Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Reported by Tim Brown January 3, What’s so great about this latest “punking” of Snopes is that it comes by way of Infowars and assertions they made more than a year ago about Hillary Clinton colluding with the New York Times by getting information in advance about negative stories that would have an impact on her.
“It is standard journalistic practice for reporters to ask the subjects of their news stories for comment before publishing, and Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman were doing their due diligence as professional journalists, said Frank Girardot, a former editor with the Los Angeles News Group and author of several true crime books,” responded Snopes to Paul Joseph Watson’s story on the collusion, and that assertion is correct, but contacting people for a response to a story and warning them of a potentially negative story coming out are two different things. One is journalism and the other is collusion.
However, here’s what Paul Joseph Watson tweeted out.
Paul Joseph Watson updates:
Now Snopes has been embarrassed further by the revelation that a New York Times reporter used to email Hillary Clinton’s State Department days in advance to warn them of stories that were about to be published.
In one 2010 example, NYT national security reporter Scott Shane contacted Philip Crowley, who was at the time the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs under Clinton’s State Department, listing the topics of all the different stories that the New York Times was set to run over the course of a week.
This proves that the New York Times was indeed colluding with Clinton’s State Department by giving them a heads up on stories that were about to run, just as the newspaper colluded with the Clinton campaign during the election in the same manner.
Having initially fallen flat with its weak denial that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign, this email again underscores how the New York Times routinely colludes with government bodies and political campaigns it is friendly with, and that this is not just “standard journalistic practice”.
Snopes has long been known to be nothing more than a propaganda outlet for Socialists, Communists, Islamists, Marxists and other criminally minded politicians in our government in both major parties. Why any organization (shoutout to Facebook) would consider them unbiased “fact checkers” is beyond me, but perhaps that gives us insight into the minds of those that Snopes colludes with in order to put out their propaganda to the people.
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
See more Conservative Daily News cartoons here
A.F.Branco 2018 Calendar <—- Order Here!
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!
Reported by Chuck Ross | Reporter | 10:54 PM 12/12/2017And asked who he would vote for in the election, Strzok told Page: “I suppose Hillary.” Strzok also referred to himself as a “conservative Dem” in one exchange.
The text messages are included in a trove of messages released on Tuesday night, ahead of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. (RELATED: Strzok Called Trump An ‘Idiot’ In Texts To FBI Lawyer)
Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation over the summer after the Justice Department’s inspector general discovered the text messages. Republicans have called foul over the communications because of Strzok’s central role in both the Clinton email probe but also the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.
Strzok and Page also sent messages disparaging Trump, calling him an “idiot.”
A month before Strzok sent his pro-Clinton texts, he conducted an interview with Jake Sullivan, a former State Department official and Clinton aide who sent many of the classified emails that ended up on Clinton’s private email server. FBI records show that Strzok interviewed Sullivan on Feb. 27, 2016.
Strzok, who at the time served as the FBI’s No. 2 counterintelligence official, would go on to interview several Clinton and several of her aides over the next few months.
He interviewed Huma Abedin on April 5, 2016 and Cheryl Mills on April 9 and May 28, 2016. An interview with Clinton attorney Heather Samuelson was conducted on May 24, 2016, according to FBI records. Finally, Strzok and Justice Department lawyer David Laufman interviewed Clinton on July 2, 2016.
Three days later, then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not be recommending charges against Clinton for mishandling classified information.
Strzok and Page’s politically-charged texts continued as he transitioned from the Clinton investigation to the Russia probe.
On July 27, 2016, Page wrote of Clinton, “She just has to to win now.”
“I’m not going to lie, I got a flash of nervousness yesterday about Trump,” she said.
According to various news reports, Strzok was picked to lead the Russia investigation at around the time that message was sent. Strzok’s exchanges with Page have raised questions about his investigative activities on the Clinton and Trump investigations. It was revealed earlier this month that Strzok is the FBI official who watered down the language in a statement prepared for Comey. Instead of using the legal term “grossly negligent” to describe Clinton’s email activities, Strzok inserted the phrase “extremely careless.”
Strzok also appears to have gone much easier on Clinton aides that he interviewed in the email probe than he did on Trump associates he met with during the Russia investigation. (RELATED: Top Clinton Aides Faced No Charges For Giving Misleading Statements In Interview With Strzok)
Abedin and Mills, the two Clinton aides, appear to have given misleading statements in their interviews about what they knew about Clinton’s use of a private email server. But neither faced charges for the false statements.
In contrast, former national security adviser Michael Flynn was charged for lying to the FBI during an interview in January. Strzok was one of the agents who conducted the interview.
Reported by Jim Stinson | Updated 05 Dec 2017 at 6:52 AMFBI agent Peter Strzok changed the wording in Comey’s assessment from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” a key change in legal terms that softened the case against Clinton. Strzok also helped open the counterintelligence investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign, to examine possible ties to Russian hackers. Strzok was found by the Office of Special Counsel to have mocked Trump, in text messages, during the 2016 presidential campaign.
In July, Strzok was removed to other duties, away from Robert Mueller’s investigation, after the FBI inspector general found out about the text messages. The news about Strzok’s removal, to a position in FBI human resources, was disclosed on Saturday in The New York Times.
Strzok was present during the questioning of Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, according to reports, raising the issue of bias in the investigation into the Trump administration.
“He should have recused himself,” said Dershowitz, speaking to Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “And I think he should be severely punished … He knew he had a bias.”
Ingraham noted the Democrats would be going bananas if an FBI agent with an anti-Democratic bias had been looking into Hillary Clinton.
On the issue of Flynn, Dershowitz, the longtime civil rights attorney, said presidents can discuss pardons, fire people and do other things that special prosecutors believe obstruct justice.
“In order to be charged with obstruction of justice, you have to go beyond simply exercising a presidential prerogative under Article II of the Constitution,” said Dershowitz on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” on Monday. “If you bribe or take a bribe, if you destroy evidence and do what Nixon did, which is pay hush money or tell your subordinates to lie, of course you can be charged with obstruction of justice.”
Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were both charged with obstruction of justice, Dershowitz pointed out.
“But you cannot be and should not be charged with obstruction of justice if you merely pardon people,” he added. “You merely fire people even if the prosecution believes your intentions are not good. That’s what George H.W. Bush did. He pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other people. The special prosecutor said the intent was to stop the investigation of Iran-Contra. It succeeded. And nobody suggested that President Bush be charged.”
Democrats have revived criticism of President Trump for reportedly telling former FBI Director James Comey that he hoped the agency could pass on charging Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Flynn resigned on February 13 after less than a month in office because he misled Vice President Mike Pence on a phone call a year ago with the Russian ambassador.
“No president in history has ever been charged for any crime or anything because he exercised his constitutional prerogative.”
Flynn made the phone call during the presidential transition. But his call was recorded and leaked, and the FBI asked Flynn about it on January 24. On Friday, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of misleading the FBI on the matter.
Dershowitz said Trump has the right to discuss the case with the FBI director. Comey’s replacement would later testify to Congress that the agency has not been obstructed in the Russian investigation.
“He can’t be charged with obstruction merely for exercising his constitutional prerogatives,” said Dershowitz. “That’s an important distinction. No president in history has ever been charged for any crime or anything because he exercised his constitutional prerogative. They impeached President Andrew Johnson for doing that. And the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that that was absolutely wrong. The president had the authority to fire the secretary of the Army. He was impeached for that and wrongly impeached.”
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Reported by Monica Showalter | November 2, 2017
It’s cheap given the large amounts of money that changed hands from the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton campaign and President Obama’s Organizing for Action, all of which paid the same Washington lawyers at Perkins Coie for their efforts to beat Trump during the election. Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS to produce the dossier and obscured its payments through attorney-client privilege.
It’s expensive when you consider that what it paid for in the “dossier” is worthless information, a collection of lies that any Trump hater could have made up for free.
Reuters, however, is crowing that President Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the scope of how much money changed hands for it:
In an Oct. 29 message posted on Twitter, President Trump said the dossier had cost as much as $12 million, without providing evidence.
“Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?),….” Trump tweeted.
Actually, there’s plenty of “evidence” about the $12 million that changed hands in the production of the document – and it can be found hiding out in the front pages of the Washington Post:
The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in “legal and compliance consulting’’ since November 2015 — though it’s impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS.
Add to it President Obama’s still functioning campaign organization, Organizing for Action adding another $972,000 to Perkins Coie’s pot and it’s pretty obvious the amount that went to the commissioners of the dossier was fairly close to $12 million. Other news accounts do have the DNC payments at closer to $5 million, which would put the amount paid even closer to the $12 million mark.
Reuters doesn’t seem to grasp that money for the dossier changed hands through a chain of payments, starting with the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton campaign organization and Organizing for Action. Their $10 million-plus cash went to Perkins Coie, the law firm, and some of that was then was passed on to Fusion GPS, which then passed a lesser amount on to Orbis Business Intelligence, the British opposition research firm. Orbis employee Christopher Steele, an ex-MI6 officer, commissioned his Kremlin-linked intelligence contacts to construct the dossier for likely a lesser amount still. The Russian operatives then produced a badly written dossier that was a nest of lascivious lies, just as their client wanted. After that, the dossier made its way to John McCain, Buzzfeed, the FBI and anyone else who was later found to be passing the phony dossier around.
What’s striking here is how that money for the dossier diminished so quickly.
How much did Fusion GPS take in from Perkins Coie, and how much did it keep for itself at a handsome profit? Did it really gauge its Democratic Party clients good, telling them what they wanted to hear at relatively little cost? How much of the cash from Perkins Coie was spent on other possible “opposition research” projects we still don’t know about?
One event that will shed light on this is that after a long delay, the FBI has agreed to give House congressional investigators access to their billing records.
It was something the FBI had been resisting, claiming it would interfere with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s own investigation. Now these records, showing payments, will soon be available, and will cast light on how much Fusion GPS took in for its smear operations. Perhaps we will learn more about what the smear operations really did.
Reported 
There is likely little hope left for the desperate democrats as their internally raging civil war continues spilling over into the mainstream.The disastrous results of the 2016 election have sent the democrats into a tailspin the likes of which we have never seen in modern politics. Hillary Clinton, the chosen one by all accounts on the left, was roundly rejected by the American people back in November, as her conniving collusion and corruption were revealed to the world via Wikileaks and a cache of campaign emails. Even after cheating, both in the primaries and the debates, Clinton was no match for an American populace ready for real hope and change.
Immediately after the election the finger pointing began. Clinton was determined to win the blame game, even going so far as to write an entire book full of excuses for her electoral annihilation entitled, hilariously, What Happened. 
Now, nearly a year later the democrats are still in shambles, with Interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile getting in on the action as the entire party continues to disintegrate.
“Interim Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Donna Brazile placed blame for the party’s financial woes squarely on former President Barack Obama and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a Thursday column, excoriating the pair for handing over complete control of the party to the Clinton campaign almost a year before she secured the nomination.
“Soon after taking over as interim chair, Brazile set out to determine whether
the DNC had improperly assisted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in securing the party’s nomination, as leaked internal emails suggested.
“She quickly determined that the DNC was in serious financial peril and the former chair, Wasserman Schultz, had relinquished control of the party to the Clinton campaign in exchange for a monthly allowance that would cover the operation’s day to day costs.
“’Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was,’ Brazile wrote in Politico Magazine.”
Brazile herself has yet to recognize her own blame for the embarrassing loss after Wikileaks revealed that she had acted as a middle man between CNN and Clinton, passing on probable debate questions to the candidate ahead of her confrontations with soon-to-be President Donald Trump.
As the democrats fester and continue to to implode, confessions such as Brazile’s will likely become all the more common. With the midterm elections just a year away, and a massive regrouping effort underway at DNC headquarters, we should expect more disarray in coming months.
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.
A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
Reported By Martin Walsh | October 30, 2017 at 4:48pmURL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/mueller-nails-manafort-hillary-scandal/?
As reported by the Daily Mail, Trump’s former campaign manager from the 2016 presidential election, Paul Manafort, and his partner, Rick Gates, surrendered on Monday morning following an indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia probe.
According to Townhall, the informant’s identity will remain anonymous, but they will be speaking with the Senate Judiciary Committee on how the Clintons benefited from selling U.S. uranium to a company connected to Russia.
Mueller’s indictments of former Trump officials come just days after an explosive report from The Hill, which detailed how Clinton approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear company Rosatom, giving Russia 20 percent of the United States’ uranium.
Both The New York Times and New York Daily News reported that officials associated with the sale donated a reported $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was given $500,000 from a bank with ties to the Kremlin for giving a single speech in Moscow.
As detailed by a report from The Hill, the FBI had collected a plethora of documents showing that Russia officials involved with the Uranium One deal were engaged in extortion, bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering prior to the Obama administration — with Clinton’s help at the State Department — approving the deal in 2010.
The FBI agents also supplanted a U.S. witness to work closely with the Russian nuclear industry to gain inside access to financial records, collect emails, and make secret recordings on how Moscow violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said last week he wanted the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Uranium One sale and the Obama administration’s involvement with the deal.
In light of the bombshell report exposing Obama and Clinton for carrying out a shady deal with Russia, Mueller conveniently decided to announce indictments that would move the spotlight back to someone else.
Grassley’s call for a special prosecutor into the Clinton Foundation allowing foreign governments to influence American policy while the Clintons gained personally is a bombshell story the must be investigated, but the mainstream media conveniently distracted everyone from this corruption with Mueller’s recent announcement.
H/T Townhall
Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
A.F.Branco 2018 Calendar <—- Order Here!
Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 26, 2017 at 9:21amURL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/fec-targets-hillary-dnc/?
Now, that revelation could mean Hillary is involved with another investigation — this time with the Federal Election Commission.
According to The Washington Times, a watchdog group filed a complaint with the FEC on Wednesday charging that the DNC and Clinton campaign violated campaign finance law by failing to disclose the nature of the payments they were making through a lawyer to the company that compiled the dossier — Fusion GPS.
Paying via a law firm allowed the campaign to characterize the money as “legal services” rather than opposition research, the group argues.
Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan outfit that also filed a complaint against the anti-John Kerry PAC Swift Boat Veterans for Truth back in 2004, said that since the nature of the payments was effectively hidden from the public, Clinton’s campaign violated provisions of federal law that require disclosure of both the recipient of the money and the reason it’s being spent.
“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” Adav Noti, a former FEC official who is the senior director of trial litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center, told The Washington Times.
“Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.”
The Washington Post’s report Tuesday said that Clinton lawyer Marc E. Elias retained Fusion GPS in April 2016 to conduct the research behind the Trump dossier after an unnamed Republican donor pulled funding. That funding continued until the end of October 2016, just days before the election.
“Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide,” Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform at CLC, told reporters.
“Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”
Reported By Andrew Kerr | October 26, 2017 at 8:45amURL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/doj-lifts-gag-order-frees-informant-to-speak-to-congress-on-russia-bribery-case-with-ties-to-clintons/?
The move comes as Congress renews its focus on the Obama administration’s approval of Russian-owned energy company Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One, a company based in Canada that controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the State Department when it approved the deal back in 2010. Eight other U.S. government agencies also approved the deal.
Three congressional committees launched investigations into the deal last week after The Hill reported that the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that the Russian nuclear industry officials involved in the deal were involved in a racketeering scheme as early as 2009.
However, the Department of Justice waited until 2014 to bring any charges on the evidence first gathered in 2009 and 2010.
The FBI informant, who hasn’t been identified by name, went undercover for five years to obtain intelligence on Russia’s efforts to acquire a share of the U.S. uranium market.
Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior said the DOJ would cooperate with the three open congressional investigations.
“As of tonight, the Department of Justice has authorized the information to disclose to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as one member of each of their staffs, any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market,” Prior said in a statement Wednesday, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores confirmed to The Hill that the undercover FBI informant is cleared to disclose to Congress “any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market, including but not limited to anything related to Vadim Mikerin, Rosatom, Tenex, Uranium One, or the Clinton Foundation.”
The informant’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing, told The Hill her client has information relating to “the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.”
“He is now able and willing to talk with the congressional committees seeking his testimony, though I will be working with all parties to ensure his identity remains confidential to ensure his safety,” she added.
But some high-ranking Democrats have called foul on the Republican’s renewed focus on the 2010 uranium deal.
California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday the investigations are a “partisan effort to distract” from the real issue at hand — special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged collusions with the Russians during the 2016 election.
Trump told reporters Wednesday he believes the uranium investigation will quickly swell to Watergate proportions.
“The uranium sale to Russia and the way it was done was so underhanded. With tremendous amounts of money being passed, I actually think that’s Watergate: modern age,” Trump said, as reported by the New York Post.
URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/doj-gag-order-informant-hillary/?
Despite that little tidbit, the U.S. government approved the sale. Not surprising considering who was in office. Now we have a chance to know what really went down.
The informant’s attorney, Victoria Toensing, told Fox Business Network Monday that her client could “tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made.”
Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Reported By Jack Davis | October 25, 2017 at 5:01pmURL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/fec-complaint-clinton-campaign-dnc-violated-campaign-finance-law-dossier-payments/?
Former Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee broke the law in the way they handled their effort to dig up dirt on President Donald Trump, according to a complaint filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded development of a now-discredited dossier that claimed to document misbehavior by Trump while in Russia and also claimed Trump had close connections with Russian officials.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained the firm Fusion GPS to conduct the research into Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to do the work.
Perkins Coie, the firm for which Elias works, was paid $12.4 million to represent the Clinton campaign and the DNC during the 2016 campaign.
The complaint from the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center said that by paying the firm of Perkins Coie to fund development of the dossier while not saying that’s what it was doing, the campaign and DNC broke the law.
The Clinton and campaign and the DNC “failed to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia, effectively hiding these payments from public scrutiny, contrary to the requirements of federal law,” the Center said on its website.
According to FEC reports, Clinton’s campaign reported 37 payments to the law firm and reported each disbursement as “Legal Services.”
The DNC reported 345 payments to Perkins Coie during the election cycle and marked the payments as “legal and compliance consulting,” “administrative fees,” “data services subscription” and others.
“The purpose of at least some portion of the payments to Perkins Coie was not for legal services; instead, those payments were intended to fund opposition research,” the complaint said. “This false reporting clearly failed the Commission’s requirements for disclosing the purpose of a disbursement.”
The CLC said the campaign and DNC tried to end run the rules.
“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” said Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation and strategy at CLC. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money.
“The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action,” Noti added.
“Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide,” said Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform at CLC.
“Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed,” he said. “But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”
Writing on LawNewz, Rachel Stockman said there is a fine line separating legal fro illegal activities.
“It is legal under current campaign finance law for the Hillary Clinton campaign to commission an opposition research company to dig up dirt on Donald Trump,” she wrote. “What is not legal, according to campaign legal experts, is for the campaign to pay a law firm who then hires other to perform campaign related activities without reporting the purpose of the expenditures.”
Reported By Katie Bo Williams – 10/24/17 12:25 PM EDT
Nunes announces uranium deal investigation
“We’re not going to jump to any conclusions at this time, but one of the things we’re concerned about is whether or not there was an FBI investigation — was there a DOJ investigation — and if so, why was Congress not informed of this matter? That will be the start of the probe,” Intel head Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told reporters in the basement of the Capitol.
The Hill reported last week that the FBI had gathered evidence that Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks as part of an effort to grow Russian President Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States — an investigation that predated the approval of the Uranium One sale.
The lawmakers want to know whether the deal should have been approved in the first place.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) on Monday cited “very, very real concerns about why we would allow a Russian-owned company to get access to 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.”
“It’s important we find out why that deal went through.”
The House investigation retreads familiar ground for Republicans, who have used the issue of the sale to try to discredit former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton since it was revealed in conservative author Peter Schweitzer’s 2015 book “Clinton Cash.”
The approval for the takeover was inked by a nine-agency review board that included the State Department when Clinton was secretary.
Uranium One controlled land equal to about 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium capacity, according to Oilprice.com — although experts note that the U.S. doesn’t actually produce a significant amount of the world’s uranium stock.
Rosatom began buying shares in the Toronto-based company in 2009 and in 2010 sought to obtain majority ownership, a deal which required the review board approval. 
Republicans have long accused the former secretary of tying the State Department’s approval of the takeover to $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The State Department did not take unilateral action but instead was one of the nine agencies on the review board, known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The Clinton campaign has maintained that the then-secretary of State was not directly involved in the process.
King raised his concerns with the Treasury Department at the time and said Tuesday that he was assured that the issue would be fully investigated.
“Obviously, we want to see what happened to that inquiry — what information caught their attention, what they knew then and why they acted or didn’t act,” King said.
Since that time, the lawmakers said, a confidential informant “who wants to talk about his role in this” has come forward to the committees.
The two panels are currently in discussions with the Justice Department to release that individual from a nondisclosure agreement.
“Look, it’s possible, maybe there was no FBI or DOJ investigation going on — that’s possible. We’re not going to jump to any conclusions,” Nunes said Tuesday.
The announcement of the investigation came within 30 minutes of the announcement of a separate investigation, by the Oversight and Judiciary Committees, into the Obama Justice Department’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.
Nunes and King, alongside Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), did not mention Clinton by name in their announcement on Tuesday, and Nunes declined to say whether the committees expected to call her forward to testify.
“It’s a little premature. Let us first determine whether or not there was an open investigation by FBI or DOJ and then we’ll get back to you with more information,” Nunes told reporters.
Clinton told C-SPAN on Monday that renewed focus on Russian uranium deals approved during her tenure is nothing more than debunked “baloney” — and signals that Republicans are getting nervous about the federal investigation into Russia’s attempts to swing the 2016 election. That probe includes looking for any signs of collusion with the Trump campaign itself.
Other House Democrats echoed her assessment on Tuesday, calling the two new investigations a partisan exercise intended to divert attention away from the media frenzy surrounding the various Russia investigations.
“These investigations were initiated on a partisan basis and will shed no light on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, but then again they are not intended to do so,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
“Acting on the urging of the President who has repeatedly denied the intelligence agencies’ conclusions regarding Russian involvement in our election, they are designed to distract attention and pursue the president’s preferred goal — attacking Clinton and Obama.”
Republicans view the Uranium One probe as distinct from the broader House Intelligence Committee investigation into Russian election meddling, long stymied by partisan infighting.
Nunes, who said he would step back from leading that probe this spring, said that he has as of yet had no contact with the White House on this investigation.
The chairman in April faced accusations from Democrats of carrying water for Trump when he announced that he had briefed the White House on information that turned out to have come from staff on the president’s National Security Council.
House leadership is fully behind the Uranium One probe, DeSantis said Tuesday.
– This report was updated at 3:44 p.m. EST
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Reported by 
Gregg Jarrett, Fox NewsURL of the original posting site: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/18/gregg-jarrett-clinton-cover-up-brought-to-by-same-guys-who-are-investigating-trump.html
But there’s more. It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”
The incriminating evidence was uncovered by The Hill (John Solomon and Alison Spann) and Circa News (Sara Carter). Their dogged reporting reveals that the FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.
Indeed, the entire sordid affair remained hidden for seven long years. Until now.
Clinton Corruption and Racketeering?
It is a crime to use a public office to confer a benefit to a foreign government in exchange for money. It is often referred to as “pay-to-play,” but it can be prosecuted under a variety of anti-corruption laws passed by Congress, including the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201-b), the federal gratuity statute (18 USC 201-c), the mail fraud statute (18 USC 1341), the wire fraud statute (18 USC 1343), the program bribery statute (18 USC 666), and the Travel Act (18 USC 1952).
If the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption.
The FBI evidence, if true, would seem to show that one or more of these illegal “pay-to-play” laws were broken. The government would have to prove that Hillary and Bill got paid, while the Russians got to play. And prosecutors are required to show a “quid pro quo” or “nexus” between the payments and the benefit provided. But it appears that the FBI already possesses all the evidence it needs to make a compelling case.
If Hillary leveraged her public office as Secretary of State for personal enrichment, but also used her charity as a receptacle or conduit for money obtained illegally, that would also constitute racketeering, as I first argued in a column almost a year ago.
There is little doubt the Clinton Foundation operated as a charity. But if the FBI documents demonstrate that there was a secondary, hidden purpose devoted to self-dealing and personal enrichment, then prosecution could be pursued against Clinton for racketeering.
According to the Associated Press, more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state donated money to her foundation. If Clinton was peddling access, was she also peddling influence? Again, the reported FBI documents seem to answer that question.
But why has there been no prosecution of Clinton? Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret? Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency? Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?
The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact. Who are they?
Holder, Mueller, Comey & Rosenstein
Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009. Since the FBI reports to him, he surely knew what the bureau had uncovered. What’s more, Holder was a member of the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States” which approved the uranium sale to the Russians in 2010. Since the vote was unanimous, it appears Holder knowingly and deliberately countenanced a deal that was based on illegal activities and which gave Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium assets.
It gets worse. Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case. Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case. There is no indication that any of these men ever told Congress of all the incriminating evidence they had discovered and the connection to Clinton. The entire matter was kept secret from the American public.
It may be no coincidence that Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case. 
And, if the evidence is as compelling as reported, a second special prosecutor should be appointed to determine whether Hillary Clinton and others should be indicted for crimes of corruption.
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and former defense attorney.
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
| 9:11pm October 2, 2017URL of the original posting site: https://www.allenbwest.com/2017/10/02/not-even-one-day-las-vegas-massacre-liberals-unthinkable/
Getty ImagesThese things are both sad and predictable. With bodies literally still arriving in operating rooms, Hillary Clinton managed to do the incredible – politicize the event and contradict herself all in the same tweet. This morning the former First-Lady and most recent general election loser tweeted the following:
This is putting politics aside? 
Not to be outdone, Capital Hill Democrats together with former-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords also jumped on the “it’s time to act” train. From The Hill:
“Democrats, joined by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), are amplifying their calls for tougher gun laws in the wake of the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas.
Democrats on Monday quickly intensified their campaign after a gunman targeted an outdoor country music festival on the Las Vegas strip Sunday night, leaving at least 58 people dead and 500 others injured. The lawmakers have pressed for years for tighter gun restrictions, only to have those efforts beaten back on Capitol Hill, largely by Republicans, who are near-universally opposed to such changes.
“I am praying for the victims of this shooting, their families and friends,” Giffords, who was almost killed after being shot in the head at a campaign event in Tucson in 2011, said on Monday. “But I am praying for my former colleagues, our elected leaders, too. I am praying they find the courage it will take to make progress on the challenging issue of gun violence.”
Other Democrats were much more forceful.
Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted that “there’s no excuse for inaction.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he’s “furious” that Congress “refuses to act.” And Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) urged Congress to “get off its ass and do something.”
And of course no good liberal talking points would be complete without some requisite America-bashing: “Nowhere but America do horrific large-scale mass shootings happen with this degree of regularity,” said Murphy,…”
Nowhere but America, huh? Might want to ask the citizens of France, England, Germany and Belgium these days if mass shootings happen nowhere else but America with regularity.
The strategy liberals insist on pursuing is unwavering. They persist in the belief that by somehow making guns ‘more illegal’ the problem will get solved. Because that’s the liberal solution to just about everything – pass more laws. Authorities are working on confirming the fact that Stephen Paddock (the Vegas shooter) was using illegal weapons to carry out his dastardly deed and, needless to say, murder is already illegal. Yet these people still believe that the path to a cure is to make shooting people even more illegal.
“Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), a gun owner and Vietnam veteran who heads the Democrats’ gun violence task force, will lead the charge outside the Capitol Monday afternoon. He will be joined by Giffords and other Democrats who have long pressed for tougher gun laws.
“Enough is enough,” Thompson tweeted Monday. “Congress should come together and establish a Select Committee to end gun violence.”
How, specifically, is a Select Committee going to end gun violence? Answer – it isn’t. But as Rahm Emmanuel once said, “You never let a good crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that its an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Dems are feeling this current crisis and emotion surrounding it may be providing an opportunity to finally knock a significant dent in the Second Amendment, apparently families can grieve later.
[NOTE: This article was written by Derrick Wilburn, Founder and Chairman of the Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives, and a speaker, author, columnist and analyst for multiple print and broadcast media outlets. Follow him on Facebook and at RMBlackConservatives.com.]
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco.
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
A Maryland judge ordered the state bar to open an investigation Monday into the three lawyers who helped former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delete her private emails.Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Paul F. Harris Jr. said the complaints lodged against David E. Kendall, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were egregious and the state bar couldn’t dismiss them as frivolous.
“There are allegations of destroying evidence,” Judge Harris said at a hearing Monday morning.
He said the state’s rules require the bar to conduct investigations no matter who raises the complaint and can’t brush aside accusations.
The judge made the announcement a day before Mrs. Clinton releases her latest book, “What Happened,” and begins a months long book tour attempting to explain how she lost an election she thought she had secured.
Reported URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/alert-muellers-team-falling-apart/
Aeter Strzok, a bureau veteran who worked on counterintelligence cases, joined Mueller’s team in mid-July. Out of nowhere and without explanation, he was reassigned to the FBI’s human resources division, apparently at his own request, ABC News reported.
Interestingly enough, Strzok was chief of the FBI’s counterespionage section in 2016, where he oversaw the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2017 that there was no evidence of collusion between Trump officials and Russia. What can Mueller find that the FBI could not?
Strzok is leaving Mueller’s team one day after the FBI announced it reopening its investigation into last year’s infamous “tarmac meeting” between former President Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Advertisement – story continues below
Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal lawyer and president of the American Center for Law and Justice, indicated Wednesday that his legal group received 413 pages of documents from the Department of Justice and FBI surrounding the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Clinton at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport last June.
The emails revealed that the FBI had relevant documents on the matter, even though the bureau originally claimed otherwise. Why didn’t the FBI, headed by Comey at the time, hand over those documents?
There’s tangible evidence to support collusion between Lynch and Clinton, and Comey failing to turn over documents surrounding the meeting raises many questions. These are just some of the reasons why many believe Mueller is leading a witch hunt after Trump.
When will Democrats just admit they lost the election fair and square?
H/T Newsmax
Reported By Reid Wilson – 08/03/17 03:49 PM EDT
West Virginia’s Democratic governor will flip to Republican Party
Justice, the only billionaire in West Virginia, is the chief executive officer of dozens of companies, many in the coal industry. He also owns the Greenbrier, a luxury resort in the Allegheny Mountains that once served as a bunker meant to help the U.S. government survive a nuclear attack.
“We’re going to have a very big announcement, which will be very exciting I think for the media and everyone else,” Trump said. “I believe I’ll be making it in West Virginia, so that will be very exciting.”
Trump will fly to Huntington, W.Va., late Thursday for a rally at the Big Sandy Superstore Arena. It is his second visit to West Virginia in a little more than a week, following a speech to a Boy Scouts Jamboree.
That event took place at the James C. Justice National Scout Camp, a facility named for the governor.
What Did You Say? 
Written
on September 9, 2017