Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘John Podesta’

Democrats’ ‘War Game’ for Election Includes West Coast Secession, Possible Civil War


Reported by JOEL B. POLLAK | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/08/02/democrats-war-game-for-election-includes-west-coast-secession-possible-civil-war-john-podesta/

Podesta and Biden (Alex Wong / Getty)

However, buried near the end of Smith’s column is a report that Democrats have participated in a “war game” in which they considered several possible outcomes of the election. In one scenario, John Podesta — the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and a leading figure in party circles — played former Vice President Joe Biden, and refused to concede the election.

The result: the threat of secession by the entire West Coast, followed by the possible intervention of the U.S. armed forces:

But conveniently, a group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat, presumably reached after weeks of counting the votes in Pennsylvania. For their war game, they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had.

But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College.

In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do.

Notably, on Election Night in 2016, Podesta publicly refused to concede the election to President Donald Trump.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

HUGE! Clinton Campaign Attorney Mark Elias Admitted in Testimony He Sent the Bill from Fusion GPS for Dossier Directly to Campaign Manager Robbie Mook


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published May 11, 2020 at 8:58pm

Hillary Campaign Manager Robbie Mook

On Saturday The Gateway Pundit reported that thanks to newly released transcripts Hillary Campaign chairman John Podesta admitted during testimony that both the DNC and Hillary Campaign split the cost of the bogus Trump-Russia dossier in 2016 that initially launched the attempted coup against Donald Trump. John Podesta was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman in 2016.

CNN reported in October 2017 that Podesta and then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz “both denied to congressional Russia investigators that they had any knowledge about an arrangement to pay for opposition research on President Donald Trump, three sources familiar with the matter told CNN.” But that is not what John Podesta told House Intelligence investigators under oath in his December 2017 testimony.

John Podesta admitted under oath that the DNC and the Hillary Campaign split the cost of the Trump-Russia dossier.

Now we know.
Via M3thods:

That’s from page 13 of his testimony.

Now on Monday night investigative reporter Paul Sperry reported that Hillary Clinton Campaign Lawyer Mark Elias testified that he sent the Fusion GPS bills for their work to Clinton Campaign Manager Robbie Mook.


Paul Sperry@paulsperry_

BREAKING: Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias testified he sent the bills from Fusion GPS to campaign manager Robby Mook, yet Mook has publicly denied knowing anything about the dossier at the time

27.4K people are talking about this


The Mark Elias transcript was released on Friday.

Here is Elias’s testimony where he admits Hillary’s Campaign Manager Robbie Mook was sent the bill for the Fusion GPS dossier!

page 16 from his testimony

More on page 17

This is amazing. Not only did Podesta admit the Clinton Campaign split the bill for the dossier with the DNC. But now we have the Clinton attorney admitting he sent the bill to Clinton Campaign Manager Robbie Mook!

This was 100% a Hillary Clinton, DNC operation. And it was 100% lies on Trump.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Jerome Corsi Files Criminal Complaint Against Mueller Team


Reported By Randy DeSoto | December 3, 2018 at 12:00pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/jerome-corsi-files-criminal-complaint-mueller-team/Jerome Corsi

In this Oct. 7, 2008, file photo, Jerome Corsi, right, arrives at the immigration department in Nairobi, Kenya. (AP Photo)

Conservative author Jerome Corsi filed a “criminal and ethics” complaint against special counsel Robert Mueller on Monday, alleging his team threatened prosecution if Corsi refused to provide false testimony against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Fox News reported the 78-page complaint, filed with the Department of Justice and the DOJ’s inspector general, stated “Dr. Corsi has been criminally threatened and coerced to tell a lie and call it the truth.”

The filing also calls for the removal of Mueller and his prosecutors for their misconduct.

“Special Counsel Mueller and his prosecutorial staff should respectfully be removed from his office and their practice of the law and a new Special Counsel appointed who respects and will obey common and accepted norms of professional ethics and the law and who will promptly conclude the so-called Russian collusion investigation which had been illegally and criminally spinning out of control,” the document reads.

According to his complaint, Mueller’s team wanted Corsi to testify to acting as a liaison between Trump campaign associate Roger Stone and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. The filing reads that Mueller’s office “knowingly and deceitfully threatening to charge Dr. Corsi with an alleged false statement,” unless he gives them “false testimony” against Trump and others.

Corsi announced last week on multiple media outlets that he would not sign Mueller’s agreement calling for him to plead guilty to one count of perjury.

“They can put me in prison the rest of my life. I am not going to sign a lie,” the 72-year-old told CNN.

According to a court filing by Mueller’s team, Corsi wrote in a short email to Stone in July 2016, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”

“Time to let more than (Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta) to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton),” “The Obama Nation” author added. “That appears to be the game hackers are now about.”

Corsi explained to Fox News host Tucker Carlson last week that he had fully cooperated with Mueller’s investigators, turning over his computer and cellphone, but he initially forgot about the email, until it was brought to his attention. He amended his statement to Mueller’s team in September, which they accepted without complaint, but prosecutors changed their tune after they determined, he “could not give them what they wanted,” according to Corsi.

“They do this what I call a perjury trap,” Corsi told Carlson. “They ask you a question. They have material they won’t show you. You’ve forgotten about. They say, ‘You’ve just lied,’ because this email you’ve forgotten about 2016 proves your current memory is wrong. It’s a memory test.”

In a statement on Monday, his attorney Larry Klayman charged Mueller with “effectively seeking to overthrow a duly elected president” through coercing false testimony.

“This rogue government tyranny perpetrated by a Special Counsel and his prosecutorial staff, which is designed to effectively overthrow a duly elected president by coercing and extorting false testimony from Dr. Corsi and others, cannot be permitted in a civilized society,” he said.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz argued last week that Mueller’s probe is creating crimes rather than uncovering past ones, and that the “devastating” report against Trump he will write will be based on people “who have lied.”

“Virtually all of his indictments and pleas come from people who he got to lie in front of investigators by setting perjury traps for them,” Dershowitz told Fox News host Sean Hannity. He added, “(A)nd the other ones have to do with financial dealings unrelated to the president. Where’s the beef? Where’s the crime?”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

While Mueller Pursues Investigation, Trump Drops A Bombshell Question Of His Own


Reported By Jason Hopkins | January 1, 2018 at 9:57am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/mueller-pursues-russia-investigation-trump-question/

As special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian collusion of the 2016 election continues on, President Donald Trump has one big question on his mind.

“Whatever happened to Podesta?” “They closed their firm, they left in disgrace, the whole thing, and now you never heard of anything,” the president said during a wide-ranging New York Times interview.

Trump was referring to Tony Podesta, the founder of The Podesta Group and brother of former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Like members of Trump’s presidential campaign, Podesta has also found himself at the center of Mueller’s growing FBI inquiry.

During The Times interview, the president said he believed Muller would treat him fairly, but he also expressed frustration that Podesta has seemingly escaped scrutiny since stepping down from the firm he founded in October.

The long-time Democrat is under investigation for activities similar to those of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Manafort, having a long history of lobbying for foreign entities, led a public relations campaign for a nonprofit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. Podesta Group also took part in promoting Ukraine in the United States, being one of several firms that were paid to do public relations work, according to Politico.

His group filed paperwork with the Justice Department indicating that it had worked on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, benefiting the same Ukrainian political party that Manafort advised. In late October, Manafort was indicted on an array of charges that included money laundering, failing to disclose overseas bank accounts, operating as an agent of the Ukrainian government and making false statements to federal authorities.

Trump severed ties with Manafort during the election as it became apparent law enforcement was looking into him. The president has since tried to put distance between himself and the beleaguered lobbyist.

“Paul only worked for me for a few months,” he explained.

“Paul worked for Ronald Reagan. His firm worked for John McCain, worked for Bob Dole, worked for many Republicans for far longer than he worked for me. And you’re talking about what Paul was many years ago before I ever heard of him. He worked for me for — what was it, three and a half months?”

Podesta, for his part, has not endured much public scrutiny since stepping down from his firm a couple months ago and it’s not exactly known what action federal authorities will take regarding his investigation. Along with believing that more attention should be placed on Podesta’s past lobbying activities, the Republican president spoke at length about the FBI investigation that has haunted his first year in the White House.

Pushing back against their allegations, the president said that Democrats concocted claims of Russian collusion “as a hoax, as a ruse, as an excuse for losing an election.” Trump also asserted that “everybody knows” his 2016 campaign staff did not collude with any Russian officials and even reversed the accusations by suggesting Democrats were the ones who worked with Russians during the presidential election.

Around seven months have passed since Muller was appointed to lead an investigation, but no charges have yet been brought forward against the president.

“There’s been no collusion. But I think he’s going to be fair,” Trump said of Mueller.

Julian Assange Releases Statement on U.S. Election


waving flagWritten by Philip Hodges

URL of the original posting site: http://eaglerising.com/38280/julian-assange-releases-statement-on-u-s-election/

assange

Depending on what political party you identify with, you’ll either love WikiLeaks or abhor them. And people’s opinions of the organization changes depending on which political leaders are getting exposed. If the Bush administration is getting exposed, then liberals champion the group and whistleblowers in general, and conservatives decry the group as a terrorist organization and label the whistleblowers “traitors.”

But if WikiLeaks exposes the Obama administration, or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, it’s the other way around. All of a sudden the liberals who had previously championed the group, hate the group and want Assange “brought to justice” for crimes against humanity. And predictably, conservatives cheer his cause.

A lot of people don’t seem to understand that Assange doesn’t identify with any major U.S. political party. He’s not American. He’s an outsider. His goal has always been to expose top-level corruption, regardless of which countries or political parties are involved. And he’s had to pay a price for that.

As a publishing organization, they don’t hire hackers to steal other people’s computer documents and emails. WikiLeaks is a place for whistleblowers. They publish only what they’re given.

In other words, if someone inside the Trump campaign wanted to expose the campaign’s corruption and send a ton of emails to WikiLeaks, they would have published it. The only reason WikiLeaks published Podesta’s emails and the DNC emails was that someone felt the need to blow the whistle anonymously. So far, no one’s felt the need to do the same thing with the RNC or the Trump campaign. That doesn’t mean that Julian Assange must be pro-Trump. It just means that no one’s come forward seeking to out Trump.

It’s important to keep in mind that if our media networks truly were “fair and balanced” and objective and unbiased, there would be no need for a group like WikiLeaks.

Here’s a statement on the U.S. election released by Julian Assange:

In recent months, WikiLeaks and I personally have come under enormous pressure to stop publishing what the Clinton campaign says about itself to itself. That pressure has come from the campaign’s allies, including the Obama administration, and from liberals who are anxious about who will be elected US President.

On the eve of the election, it is important to restate why we have published what we have.

The right to receive and impart true information is the guiding principle of WikiLeaks – an organization that has a staff and organizational mission far beyond myself. Our organization defends the public’s right to be informed.

This is why, irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work.

The US public has thoroughly engaged with WikiLeaks’ election related publications which number more than one hundred thousand documents. Millions of Americans have pored over the leaks and passed on their citations to each other and to us. It is an open model of journalism that gatekeepers are uncomfortable with, but which is perfectly harmonious with the First Amendment.

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish. We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails). No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fulfills our stated editorial criteria. As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.

We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.

That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.

This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.

Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.

This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.

The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.

Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.

In the end, those who have attempted to malign our groundbreaking work over the past four months seek to inhibit public understanding perhaps because it is embarrassing to them – a reason for censorship the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Only unsuccessfully do they try to claim that our publications are inaccurate.

WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.

We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work.

WikiLeaks, like all publishers, is ultimately accountable to its funders. Those funders are you. Our resources are entirely made up of contributions from the public and our book sales. This allows us to be principled, independent and free in a way no other influential media organization is. But it also means that we do not have the resources of CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign to constantly rebuff criticism.

Yet if the press obeys considerations above informing the public, we are no longer talking about a free press, and we are no longer talking about an informed public.

Wikileaks remains committed to publishing information that informs the public, even if many, especially those in power, would prefer not to see it. WikiLeaks must publish. It must publish and be damned.ATTA BOY

DOJ’s Pete Kadzik Has Been Colluding With the Clinton’s and It’s ALL EXPOSED Here


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagLost In Space

Thursday November 3, 2016

Podesta and Hillary are blaming the Russians for all the new revelations into their corruption.

Clinton’s Blame Russians / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F .Branco 2017 Calendar <—- Order Here!

Clinton Campaign Chairman Had Multiple Dinners With Top DOJ Official During Clinton Email Investigation


waving flagAuthored by Chuck Ross, Reporter / 10/25/2016

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/25/clinton-campaign-chairman-had-multiple-dinners-with-top-doj-official-during-clinton-email-investigation/

klinton-kane-korruption-clinton-book-corrupt-together-427x600-copyThe day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, the Democrat’s campaign chairman, met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, a top official at the Justice Department.

The dinner arrangement, revealed in hacked Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks, is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.

Podesta and Kadzik, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, were in frequent contact, other emails show. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures.

The exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department, one former U.S. Attorney tells The Daily Caller.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Kadzik, who started at the DOJ in 2013, helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

In the trenches

Podesta and Kadzik have a long history — one which has largely gone unnoticed during the ongoing Clinton email scandal.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office.

That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account.

In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign.

Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-11-57-45-amIt is unclear to which case Podesta was referring and whether he was joking about prison. But Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal.

As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky.

In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.

Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.

Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time.

“He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe.

Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.

Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.

Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon.picture1

To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001.

A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.” The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich’s pardon.

On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

WikiLeaks revelations

The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the WikiLeaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant.

The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just a day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.

Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. And in an email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

Kadzik’s help for Clinton during email probe

As head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.REALLY

But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.

In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.”Leftist Propagandist

DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees — a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.” Kadzik does not appear to have responded to DeSantis’ questions.how-did-that-work-out-for-you

  • Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton.
  • Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.
  • Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files of the Clinton email investigation.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the record for this article.Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

WikiLeaks Unmasks the Collusion between CNN and the Democratic National Committee


waving flagAuthored By Onan Coca October 14, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/wikileaks-unmasks-collusion-cnn-democratic-national-committee/

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Perhaps the greatest service rendered to us in the recent WikiLeaks data dumps of the Democratic National Committee’s emails (along with the emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief John Podesta) is that it finally unmasked the partnership between the Democrat Party and the main stream media.

For years we on the right have argued that the media was biased and that they often seemed to have two very different standards for Republicans and Democrats. We’ve conducted studies to prove that Democrats get more positive airtime and Republicans get more negative airtime. We’ve literally counted the seconds of free campaign airtime they give to their favorite Democrats and shown how it dwarfs the airtime given to Republican candidates. Over and over again we’ve proven that the media was biased, but they’ve always laughed us off arguing that we’re simply paranoid.

Thanks to WikiLeaks the veneer of an unbiased media is gone and all that remains is the truth – the media colludes with the Democrat Party to stifle democracy in America.

One leak in particular proves the point of media collusion perfectly, as Bret Baier from Fox News explains:

This deals with Donna Brazile, now the interim DNC chair. Previously the vice chair, she was also an analyst at CNN. She writes to Jen Palmieri, the communications director: “From time to time I get the questions in advance.” This is one day in advance of the CNN town hall with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. “Here’s one that worries me about HRC.” And then she goes on to list on of the questions that was provided by one of the people at the town hall, and then he asked this question of Hillary Clinton.

bair

 

Later, Baier’s colleague James Rosen, proving that DNC chair Donna Brazile was lying about her part in cheating the democratic process and showing that the media is most assuredly on Team Hillary.

rosen

The media is not on our side, folks. They no longer care about truth or justice, they simply serve their masters on the left. Do yourselves, and your nation, a favor and stop listening to the drivel that the media is peddling.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

Now Obama gets ‘executive power’ czar


http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/now-obama-gets-executive-power-czar/#cvWJGReqaAI4RHPx.99

Specializes in bypassing Congress to enact ‘progressive  change’

By Aaron Klein

About Aaron  Klein

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter  and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron  Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.
A senior progressive strategist and former chief of staff for President Bill  Clinton who specializes in the use of executive authority to bypass Congress is  reportedly joining the White House.

Podesta last month announced the establishment of a new group, the Washington  Center for Equitable Growth, that will work within his Center for American  Progress. The new center bills itself as a research and grant-making  organization founded to accelerate the closing of what it calls the income gap  in the U.S. by fighting so-called income inequality.

The Times reported Podesta will help the White House on “matters related to  the health care law, administration organization and executive actions,” with  particular focus on so-called climate change issues, according to a person  familiar with the plans.

Podesta is a long-time champion of the use of executive powers, including  bypassing the legislative branch to enact progressive change.

In November 2010, he co-authored a 48-page Center for American Progress paper  titled “The  Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change.”

“The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president  significant authority to make and implement policy,” wrote Podesta in the  paper’s introduction.

“These authorities can be used to ensure positive progress on many of the key  issues facing the country through executive orders, rulemaking, agency  management, convening and creating public-private partnerships, commanding the  armed forces … diplomacy.”

Podesta stressed: “The ability of President Obama to accomplish important  change through these powers should not be underestimated.”

In a conference call to reporters after the release of the paper on executive  authority, Podesta recalled that after Democrats lost control of Congress in  1994, President  Clinton utilized his executive privileges to enact progressive change without  the help of Congress.

Podesta’s paper details how Obama can push executive change on a host of  issues.

The paper states that on energy and environmental arena, the president  can:

  • Reduce oil imports and make progress toward energy independence.
  • Progress toward reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 17 percent by  2020.
  • Conserve federal lands for future generations.
  • Manage public lands to support a balanced energy strategy.
  • Convene and engage hunters and anglers in the development of a fish and  wildlife climate adaptation plan.
  • Generate solar energy on U.S. Air Force hangar roofs.On the domestic  economic policy front, Podesta usges Obama to:
  • Direct an assessment, strategy, and new policy development to promote U.S.  competitiveness.
  • Launch the new consumer financial protection bureau with an aggressive  agenda to protect and empower consumers.
  • Increase the capacity of small businesses to expand hiring and purchases by  accelerating the implementation of the Small Business Jobs Act.
  • Promote automatic mediation to avoid foreclosure where possible and speed  resolution.
  • Create a Web portal to empower housing counselors, reduce burdens on lenders  and speed up home mortgage modifications.
  • Help stabilize home values and communities by turning “shadow REO” housing  inventory into “scattered site” rental housing.
  • Promote practices that support working families.

On the domestic policy front, Podesta’s paper recommends that Obama:

  • Partner with the private sector in health care payment reform.
  • Focus on health care prevention in implementing the Affordable Care  Act.
  • Streamline and simplify access to federal antipoverty programs.
  • Replace costly, inhumane immigration detention policies with equally  effective measures.

Regarding education policy, the paper states the president can:

  • Launch an “educational productivity” initiative to help school districts  spend every dollar wisely to best prepare our children for the 21st  century.
  • Ensure students can compare financial aid offers from different  postsecondary institutions.
  • Improve the quality, standards and productivity of postsecondary  education.

With regard to “improving the performance of the federal government,” the  president can:

  • Scrutinize federal spending programs and tax expenditures to achieve greater  returns on public investment.
  • Build the next-generation Recovery.gov website to track all public  expenditures and performance in real time.
  • Use new information technology for faster, more transparent freedom of  information.
  • Create a virtual U.S. statistical agency.
  • Collect data on lesbian ,gay, bisexual and transgender Americans in federal  data surveys.

And in the foreign policy and national security arena, the president and his  administration can:

  • Rebalance Afghanistan strategy with greater emphasis on political and  diplomatic progress.
  • Promote domestic revenue generation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  • Appoint a special envoy for the Horn of Africa and the southwest Arabian  Peninsula region.
  • Appoint a special commission to assess contracting practices in national  security and foreign affairs.
  • Redouble support for Palestinian state- and institution-building  efforts.
  • Pursue dual-track policy on Iran while sharpening focus on Iranian human  rights issues.
  • Reinvigorate the U.S.-Turkey strategic alliance. Develop a comprehensive  policy on the Russia-Georgia conflict.

In 2008, Podesta served as co-director of Obama’s transition into the White  House.

A Time magazine article profiled the influence of Podesta’s Center for  American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in  1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”

The center is funded by billionaire George Soros. Its board includes Van  Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar, who resigned in September 2009 after it  was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: