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

Breitbart

by KRISTINA WONG

An American businessman who went undercover for the FBI was blocked during the Obama administration from telling Congress what he knew about Russia’s efforts to influence the Clintons’ and Obama administration decisions, according to a report. Attorney Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate intelligence committee, told The Hill that she is trying to get the Trump administration or the FBI to free her client to talk.

“All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” Toensing said.

She said her client possesses “specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton’s foundation.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

The Hill

by

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

Continue reading

Constitutional Lawyer: Yes, Obama’s Affordable Care Act Subsidy Provision Was Illegal

Townhall.com

by Matt Vespa

There’s are a lot of liberals frothing at the mouth over the Trump administration’s decision to end the unconstitutional subsidies to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act last week. The subsidies were given to insurance companies to help offset costs from lower-income individuals concerning deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. It’s meant to prevent premium spikes. And the termination of this subsidy is not just a conservative view or action item, by the way. It’s the opinion of the courts, as the LA Times reported back in May of 2016–it’s unconstitutional:

House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of  Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.

On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.

The judge’s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

Well, it prompted 18 states to sue the Trump administration over this decision. As with the issue over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program on immigration, it’s another example of executive overreach under Obama, bypassing Congress on issues that only the legislative branch can legally resolve. Josh Blackman elaborated on this subsidy provision in National Review back in July:

In 2014, a federal judge concluded that with the so-called OPM fix, the “executive branch has rewritten a key provision of the ACA so as to render it essentially meaningless in order to save members of Congress and their staffs.” Allowing the administration to rewrite the law, he wrote, “would be a violation of Article I of the Constitution, which reposes the lawmaking power in the legislative branch.” However, because the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (Senator Ron Johnson and one of his staffers) were not personally injured by OPM’s policy — indeed they benefited — the case was dismissed for lack of standing. While the Obama administration was content to make these illegal payments, the Trump administration should halt them.

Congress is not the only beneficiary of such illegal largess. The ACA employed two strategies to make health insurance more affordable. Section 1401 of the law provides for the payment of subsidies to consumers to reduce premiums. Section 1402 provides payments to insurers to offset certain “cost sharing” fees, such as deductibles and co-pays. But while the ACA funds the subsidies under Section 1401 with a permanent appropriation, to date, Congress has not provided an annual appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies under Section 1402.

Once again, where Congress would not act, President Obama did so unilaterally. The executive branch pretended that the ACA had actually funded Section 1402 all along, and it paid billions of dollars to insurers. Once again, Mr. Trump is exactly right that this is a “BAILOUT.” And, once again, the payments are a violation of the separation of powers.

Now, we have Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at the George Washington University Law School, reiterating the point that the Obamacare subsidy provision was unconstitutional with Fox News’ Bret Baier last Friday. Turley added that the court ruling made it clear that you have to play within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, and that even benevolent reasons are not good enough to usurp the rule of law  (via RCP):

Can the president get away with stopping ObamaCare payments?

BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT: Can the president stop Obamacare subsidies? … You’re also the lead counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives in the challenge to the actions by the Obama administration to set up these subsidies in a court case that ended in victory. So, this is a Constitutional move.JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: The original order that has just been rescinded was unconstitutional by finding of a federal court. The court found it not only violated Article One of the Constitution, it violated the health care law itself. Because Congress had the ability to grant subsidies under the federal law but it chosen not to. In fact, the administration had come to Congress and asked for this money and Congress said no. And then the president say alright, I’ll just order it directly from the Treasury. Well, you can’t do that. The defining power of Congress is the power of the purse. And the federal judge issued a historic ruling and said this is wrong, you can’t violate the Constitution no matter what your motivations are, no matter what you’re complaining about with Congress, you have to play within the rules of the Constitution.

JW Forces FBI to Admit to New Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Docs

Judicial Watch

FBI Finds 30 Pages of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting Documents

Who is running the store at the FBI!?

First the FBI told us it had no documents related to the infamous tarmac meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton.

But now the FBI just told us that the FBI located 30 pages of documents related to the June 27, 2016, meeting, and it proposes that it produce non-exempt material no later than November 30, 2017.

This is in response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request seeking the following:

  • All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.
  • All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.
  • All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.

The FBI originally informed us that it didn’t locate any records related to the tarmac meeting. However, in a related case, the Justice Department located emails in which Justice Department officials wrote that they had communicated with the FBI. As a result, by letter dated August 10, 2017, the FBI told us: “Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist. As a result, your [FOIA] request has been reopened …”

Well, well.

Continue reading

ISIS on the Run Under Trump

 

https://i1.wp.com/newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2016/04/Trump-America-First.jpg

Image via newsinfo.inquirer.net

 

Frontpagemagazine

Joseph Klein

 

After 8 years of Obama’s lies and failures leading to genocide.

Last week Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that ISIS’s “fraudulent caliphate in Iraq and Syria is on the brink of being completely extinguished,” and credited “an aggressive new strategy led by the president.” President Trump trusted his military to carry out a robust strategy to quickly eliminate ISIS’s control of territories from which it could plan and direct terrorist attacks worldwide. As Defense Secretary Jim Mattis explained last May, “First, he delegated authority to the right level to aggressively and in a timely manner move against enemy vulnerabilities. Secondly, he directed a tactical shift from shoving ISIS out of safe locations in an attrition fight to surrounding the enemy in their strongholds so we can annihilate ISIS.”

Former President Barack Obama had allowed the ISIS cancer to metastasize in the first place, leading to the killing, maiming, kidnapping and sexual enslavement of many thousands of innocent men, women and children. That is because Obama initially considered ISIS a “J.V. team” and then failed to prosecute a meaningful counter-strategy to quickly eliminate the ISIS scourge before its killing machine could become a regional and then a global threat. There has been huge slaughter and a global security threat unleashed thanks to Obama’s handling of ISIS, and the reverse of that trend under President Trump.

Continue reading

Muslim Brotherhood Political Infiltration on Steroids

Family Security Matters

In 2008, during the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history, United States v. Holy Land Foundation, a document published in 1991 outlined Muslim plans to take over America.  An Explanatory Memorandum:  On the General Strategic Goal for the Group, seized in a 2004 FBI raid of the Virginia home of a Muslim Brotherhood operative, was presented during the trial as evidence of “a Civilization-Jihadist Process.” It outlined the Muslim Brotherhood goal to conduct a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”

For several decades, this well-organized and well-funded effort to subvert our constitutional republic and replace it with an Islamic government under Islamic law has focused on infiltrating all levels and branches of the U.S. government. More recently, the Muslim Brotherhood presence within the American political landscape has intensified, accelerated, and become more visible with the establishment of several nonprofit political action organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood stated goal of transforming American society from within in preparation for an eventual takeover is clearly moving forward fueled by the efforts of these groups and their burgeoning success within the umma or Muslim community.

Continue reading

Destroying whitey in Obama’s New World Order

Renew America

By Cliff Kincaid

 

A book by an associate of Barack Hussein Obama predicted a “permanent progressive governing coalition” would be solidified by the presidential election of 2016. But the prediction in the book Brown is the New White ran into the reality of a Donald J. Trump victory.

This helps explain why Obama has not retired from the public scene and why, in tandem with loser Hillary Clinton, he has worked to undermine the peaceful transition to power of the Trump Administration. What really drives Obama & Company crazy is the white voters, mostly in the working and middle classes, who revolted against Democrats’ “progressive” vision of society. Trump acted as an exorcist of Cultural Marxism, also known as political correctness, which was destroying their nation, their families, and their jobs through radical “identity politics” and unlimited immigration.

Continue reading