later, presented to federal court in order to obtain search and arrest warrants.

    At the time this unidentified man became an informant, the FBI was led by director Robert Mueller, who is now the special counsel investigating whether Trump colluded with Russia. The investigation was centered in Maryland (Tenam’s home base). There, the U.S. attorney was Obama appointee Rod Rosenstein — now President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and the man who appointed Mueller as special counsel to investigate Trump.

    Because of CS-1, the FBI was able to understand and monitor the racketeering enterprise almost from the start. By mid-May 2010, it could already prove the scheme and three separate extortionate payments Mikerin had squeezed out of the informant. Equally important: According to reporting by John Solomon and Alison Spann in the Hill, the informant learned through conversations with Mikerin and others that Russian nuclear officials were trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons.

    Uranium One, Russia, and the Clintons

    There is no doubt that this extraordinarily gainful ingratiation took place. I outlined some of it a year ago in suggesting that the Justice Department should be investigating the Clinton Foundation, and its exploitation of Hillary Clinton’s influence as secretary of state, as a potential racketeering case.

    In 2005, former President Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire friend and benefactor, Frank Giustra, obtain coveted uranium-mining rights from Kazakhstan’s dictator. The Kazakh deal enabled Giustra’s company (Ur-Asia Energy) to merge into Uranium One (a South African company), a $3.5 billion windfall. Giustra and his partners thereafter contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Besides the valuable Kazakh reserves, Uranium One also controlled about a fifth of the uranium stock in the United States.

    Alas, Putin, the neighborhood bully, also wanted the Kazakh uranium. He leaned on Kazakhstan’s dictator, who promptly arrested the official responsible for selling the uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company. This put Uranium One’s stake in jeopardy of being seized by the Kazakh government.

    As Uranium One’s stock plunged, its panicked executives turned to the State Department, where their friend Hillary Clinton was now in charge. State sprung into action, convening emergency meetings with the Kazakh regime. A few days later, it was announced that the crisis was resolved (translation: the shakedown was complete). Russia’s energy giant, Rosatom, would purchase 17 percent of Uranium One, and the Kazakh threat would disappear — and with it, the threat to the value of the Clinton donors’ holdings.

    For Putin, though, that was just a start. He didn’t want a minority stake in Uranium One, he wanted control of the uranium. For that, Rosatom would need a controlling interest in Uranium One. That would be a tall order — not because of the Kazakh mining rights but because acquisition of Uranium One’s American reserves required U.S. government approval.

    Uranium is foundational to nuclear power and thus to American national security. As the New York Times explained in a report on the disturbing interplay between the Clinton Foundation and the transfer of American uranium assets to Russia, the United States gets a fifth of its electrical power from nuclear energy, but only produces a fifth of the uranium it needs. Consequently, a foreign entity would not be able to acquire rights to American uranium without the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

    CFIUS is composed of the leaders of 14 U.S. government agencies involved in national security and commerce. In 2010, these included not only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had cultivated a reputation as a hawk opposed to such foreign purchases, but Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department (and its lead agency, the FBI) were conducting the investigation of Rosatom’s ongoing U.S. racketeering, extortion, and money-laundering scheme.

    In March 2010, to push the Obama “reset” agenda, Secretary Clinton traveled to Russia, where she met with Putin and Dimitri Medvedev, who was then keeping the president’s chair warm for Putin. Soon after, it emerged that Renaissance Capital, a regime-tied Russian bank, had offered Bill Clinton $500,000 to make a single speech — far more than the former president’s usual haul in what would become one of his biggest paydays ever. Renaissance was an aggressive promoter of Rosatom. The Clinton speech took place in Moscow in June. The exorbitant speech fee, it is worth noting, is a pittance compared with the $145 million Newsweek reports was donated to the Clinton Foundation by sources linked to the Uranium One deal.

    The month before the speech, the Hill reports, Bill Clinton told his wife’s State Department that he wanted to meet while in Russia with Arkady Dvorkovich, who, in addition to being a top Medvedev aide, was also a key Rosatom board member. It is not known whether the State Department gave clearance for the meeting; the question appears to have become moot since the former U.S. president met directly with Putin and Medvedev. You’ll be comforted, I’m sure, to learn that aides to the Clintons, those pillars of integrity, assure us that the topics of Rosatom and Uranium One never came up.

    Keeping Congress in the Dark

    Meanwhile, congressional opposition to Russia’s potential acquisition of American uranium resources began to stir. As Peter Schweizer noted in his essential book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, four senior House members steeped in national-security issues — Peter King (R., N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.), and Howard McKeon (R. Calif.) — voiced grave concerns, pointing out that Rosatom had helped Iran, America’s sworn enemy, build its Bushehr nuclear reactor. The members concluded that “the take-over of essential US nuclear resources by a government-owned Russian agency . . . would not advance the national security interests of the United States.” Republican senator John Barrasso objected to Kremlin control of uranium assets in his state of Wyoming, warning of Russia’s “disturbing record of supporting nuclear programs in countries that are openly hostile to the United States, specifically Iran and Venezuela.” The House began moving a bill “expressing disfavor of the Congress” regarding Obama’s revival of the nuclear-cooperation agreement Bush had abandoned.

    Clearly, in this atmosphere, disclosure of the racketeering enterprise that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was, at that very moment, carrying out would have been the death knell of the asset transfer to Russia. It would also likely have ended the “reset” initiative in which Obama and Clinton were deeply invested — an agenda that contemplated Kremlin-friendly deals on nuclear-arms control and accommodation of the nuclear program of Russia’s ally, Iran. That was not going to be allowed to happen. It appears that no disclosure of Russia’s racketeering and strong-arming was made to CFIUS or to Congress — not by Secretary Clinton, not by Attorney General Holder, and certainly not by President Obama. In October 2010, CFIUS gave its blessing to Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One.

    A Sweetheart Plea Helps the Case Disappear

    Even though the FBI had an informant collecting damning information, and had a prosecutable case against Mikerin by early 2010, the extortion racket against American energy companies was permitted to continue into the summer of 2014. It was only then that, finally, Mikerin and his confederates were arrested.

    Why then? This is not rocket science. In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea. Putin also began massing forces on the Ukrainian border, coordinating and conducting attacks, ultimately taking control of territory. Clearly, the pie-in-the-sky Obama reset was dead. Furthermore, the prosecution of Mikerin’s racketeering scheme had been so delayed that the Justice Department risked losing the ability to charge the 2009 felonies because of the five-year statute of limitations on most federal crimes.

    Still, a lid needed to be kept on the case. It would have made for an epic Obama administration scandal, and a body blow to Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes, if in the midst of Russia’s 2014 aggression, public attention had been drawn to the failure, four years earlier, to prosecute a national-security case in order to protect Russia’s takeover of U.S. nuclear assets.

    The Obama administration needed to make this case go away — without a public trial if at all possible.

    Think about this: The investigation of Russian racketeering in the American energy sector was the kind of spectacular success over which the FBI and Justice Department typically do a bells-n-whistles victory lap — the big self-congratulatory press conference followed by the media-intensive prosecutions . . . and, of course, more press conferences.

    Here . . . crickets.

    As the Hill reports, the Justice Department and FBI had little to say when Mikerin and his co-conspirators were arrested. They quietly negotiated guilty pleas that were announced with no fanfare just before Labor Day. It was arranged that Mikerin would be sentenced just before Christmas. All under the radar.

    How desperate was the Obama Justice Department to plead the case out? Here, Rosenstein and Holder will have some explaining to do.

    Mikerin was arrested on a complaint describing a racketeering scheme that stretched back to 2004 and included extortion, fraud, and money laundering. Yet he was permitted to plead guilty to a single count of money-laundering conspiracy.

    Except it was not really money-laundering conspiracy.

    Under federal law, that crime (at section 1956 of the penal code) carries a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment — not only for conspiracy but for each act of money laundering. But Mikerin was not made to plead guilty to this charge. He was permitted to plead guilty to an offense charged under the catch-all federal conspiracy provision (section 371) that criminalizes agreements to commit any crime against the United States. Section 371 prescribes a sentence of zero to five years’ imprisonment.

    The Justice Department instructs prosecutors that when Congress has given a federal offense its own conspiracy provision with a heightened punishment (as it has for money laundering, racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and other serious crimes), they may not charge a section 371 conspiracy. Section 371 is for less serious conspiracy cases. Using it for money laundering — which caps the sentence way below Congress’s intent for that behavior — subverts federal law and signals to the court that the prosecutor does not regard the offense as major.

    Yet, that is exactly what Rosenstein’s office did, in a plea agreement his prosecutors co-signed with attorneys from the Justice Department’s Fraud Section. (See in the Hill’s report, the third document embedded at the bottom, titled “Mikerin Plea Deal.”) No RICO, no extortion, no fraud — and the plea agreement is careful not to mention any of the extortions in 2009 and 2010, before CFIUS approved Rosatom’s acquisition of U.S. uranium stock. Mikerin just had to plead guilty to a nominal “money laundering” conspiracy charge. This insulated him from a real money-laundering sentence. Thus, he got a term of just four years’ incarceration for a major national-security crime — which, of course, is why he took the plea deal and waived his right to appeal, sparing the Obama administration a full public airing of the facts.

    Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia.

    There was still one other problem to tamp down. That was the informant — the lobbyist who alerted the FBI to the Russian racketeering enterprise back in 2009. He wanted to talk.

    Specifically, as his attorney, Ms. Toensing, explains, the informant wanted to tell Congress what he knows — about what the FBI and the Justice Department could already have proved in 2010 when CFIUS signed off on Russia’s acquisition of American nuclear material, and about what he’d learned of Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton. But he was not allowed to talk.

    It turns out, the lawyer explains, that the FBI had induced him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Justice Department warned him that it was enforceable — even against disclosures to Congress. (Because, you know, the FBI is opposed to all leaks and disclosures of confidential investigative information . . . except those initiated by the FBI, of course.) In addition, when the informant was primed to file a federal civil lawsuit to recover his own losses from the scheme, he claims that the Justice Department threatened him with prosecution, warning that a lawsuit would violate the non-disclosure agreement. The Hill reports that it has obtained emails from a civil lawyer retained by the witness, which describe pressure exerted by the Justice Department to silence the informant.

    What a coincidence: That was in 2016, the stretch run of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

    This stinks.


    See Also:

    (1) Obama AG Lynch refuses to discuss notorious Clinton tarmac meeting with Russia probe: Report


  • Jack 12:12 pm on October 19, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   


    Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.

    But there’s more.  It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”

    The incriminating evidence was uncovered by The Hill (John Solomon and Alison Spann) and Circa News (Sara Carter).  Their dogged reporting reveals that the FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

    The corrupt scheme is said to have been financed by the Russians through bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.

    Indeed, the entire sordid affair remained hidden for seven long years.  Until now.

    Clinton Corruption and Racketeering?

    It is a crime to use a public office to confer a benefit to a foreign government in exchange for money.  It is often referred to as “pay-to-play,” but it can be prosecuted under a variety of anti-corruption laws passed by Congress, including the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201-b), the federal gratuity statute (18 USC 201-c), the mail fraud statute (18 USC 1341), the wire fraud statute (18 USC 1343), the program bribery statute (18 USC 666), and the Travel Act (18 USC 1952).

    If the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption.

    The FBI evidence, if true, would seem to show that one or more of these illegal “pay-to-play” laws were broken.  The government would have to prove that Hillary and Bill got paid, while the Russians got to play.  And prosecutors are required to show a “quid pro quo” or “nexus” between the payments and the benefit provided.  But it appears that the FBI already possesses all the evidence it needs to make a compelling case.

    If Hillary leveraged her public office as Secretary of State for personal enrichment, but also used her charity as a receptacle or conduit for money obtained illegally, that would also constitute racketeering, as I first argued in a column almost a year ago.

    Racketeering is the use of a business for a corrupt and illegal enterprise.  The “Mafia” and other organized crime syndicates are often prosecuted under the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” or “RICO” (18 USC 1961-1968).  Frequently, they devise a dual purpose company –one which operates lawfully from the front door, but unlawfully out the back door.

    There is little doubt the Clinton Foundation operated as a charity.  But if the FBI documents demonstrate that there was a secondary, hidden purpose devoted to self-dealing and personal enrichment, then prosecution could be pursued against Clinton for racketeering.

    According to the Associated Press, more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state donated money to her foundation.  If Clinton was peddling access, was she also peddling influence?  Again, the reported FBI documents seem to answer that question.

    But why has there been no prosecution of Clinton?  Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret?  Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency?  Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?

    The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact.   Who are they?

    Holder, Mueller, Comey & Rosenstein

    Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.  Since the FBI reports to him, he surely knew what the bureau had uncovered.

    What’s more, Holder was a member of the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” which approved the uranium sale to the Russians in 2010.  Since the vote was unanimous, it appears Holder knowingly and deliberately countenanced a deal that was based on illegal activities and which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium assets.

    It gets worse.  Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.  Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.  There is no indication that any of these men ever told Congress of all the incriminating evidence they had discovered and the connection to Clinton.  The entire matter was kept secret from the American public.

    It may be no coincidence that Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case.

    It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.

    If this is true, Mueller and Rosenstein should immediately recuse themselves from the case.  How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of the lead investigators has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?

    And, if the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption.


    See Also:

    (1) Trump blasts ‘Fake Media’ for ignoring Russia uranium deal sealed ‘with Clinton help’

    (2) Lawyer files to have ex-FBI chief Comey disbarred after Clinton scandal

    (3) Putin’s rage triggered by Obama’s moves

    (4) Team Obama’s stunning cover-up of Russian crimes

    (5) Attorney: FBI Informant Was Blocked by Obama Administration from Testifying on Uranium One Deal


Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc