Mueller: ‘I couldn’t find a Trump-Crime…so it’s Time to Impeach him!’

’12 ANGRY DEMOCRATS’: Mueller protection bill blocked in ...

Image via rebekahworsham.org

 

CFP

By

I have never before witnessed such a sham of a legal system or—even worse—experienced the horror that the real criminals were the ones running it. The additional horror is that other gangsters have and/or are replacing those who have been fired (some likely awaiting the day when they will be arrested) or have run for the proverbial hills upon realizing what may soon be revealed. Having personally experienced this lifetime for not quite—but getting closer each day—a century, I do have some small perspective with regards to history. Mueller—with all of the Trump-haters on his staff—could find that President Trump committed no crime. So, in his own rather sleazy way, he turned it over to Congress to impeach him. This is the caliber of human being we currently have in upper management within the bowels of the US government.

I, and certainly others, have written about Robert Swan Mueller III and his apparent crimes committed over the years under the color of law.  One of these was sending 4 innocent people to prison, in order to protect the murderer Whitey Bulger who had been designated “an informer” to and for Mueller’s FBI.  Mueller had also interviewed with President Trump to get his old job as FBI Director back.  But, President Trump didn’t choose him.  Uh-oh!  However, Mueller was chosen by Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as “Special Counsel” to head up the investigation of President Trump; whom he at the very least intensely disliked.

To briefly recap, this investigation was built upon a foundation of sand which included the following:

  • A self-proclaimed Trump-hater and (former?) British MI-6 agent who worked with some Russians to create (out of whole cloth) the now-infamous “Trump Dossier”:
  • The Clinton Campaign and DNC funded the “dossier”:  “The DNC and Clinton campaign-funded research continued through the end of October 2016, according to the Post’s report.
  • The “dossier” was requested and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.  Excerpt:  “According to the report, lawyer Marc E. Elias, who represented both Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, and his law firm Perkins Coie retained the firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to investigate any connections, according to the Post. Before then, a still-unknown Republican client funded Fusion GPS’ research during the Republican primaries. Fusion had hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct the research.”
  • The Mueller investigation began as a counter-intelligence investigation which metastasized into a full-blown criminal investigation…with NO CRIME mentioned!  As a stated crime is required by law before this type of investigation may begin, Mueller’s investigation…was illegal from its inception.  As a very large side-note “collusion” is still not a crime.
  • If there is no underlying crime…there can be no “obstruction of justice!”

The crimes which were committed by members within our own governmental agencies (DOJ/FBI, CIA, NSA etc.) are the greatest uncovered in the history of our country and are vast to the point that the uncovering of the worldwide Deep State conspiracy against POTUS Trump continues.  Note:  Within the UK, it appears to reach the very highest levels of government.

Continue reading

FEC Still Refuses To Investigate Alleged $84 Million Clinton Campaign Money Laundering

‘It’s outrageous that the FEC has sat around and done nothing—especially with such a detailed, comprehensive paper trail handed to them,’

 

The Federalist

By

Tuesday evening the Committee to Defend the President (CDP) filed a motion in a D.C. federal court seeking to supplement the complaint it had filed against the Federal Election Committee (FEC) in April 2018. In its original complaint, the CDP alleged that the agency responsible for enforcing campaign-finance law failed to act on an administrative complaint the CDP had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged that, during the 2016 presidential election, Democrats illegally funneled approximately $84 million through the Hillary Victory Fund to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which then illegally coordinated with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

To understand the alleged scheme requires familiarity with controlling campaign-finance law and campaign contribution limits. As I explained at the time CDP sued the FEC last April:

Continue reading

Reason Why Democrats Don’t Want Border Wall? The DNC and Clinton Foundation Both Reportedly Paid Off by Mexican Cartels

The Gateway Pundit

by Joe Hoft

 

We reported earlier that the former Mexican President has been aligned with Mexican cartels.  He’s accused of taking millions from the cartels –

Former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto accepted a $100m (£77m) bribe from drug cartel kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, a witness has testified.

Alex Cifuentes, who says he was a close associate of Guzmán for years, told a New York City courtroom that he had told authorities of the bribe in 2016.

Guzmán is accused of being behind the Sinaloa drug cartel, which prosecutors say was the largest US drug supplier.

Mr Peña Nieto served as the president of Mexico from 2012 to 2018.

Guzmán, 61, has been on trial in Brooklyn since November after he was extradited from Mexico to face charges of trafficking cocaine, heroin and other drugs as leader of what the US has called the world’s largest drug cartel.

The timing of the former Mexican President being connected with Mexican cartels is rather significant.  A former Democrat believes the real reason Democrats don’t want a wall on the US – Mexican border is related to the story above.

Jeffrey Peterson🇺🇸 @realJeffreyP

For anyone who doesn’t believe they’re all very good friends and quite connected, here’s a picture of Pelosi, my former friend Kyrsten Sinema, and someone else, at a baseball game together. It is what it is.

Jeffrey Peterson🇺🇸 @realJeffreyP

With as much influence running up in to their system now in the form of direct and indirect billions, Patriots might start to understand the about why these two are feeling so much pressure recently. pic.twitter.com/VcOWXTMKjq

Peterson may very well be right. We know that a big time lawyer for the Mexican cartels donated to Hillary Clinton.  We also know that it was reported that Julian Assange reported that he had evidence that the Clinton Foundation received $15 million from the Mexican cartels.  On 9 January 2017, the web site Times.com.mx published an article reporting that Mexican Drug kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán had donated millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, claiming that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had broken the news.

Jim Hoft

@gatewaypundit

Mexican Cartels Paid Off Mexican President with $100 Million – Former Democrat Claims Democrat Party Being Paid Millions by Cartels As Well! @JoeHoft https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/mexican-cartels-paid-off-mexican-president-with-100-million-former-democrat-claims-democrat-party-being-paid-millions-by-cartels-as-well/  via @gatewaypundit

Mexican Cartels Paid Off Mexican President with $100 Million – Former Democrat Claims Democrat…

Guest post by Joe Hoft The Democrats aggressively block the President’s desire to protect Americans and build a border wall on the southern border with Mexico.  Democrat attempts to block the wall in…

thegatewaypundit.com

rahm @alongadingdong

Don’t forget el chapo donated 15 million ( that we know about) to the Clinton cartel foundation before his transfer to the US

Larry Elder: Collusion? What About Chinagate and Ted Kennedy’s Outreach to the USSR?

IBD

by Larry Elder

 

During President Bill Clinton’s 1996 campaign for re-election, several individuals allegedly worked on behalf of the Chinese government to influence the presidential election in favor of Clinton.

“Chinagate” began when the Los Angeles Times reported, a couple months before the ’96 election, the following:

“The Democratic National Committee has returned a $250,000 contribution from a recently established subsidiary of a South Korean electronics company because it violated a ban on donations from foreign nationals in U.S. elections, a party spokesman said Friday. …

“David Eichenbaum, DNC communications director … said that the DNC fundraiser who was responsible for the contribution was under the impression, erroneously as it turned out, that it fulfilled the legal qualifications. He said it was unclear whether the fundraiser was misled or there had been a misunderstanding.”

DNC did the standard “Oops, we made a boo-boo, here’s your money back, it’s all OK now” dog and pony show. That worked for a while. But a few months later, on Feb. 13, 1997, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy reported:

“A Justice Department investigation into improper political fundraising activities has uncovered evidence that representatives of the People’s Republic of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee before the 1996 presidential campaign, officials familiar with the inquiry said. …

“The Chinese effort to win influence with the Clinton administration can be traced to 1993, one source said. … Some investigators suspected a Chinese connection to the current fundraising scandal because several DNC contributors and major fundraisers had ties to Beijing. Last February, Charles Yah Lin Trie, a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee, used his influence with party officials to bring Wang Jun, head of a weapons trading company owned by the Chinese military, to a White House coffee with Clinton.

Continue reading

Judicial Watch: Justice Department Discloses No FISA Court Hearings Held on Carter Page Warrants

‘[N]o such hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged FISA applications. Accordingly, no responsive hearing transcripts exist.’

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Justice Department (DOJ) admitted in a court filing last night that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.

In the filing the Justice Department finally revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Page FISA spy warrants, first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times:

[National Security Division] FOIA consulted [Office of Intelligence] … to identify and locate records responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request…. [Office of Intelligence] determined … that there were no records, electronic or paper, responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request with regard to Carter Page. [Office of Intelligence] further confirmed that the [Foreign Surveillance Court] considered the Page warrant applications based upon written submissions and did not hold any hearings.

The Department of Justice previously released to Judicial Watch the heavily redacted Page warrant applications. The initial Page FISA warrant was granted just weeks before the 2016 election.

The DOJ filing is in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit for the FISA transcripts (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-01050)).

In February, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released a memo criticizing the FISA targeting of Carter Page. The memo details how the “minimally corroborated” Clinton-DNC dossier was an essential part of the FBI and DOJ’s applications for surveillance warrants to spy on Page.

Judicial Watch recently filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking the transcripts of all hearings related to the surveillance of Carter Page.

“It is disturbing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts rubber-stamped the Carter Page spy warrants and held not one hearing on these extraordinary requests to spy on the Trump team,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Perhaps the court can now hold hearings on how justice was corrupted by material omissions that Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC, a conflicted Bruce Ohr, a compromised Christopher Steele, and anti-Trumper Peter Strzok were all behind the ‘intelligence’ used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team.”

The FBI, Hillary’s computers, and the Russians

American Thinker

By Dan Perkins

Part One, “The Premise”: The Russians interfered with the 2016 presidential election.

Doesn’t anyone find it strange that the FBI indicted 12 Russians for hacking computers that the DNC and Hillary refused to let agents see?  James Comey, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “The bureau requested, but was denied direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s email servers and other hacked devices as part of its probe of Russian hacking.”

Part Two, “The MysteryIf the FBI couldn’t get access to the computers, then how did agents decide that the Russians were responsible for the hacking?

Hillary Clinton, either directly or indirectly, ordered her computers to be wiped clean and all her phones to be broken up.  Clinton’s I.T. team used the open source cleaning software BleachBit to wipe the computer systems “so even God couldn’t read them,” according to South Carolina representative Trey Gowdy.

Part Three, “The Charge”: Somebody is lying to the American people.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that CNN confirmed that the Hillary campaign staff destroyed campaign cell phones with hammers.  The Washington Examiner said a contractor for Clinton deleted subpoenaed emails and refused to answer the critical question from the FBI on what he did and why.

Part Four, “The Ultimate Question”

Now the mystery takes us to the ultimate question: if the FBI never had access to the DNC or Hillary campaign computers or cell phones, how could the FBI identify the 12 Russians indicted just before the summit?

One would think that to indict people for hacking a computer, the FBI would have to prove it by working with the computers to find evidence of hacking and who did it.  If there is no proof, then just saying so doesn’t make it true.  The American people would like to see the facts.

Part Five, “The Twist”: The cops support the bad guys.

The Daily Caller reported that the FBI agreed to destroy Cheryl Mills’s laptop as part of an immunity deal.  However, the FBI agents charged with the destruction refused.  There is no indication that the FBI or the Mueller investigation has done anything with the computer.  What a fantastic twist that the supposed good guys can’t or won’t see what is going on in front of them.  There are 33,000 emails destroyed while under subpoena, yet nothing happens.

The vast computer system of the DNC is erased, and the FBI is told it can’t come in and see the data when it inquires about finding out what happened.  What did the good guys say?  Did they protest and demand to look at the computers?  No.  They just went on their way and ignored what had happened.

Here is the most significant twist of all.  We will never know anything about the data that were hacked, because everything was destroyed.  Nobody from the DNC, the Hillary campaign, or the Obama White House has said the information was false.

Part Six, “The Conclusion”

To date, there has been no evidence presented that the Russians hacked the DNC and the Clinton campaign computers and then sent the data to anyone.  There is no evidence that the Russians or any other government changed any vote during the voting process.

Many questions have yet to be asked about what role the Justice Department and the FBI played in this cover-up of wrongdoing.

The outcome of the midterm elections may change the direction of this investigation.  If the Republicans not only keep the House, but also expand their control in the Senate, I see a change coming in the Justice Department.  Look for Attorney General Sessions to resign and a new person taking over Justice and turning the investigation on its head.

More Evidence of Political Coverup in Dem IT Security Scandal

Judicial Watch

More evidence has surfaced about the disturbing political coverup of grave national security violations committed by the Pakistani who ran House Democrats’ information technology. His name is Imran Awan and last year he was arrested on bank-fraud charges at Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C.  while trying to flee to his native Pakistan. Even after getting fired by some members of Congress for stealing computers and data systems, Florida’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, kept him and let him have access to her emails and files as well as the password to the electronic device she used for DNC business. At one point, Awan had access to the computers of dozens of members of Congress, including those on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. Judicial Watch has launched an investigation and is pursuing public records.

The government’s bizarre failure to prosecute Awan for the national security violations he appears to have committed points to a political coverup that’s dangerous, craven and borders on traitorous. A House Office of Inspector General investigation determined earlier this year that Awan and his relatives committed numerous violations of House security policies, including logging into the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times without authorization. The same news agency that reported that story published alarming new revelations in the case this month, concluding that “Democrats appear to want to keep the case out of court” because “a trial could expose their reckless IT practices.” It turns out that, not only has Capitol Police failed to make any arrests, it inadvertently gave evidence to defense attorneys that was supposed to go to prosecutors. It gets better; prosecutors appear to be sharing information with someone on Capitol Hill who in turn is leaking it to Awan’s lawyer.

Here is an excerpt from the news article published just a few days ago: “The Capitol Police turned over a trove of evidence in the alleged Imran Awan House cyberbreach and theft case to the defense attorneys when they were supposed to deliver it to prosecutors instead, according to court documents and a source.” Someone inside government apparently tipped off Awan’s lawyer, Chris Gowen, that a reporter was digging around for information on the Capitol Police’s suspicious mistake involving the mishandling of evidence. Gowen, a former public defender in Miami Florida, worked for Bill Clinton and on Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign. The exchange of information (known as discovery) in a federal criminal case occurs between prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and defense lawyers by either registered mail or a third-party copy service. Law enforcement is never involved, according to federal law enforcement sources contacted by Judicial Watch.

Legal experts and veteran federal agents contacted by Judicial Watch say something smells rotten in this case. The so-called inadvertent disclosure to Awan’s defense team by Capitol Police was intentional for one of two reasons, the experts assert. Perhaps the prosecution is alerting the defense of particular facts of the case to generate cooperation and further the probe into political figures. “This is possible because prosecutors are always gun shy when it comes to prosecuting political figures, especially the figures who may be culpable in the case,” said a longtime Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) official who has worked on similar cases. “They do not want to go to trial for a number of reasons, so they are showing their hand to induce a plea with cooperation.”

The second reason, according to Judicial Watch’s sources, is that there is corruption and the inadvertent disclosure was purposeful to help bolster the defense without being obvious and backing down in court. “Either way, something is up,” a longtime federal agent told Judicial Watch. “I have never heard of anyone at the federal level inadvertently handing over documents to the defense en mass like this, never happens.” Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations and Research, maintains that “the Awan case has all the characteristics of a major national security crime, specifically, 18 USC Sec 793(f),” which carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. A former military intelligence officer specializing in counterintelligence and human intelligence, Farrell added that treating the Awan case as anything less than a major national security crime is either negligence or complicity. “The bungled handling of evidence is disgraceful and amateurish,” Farrell said, adding that “the effort to bury, constrain and minimize the Awan case is deeply disturbing, and points to the need for a legitimate, full investigation by a competent law enforcement agency with substantial experience in counterintelligence and cyber-crime arenas.”