Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team issued a subpoena to President Trump’s campaign in mid-October for communications related to Russia, according to a Thursday report in the Wall St. Journal.
The probe seeks documents and emails containing keywords related to Russia from over a dozen top campaign officials, according to an anonymous source familiar with the matter.
While the subpoena does not require testimony before Mueller’s grand jury, the Trump campaign was said to have been surprised by the order – as they had been voluntarily turning over documents to Mueller’s team in September in “total cooperation” with the probe.
The subpoena will mark the first instance of Trump’s campaign being formally ordered by Mueller’s team to turn over information related to the investigation, notwithstanding . Mueller had previously subpoenaed former – and very short lived – Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and several of his associates, seeking banking and other financial records.
In late October, shortly after the Trump campaign had been subpoenaed, Manafort was indicted on multiple counts – including money laundering related to his work for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine. Manafort was and Tony Podesta of the Podesta Group allegedly were using a shell entity in the name of the political party to peddle Russian influence throughout Washington D.C., according to a former Podesta Group executive.
Why subpoena the Trump team if they’ve been cooperative?
Perhaps Mueller’s team thought members of the Trump campaign were withholding information. They obviously weren’t satisfied with what they had been provided prior to the subpoena.
Is Mueller’s investigation grasping at straws, or do they know the Trump team is withholding specific information? Only time will tell.
Fox News viewers are demanding the network fire resident liberal Shep Smith after the host embarrassed himself in a wildly inaccurate and poorly researched “fact check” of the Uranium One scandal on Tuesday, following reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was exploring a special counsel to investigate the sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Kremlin-owned Russian energy giant Rosatom.
Did anyone watch Shep Smith , just explain how Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with Uranium deal?? What a joke Fox News!!! Send him to CNN
The nuclear deal, which ultimately resulted in the transfer of 20 percent of American Uranium to Russia so they could sell it back to US nuclear plants at an enormous profit, was approved by the Obama administration after significant donations in excess of $140 million were made to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One affiliates.
UnlikeSean Hannity – Ol’ Shep clearly hadn’t done his homework – consistently mispronouncing the names of people involved in the case, telling viewers that Canada-based Uranium One is a South African company, and spewing inaccurate and misleading facts regarding the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) which approved the deal.
Shep’s selective timeline
While Smith claimed that the majority of donations to the Clinton Foundation were from Frank Giustra – a mining financier who sold his stake in Uranium One before it was acquired by Russia, and before Clinton was Secretary of State – he fails to mention the history between Giustra and the Clintons.
As Breitbartreports: “it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra. Smith never mentions any of this.”
Smith also misled viewers over the fact that while while nine agencies which comprise the CFIUS, the decision to approve the Uranium One deal was ultimately Obama’s. This is incorrect, as any one of the nine agencies involved had the power to veto the deal.
Another key fact omitted by Smith was the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons – including the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank which issued a “buy” rating to Uranium One during the CFIUS review process.
Smith, in his crappy debunking, declared that “no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country.”
Reports from both the New York Timesand The Hill reveal that yes – uranium left the US on multiple occasions. In fact, the Obama administration approved its export through a Uranium trucking firm based in Canada.
Shep fails to mention the FBI’s involvement
An October 17 article in The Hill reveals that Obama’s FBI, headed by Robert Mueller, discovered that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow”
No mention by Smith, of course.
The Hill also reported that an FBI mole embedded in the Russian nuclear industry gathered extensive evidence that Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – a scheme of bribes and kickbacks to the company which would ostensibly transport the U.S. uranium sold in the ’20 percent’ deal.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials. –The Hill
Smith also leaves out a new report that the FBI scrambled to issue records-retention requests to all 9 member agencies of the CFIUS weeks after they cracked into Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.
No mention of the Podesta Group
Shep also fails to mention that the Podesta Group received $180,000 to lobby for Uranium One during the same period that the Clinton Foundation was receiving millions from U1 interests, and after Russia took majority ownership in the “20 percent” deal (source – you have to add up the years).
Moreover, a former executive of the Podesta Group told Fox’s Tucker Carlson that Tony Podesta regularly met with the Clinton Foundation to coordinate the Uranium One deal, and was “basically part of the Clinton Foundation.” Moreover, the former exec claims that John Podesta – Clinton’s Campaign manager and long time DNC operative, recommended David Adams, Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser at the State Department, giving them a “direct liaison” between the group’s Russian clients and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Let’s review the timeline:
Between 2008 – 2010, parties involved with Uranium One donated $145 Million to the Clinton Foundation. You can read more about the parties here.
June 2009, Russian State Nuclear Agency Rosatom (through a subsidiary) takes a 17% stake in Uranium One.
June 2010, Rosatom takes majority (51%) ownership of Uranium One, granting the Kremlin control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium – which Hillary Clinton’s State Department signed off on. The FBI uncovers massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approves deal.
June 29th, 2010, Bill Clinton meets with Vladimir Putin at his home in Russia. Later that day Clinton earns $500,000 for a speech in Moscow to Kremlin-linked investment bank Renaissance Capital, which assigned a “buy” rating to Uranium One stock.
January 2013, Rosatom State Nuclear Agency acquires the remainder of Uranium one and takes it private.
Watch Shep Smith fumble the ball and cover for Hillary Clinton, horribly
Sitting down with Mother Jones, Hillary Clinton called any investigation into the Uranium One deal “an abuse of power” – of course.
A half-naked woman whose theft of an Uber driver’s tips was caught on video is complaining of online harassment after footage of the brazen incident went viral.
Scantily clad 18 year old Gabrielle Canales – a horrible human being, was caught on surveillance video reaching into the Uber driver’s tip jar after she and two other passengers reached their destination in Brooklyn, New York.
After posting a now-deleted Instagram response in which Canales showed little remorse, the Crown Heights woman finally admitted she was “completely wrong” for stealing the money – $5.00 by her count – which she says she paid back.
“I understand I’m completely wrong and I’m not denying it,” Canales told BuzzFeed. “The lesson was learned that same day. That’s why the gentleman was paid back.”
After the video went viral, Canales told Buzzfeed she’s been subject to harassment and mocking.
“I didn’t need this video to go viral to teach me a lesson. I learned the lesson that same day. Before the video went viral, the man was paid back,” Canales said. “I apologize on the matter once again.”
Canales then doubled down on her self-righteous half apology and played the woman card, saying “I’m wrong for taking $5, and according to the world, I need to die,” she said. “I understand I’m going to get hate from a lot of people and that’s something I accepted, but I don’t think it’s okay to disrespect me as female.”
Uber bans woman, ignores driver
Following the incident, Uber banned the woman from the platform, stating “What’s been shown has no place on our app and the rider’s access to the app has been removed.” The driver, meanwhile, told the Daily Mail that he was “too busy working to file a police report after the video was filmed.”
When he reached out to Uber, they sent him a canned response:
We understand your frustration with this experience. We’ve attempted to contact the rider by phone and email, but haven’t been able to resolve this issue. The rider responded to us and advised us that she didn’t steal your cash from the tip jar. If you believe the rider has your cash as captured from your dash cam and is refusing to return it, you may want to initiate a formal investigation via the police.
Uber drivers raping passengers, passengers robbing Uber drivers – some of whom were then shortchanged by the company … I bet the ridesharing behemoth can’t wait to replace those pesky human drivers with self-driving cars.
Fresh off his trip to Asia, President Trump gave a press conference to discuss the $250 billion in Chinese MOU’s he secured, South Korea’s commitment to 64 projects worth $17 billion, along with plans for $58 billion in US goods and services, and $12 billion in commercial agreements with Vietnam.
In Japan, Trump strengthened trade relations and fed Koi – which of course the Fake News MSM turned into Trump “disrespectfully” killing koi by dumping his entire box of fish food in the pond (except Japanese President Abe did the same thing first. They lied).
While in the Philippines, Trump congratulated president Duterte on the liberation of Marawi City from ISIS, and announced a $2 million commitment to help fight drug lords in the region.
And what did the Fake News MSM choose to report on during Trump’s speech?
HIS WATER INTAKE
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?
Yes, Trump needed a couple of sips of water. And this is what the MSM focused on after a U.S. President’s successful trip to Asia. You know, where he didn’t have to exit the back of Air Force One because China wouldn’t roll out stairs.
WATCH: President Trump paused to take a sip of water while recapping his Asia trip, which was oddly familiar to Marco Rubio's widely mocked water break. pic.twitter.com/kbmx3wBimF
Cisco ($CSCO) beat earnings after the bell – maybe not quite like a redheaded stepchild, but enough to send it up over 4% after hours to levels last seen in nearly 17 years.
That’s right, for all you loyal Cisco shareholders who bought in January, 2001 and haven’t sold a share, you’re finally back to breakeven!
Fiscal first quarter adjusted earnings came in a 61 cents / share, flat vs. a year earlier. Revenue fell 2% to $12.1 billion vs. $12.35 billion a year earlier. EPS came in a penny more than estimates and revenues were only expected to come in at $12.1 billion.
“Cisco is delivering more insights and intelligence as we help our customers build highly secure, intelligent platforms for digital business,” said Chief Executive Chuck Robbins.
For the current quarter, Cisco expects to earn a per-share profit between 46 cents and 51 cents, or 58 cents to 60 cents on an adjusted basis. The company expects revenue to rise between 1% and 3% from a year earlier. Those figures don’t account for the planned acquisition of BroadSoft, the company said.
Analysts had forecast Cisco earning a second-quarter profit of 47 cents a share, or 58 cents a share on an adjusted basis, and revenue rising by 1%.
As announced last quarter, Cisco started using different categorizations for its products this quarter, changing what had been things such as switching and routing to five broader product names: “infrastructure platforms,” “applications,” “security,” “services,” and “other.” To see how these new categories line up with the old ones, check out the PDF document posted on Cisco’s investor relations site that offers a mapping from the old to the new.
According to a spreadsheet posted on the site, using the new categories, “infrastructure” sales, including switching and routing, saw a 4% decline, to $6.97 billion. The applications group saw a 6% rise, to $1.2 billion. The company’s security products rose by 8%, to $585 million. The “other” category, which includes what had been referred to as “service provider video,” plunged by 16%. And the services business rose by 1% to $3.08 billion.
CEO Chuck Robbins said the report demonstrated “the continued progress we’re making on our strategy,” adding, “the network has never been more critical to business success.”
“Cisco is delivering more insights and intelligence as we help our customers build highly secure, intelligent platforms for digital business,” he added.
After falling nearly 30 percent below last week’s record high of $7,879.06 amid controversy over its future, Bitcoin surged more than 8 percent Wednesday to a high of $7,251.81 – returning it to within 10 percent of its all time high.
The sharp reversal in bloodshed comes after news that Jack Dorsey’s Square ($SQ) is actively testing support for Bitcoin transactions through its payments app Cash.
“We’re exploring how Square can make this experience faster and easier, and have rolled out this feature to a small number of Cash app customers,” a Square spokesperson said via email to CNBC. “We believe cryptocurrency can greatly impact the ability of individuals to participate in the global financial system and we’re excited to learn more here.”
Earlier Wednesday, Credit Suisse analysts published a note describing how “Bitcoin buying option could help stock,” sending Square up as much as 5 percent in trade, only to pull back.
“We believe it could place SQ in an early-mover position as a mainstream fin-tech company providing crypto-currency services,” Credit Suisse research analysts Paul Condra and Mrinalini Bhutoria say.
Last week’s drop of 30% was due to controversy surrounding the digital currency’s future, after a plan to improve bitcoin’s transaction speeds and costs, known as “SegWit2x” was called off last Wednesday – leading to an initial surge to its record high before crashing hard.
An August upgrade to the bitcoin infrastructure split bitcoin into bitcoin and bitcoin cash, which traded slightly lower Wednesday to $1,243 – around 50% of its record high of $2,477 from Sunday.
CNBC also reports that “another version of bitcoin that launched Sunday, bitcoin gold, has tumbled more than 20 percent in the last 24 hours to around $161, according to CoinMarketCap. Bitcoin gold is an attempt to make “mining,” or creating, the digital currency less dependent on specialized hardware.”
Interactive Brokers warns
Meanwhile, Thomas Peterffy – chairman of Interactive Brokers, the world’s largest electronic brokerage, took out a full page ad in the Wall St. Journal Wednesday to warn regulators about the dangers of bitcoin futures.
“This letter is to request [the CFTC] require any clearing organization that wishes to clear any cryptocurrency or derivative do so in a separate clearing system isolated from other products,” Peterffy wrote, warning that “Cryptocurrencies do not have a mature, regulated and tested underlying market. The products and their markets have existed for fewer than 10 years and bear little if any relationship to any economic circumstance or reality in the world.”
The ad comes two days after the president of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) said Bitcoin futures could trade as early as the second week in December.
Originally published on Medium by Caitlin Johnston (@Caitoz). This must-read rebuke of The Atlantic republished with permission.
‘The Atlantic’ Commits Malpractice, Selectively Edits To Smear WikiLeaks
Everyone was buzzing about the shocking, bombshell new report by The Atlantic yesterday, which revealed that Donald Trump Jr. and the WikiLeaks Twitter account had engaged in a “largely one-sided” conversation in private messages over the course of several months.
Don Jr. actually comes off looking fairly normal in the report, while WikiLeaks comes off looking weird and sleazy in a way that will likely damage its reputation even further than the mainstream media campaign to smear the outlet already has. WikiLeaks is seen asking for favors Trump never fulfilled, making recommendations Trump Jr. didn’t act upon, and asking for leaks Trump Jr. never gave them, which when you step back and think about it are actually fairly normal things for a leak outlet to do, all things considered. But the following passage from the Atlantic report makes the whole thing look far darker:
It is the third reason, though, Wikileaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” Wikileaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.”
See that full stop at the end of the last sentence there? That’s journalistic malpractice. We learned this when Donald Trump Jr. published the entirety of his private messages with WikiLeaks in response to the Atlantic article:
SCOOP: Turns out Donald Trump, Jr. corresponded with Wikileaks during the 2016 presidential campaign. My latest. https://t.co/pVGEBqmB9O
Incredible. The Atlantic edited "Trump Jr" DM story to reverse its meaning even removing "that the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with" right after "pro-Russia". Full text changes everything. https://t.co/8pNUF1xW23
The author of the Atlantic article, Julia Ioffe, put a period rather than a comma at the end of the text about not wanting to appear pro-Trump or pro-Russia, and completely omitted WikiLeaks’ statement following the comma that it considers those allegations slanderous. This completely changes the way the interaction is perceived.
This is malpractice. Putting an ellipsis (…) and then omitting the rest of the sentence would have been sleazy and disingenuous enough, because you’re leaving out crucial information but at least communicating to the reader that there is more to the sentence you’ve left out, but replacing the comma with a period obviously communicates to the reader that there is no more to the sentence. If you exclude important information while communicating that you have not, you are blatantly lying to your readers.
There is a big difference between “because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source” and “because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with.” Those are not the same sentence. At all. Different meanings, different implications. One makes WikiLeaks look like it’s trying to hide a pro-Trump, pro-Russian agenda from the public, and the other conveys the exact opposite impression as WikiLeaks actively works to obtain Donald Trump’s tax returns. This is a big deal.
And it made a difference in the way WikiLeaks was perceived, as evidenced by the things people who read the article are saying about Ioffe’s version:
Wikileaks tried to get Don Jr. to leak his dad's tax returns: “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” https://t.co/UF6IfnJpLh
THIS is amazing: Wikileaks tells Jr it's perceived as a pro-Russia source & proposes disguising its pro-Trump/anti-Clinton bias: "Our stuff on Clinton will have a much higher impact b/c it won't be perceived as coming from a pro-Trump pro-Russia source." Jr can't play dumb here. pic.twitter.com/q5Qrpo2kvk
At first I wasn’t sure who was responsible for this highly egregious omission. It could have been Ioffe, an editor, the source of the leaked DMs or an intermediary deliverer who cut out the rest of the sentence. But then I read in The Guardian’s version of this storythat Ioffe had actually tweeted to Don Jr. erroneously accusing him of excluding “a couple of missing pages” from his three-part release of his DMs with WikiLeaks. Ioffe eventually deleted the tweet, after it had been seen and reported on by many people, and clarified her error.
On Don Lemon right now, Julia Loffe of Atlantic Wikileaks article said that the screenshots that Don Jr. tweeted out tonight was missing a couple of crucial pages…
What Ioffe’s tweets tell us is that she had full copies of the DMs, since she knew that there were more pages missing from the single tweet by Don Jr. that she had read. The deceitful omission that is the subject of this article was clarified in the first Don Jr. tweet she replied to. She read it, she analyzed it enough to figure out what was missing, but she said nothing about the fact that there were a lot more words in the sentence that she selectively edited out to convey the exact opposite of its meaning.
Also worth noting is Ioffe’s omission of the fact that we’ve known since Julythat WikiLeaks had contacted Donald Trump Jr., as well as the fact that Julian Assange’s internet was cut at the time some of the Don Jr. messages were sent, meaning they may have been sent by someone else with access to the WikiLeaks account.
Contacted Trump Jr this morning on why he should publish his emails (i.e with us). Two hours later, does it himself: https://t.co/FzCttGSyr6
As happens every single time these pro-establishment manipulations take place, the rest of the mainstream media is picking up the Atlantic’s deceitful omission and running with it as fact. GQran with it quoting the selectively edited text. ABC and CBS both ran with the same fake quote even after including Don Jr.’s tweets which make it clear that text was omitted. The Guardian went so far as to use the Atlantic’s selectively edited quote, and then publish an update saying that Julian Assange had “suggested that the Atlantic had selectively edited the messages” without updating the original selectively edited quote or publishing the omitted text.
What percentage of Guardian readers do you think went and read the private messages published by Don Jr. for themselves and learned that they’d been manipulated? One percent? Half of one percent? Why would they go read the published DMs if their trusted Guardian was presenting itself as conveying the full truth?
Life cycle of a Trump story: -Story publishes -People skim the story, freak out -Questions about whether this is the end of Trump -That one dude does the BOOM -People read the story -Meh, they're not that bright but that's not collusion
Every time. This happens literally every single time there’s a new “bombshell” report on the Russiagate phenomenon, without exception. Twitter explodes, I’m bombarded with social media notifications telling me “HAHAHA I BET YOU FEEL LIKE AN IDIOT NOW”, then it turns out to be a basically innocuous revelation dishonestly blown up into something explosive by liars and manipulators in the establishment media. It’s fueled entirely by Trump derangement syndrome, not by facts.
And people ask why I’m skeptical of the establishment Russia narrative. I’m skeptical because we’re being lied to every single step of the way by the news media who claim to be helping the public discover the truth. Trump lies because he’s a corrupt billionaire who knows he can get away with it, but that doesn’t make him a Russian agent. The media lies because they’re bolstering the stranglehold of America’s unelected power establishment, and that makes them traitors to our species.
I stand with WikiLeaks. They’re doing more than anyone else to shake loose the nuts and bolts of the omnicidal death machine that is driving our species toward extinction, and that’s why that same death machine pours so much energy into tarnishing their reputation so their leaks will be dismissed. Even my fellow leftists have been largely won over by the ongoing psyop to paint Assange as an evil Nazi, and I simply have no respect for that perspective. When there’s such a massive, concerted effort by America’s unelected government to sabotage someone’s reputation, your belief that they’re bad is probably a deliberate and artificial construct.
The mainstream media is not your friend, America. It’s time to send them the way of the dinosaur before they do the same to us.
UPDATE 5 PM EST 11/14/17: Surprise, surprise, here’s Chris Hayes on MSNBC regurgitating Ioffe’s selectively edited quote on MSNBC. There will be others. There is no way to undo the damage that was done by this lie. At the end of the clip Ioffe actually asserts that her story confirms Russia-WikiLeaks collusion, without at any time acknowledging that the only thing in the story that makes it look that way is her selectively-edited quote.
If Russiagate was valid, the people selling it to us wouldn’t have to lie about it every single step of the way.
Hey you, thanks for reading! My work is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, and maybe throwing some money into my hat on Patreon , on Paypal, or with Bitcoin: 1DguEVyWJU1eVDei25RH4Xj1eTLnxiS562
Buzzfeed – the original source of the 34 page “pissgate” dossier – has reported that the FBI is looking into over 60 financial transfers sent by the Russian foreign ministry to embassies across the globe totaling around $380,000, between Aug 3 and Sept 20, 2016 – with the memo section reading: “to finance election campaign of 2016”
“After discovering the $30,000 transfer to the embassy in Washington, Citibank launched a review of other transfers by the Russian foreign ministry. It unearthed dozens of other transactions with similar memo lines. Compliance officers in Citibank’s Global Intelligence Unit flagged them as suspicious, noting that it was unable to determine the financial, business, or legal purpose of the transactions.” –Buzzfeed
Because when trying to secretly influence an election, be sure to write “to finance election campaign of 2016” in the memo section to avoid confusion.
The Moscow bank which initiated at least one of the transfers was “VTB Bank,” which has been under sanctions since 2014 following Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
While Buzzfeed doesn’t say which campaign the funds were meant to finance, or if the funds were even used for that purpose – a few things come to mind:
Nobody thought Donald Trump was going to win, not by a long shot. Everybody thought Hillary had it in the bag. Why would Russia commit $380,000 – a paltry .0019% of the $192 million Trump spent on his campaign – towards a candidate that nearly everyone thought would lose?
Which candidate did Russia actually have a vested interest in? Hillary Clinton was operating a pay-for-play scheme through the Clinton Foundation which Russia benefitted greatly from through the purchase of Uranium One.
Bill Clinton was at Putin’s house the same day he collected $500,000 for a speech to the same Russian bank which issued a “buy” rating on Uranium One – a deal approved by Hillary’s state department. Money has been flowing from Russian pockets to Clinton pockets for nearly two decades.
Tony Podesta – brother of the John Podesta, who was slated to be Hillary’s Secretary of State – lobbied for Uranium One after it was owned by the Russians.
We also know that the $150,000 in “Russian troll farm” advertisements bought during the campaign were primarily focused on traditionally liberal activism such as BLM.
So why – given the litany of Hillary’s established ties to Russia and the promise that a Clinton II presidency held for Russia’s ability to simply buy foreign policy decisions – would they support Dyanald Trumpski?
During his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions went back and forth with lawmakers regarding troubling omissions he made during previous testimony.
When asked to confirm a Washington Post report that Sessions was exploring the possibility of a Special Counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One deal – Sessions pushed back – making it all but clear no such investigation will take place.
In a heated exchange with Rep. Jim Jordon (R-OH), Sessions told the Congressman that it would take “a factual basis that meets the standard of a special counsel” for the Justice Department to make such an appointment, adding:
“We will use the proper standards and that’s the only thing I can tell you, Mr. Jordan,” Sessions said. “You can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standards it requires.”
Jordon pushed back, telling Sessions “That’s what it looks like and I’m asking you, in addition to all the things we know about James Comey in 2016, doesn’t that warrant naming a second special counsel?”
To which Sessions deflected, noting that Comey is no longer the director of the FBI. When Jordan persisted, telling Sessions “He’s not here today, Attorney General Sessions, and you are,” Sessions further shot down the notion of a Special Counsel:
“I would say ‘looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel,” he said sharply. He added that it would be “wrong” to use the powers of the DOJ for political purposes.
“The Department of Justice can never be used to retaliate politically against opponents. That would be wrong.”
Let’s get this straight, Jefe:
Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel was appointed after James Comey said he wrote a memo, which nobody has seen, alleging that Trump asked him to go easy on former Nat. Security Advisor Mike Flynn. The memo is allegedly in the hands of the FBI.
Meanwhile, there is clear and documented evidence that the Clinton Foundation was used as a pay-f0r-play mechanism which allowed foreign powers to buy influence in the United States.
The circumstances surrounding the Uranium One deal – starting with the $145 million “gifted” to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary’s State Department and the Obama administration approved the transaction – are far more egregious facts than the nebulous hearsay Comey memo.
How about the documented 143%increase in arms sales approved by Hillary’s State Dept. to countries which contributed to the Clinton Foundation?
How about the FBI issuing records retention requests to all federal agencies involved in approving the Uranium One deal – weeks after they cracked into Hillary’s email investigation?
No – that’s not enough for ol’ Jeff Sessions, despite the fact that Mueller’s similar investigation was launched on the basis of an alleged “memo” which nobody has laid eyes on, and Comey read to his friend, a reporter, over the phone.
In conclusion; things are the same as they ever were and Jeff Sessions is a cuck…
UNLESS THIS IS 45D INTERDIMENSIONAL ASS PLAY AND THERE’S REALLY A HUGE INVESTIGATION HABBENING GUYZ
As the last remnants of ISIS face defeat in the East Syrian city of Abu Kamal, and General Mattis signalling an open-ended US military presence in the country to battle any “ISIS 2.0” holdouts “as long as they want to fight,” a new report in the BBC sheds light on a deal to allow ISIS fighters safe passage out of Raqqa – likely in exchange for control over the ISIS-held Omar oil fields.
The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of Islamic State fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city.
A convoy included some of IS’s most notorious members and – despite reassurances – dozens of foreign fighters. Some of those have spread out across Syria, even making it as far as Turkey.
At the time, neither the US and British-led coalition, nor the SDF, which it backs, wanted to admit their part.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Omar fields falling into hands of SDF could well have been part of a Quid pro quo deal that allowed ISIS to leave Raqqa for allowing SDF to capture Omar oil field after ISIS attacks #SyrianArmy positions. If you read 1 article today, make sure its one by BBC below https://t.co/FFQhOIjPEC
Though it’s always good when the mainstream media belatedly gives confirmation to stories that actually broke months prior, the BBC was very late to the story. ISIS terrorists being given free passage by coalition forces to leave Raqqa was a story which we and other outlets began to report last June, and which Moon of Alabama and Al-Masdar News exposed in detail a full month prior to the BBC report.
And astoundingly, even foreign fighters who had long vowed to carry out attacks in Europe and elsewhere were part of the deal brokered under the sponsorship of the US coalition in Syria. According to the BBC report:
Disillusioned, weary of the constant fighting and fearing for his life, Abu Basir decided to leave for the safety of Idlib. He now lives in the city. He was part of an almost exclusively French group within IS, and before he left some of his fellow fighters were given a new mission.
“There are some French brothers from our group who left for France to carry out attacks in what would be called a ‘day of reckoning.’”
Much is hidden beneath the rubble of Raqqa and the lies around this deal might easily have stayed buried there too. The numbers leaving were much higher than local tribal elders admitted. At first the coalition refused to admit the extent of the deal.
So it appears that the US allowed ISIS terrorists to freely leave areas under coalition control, according to no less than the BBC, while at the same time attempting to make the case before the public that a permanent Pentagon presence is needed in case of ISIS’ return. But it’s a familiar pattern by now: yesterday’s proxies become today’s terrorists, which return to being proxies again, all as part of justifying permanent US military presence on another nation’s sovereign territory.
America’s Syrian adventure went from public declarations of “we’re staying out” to “just some logistical aid to rebels” to “okay, some mere light arms to fight the evil dictator” to “well, a few anti-tank missiles wouldn’t hurt” to “we gotta bomb the new super-bad terror group that emerged!” to “ah but no boots on the ground!” to “alright kinetic strikes as a deterrent” to “but special forces aren’t really boots on the ground per se, right?” to yesterday’s Mattis declaration of an open-ended commitment. And on and on it goes.