Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Prosecute Hillary Clinton


Here’s another Sunday cross post some piece you may find interesting or fascinating. Again YOU may have read, BUT I’m guessing many have not read.

 

This one is a Breitbart post on released Lisa Page testimony preceded by the Facebook intro where I discovered it.

 

JRH 3/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

******************

Facebook Intro by Bob Brown 

Found at Facebook Group Patriot Action Network

Facebook post March 14 at 2:30 AM

 

Nail BO, H Clinton and other guilty democrats! I remember the Comey press conference on Clinton and I was excited as Comey was talking and leaning towards getting Clinton, then all of a sudden he dropped the call. It is now apparent Comey was a puppet for BO and many heads should roll. Clinton and others are corrupt and have a problem with the facts and the truth. Conservative Wisdom United.

++++++++++++++++

Lisa Page: Obama DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Prosecute Hillary Clinton

 

Lisa Page-Loretta Lynch-Crooked Hillary: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds, Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty, Rune Hellestad/Getty

 

By Charlie Spiering

March 13, 2019

Breitbart

 

Former FBI legal counsel Lisa Page testified to Congress that the Justice Department ordered the FBI not to charge former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with “gross negligence” by mishandling classified information.

 

Transcripts of Page’s closed-door testimony in July 2018 were released Tuesday by Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) on Tuesday, which included the following exchange with Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX):

 

RATCLIFFE: So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory. But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to …

 

PAGE: That is correct.

 

RATFLIFFE: …bring a case based on that.

 

Ratcliffe highlighted the exchange on Twitter.

 

 

Page confirmed that the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch had “multiple conversations” about charging Clinton with gross negligence but noted that it would be a rare decision.

 

“[T]hey did not feel they could sustain a charge,” she said, referring to the Department of Justice.

 

President Donald Trump reacted to the reports on Wednesday.

 

“The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine,” he wrote. “Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!”

____________________

Copyright © 2019 Breitbart

 

Muslims Rejecting America


Justin Smith righteously writes about a couple of Muslim gals (Muslemas) who incredulously managed to get elected to Congress. Putting it simply, these Muslim gals are a couple of Islamic Supremacist Jew-Haters.

 

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D – MI-13) & Rep. Ilhan Omar (D – MN-5)

 

JRH 3/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Muslims Rejecting America  

A Twisted Reality in the House

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 3/9/2019 7:24 PM

 

Dual loyalty and anti-Semitism against Jews and supporters of Israel came to national attention recently over remarks made by freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a refugee from Somalia, who suggested that Jews were more loyal to Israel than they are loyal to the United States, and it is enough to make one laugh to keep from crying, if it were not so serious. Not only is Judaism not the problem in America, not the religion of terrorists seeking to destroy America and subjugate Her, but if anyone’s loyalty to America should be questioned, let’s look at these Muslemas, such as Omar, Representative Rashida Tlaib and Islamic supremacist and activist Linda Sarsour, whose own loyalties regularly appear to lie with Somalia, Iran, al Shabaab, Hamas, Hezbollah, Gaza and the mythical country of “Palestine“; and perhaps not so ironically, all Americans will see that Muslims born here and living here a majority of their lives are not assimilating as well as the “experts” would have us believe.

 

The remark by Omar that led to the March 7th House resolution against hate, anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim bigotry and white supremacists went as follows: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it’s OK to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Even many prominent Democrats, such as Rep. Eliot Engel (NY) thought this echoed charges of “dual loyalty” to Israel that have long been used to intimidate Jews from participating in politics, as he offered that such wordshave no place in our public discourse and indeed can be very dangerous.”

 

Tlaib also charged Jews with harboring dual loyalty in January, when she said political supporters of Israel “forgot what country they represent“.

 

Omar, now 37, has lived in America since age eight, and that makes it all the more interesting that just weeks after her election, on December 20th 2016, Omar was in Mogadishu, Somalia with its president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, and she went on to also meet with her husband to be, Ahmed Hirsi, and his friend, former Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, also called “Farmajo“, who is also a U.S. citizen and now Somalia’s new President.

 

Security Agent Directive 4 in the U.S Code states in part: “Conditions that could easily raise a security concern … include contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member … professional associate … or a … resident in a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of exploitation, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.”

 

On March 17th, Representative Rashida Tlaib, an American Palestinian-Muslim, who took her Constitutional Oath on the Koran and wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag after her election as she promised to “impeach the mother ****er” (Pres. Trump), is speaking in Livonia, Michigan, alongside Imam Omar Suleiman, who supports executing homosexuals and hijabs for women to avoid incestuous relationships. She also is tied to many other Islamic supremacists, associates of terrorists and terrorist organizations, such as the Muslim American Society and CAIR, front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Jamaat-e-Islami and the Islamic Circle of North America.

 

On March 23rd, Rep. Omar will speak at the Los Angeles CAIR event, the 4th Annual Valley Banquet, where she will meet with Islamist Hassan Shibly (CAIR of Florida), who actively supports Hamas and Hezbollah. She will rub shoulders with the director of CAIR – Los Angeles, Hussam Ayloush, who blamed United States’ policy for the Islamic terror attack on San Bernardino.

 

Like Tlaib, Linda Sarsour is an American Palestinian-Muslim, born in Brooklyn, who is a Jew-hating, Israel-hating apologist for Islamic jihadi terrorists that advocates for the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. She tweeted, in 2012, “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.”

 

On March 6th, speaking in Arabic, Linda Sarsour ordered her Islamic thugs of CAIR to block Asra Nomani, a journalist and leader in the Muslim Reform Movement, from entering Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s office, behind her, Islamist Jinan Shbat and Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR [Blog Editor: On same day Sarsour posed for photos with CAIR thugs in Rep. Ilhan Omar’s office], as they wished to discuss their anti-Semitic views with Omar in private. So, we now see Islamic thugs controlling the Halls of Congress.

 

Yasmine Mohammed offered the following translation on March 7th, in a tweet: ““Don’t let her be one of the first ones in. Do you all hear me?

Nomani was a friend of Daniel Pearl, Wall Street Journal reporter, who was abducted and murdered in Pakistan. She was in Pakistan at the time and made sure his story was front and center in the news and his memory honored. Pearl’s brutal beheading and his friendship with Nomani meant nothing to these anti-Semitic Sons of Mohammed, who mistreated her.

 

Many Republicans and even a few Democrats stated that Omar should have been named in the resolution. Pelosi asserted, “It’s not about her; it’s about these forms of hatred.” Pelosi simply has chosen to ignore Omar’s long pattern of these sort of anti-Semitic statements.

 

And so, rather than censure Ilhan Omar, a Somalian Muslim, and others in Congress for their anti-Jewish anti-Semitic words and deeds, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party had to take an entire week to condemn all hate and also “anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities.” Talk about a weak resolution and losing focus.

 

It’s not the Jewish religion and Israel that are engaging in terrorism worldwide and committing one terror act after another in America. It is Islam and Muslims to the largest extent.

 

Neither did the resolution mention Christianity at a time when a rising tide of hatred is witnessed against Bible-believing Christians, and yet, five entire sections focus on anti-Muslim bigotry and “the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism” and the need “to ensure that the United States will live up to the transcendent principles of tolerance, religious freedom, and equal protection as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and … the Constitution“. [Resolution – 030719]

 

How remarkably disingenuous of the Democrats to presume to tell Americans that we must be tolerant of the intolerant Muslims who reject the very principles named in this miserable farce of a resolution.

 

These Muslemas, who so benefited from the system they hate, have absorbed the Islamic propaganda they were spoon-fed from childhood. And now fully indoctrinated, they speak like foreign representatives from Muslim nations, always blaming America, Israel and “the Jews” first, before anything else. They call good “evil” and evil “good”, while hating America and Israel for having the strength of conviction and virtue to stand in the face of the absolutely unequivocally proven evil ideology of Islam.

 

Nothing is made clearer by the examples of Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib and activist Linda Sarsour that too many in the Muslim-American community have failed to adopt Western values, while they prove, despite contrary assertions, that it is never a good idea to accept individuals into America whose values and customs are so antithetical to U.S. principles and American culture. And although they would have been better served to have stayed in the Middle East, America still has legislators bound and determined to impose policies of identity politics and multiculturalism, that allow refugee communities to isolate themselves and essentially refuse to assimilate.

 

Americans will not be surprised, once they witness Omar, Tlaib and Sarsour and their associates continue to form tighter bonds with Islamic supremacist connections and utter more anti-Semitic rhetoric. These Muslemas are unassimilated Islamofascists who have rejected the American way of life and our American traditions, culture and heritage, with the blame, in part, lying at the feet of U.S. policies that defer to the customs of the homelands of refugee communities. And if we continue to allow Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. and ignore their anti-American customs, America will surely see many more Omars and Tlaibs join the ranks of Congress, with their hatred for America’s founding principles and America Herself.

 

By Justin O. Smith

 

[Blog Editor: YOU should pay attention what Islamic Supremacism means to a non-Muslim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

35 Key People Involved In The Russia Hoax Who Need To Be Investigated


The House Dem majority are ramping up investigations against Trump to perpetuate their highly unsubstantiated witch hunt. As Willis L. Krumholz of The Federalist points out, there should be further investigations about conspiracy in the 2016 election. Yet the people that should be investigated are the Obama and Crooked Hillary connections.

 

JRH 3/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Obama & Crooked Hillary. Photo Nathan Forget  Flickr

 

35 Key People Involved In The Russia Hoax Who Need To Be Investigated

As their desperate search for collusion continues, Democrats want to interview 81 people. Try this list instead.

 

By Willis L. Krumholz

MARCH 8, 2019

The Federalists

 

Funny how things change. The Washington Post couldn’t say a nice thing about congressional Republican efforts to investigate the Obama administration and FBI shenanigans that occurred before and after the 2016 election. That’s if they even covered these efforts at all.

 

But with Democrats controlling the House, and that legislative body’s subpoena power, the establishment media’s line has changed. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have just sent letters to 81 people, all associated with President Trump or the Russia probe, demanding answers on Russian election interference.

 

This is part of Democrats’ effort to continue their hunt for proof of Russia collusion—although they are already sure that Trump is guilty—as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation appears to be winding down. To cover these events, the Post’s Philip Bump wrote an article titled: “The 81 people and organizations just looped into the Trump probe—and why they were included.” Of course, the article is totally unquestioning of the House Democrats’ desired narrative and motivations.

 

Investigated, But Not for the Reasons Dems Give

 

It isn’t worth it to go through Bump’s whole article, but even the commentary about the first name on the list—Rinat Akhmetshin—omits glaring and important facts. Bump says Akhmetshin “joined his colleague Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer linked to the Kremlin, at the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower predicated on providing information that would undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” But, Bump says, “the focus of the meeting instead reportedly focused on the Magnitsky Act—a law that resulted in sanctions on numerous prominent Russians.”

 

Bump somehow forgets to tell us that Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton to create nefarious ties between Trump and Russia, was working with Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya to lobby for the Russian government. Fusion GPS even provided the documents that were handed out at that Trump Tower meeting. Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson also met with the Russians both before and after that Trump Tower meeting. Yet Simpson isn’t on the Democrats’ list.

 

So there’s a few people on the Democrats’ list who should be investigated, but not for the reasons Democrats say. Some should also be charged with crimes.

 

The following all played a part in the stunning and successful effort by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to infect the executive branch of the federal government with Trump-Russia conspiracy theories. Various writings—either authored by a Brit with ties to the Kremlin who was indirectly paid by Clinton’s campaign, or directly written by Hillary Clinton cronies—were funneled into the federal government through multiple avenues.

 

Partisan Democrats in the Obama administration were all too willing to believe the allegations, and use them as an excuse for bad behavior whether they believed them or not.

 

The documents have been called “dossiers,” but that really just attaches a fancy term to a Word document full of unverified mumbo jumbo that alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Those Word documents were then used to spy on the opposing political party’s presidential campaign, and to plant stories in the media right before the election insinuating that Trump had nefarious ties with Russia.

 

Here are 36 people who should be interviewed under oath, if they have not been interviewed already, some of whom should be subjected to criminal prosecution.

 

Obama and Comey’s FBI People

 

Gregory Brower was Jim Comey’s FBI congressional liaison, and left the agency in 2018. Brower was in Comey’s inner circle, and like many in Comey’s inner circle, Brower played the game of claiming things were classified when they were not, in order to label Republican investigators as leakers and hide how the FBI used the “dossiers.” Brower was called out by Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham for that.

 

Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, wrote anti-Trump texts with former top FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. According to the Washington Times, Clinesmith “worked on the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton’s email use [known as Mid-Year-Exam], then worked on the FBI’s original investigation into the Trump campaign [known as Crossfire Hurricane] and, eventually, with the special counsel’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.”

 

But Clinesmith, like Strzok, was let go from Mueller’s investigative team once his anti-Trump texts were uncovered by the FBI inspector general (IG), who is tasked with uncovering wrongdoing at the FBI. “Viva le resistance,” Clinesmith said in one text.

 

Joseph Pientka, an FBI official, was the go-between for Fusion GPS and the FBI. Pientka interviewed Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr on at least 12 occasions, who passed on the information Ohr’s wife Nellie (who worked for Fusion GPS) was receiving from Christopher Steele (who also worked for Fusion GPS), and who was using Edward Baumgartner, a British national with ties to Moscow, to compile the dossier for the Clinton campaign.

 

Steele was originally the direct FBI source, despite his ties to the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS, but when Steele was caught leaking to the media to paint Trump as a Russian stooge just before the election, official FBI rules said that Steele’s use as an FBI source had to be discontinued. The FBI top brass worked around these rules, which are in place to prevent this very kind of abuse, by using Pientka to interview Ohr, who was getting his information from Steele.

 

Pientka also played a role in the interview of former Trump national security advisor Mike Flynn, where Pientka and Strzok interviewed Flynn, and Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI officials (including former deputy attorney general Sally Yates) used that interview to entrap Flynn for a completely non-nefarious conversation with the Russian ambassador. The pretext for the interview was the Logan Act, a 200-year old law that has never led to a conviction and is probably unconstitutional. Plus, it is violated by every incoming administration, as they seek to begin conducting foreign policy during the transition period.

 

All Flynn did was talk to the Russian ambassador and try to get Russia to not retaliate against sanctions Obama placed on Russia right before leaving the White House, and to not allow an anti-Israel vote at the United Nations. The Obama administration was going to allow this vote in the final days of Obama’s presidency, an unprecedented move.

 

Although Flynn was never charged with violating the Logan Act, he was later charged with lying to the FBI investors sent to interview him, under the pretext of a possible Logan Act violation—even though the agents didn’t think he was lying at the time, and even though the FBI had wiretapped access to the record of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador.

 

What happened to Flynn is a disgrace, and a total perversion of our justice system. And it is just one example in the dangerous trend of the left using our justice system to take out political opponents, where Democrat politicians point out a target or a supposed crime, and the federal bureaucracy dutifully moves into action.

 

Obama’s DOJ People

 

Tashina Gauhar is a Department of Justice attorney who was deeply involved in applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court, which were used to spy on the Trump campaign using the dossiers. Gauhar was also one of the few people to see or be notified of the existence of missing Hillary Clinton emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer. Weiner was being investigated for pedophilia and was married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

 

Gauhar and Andrew McCabe sat on those emails, and a cursory investigation—led by anti-Trump FBI agent Strzok—was only conducted when FBI field agents in New York threatened to go public. Gauhar later played a role in recommending former attorney general Jeff Sessions’ recusal from overseeing Mueller’s probe.

 

John Carlin is the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and got out of the DOJ in late 2016. He was the former chief of staff to Mueller, when Mueller led the FBI in the 2000s. Carlin was involved in the FBI’s systemic abuse of the FISA surveillance laws, which included spying on the Trump campaign.

 

This included omitting information on FBI wiretap abuse to the FISA court, and omitting information when applying to spy on Trump campaign official Carter Page to the FISA court. Carlin was also regularly briefed on and involved with the FBI’s overall investigation into the Trump campaign, called Crossfire Hurricane.

 

David Laufman is a high-level DOJ official in the national security division. Laufman worked with FBI counterintelligence guy Strzok on both the Clinton email investigation and the investigation into the Trump campaign based on the still-unproven, Clinton-paid, and Russian-sourced “dossier.”

 

Mary McCord was the acting assistant attorney general for a time, replacing Carlin as the head of the DOJ’s national security division. She left the DOJ in 2017. McCord played a role in Yates’s plan to spy on Flynn and entrap him with the Logan Act.

 

George Toscas, a senior official in the Justice Department, was in charge of the “Mid-Year-Exam” investigation into Clinton’s email abuses. Toscas had a front seat to both McCabe and Comey’s efforts to hide the fact that Clinton’s emails were found on Weiner’s computer, and former Obama attorney general Loretta Lynch’s efforts to stymie the Clinton email investigation.

 

The importance of Hillary’s emails wasn’t just her flouting security rules. Many have speculated that Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails, which were stored on her home-brew server, would have shown pay-to-play activities Clinton conducted while Obama’s secretary of state.

 

Obama’s State Department People

 

Victoria Nuland was a top Obama State Department official, and potentially Clinton’s secretary of state. Nuland had a role in pushing Fusion GPS conspiracy theories in the State Department, and in the broader Obama administration.

 

She received the Steele dossier just after it was created, via Jonathan Winer, in July 2016. That was possibly two months before the document was in the hands of the FBI, unless the FBI had it sooner than we currently know. She then ultimately gave permission for the FBI to make the contact with Steele, which was initiated by Michael J. Gaeta, an FBI agent based in Rome who became Steele’s handler.

 

Steele even came to the State Department to directly brief officials on his work, paid for by the Clinton campaign. Nuland had an awkward exchange with Sen. Richard Burr, where she claimed she “actively” avoided this Steele briefing, but also said she didn’t hear about the briefing until after it occurred.

 

Safe to say that if Nuland was tied to the Trump campaign, she would already be indicted for perjury by Mueller’s team of angry Democrats.

 

Jonathan Winer was a top Obama State Department official. Winer received documents alleging Trump-Russia collusion from notorious Clinton guy Cody Shearer, through another even more notorious Clinton guy named Sidney Blumenthal, and received the Steele dossier from Steele in summer 2016.

 

Winer shared the contents of these documents with his boss, Nuland, and prepped a summary of these docs for the State Department. He also gave the Shearer document to Steele, who then gave it to the FBI. That both Shearer and Blumenthal are known Clinton cronies and hatchet-men never seemed to be important to Winer. Winer was also a source for at least two journalists who wrote articles prior to the election based on the Steele dossier.

 

Jonathan Finer was another Obama State Department official, and the chief of staff to former secretary of state John Kerry. Finer got the so-called dossier from Winer, and gave it to John Kerry. This of course, among several other pieces of information, raises questions as to whether President Obama saw the dossiers and knew about what was being done to the Trump campaign.

 

Elizabeth Dibble was the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in London. She was reported to be one of the State Department officials who received information from Australian ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer, who has ties to the Clinton Foundation, about George Papadopoulos saying to Downer that Joseph Misfud—a European professor with potential ties to western intelligence agencies—told Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

 

Misfud allegedly told Papadopoulos this in April 2016, and Papadopoulos allegedly told Downer what Misfud had said in early May. It is entirely possible that Papadopoulos was set up by Misfud, who has now disappeared and is hopefully just in hiding and not at the bottom of some body of water.

 

This chain of events became important when the FBI began using the Papadopoulos tip as an excuse for its “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the Trump campaign, in order to say why they didn’t rely on the Clinton-funded dossier.

 

But the FBI didn’t open Crossfire Hurricane until several months after the Dibble-Downer tip was received, and that tip, if it ever even occurred, didn’t go through the normal and proper chain of intelligence (others have claimed that the tip wasn’t taken seriously until the Democratic National Committee hack was made public).

 

More damning for the FBI’s Papadopoulos excuse was that they didn’t interview Papadopolous until after the 2016 election, and went after Carter Page for FISA surveillance instead. This was no damning piece of firsthand information, or emergency. It was hearsay, and what Papadopoulos said to Downer, and what Misfud said to Papadopoulos, is still disputed.

 

The reality is that the Clinton-funded dossier started the FBI’s investigation into Trump, at least the official Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

 

Finally, Thomas Williams is another State Department guy in the London embassy. Colin KahlKathleen Kavalec, and Lewis Lukens were all State Department officials who had some sort of interaction with the dossier, or Fusion GPS people.

 

People Tied to the DNC or Clinton Campaign

 

Perkins Coie, a law firm, was paid by the Clinton campaign to serve as a go-between to hide the fact that Hillary’s campaign was paying Fusion GPS to push the Trump-Russia smear.

 

Marc Elias is a lawyer at Perkins Coie, who hired Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign.

 

Michael Sussmann is another lawyer at Perkins Coie, who received a story about a Russian bank, Alphabank, communicating with a server in Trump Tower from Fusion GPS. Sussmann went directly to the FBI with that story—to James Baker, who was general counsel of the FBI under Comey—prompting reports midway through the 2016 campaign that hinted Trump had nefarious ties with Russia.

 

Although it was widely debunked, the server angle again showed up in media stories, including in New York Times and Slate articles, right before the election in September of 2016. Hillary Clinton even tweeted that Slate article when it posted.

 

Robbie Mook was a top Hillary Clinton campaign official. As Fusion GPS was working on the dossier, Perkins Coie was getting the information from Steele and briefing Mook. It is important to note that Mook was the first Hillary official to publicly say that Russia wanted to help Trump win. Mook said this right before the Democratic National Convention.

 

This is more evidence that Clinton’s campaign is the entity that started the Russia investigation, by alleging that Trump had nefarious ties with Russia to distract from the DNC and Clinton campaign’s mistreatment of Bernie Sanders, as was revealed by the DNC email theft that was leaked by WikiLeaks right before the Democrats’ 2016 national convention.

 

Jake Sullivan is another top advisor in Clinton’s campaign, who played a role in forming the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

 

Cody Shearer is a longtime Clinton dirty tricks guy, with a record of smearing the Clintons’ political opponents. He authored a “dossier,” largely based on Steele’s work, that was picked up by Winer at Obama’s State Department.

 

Sidney Blumenthal is an even more infamous Clinton stooge. “Sid” is so infamous that Obama told Hillary that he didn’t want Blumenthal associated with the Obama administration. Blumenthal got the Trump-Russia conspiracies written by Shearer into the Obama State Department, when only the Clinton campaign was talking about Trump-Russia collusion.

 

Fusion GPS People

 

Fusion GPS is a D.C. based opposition research and public relations firm with a history of representing less-than-savory actors, including Planned Parenthood, the Venezuelan dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro, and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Fusion has been shown in court documents to have paid still-unknown journalists, likely for the placement of stories or to push a certain narrative.

 

Rinat Akhmetshin is the aforementioned Russian spy guy who was working with Fusion GPS when he showed up in Trump Tower. Get him under oath and ask him how much he knew about Fusion’s work for the Clinton campaign.

 

Edward Baumgartner is the British national, fluent in Russian and with ties to the Kremlin, who actually worked on most of Steele’s dossier. To compile the dossier, Baumgartner used unknown Russian sources that were paid and totally unverified, possibly tied to the Kremlin.

 

Peter Fritsch is a partner at Fusion GPS.

 

Mary Jacoby is the wife of Fusion GPS head Simpson, and has bragged publicly that her husband started the Russia investigation.

 

Shailagh Murray was a senior advisor to the Obama administration. Her husband is Neil King Jr., who works at Fusion GPS.

 

Neil King Jr., a Fusion GPS guy married to Murray, was also Obama’s top communications advisor. On a related story, Politico quoted King without mentioning he worked for Fusion GPS. This is just one of many examples of the endless ties between reporters and Fusion GPS, and between so-called journalists and prominent Democrats.

 

Thomas Catan is a Fusion GPS executive. He pled the Fifth in front of Congress when asked questions about the role of the dossier for the Hillary campaign.

 

Daniel Jones, a former staffer to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, heads the Penn Quarter Group, a D.C. “consulting firm.” He also heads a “nonprofit” called the “Democracy Integrity Project.” Jones’ groups have received millions from the likes of George Soros and Tom Steyer, two leftwing billionaires, to continue investigations into Trump via Fusion GPS. It appears as if Jones began picking up the tab for Fusion to continue its work as soon as the Clinton campaign and the DNC stopped paying Fusion after the election.

 

Glenn Simpson is the head of Fusion GPS. There are lots of indications that he lied to Congress during his testimony about Nellie Ohr, the wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr, before it was publicly known that Nellie worked for Fusion GPS. Specifically, Simpson told Congress that only Baumgartner spoke Russian at Fusion. But Nellie spoke Russian, and she was largely hired because she was a Russia expert (and because her husband worked at DOJ).

 

Simpson also lied about the timing of his contacts with Bruce Ohr. Again, if he were associated with Trump, he would have been indicted by Mueller already.

 

The Big Fish

 

Of course, there’s also former director of national intelligence Jim ClapperComey and Andrew McCabe at FBI, and former CIA director John Brennan.

 

Comey and McCabe are leakers, and should be prosecuted as such. Brennan is a particular bad actor, and did much to spread the dossiers around the federal government and our intelligence community. It is also thought that Brennan pushed the FBI to investigate Trump, or at least increase the intensity of its spying on Trump’s campaign.

 

Will any of these guys ever be prosecuted? Better said, does new Attorney General Bill Barr care about the rule of law or not?

 

So Many Questions Yet to Be Answered

 

Was the Kremlin behind this whole thing, in order to sow distrust in the American political process? If so, that would make far too many Democrats their “useful idiots.” Why isn’t there more uproar about the fact that Fusion GPS was working for Russia while it was working for the Clinton campaign?

 

The other gnawing problem is the timeline to all of this. In early June 2016, the DNC publicly said that it had been hacked, two days after WikiLeaks announced that it had information that showed Clinton and the DNC were mistreating Sanders. Right away, Steele began his work for Fusion GPS in June.

 

The DNC says it first noticed that it was hacked on April 28, 2016. But DNC staffers weren’t forced to turn over their presumably infected equipment until June 10, 2016. And numerous set-up attempts of Trump campaign people occurred during 2016, possibly as early as April 2016.

 

You don’t have to think that the Clintons killed Seth Rich to think something stinks to high heaven here. Justice has been grossly miscarried, on a high and far-reaching level. If this is what America is to be like going forward, it will be only a shell of what it once was in the past. The only hope is for Barr’s DOJ to swing into action.

___________________________

Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry. The views expressed are those of the author only. You can follow Willis on Twitter @WillKrumholz.

 

Copyright © 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Dem-Propaganda to Take Over Election Process


Dem-Propaganda to Take Over Election Process

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

March 5, 2019

 

If you haven’t heard already, you will probably a lot of promotion of Rep. (Speaker) Pelosi’s HR 1 named with typical Leftist deception, “For the People Act of 2019”. There is nothing for the people in this voting revamp-Bill. There is a load of destroy the American election process which among other things threatens 10th Amendment States’ Rights.

 

Thanks to the Heritage Foundation, here is some must read information to counter the lying propaganda the Dems will be pitching  for support.

 

I am cross posting the Heritage Foundation email alert and a couple links within that email.

 

JRH 3/5/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

House Democrats’ #1 priority this week is to weaken our election process for decades…

 

From Janae Stracke, Grassroots Director 

Sent Mar 4, 2019, 12:31 PM

Sent by Heritage Action for America

 

The House will vote this week on H.R. 1, the Democrat-backed “For the People Act.” This deceptively-titled bill would strip the American people and state governments’ of their power to oversee their own elections and hand it over to the federal government.

 

Democrats want to rig the election process in their favor without anyone noticing, and federalizing election oversight provides them the perfect cover to do so.

 

H.R. 1 mandates changes that make it near impossible to ensure the integrity of our elections. Specifically the bill would:

 

  • Mandate same-day voter registration

 

  • Automatically add illegal aliens to voter registration rolls

 

  • Abolish state voter ID laws

 

  • Allow voters to vote outside their precinct

 

  • Give one party majority control of the Federal Elections Commission

 

>>> Click here for more information on this corrupt bill.

 

Nancy Pelosi is using her new power in the House Democrat majority to weaken our election system for generations. She must be stopped.

 

In order to shine a big spotlight on the issue, we are taking to Twitter this Wednesday—and we need your help.

 

Please join grassroots activists nationwide on Twitter to expose this election fraud bill. We need to send the message that the “For the People Act” is #NOTforthePeople.

 

Join our #TweetFest on Wednesday, March 6 from 11 am – 2 pm ET to engage with our representatives with tweets urging them to vote against this anti-democratic bill.

 

 

Check out our latest issue brief here to get smart on the issue. Let’s take over Twitter and show the liberals in Congress that America still stands for the First Amendment and is against their #NOTforthePeopleAct. Together, we can bolster the conservative coalition and make sure there are no conservative votes for Nancy Pelosi’s election fraud bill.

 

Talk to you soon,

 

Janae Stracke
Grassroots Director
Heritage Action

+++++++++++++++++

The Facts About H.R. 1—the For the People Act of 2019

 

February 1, 2019

The Heritage Foundation

 

SUMMARY

H.R. 1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is necessary for protecting our liberty and freedom. The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, to participate in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives.

 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

 

  1. R. 1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states.

 

  1. The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters and to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls.

 

  1. R. 1 reverses the decentralization of the American election process—which is necessary for protecting our liberty and freedom.

 

The Issue

 

H.R. 1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process—which is necessary for protecting our liberty and freedom.

 

The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, to participate in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives.

 

What H.R. 1 Would Do:

 

  • Seize the authority of statesto regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.

 

  • Make it easier to commit fraudand promotes chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and cannot anticipate the number of voters, ballots, and precinct workers that will be needed.

 

  • Hurt voter turnout through early voting by diffusing the intensity of get-out-the-vote efforts; it raises the cost of campaigns. Voters who vote early don’t have the same information as those who vote on Election Day, missing late-breaking developments that could affect their choices.

 

  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV and welfare offices, by registering large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens as well as multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals.

 

  • Constitute a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter registrationnot tied to an existing state record, such as a driver’s license.

 

  • Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precinct, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allows election officials to monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, and prevent election fraud. Mandates no-fault absentee ballots, whichare the tool of choice for vote thieves.

 

  • Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and remove ineligible voters. This includes restrictions on using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address system to verify the address of registered voters; participating in state programs that compare voter registration lists to detect individuals registered in multiple states; or everremoving registrants due to a failure to vote no matter how much time has gone by.

 

  • Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID lawsby allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.

 

  • Violate the First Amendment and could cover a vast range of legal activity. Voter intimidation or coercion that prevents someone from registering or voting is already a federal crime under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But H.R. 1 adds an additional provision to prevent interference with registering or voting that is so vague that it could easily interfere with free speech and other lawful activity.

 

  • Expand regulation and government censorship of campaigns and political activity and speech,including online and policy-related speech. H.R. 1 imposes onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public.

 

  • Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission membersfrom six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.
  • Prohibit state election officials from participating in federal elections and impose numerous other “ethics” rules that are unconstitutional or unfairly restrict political activity.

 

  • Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.

 

  • Transfer the right to draw congressional districts from state legislatures to “independent” commissions whose members are unaccountable to voters. H.R. 1 makes it a violation of federal law to engage in “partisan” redistricting and mandates inclusion of alien population, both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that takes away the ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decision about redistricting.

 

  • Violate separation of powers and directly interfere with the President’s constitutional duties. H.R. 1 bans his political appointees, such as the Attorney General, from participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in any matter (including lawsuits against a President’s policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of the law) in which the President is named as a party.

 

+++++++++++++

Background Information

 

Heritage Action for America

 

H.R. 1 is Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s signature piece of legislation for the 116th Congress. Deceptively titled “For the People Act,” its primary goal is to rig the election system in favor of Democratic politicians by undermining America’s electoral process.

 

Under H.R. 1, massive amounts of elections-related power would be transferred from the states to the federal government. The bill interferes with the ability of states and their citizens to determine qualifications for voters, to ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, to secure the integrity of elections, to participate in the political process, and to determine the district boundary lines for electing their representatives.

 

The end goal of H.R. 1 is clear—to enshrine into law dubious electoral practices that enable and encourage fraudulent behavior, such as ballot harvestingfalse voter registrationsduplicate voting, and ineligible voting.

 

Heritage scholar and election expert Hans Von Spakovsky summarized the problems with H.R. 1 as such, “Sometimes legislation proposed by Congress is bad policy; sometimes it is unnecessary; and sometimes it is unconstitutional. H.R. 1 is all three.”

 

At 600+ pages long, H.R. 1 contains many provisions that are unhelpful, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Below are just a few of the terrible policies contained within of H.R. 1:

 

Sabotages state voter ID laws—When arriving at the polls, voters will not be required to show ID and can simply sign a statement in which they claim to be who they say they are. This undermines many states’ voter ID laws, which were enacted to combat impersonation fraud, voter registration fraud, duplicate voting, and voting by ineligible individuals, such as illegal aliens.

 

Mandates same-day registration—States will be required to immediately register a person to vote upon request, even on the day of an election. With no buffer-period to verify personal information, this provision could easily lead to voter fraud.

 

Automatically registers ineligible voters—States will be required to automatically add to voter registration rolls every person, regardless of voter eligibility, who partakes in certain government programs, such as receiving welfare or obtaining a driver’s license. Other provisions of H.R. 1 then restrict the ability of states to verify eligible voters and the removal of ineligible voters from voter registration rolls. This provision will automatically enroll ineligible voters such as illegal aliens.

 

Unconstitutionally requires states to restore the ability of felons to vote—Upon release from prison, every felon would immediately be restored the ability to vote. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows states to restrict voting rights to those who have participated in “rebellion, or other crime.” States have the constitutional authority to decide when or if to restore that right, as long as they do so in a manner that is not racially discriminatory. H.R. 1 would attempt to unconstitutionally overrule the 14th Amendment with a statute.

 

Violates the First Amendment—H.R.1 deters political free speech by inserting a provision that makes it a criminal offense to provide “materially false” information that will “impede or prevent” someone from registering or voting. This provision is so vague that it would likely interfere with free speech and other legitimate activities.

 

Requires ballots be counted outside of the voter’s precinct—This removes the integrity of the local government to verify voter rolls and oversee elections and gives the power to count votes entirely to the federal government.

 

Creates unaccountable redistricting committees—Currently, congressional district lines are drawn by state governments which are accountable to their constituents. Allowing unelected officials to determine congressional districts is a nakedly political ploy to draw more Democratic districts.

 

Alters Federal Election Commission into a partisan organization—Currently the FEC has six members (three from each party), preserving its bipartisan nature. H.R. 1 would reduce the number to five, giving one party a majority and the opportunity to weaponize the FEC for their party’s benefit.

 

Key Talking Points

 

  • Helps Liberals in Elections—R. 1 is designed to fund, elect, and maintain liberals in Congress, it even allows for using taxpayer dollars to fund candidates.

 

  • Federalization of the Election Process—R. 1 allows for overreaching federal authority of election processes by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional mandates on states.

 

  • Removal of Redistricting Power—Under this bill, the power to draw congressional districts would be given to an unelected third-party.

 

  • Automatic Registration of Ineligible Voters—R. 1 interferes with states’ abilities to determine qualifications for voters and destroys the accuracy of voter registration rolls.

 

  • No Accountability for Vote Counting—Destroys the sanctity of the election process and endangers our democracy by requiring ballots be counted outside the county’s precinct.

 

  • Felon Voter Registration—Upon release from prison, felons are automatically allowed to register as voters.

 

  • Unchecked Voter Identification—States will be required to register voters on the day of elections and instead of requiring voters to bring ID to the polls H.R. 1 allows for people to simply “sign a statement” confirming identification. With no buffer-period to verify personal information, this provision could easily lead to voter fraud.

 

Call Notes

 

Hello,

 

My name is [NAME] from [CITY AND ZIP CODE] and I am calling today to urge [MEMBER OF CONGRESS] to vote against H.R. 1.

 

This bill strips states’ rights to regulate their individual election processes and undermines the integrity of our election process. This micromanaging attempt at federalizing the election process destroys the sanctity of the election process and endangers our democracy. As with most programs, voting is best regulated at levels closest to the people.

 

Four of the most troubling provisions of H.R. 1 are:

 

  • Requires states to restore the ability of felons to vote

 

  • Jeopardizes First Amendment rights

 

  • Federalizes congressional redistricting

 

  • Turns the Federal Election Commission into a partisan organization

 

These requirements will make it harder to detect fraudulent votes and make it easier for illegal immigrants and other ineligible voters to be registered to vote. As a constituent of [MEMBER OF CONGRESS], I am asking that they stand for election integrity and vote against H.R. 1.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Social Posts (remember to insert the social handle of your member)

 

TWEET THIS

 

H.R. 1 is deceptively titled the ‘For the People Act.’ A truer name would be the #StealElectionsAct

 

OR

 

.@MEMBER, H.R. 1 sets a dangerous precedent that strips states of their election oversight and includes far-left policies that Americans like me do not support. Please vote against H.R. 1. #NOTForThePeopleAct

 

OR

 

H.R. 1 would force states to allow same-day voter registration which opens the door for excessive fraud. @MEMBER please do not support this anti-democratic bill. #StealElectionsAct

 

OR

 

The falsely named, “For The People Act,” is NOT for the people due to the nature of its left-wing priorities that would force states to comply with anti-democratic mandates. #NOTForThePeopleAct

 

OR

 

.@SpeakerPelosi cares more about helping felons vote than she does about securing the border. Oppose #HR1 #NOTForThePeopleAct

 

Sample Letter to the Editor

 

Below is a sample letter to the editor. We encourage you to adapt and personalize the letter below. Heritage Action Regional Coordinators are always here to help edit your letter and get it published.

 

Public confidence and trust in the validity of election results is key to increasing voter participation. Americans deserve a fair and accurate election process. This means not only making sure that every eligible individual is able to vote, but that his or her vote is not stolen or diluted through fraud. The Democrats “For the People Act” (H.R. 1) unfortunately would both enable and increase fraud.

 

H.R. 1 would sabotage state voter ID laws, which currently combat impersonation and voter registration fraud, duplicate voting, and voting by ineligible individuals like illegal aliens. Under H.R. 1, someone could simply sign a statement in which they claim to be who they say there are. This would be on top of allowing same-day voter registration. The combination of these two policies that H.R. 1 outlines would open the door for massive fraud.

 

The bill would also require automatically registering individuals to vote who partake in government programs such as receiving welfare or obtaining a driver’s license. This would automatically enroll ineligible voters such as illegal aliens who take advantage of government programs. In addition, it limits states ability to verify eligible voters and remove ineligible voters from registration rolls.

 

In addition to these dangerous policies, it would turn the Federal Election Commission into a hyper-partisan body. Currently the FEC is bipartisan, with six members (three from each party). H.R. 1 would reduce the number to five, giving one political party a majority and the opportunity to essentially rig elections in their party’s favor.

 

Sometimes legislation proposed by Congress is bad policy, sometimes it is unnecessary, and sometimes it is unconstitutional. “For The People Act” includes policies that are all three, and I am urging [insert Representative’s Name] to reject this bill.

 

Graphics (Right click on the image to download)

SOMETIMES LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY IS BAD POLICY…

 

HR 1 IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC…

 

DEAR LIBERALS: STOP SAYING HR 1 IS FOR THE PEOPLE…

 

HR 1 FEDERALIZES THE ELECTION PROCESS…

 __________________

© 2019 Heritage Action for America. All Rights Reserved.

 

About Heritage Action

 

Mission

 

Heritage Action turns conservative ideas into reality on Capitol Hill. We do that by holding lawmakers accountable to their promises to advance the conservative principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

 

We work directly with federal lawmakers inside and outside of Washington—the only way to bring about the conservative policies that hold true to our Founding Fathers’ ideals. Heritage Action exists to ensure that these ideals are not only maintained but flourish, both now and for future generations.

 

Heritage Action’s unique strategy combines inside-the-Beltway lobbying with outside-the-Beltway grassroots pressure.

 

Powerful Inside-the Beltway Influence

 

Our Capitol Hill lobbying team works directly with lawmakers and their staffs to implement conservative solutions—solutions drawn from our partners at The Heritage Foundation. While other lobbyists push for a special interest agenda, we lobby on behalf of American principles. And our groundbreaking legislative Scorecard grades lawmakers on the votes and bill co-sponsorships that are most critical to advancing the conservative mission over both the short and long term.

 

Influential Grassroots Network

 

Meanwhile, our team of grassroots coordinators organizes an elite group of almost 20,000 Sentinel activists who are on the front lines of the conservative fight. Leveraging personal relationships with lawmakers and tools like letters to the editors and calls to Congress, they apply essential political pressure that holds their representatives accountable to our nation’s founding principles.

 

Since our founding in 2010, Heritage Action has both thwarted the liberal agenda and advanced conservative principles. We have kept up momentum for Obamacare repeal even when the Establishment has declared it not worth fighting. We have led the fight for both spending cuts and tax cuts, and our bold stance against confirming any of Barack Obama’s judicial nominees in 2016 paved the way for Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2017.

Senator Baby-Killers


John R. Houk

© February 26, 2019

Yesterday (2/25/19) 53 Senators voted in favor of Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S.311) and 44 Senators essentially VOTED AGAINST saving the lives of botched abortion live-birth babies. And three Senators didn’t vote.

 

Killing babies before they are born is bad enough, but 44 freaking Dem Senators voted to perpetrate the death of a baby born alive when the child’s already egregious abortion failed.

 

WHY?

 

Senator Baby-Killer-in-chief Schumer felt protecting human threatened the Baby-Killer industry and by-Satan the Dems are going to protect abortionists at any cost to a human life that escaped the torture of a murderous abortion and lived.

 

If you live in a State with a Senator Baby-killer coming up for election in 2020, YOU need to decide you desire to align with live-birth baby-killing infanticide or to protect the basic human life from murder. HERE IS A LIST OF SENATOR BABY-KILLERS enabling YOU the voter to choose with protecting the life of new birthed baby or to MURDER the live birthed baby on election day 2020:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three Senators did not vote and they ALL are Republicans. If YOU live in this Senator’s State, YOU need to phone or write to ask WHY. If the reason is lame, DO NOT VOTE FOR THAT SENATOR:

   

 

 

 

Something to dwell on with your voting decision in 2020: The SIXTH COMMANDMENT in the Amplified Version clarity on Baby-Killing:

 

13 “You shall not commit murder (unjustified, deliberate homicide). — Exodus 20: 13 (AMP)

 

It’s time to terminate (or abort) the Senate 60-vote threshold to change laws and end filibusters!

 

JRH 2/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Democrats block bill to ensure medical care for abortion survivors

 

By Kimberly Leonard

February 25, 2019 06:12 PM — Updated Feb 25, 2019, 09:14 PM

Washington Examiner

 

Senate Democrats on Monday defeated a GOP attempt to advance legislation that would clarify that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care.

 

Republicans and anti-abortion advocates pushed for the bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, to receive a vote so that they could put individual senators on the spot regarding the issue of third-trimester abortion. GOP senators have been aiming to pressure Democrats to state whether they believe any limits should be placed on abortion after controversial comments appearing to indicate otherwise from Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam.

 

The legislation fell short of the 60 votes it needed to advance in a procedural maneuver, 53 to 44. Democrats Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama joined all Republicans present in voting in favor.

 

“I don’t always follow the Democrats,” Jones told the Washington Examiner of his decision to support the bill. “Having studied the bill I think it’s the right vote.”

 

Republicans and Democrats largely talked past each other about the bill’s purpose during floor debate ahead of the vote. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who introduced the bill, said it would stop doctors from letting a baby die who survived a botched abortion. Democrats countered that the bill would limit what doctors could do after the birth of a baby who had a grave medical condition, and as a result either wouldn’t live past birth or wouldn’t survive long.

 

President Trump weighed in on the bill’s defeat several hours later, calling it “one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress.”

 

“Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children,” the president tweeted Monday night. “The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth. This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

 

 

During his floor speech ahead of the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the bill would “target, intimidate and shut down reproductive doctors across this country” and “impose requirements on what types of care doctors must provide.”

 

“It has always been illegal to harm a newborn infant,” he said. “This bill has nothing to do with that.” He called the legislation “Washington politics at its worst.”

 

Sasse countered that the bill would keep doctors from “actively allowing a baby to die” who had survived an abortion.

 

“What this bill does is try to secure basic rights, equal rights, for babies that are born and survive outside the womb,” he said.

 

A group of House Republicans, led by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, walked on the Senate floor to support the vote.

 

Earlier this month, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., rejected a motion to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act via unanimous consent, a procedure which a sole senator can stop. Murray objected because, she said, the bill was unnecessary as the U.S. already has laws against infanticide.

 

Northam and Virginia Del. Kathy Tran, also a Democrat, said several weeks ago that they supported a state bill that appeared to allow abortion at the time of birth. Tran later said she misspoke about when abortion would be permitted and Northam’s office later released a statement saying that the governor’s comments were mischaracterized and had been intended to address cases in which babies wouldn’t survive birth because of deformity or another health issue.

 

Sasse pounced on the comments during the floor debate Monday, saying that Northam’s comments amounted to a “discussion about whether you throw that little baby in the trash can.”

 

Virginia tabled the abortion bill, but other states, including Illinois and Massachusetts, are considering loosening restrictions on third-trimester abortion. Supporters of looser restrictions say they are meant to address circumstances in which fetuses have severe medical conditions that would cause them not to survive birth, or that would result in short, painful lives.

 

The bill that failed Monday would have built on the 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which clarified that “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” is a “person” for all federal law purposes. That law was intended to clarify that babies were supposed to receive protections if they survived an abortion, and Sasse’s bill further clarifies what level of care they are supposed to receive, including being immediately transferred to a hospital.

 

If that protocol isn’t followed, then the doctor performing the abortion would face criminal prosecution. Republicans have noted the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortion provider who was convicted of killing babies after attempted abortions, as evidence that their bill is necessary. Democrats and abortion rights groups counter that the doctor was prosecuted and convicted, showing that the legal mechanism are already adequate.

 

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., pointed to the 2002 bill when explaining his decision to vote against Monday’s measure, and saying that the previous legislation already clarifies that infanticide is illegal. Kaine, who has said he is personally troubled by abortion but votes to uphold abortion rights, said he didn’t receive any statistics from Republicans about why the bill was necessary and he said he would have wanted to see the bill go through committee first.

 

“When you have hearings on bills you get the facts out and you explore whether it’s needed,” Kaine said. “They didn’t even want to bring it to committee and that tells me I don’t think they had a real case to justify the bill.”

_________________________

Senator Baby-Killers

John R. Houk

© February 26, 2019

________________________

Democrats block bill to ensure medical care for abortion survivors

 

Copyright 2019. Washington Examiner. All Rights Reserved.

 

About Washington Examiner

 

The Washington Examiner brings the best in breaking news and analysis on politics. With in-depth news coverage, diligent investigative reporting and thoughtful commentary, we’ll make sure you’re always in the know about Washington’s latest exploits.

 

The Washington Examiner is published by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group.

 

Can Netanyahu Lose?


Sarah & Benjamin Netanyahu

 

Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu has been facing legal troubles as Prime Minister of Israel. This is too bad since I’ve had admiration for Bibi for thumbing his nose at a corrupt Obama, the Antisemitic United Nations, and allowing Jewish settlements to proceed in Judea/Samaria which is legitimately Israel’s land contrary to the propaganda of the fake-people known as Palestinians. LET’S ALSO STIPULATE that Netanyahu has stood against Iran’s nuclear weaponry ambitions when Obama was willing to wink to a faux slow-down only to allow future nuke armament.

 

Bibi’s legal woes seem to be making inroads against his government’s reelection in upcoming April elections. Since Israel is a Parliamentary system, governments are elected by political party coalition blocs. Apparently past political allies are breaking away hoping to form their coalition bloc for government.

 

JRH 2/25/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Can Netanyahu Lose?

BIBI’S BALANCING ACT

 

By JOSHUA KRASNA

February 21, 2019

The American Interest

 

This April’s elections in Israel are no longer a sure thing for Netanyahu, but even with his rivals teaming up against him, the race is still Bibi’s to lose.

 

In recent weeks, the Israeli elections, called for April 9, 2019, changed from a sure thing for Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu to something approaching an actual race. The election is still Netanyahu’s to lose, but it certainly has become more interesting.

 

On December 26, 2018, the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament), in which Netanyahu’s government has a thin but stable majority, voted to disband itself and to move up the elections planned for November 2019. The proximate cause was Netanyahu’s desire to receive a renewed mandate from the public in the face of the possibility of criminal indictments being issued against him (one has already been issued to his wife) by the Attorney General, and Netanyahu’s declared intention not to resign if indicted. Netanyahu probably assessed that in the political constellation existing at the time none of the other heads of party in the Knesset had the stature to defeat him.

 

In September, Lieutenant General (res.) Benjamin (Benny) Gantz, the former Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), had ended the compulsory three-year “cooling-off period” for retired senior officers. This event was widely anticipated by Netanyahu’s opponents, and there had been much speculation—and elements of a “bidding war”—regarding his joining an existing party. On December 27, Gantz registered a political party by the name of “Israel’s Resilience (Hosen L’yisrael).” On January 29, Gantz announced that his party had unified with the Telem list headed by former Chief of General Staff and Defense Minister Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon, who would be number two on the combined list. On the same day, he gave his first, much anticipated programmatic speech, which was well received.

 

Since then, Gantz has become the main challenger to Netanyahu. On February 21, after a lengthy tug-of-war with the former front runner of the opposition, Yair Lapid, head of the Yesh Atid party (who felt he, as the more experienced politician, should be at the top of the list), the two parties agreed to run on a joint list, called “Blue-White” (the colors of Israel’s flag), with Gantz first on the list, Lapid second and Yaalon, third. Lapid had been under significant public pressure by the anti-Netanyahu camp, which feared splitting its vote, and that cannibalistic infighting in the Center would only help Netanyahu. The two parties have agreed that if the joint list is able to form a government, Gantz would serve as Prime Minister for the first 30 months, and Lapid for the next 18.

 

While handicapping polls is a mug’s game, it appears that since Gantz’s Israel’s Resilience has been running at around 20 seats in the 120-seat Knesset in the polls, and Yesh Atid at 10-12, the combined list is running neck-and-neck with Netanyahu’s Likud party, which is polled at around 30 seats (similar to their current number).1 It may even enjoy a bounce due to the merger. This is dramatic, since Gantz’s party didn’t even exist before late December.

 

Netanyahu’s strategy now largely consists in attempting to besmirch his rivals’ records (slightly problematical, since both Gantz and Yaalon served him as Prime Minister), and piling up achievements that highlight his political and security experience. This includes taking credit, after a decade of useful ambiguity, for attacks on Iranian targets in Syria; stressing diplomatic successes with Arab and Muslim states, including visits to Oman and Chad; spotlighting his close relationship with the current U.S. President and his willingness to irritate his predecessor; and taking an outsized role at the recent Warsaw Summit. (His arranging to host a summit, in Israel, of the Visegrad Group states—Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia—did not work out as planned: When Netanyahu and his freshly appointed Foreign Minister made remarks that annoyed the Poles, the summit was summarily cancelled.) But will the strategy work anyway?

 

To answer that question we have to look at a series of deeper political trends in Israel. The first is that Israel has a tradition, since 1977, of “flash-in-the-pan” center parties, which do very well in their first election cycle and then dwindle away—either by losing support or by being absorbed into a larger party—by the next cycle or the one after. Israelis have for many years been unimpressed by the choices given them by the Right and the Left, and by their leaders, and so have plumped for new faces promising a “third way.” In the past 42 years, the following center parties have come and (mostly) gone:

 

  • 1977—Democratic Movement for Change—15 seats (the third largest party in the Knesset).

 

  • 1981—Telem (Dayan)—2 seats, Shinui -2 seats.

 

  • 1984—Yachad—3 seats.

 

  • 1996—Yisrael Ba‘aliya—7 seats, The Third Way—4 seats.

 

  • 1999—Shinui (new)—6 seats, Center—6 seats.

 

  • 2006—Kadima—29 seats (the largest party in the Knesset, in both this and the 2009 elections), Pensioners—7 seats.

 

  • 2013—Yesh Atid—19 seats (second largest party), Hatnua—6 seats.

 

  • 2015—Kulanu—10 seats.

 

These parties—with the notable exception of Kadima, formed by breakaway, very senior members of Likud and Labor—were often headed by non-politicians or unconventional politicians and strove to create lists of mostly non-political candidates “untainted” by previous service in the legislature or government. Yesh Atid itself was founded in 2012 and only entered the Knesset in 2013; Lapid was then a media personality and political newcomer. “Israel’s Resilience” is, therefore, only the latest example of a long tradition in Israeli politics.

 

The second trend that Gantz’s meteoric rise illuminates is a recurrent longing on the part of the Israeli public for a “man on horseback”—a politically unsullied general who rises above mere politics yet is a proven “safe pair of hands.” This phenomenon is partly due to the centrality of security concerns in Israel, but also to the high level of trust in the IDF in Israel, as opposed to political institutions. According to the Israeli Democracy Institute’s Annual Index, the IDF is the most trusted institution by 78 percent of the general public, as opposed to the media (31 percent), the government (30.5 percent), the Knesset (27.5 percent) and political parties (16 percent). Political debuts by generals into Israeli politics have known their ups and downs over the years, and once engaged, most generals have not proven themselves significantly different in their political and executive capabilities than their civilian counterparts. Be that as it may, half of the “third way” parties listed above were headed by a former general or senior security official. In addition, many civilian parties seek the “ballast” that former generals or security officials can provide to their civilian-led lists (witness Labor’s recent “parachuting” of a retired general to their number two slot).

 

Unlike in most states, however, the Israeli electorate’s desire for the involvement of former generals in politics does not necessarily stem from a conservative worldview. To the extent that the IDF command level can be said to have a political orientation or culture, it has been, for the past thirty years at least, moderate. Of the three former generals to have become Prime Minister, two—Itzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak—headed the Labor Party, and one—Ariel Sharon—broke with his Likud Party to form the centrist Kadima. The majority of generals and former senior security officers who have gone into politics in Israel’s history entered Left and Center parties.

 

In any case, the addition of Yaalon to Gantz’s list, and the addition of yet a third former Chief of General Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, present a serious challenge to Netanyahu’s self-professed image as “Mr. Security,” and to a campaign strategy that stresses his foreign policy and national security expertise and experience.

 

A third trend in Israeli politics highlighted by the current race is the increased difficulty of coalition building. No large party has ever been able to form a government entirely on its own in Israel; the government has always been a coalition. The head of the party with the most votes is the one Israel’s President first asks to form a coalition government. In 2009 Netanyahu was able to form a government by bringing in the Labor Party under Ehud Barak (against the opposition of many luminaries within Labor); in 2013 Yesh Atid gave him the majority, and in 2015 Kulanu joined his coalition.

 

In the past, creative coalition-making was eminently possible. In recent years, however, the political system has hardened. The chances are vanishingly small that the parties to the right of Likud will join a Left or Center-led government. However, many of their leaders are personally ill-disposed toward Netanyahu, and may be positioning themselves to try to take over Likud if Netanyahu is forced from office. The Arab party bloc will not join a right-wing government, but has a significant problem with the Center parties, which, in their desire to woo voters from Likud, often venture into problematic rhetoric and policies from the perspective of Arab citizens. The ultra-orthodox parties, which used to be ideologically flexible on security and foreign affairs and have joined Left and Center governments in the past, have in the Netanyahu years become ever more oriented toward the Right, in consonance with the political leadings of their electorates.

 

It is therefore more difficult in general for parties of the Center and Left to build a coalition, since any coalition that excludes Likud and the right-wing parties would have to include both the ultra-orthodox and anti-ultra-orthodox (Meretz and to a lesser extent, Yesh Atid) parties, which are ideologically incompatible. Otherwise, they would have to depend for their majority on the support of the Arab party(s), which they fear doing since they leave themselves open to claims of “lacking a Jewish majority”—an accusation that haunted the government of Yitzhak Rabin until his assassination.

 

The bottom line: For several decades it has been easier for Likud to form a narrow government than for parties to its Left to do so.

 

The math may work out slightly differently in the coming elections. This is to a large part due to the “electoral threshold,” a mechanism built into Israeli election law, which was designed to prevent the proliferation of small parties, which were perceived to have led to un-governability and government instability in the past. The 11th (1984), 12th (1988) , and 15th (1999) Knessets, for instance, each contained 15 parties, some of which had one or two seats but held the pivotal role in close election results and therefore had inordinate leverage and influence. In 2014, the Knesset passed legislation raising the threshold to 3.25 percent of the vote: Since the Knesset has 120 seats, this meant that the minimum number of seats a party needed to get into the Knesset was four. That, in turn, led to the merging before the 2015 elections of ideologically close parties to ensure reaching the required number of votes, creating the Jewish Home party on the Right, and the United Arab List on the Left. However, personal rivalries and stubborn ideological differences within these “portmanteau parties” have caused them to collapse: Labor’s Gabbay unceremoniously dissolved his alliance with Tzippy [sic] Livni, who after 20 years (including an electoral victory in 2009 that she was unable to translate into a governing coalition) recently announced her retirement from politics; the Jewish Home split into three parties; and the Arab List has split into at least two.

 

This could have led to the discounting and “loss” of a substantial number of votes on the far Right, since they will be spread too thinly over too many parties. In addition, Kulanu, Netanyahu’s Right-Center partner, may not pass the threshold. This would strengthen the larger parties, including their ideological enemies (Israel’s Resilience/Yesh Atid). Netanyahu therefore put unprecedented effort into convincing the two remaining modern-Orthodox, pro-settler factions in Jewish Home (whose leaders, Naftali Bennet and Ayelet Shaked, split to form the own, secular, party, the New Right), to join with “Jewish Power” (Otzma Yehudit), a far-right racist party not in the current Knesset. This would ensure that votes cast for these three parties’ would not be dustbinned due to their not crossing the threshold. Netanyahu has promised the resulting, new, far-right portmanteau party the Education and Housing Ministries and two seats in the Security Cabinet; He also promised to put their representative in the 28th place on his own Likud list, from which that representative would return to the new party after the elections. This strategy should strengthen the Right bloc and prevent the erasure of votes. But it is also risky, since some “soft” Likud and Jewish Home supporters are dismayed by the entry of the racist, and perceived anti-democratic, Jewish Power into their camp.

 

With the reshuffling of the party decks and the creation of a new balance between the Center-Left and the Right, the ultra-orthodox parties may return to their traditional balancing role.

 

Lastly, it is important to note the decline of the Left in Israeli politics. Labor, which as recently as 1992 had 44 seats in the Knesset (and 34 in 1996), had 19 seats in 2006, 13 in 2009, 15 in 2013, and 24 in 2015, after it joined with the remnants of Kadima under Livni. The most optimistic predictions say it will win 10-11 in the next Knesset. Meretz, the Zionist party to the left of Labor, which had a peak of 12 seats in 1992, has five seats in the current Knesset, and is expected to achieve a similar result in the next elections, if it doesn’t disappear entirely due to the election threshold. Livni’s party, the rump of Kadima, has folded. Why has this happened?

 

The perceived failure of the Oslo process, and of the unilateral withdrawals from Southern Lebanon (2000) and the Gaza Strip (2005), key policies of Left- and Center-led governments; the continued stalemate on the Palestinian issue (attributed by the majority of Israelis to a lack of a viable Palestinian partner, especially since the split in 2007 between the Gaza Strip under Hamas and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority/Fatah); as well as demographics, have moved the midpoint of Israeli politics to the Right. Centrist (or even right-of-center) parties like Yesh Atid and Israel’s Resilience are delegitimized as “leftists”—a term of opprobrium in Israeli political discourse today: The actual Left is largely seen as irrelevant. Recent internal developments in Labor seem to indicate that the party is shifting from seeing itself as a potential ruling party to a democratic-socialist “woke” opposition, which may explain the internal pressures to merge with Meretz on its Left.

 

The overarching dynamics of the system as sketched above still work to Netanyahu’s advantage. He enjoys the powerful benefits of incumbency, with its accompanying ability to largely shape the political, diplomatic, and media agenda. His base disregards his legal problems, either seeing them as the product of a conspiracy by left-leaning elites and the deep state or shrugging them off as peccadillos that should not bring down a strong and effective leader (especially since they would return “the Left” to power).

 

To win, Netanyahu only needs his current coalition to do no worse than before in the aggregate; the election is his to lose. However, Netanyahu’s legal issues and increasingly polarizing political style, combined with possible loss of seats due to inability of prospective coalition partners to pass the electoral threshold, may have opened a narrow path to victory for a “clean-hands” rule-of-law candidate of the Center-Left.

 

Even if Netanyahu is elected, it is not at all clear that the indictments (which are expected to come before the elections despite the Prime Minister’s ferocious efforts to push them off) and the court process they will engender, will allow him to remain in office through his term. So whatever the results of this election, expect more political reshuffling and possibly even another round of elections in the not-so-distant future.

1A word of caution: Public opinion polls in Israel historically slightly underestimate support for Likud.

__________________

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2019

 

Subscribe to The American Interest

 

Joshua Krasna, a former senior Israeli civil servant, lives in Israel, teaches at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs, and is a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, as well as a fellow of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.

 

About The American Interest

 

Since its founding in 2005, The American Interest has been one of the leading sources for understanding American policy, politics, and culture. Launched in the wake of the crisis triggered by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, TAI sought to bridge the gulf of misunderstanding separating Americans and their counterparts in other democratic countries. In that time, it has evolved from a bimonthly print journal into a unique multiplatform media organization featuring analysis, opinion, reviews, and podcasts.

 

Understanding America and its role in the world means focusing not only on U.S. foreign and domestic policy, but also uncovering the sources from which those policies arise, in American politics, culture, and society.

 

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States and the global populist surge, our mission—“to explain America to the world, and the world to Americans”—has grown even more urgent. While many media sources today have built business models around catering to popular appetites for outrage and hyper-partisanship, TAI remains committed to hosting evidence-based arguments and open contestation over values. As TAI founder and Chairman Francis Fukuyama has said, “Viable democracies require deliberation and disagreement. It is our hope that reestablishing a vital center will reconnect America with itself, and America with the world as we confront similar challenges.” (Published on: May 23, 2018)

 

Bombshell Report: The DNC Was Not Hacked by the Russians


Seth Rich Leaked 2 Wikileaks-- Shot & Killed

Another nail in the coffin of the Mueller Investigation trying to frame President Trump for working with the Russians to win Election 2016. Dems are lying AGAIN.

 

This should reawaken the rumors that murdered Seth Rich stole the DNC files to expose Dem corruption. Here are some past titles from SlantRight 2.0 on Seth Rich exposing Crooked Hillary/Dem corruption:

 

 

 

 

JRH 2/18/19 (Edited 12/18/19 1:18 PM}

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Bombshell Report: The DNC Was Not Hacked by the Russians

 

Crooked Hillary (blurred) & John Podesta 

Crooked Hillary (blurred) & John Podesta

 

Author: Nwo Report (gronos)

February 17, 2019

NWO Report

 

The DNC emails published by Wikileaks in 2016 were not obtained via a Russian hack, cyber-security and intelligence experts William Binney and Larry Johnson claim.

 

According to forensic evidence, the files taken from the DNC between 23 and 25 May 2016, were copied onto a file storage device.

 

Thegatewaypundit.com reports: If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC computer network then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected and stored by the National Security Agency.

 

The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in place since 2002. The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election:

 

“We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”

 

The phrase, “moderate confidence” is intelligence speak for “we have no hard evidence.” Thanks to the leaks by Edward Snowden, we know with certainty that the NSA had the capability to examine and analyze the DNC emails. NSA routinely “vacuumed up” email traffic transiting the U.S. using robust collection systems (whether or not anyone in the NSA chose to look for this data is another question). If those emails had been hijacked over the internet then NSA also would have been able to track the electronic path they traveled over the internet. This kind of data would allow the NSA to declare without reservation or caveat that the Russians were guilty. The NSA could admit to such a fact in an unclassified assessment without compromising sources and methods. Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the judgement regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to support the judgement the conclusion would have been stated as “full confidence.”

 

We believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller faces major embarrassment if he decides to pursue the indictment he filed–which accuses 12 Russian GRU military personnel and an entity identified as, Guccifer 2.0, for the DNC hack—because the available forensic evidence indicates the emails were copied onto a storage device.

 

According to a DOJ press release on the indictment of the Russians, Mueller declares that the emails were obtained via a “spearphishing” attack:

 

“In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. Through that process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers. They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through these spearphishing techniques to steal emails and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of employees, and implant hundreds of files of malicious computer code to steal passwords and maintain access to these networks.

 

The officials in Unit 26165 coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website. On the website, defendants claimed to be “American hacktivists” and used Facebook accounts with fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote the website. After public accusations that the Russian government was behind the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the fictitious persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement.”

 

Notwithstanding the DOJ press release, an examination of the Wikileaks DNC files do not support the claim that the emails were obtained via spearphishing. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that the emails posted on the Wikileaks site were copied onto an electronic media, such as a CD-ROM or thumb drive before they were posted at Wikileaks. The emails posted on Wikileaks were saved using the File Allocation Table (aka FAT) computer file system architecture.

 

An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was transferred to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.

 

How do we know? The truth lies in the “last modified” time stamps on the Wikileaks files. Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not familiar with the FAT file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under this system the data rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.

 

We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and all 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there would have been an equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is not the case with the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.

 

The DNC emails are in 3 batches (times are GMT).

 

Date Count Min Time Max Time FAT Min Id Max Id

 

2016-05-23 10520 02:12:38 02:45:42 x 3800 14319

2016-05-25 11936 05:21:30 06:04:36 x 1 22456

2016-08-26 13357 14:11:36 20:06:04 x 22457 44053

 

The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power or approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power – in other words, an infinitely high order.

 

This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a thumb drive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.

 

This fact alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts about Mueller’s indictment accusing 12 Russian soldiers as the culprits for the leak of the DNC emails to Wikileaks. A savvy defense attorney will argue, and rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device (E.g., USB thumb drive) and transferred that to Wikileaks.

 

We also tested the hypothesis that Wikileaks could have manipulated the files to produce the FAT result by comparing the DNC email files with the Podesta emails (aka Larter file) that was released on 21 September 2016. The FAT file format is NOT present in the Podesta files. If Wikileaks employed a standard protocol for handling data/emails received from unknown sources we should expect the File structure of the DNC emails to match the file structure of the Podesta emails. The evidence shows otherwise.

 

There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing attack. Bill Binney, a former Technical Director of the National Security Agency, along with other former intelligence community experts, examined emails posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those emails could not have been downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing attack. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.

 

Shortly after Wikileaks announced it had the DNC emails, Guccifer 2.0 emerged on the public stage, claiming that “he” hacked the DNC and that he had the DNC emails. Guccifer 2.0 began in late June 2016 to publish documents as proof that “he” had hacked from the DNC.

 

Taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value—i.e., that his documents were obtained via an internet attack—Bill Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted documents based on internet connection speeds in the United States. This analysis showed that the highest transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible from a remote online connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincides with the download rate for a thumb drive.

 

Binney, assisted by other colleagues with technical expertise, extended the examination and ran various tests forensic from the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest rate obtained — from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK–was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the rate necessary to transfer the data, as it was listed from Guccifer 2.

 

The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the Wikileaks data does not prove who copied the information to a thumb drive, but it does provide and empirical alternative explanation that undermines the Special Counsel’s claim that the DNC was hacked. According to the forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data, the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing attack. The data breach was local. It was copied from the network.

 

There is other circumstantial evidence that buttresses the conclusion that the data breach was a local effort that copied data.

 

First there is the Top Secret information leaked by Edward Snowden. If the DNC emails had been hacked via spearphishing (as alleged by Mueller) then the data would have been captured by the NSA by means of the Upstream program (Fairview, Stormbrew, Blarney, Oakstar) and the forensic evidence would not modify times – the data would be presented as sent.

 

Second, we have the public reporting on the DNC and Crowdstrike, which provide a bizarre timeline for the alleged Russian hacking.

 

It was 29 April 2016, when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated (see https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f). No claim yet about who was responsible.

 

According to CrowdStrike founder, Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first detected the Russians mucking around inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:

 

“Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike’s experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia’s answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.”

 

And what did CrowdStrike do about this? Nothing. According to Michael Isikoff, CrowdStrike claimed their inactivity was a deliberate plan to avoid alerting the Russians that they had been “discovered.” This is nonsense. If a security company detected a thief breaking into a house and stealing its contents, what sane company would counsel the client to do nothing in order to avoid alerting the thief? Utter nonsense.

 

We know from examining the Wikileaks data that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35. No DNC emails were taken and released to Wikileaks after that date.

 

CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told Esquire’s Vicky Ward that:

 

“Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office.”

 

Why does a cyber security company wait 45 days after allegedly uncovering a massive Russian attack on the DNC server to take concrete steps to safeguard the integrity of the information held on the server? This makes no sense.

 

A more plausible explanation is that it was discovered that emails had been downloaded from the server and copied onto a device like a thumb drive. But the culprit had not yet been identified. We know one thing for certain—CrowdStrike did not take steps to shutdown and repair the DNC network until 18 days after the last email was copied from the server.

 

The final curiosity is that the DNC never provided the FBI access to its servers in order for qualified FBI technicians to conduct a thorough forensic examination. If this had been a genuine internet hack, it would be very easy for the NSA to identify when the information was taken and the route it moved after being hacked from the server. The NSA had the technical collection systems in place to enable analysts to know the date and time of the messages. But that has not been done.

 

Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint a picture that exonerates alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within our law enforcement and intelligence community taking part in a campaign of misinformation, deceit and incompetence. It is not a pretty picture.

____________________

This Blog Editor utilized spellcheck on the NWO Report post.

 

Published by Nwo Report

Once dismissed by cynics as a “conspiracy theory the New World Order is rapidly becoming a reality. We look at its origins, how it operates and how it affects the lives of everyone. View all posts by Nwo Report

 

© 2019 NWO REPORT

 

About NWO Report

 

This website will shake the very foundation of everything you believe about the world and we prove every statement we make.  It may sound crazy but we prove every claim we make.

 

Once dismissed by cynics as a “conspiracy theory the New World Order is rapidly becoming a reality. We look at its origins, how it operates and how it affects the lives of everyone.

 

This website serves one purpose – to prove with undeniable proof that there is a group of extremely rich “power mongers” who want to rule the world in a slave state that makes the most extreme horror movie seem pale by comparison.  They call their plan the New World Order.  We want to “Wake Up” as many good people as possible to try to put an end to this insanity.  As crazy as this sounds everything on this website is confirmed by multiple mainstream press news reports, reputable encyclopedic references or websites of those making the claims.

 

© 2009-2018 Nworeport.me is a Murray Enterprise Company.

 

Nwo Report

Bombshell report by intelligence experts reveals DNC was not hacked by the RussiansThe DNC emails published by Wikileaks in 2016 were not obtained via a Russian hack, cyber-security and intelligence experts William Binney and Larry Johnson claim.

According to forensic evidence, the files taken from the DNC between 23 and 25 May 2016, were copied onto a file storage device.

Thegatewaypundit.com reports: If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC computer network then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected and stored by the National Security Agency.

The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in place since 2002. The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election:

“We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help…

View original post 1,981 more words