Politics EXPOSING THE DEEP STATE

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

his nerves of steel to launch the Normandy invasion.

I am sorry, but his Normandy fuckup succeeded, in spite of him. Fortunately, we have never repeated doing an invasion so badly. We did make another really dumb one at Iwo Jima, but not fault of the assault commander.
The fault there is on Curtiss Lemay, the Commander of the Air force bombing Japan and Franklin D. Roosevelt . Lemay sold the idea that he needed that island to save his bomber crews. There was really was no other need for the
the heavily reinforce island. No strategic value. While taking it did save some bomber crews, the cost to the Marine assault force was and is the battle that cost them more causalities than another in History. More casualties to the Marines
than there were airman in Lemay's entire Bomber force. The US Navy was fishing them out of the sea when a bomber went down. Landing on Iwo was perhaps better, but the cost to get it was huge.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry, but his Normandy fuckup succeeded, in spite of him. Fortunately, we have never repeated doing an invasion so badly. We did make another really dumb one at Iwo Jima, but not fault of the assault commander.
The fault there is on Curtiss Lemay, the Commander of the Air force bombing Japan and Franklin D. Roosevelt . Lemay sold the idea that he needed that island to save his bomber crews. There was really was no other need for the
the heavily reinforce island. No strategic value. While taking it did save some bomber crews, the cost to the Marine assault force was and is the battle that cost them more causalities than another in History. More casualties to the Marines
than there were airman in Lemay's entire Bomber force. The US Navy was fishing them out of the sea when a bomber went down. Landing on Iwo was perhaps better, but the cost to get it was huge.

General Curtis LeMay was a hard ass who endorsed lower level bombing and napalm. A civilian's nightmare. The women and children of Japan suffered because of the obstinate Japanese Army leadership and under LeMay's annulation initiative.
 
General Curtis LeMay was a hard ass who endorsed lower level bombing and napalm. A civilian's nightmare. The women and children of Japan suffered because of the obstinate Japanese Army leadership and under LeMay's annulation initiative.

History does not do the man justice. But his unwarranted over kill tactics were not curbed by the leadership of the day. This lack of restrain starts at the top, entering the war once it was forced on the US, righteous indignation took control with maximum feeling.
While the leader is responsible to state what victory will look like, going for maximum feel good gratification in demanding "UnConditional Surrender" is what FDR did. We continued to wage unrestrained warfare against a nation that had been defeated,
targeting the civilian population for maximum destruction to bring about Unconditional Surrender. Lemay was unrestrained in pursuing this mission, even though enemy had no ability to wage war beyond their shore. The US Navy controlled the sea,
while LeMay tageted cities for destruction. Even those that had no war production, just concentrated human populations.

I suspect that the momentum generated by the success of this course, became unchangeable, even to those that might have known better. I do not know Truman's view on the subject, but he did not or could not alter the course.
 
History does not do the man justice. But his unwarranted over kill tactics were not curbed by the leadership of the day. This lack of restrain starts at the top, entering the war once it was forced on the US, righteous indignation took control with maximum feeling.
While the leader is responsible to state what victory will look like, going for maximum feel good gratification in demanding "UnConditional Surrender" is what FDR did. We continued to wage unrestrained warfare against a nation that had been defeated,
targeting the civilian population for maximum destruction to bring about Unconditional Surrender. Lemay was unrestrained in pursuing this mission, even though enemy had no ability to wage war beyond their shore. The US Navy controlled the sea,
while LeMay tageted cities for destruction. Even those that had no war production, just concentrated human populations.

I suspect that the momentum generated by the success of this course, became unchangeable, even to those that might have known better. I do not know Truman's view on the subject, but he did not or could not alter the course.
Our government spent millions on the A Bomb because we feared the Nazi's would produce it first. How ironic the Japanese took the beating. For egotistical fulfillment and financial completion they were going to be dropped.
 
It is an interesting question what Japan would look like today if we took the route you advocate to contain but not defeat Japan.

barfo
 
It is an interesting question what Japan would look like today if we took the route you advocate to contain but not defeat Japan.

barfo

I suspect the surrender would have come. Japan could not function in isolation which would have been the case when they lost control of the Sea. How long would it take?
That would be the first question.
What would Japan look like without the US occupation? Or would have it happen anyway?
Dun No! But history might look a little better in my view.

The bigger change might have come from less lives lost, on both sides. Who knows?
 
Our government spent millions on the A Bomb because we feared the Nazi's would produce it first. How ironic the Japanese took the beating. For egotistical fulfillment and financial completion they were going to be dropped.

The A bomb is almost a separate issue. I think Lemay's Body count would have been about the same with or without the A bomb. I could even argue, that it might have been worse without it, continuing to fire bomb cities in the attempt to force unconditional surrender.
 
Our government spent millions on the A Bomb because we feared the Nazi's would produce it first. How ironic the Japanese took the beating. For egotistical fulfillment and financial completion they were going to be dropped.

There was another factor at work. Stalin was happy to have the help of the filthy capitalists against Germany, but staunchly refused to reciprocate by declaring war on Japan. He waited until Germany surrendered and Japan was clearly doomed before changing his mind and launching an offensive against Japanese troops in Mongolia. If the war had lasted another 6 months, Japan would have wound up partitioned just like Germany.
 
The A bomb is almost a separate issue. I think Lemay's Body count would have been about the same with or without the A bomb. I could even argue, that it might have been worse without it, continuing to fire bomb cities in the attempt to force unconditional surrender.

That's a good point.

I've always felt the argument over whether we should have used the bomb has been sidetracked by the questionable choice of targets.
 
There was another factor at work. Stalin was happy to have the help of the filthy capitalists against Germany, but staunchly refused to reciprocate by declaring war on Japan. He waited until Germany surrendered and Japan was clearly doomed before changing his mind and launching an offensive against Japanese troops in Mongolia. If the war had lasted another 6 months, Japan would have wound up partitioned just like Germany.
You have to admit this, Stalin was the devil reincarnated. What he did to the Poles and the Polish Officers is disgusting. When the Japanese were officially doomed he took advantage and succeeded.
 
The A bomb is almost a separate issue. I think Lemay's Body count would have been about the same with or without the A bomb. I could even argue, that it might have been worse without it, continuing to fire bomb cities in the attempt to force unconditional surrender.
So, in a way the A bomb was an act of mercy.
 
Our government spent millions on the A Bomb because we feared the Nazi's would produce it first. How ironic the Japanese took the beating. For egotistical fulfillment and financial completion they were going to be dropped.
They were dropped to save anywhere between half a Million and a Million American lives.
 
So, in a way the A bomb was an act of mercy.

Well, the shock value probably did force the inevitable a bit sooner than continued fire bombing would have done. I hate to think we might have gotten to cities like Kyoto before surrender.
 
They were dropped to save anywhere between half a Million and a Million American lives.
And I think it did, plus millions of Japanese.
But that view is only valid if you believe we must force unconditional surrender on the Japanese. With control of the Seas, I don't think that forcing the surrender by invasion was necessary.
However, depriving them of all commerce, would have likely starved many millions too before they would have been force to accept the insufferable.
Old Harry, was in a tough spot! Who is to say, he did it wrong?
 
They were dropped to save anywhere between half a Million and a Million American lives.
Lanny....True! However leaving radiation burns and blindness on the civilians was a secondary thought for the American leadership.
 
And I think it did, plus millions of Japanese.
But that view is only valid if you believe we must force unconditional surrender on the Japanese. With control of the Seas, I don't think that forcing the surrender by invasion was necessary.
However, depriving them of all commerce, would have likely starved many millions too before they would have been force to accept the insufferable.
Old Harry, was in a tough spot! Who is to say, he did it wrong?
Harry had to do it. After all the research, manpower and gobs of money the A bomb had to be demonstrated. I wish they dropped it on an isolated area. However, radiation never stays isolated.
 
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/

The secrets are hidden behind fortified walls in cities across the United States, inside towering, windowless skyscrapers and fortress-like concrete structures that were built to withstand earthquakes and even nuclear attack. Thousands of people pass by the buildings each day and rarely give them a second glance, because their function is not publicly known. They are an integral part of one of the world’s largest telecommunications networks – and they are also linked to a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.
Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. In each of these cities, The Intercept has identified an AT&T facility containing networking equipment that transports large quantities of internet traffic across the United States and the world. A body of evidence – including classified NSA documents, public records, and interviews with several former AT&T employees – indicates that the buildings are central to an NSA spying initiative that has for years monitored billions of emails, phone calls, and online chats passing across U.S. territory.

The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company’s “extreme willingness to help.” It is a collaboration that dates back decades. Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T’s customers. According to the NSA’s documents, it values AT&T not only because it “has access to information that transits the nation,” but also because it maintains unique relationships with other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T’s massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies.

Much has previously been reported about the NSA’s surveillance programs. But few details have been disclosed about the physical infrastructure that enables the spying. Last year, The Intercept highlighted a likely NSA facility in New York City’s Lower Manhattan. Now, we are revealing for the first time a series of other buildings across the U.S. that appear to serve a similar function, as critical parts of one of the world’s most powerful electronic eavesdropping systems, hidden in plain sight.

“It’s eye-opening and ominous the extent to which this is happening right here on American soil,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “It puts a face on surveillance that we could never think of before in terms of actual buildings and actual facilities in our own cities, in our own backyards.”

There are hundreds of AT&T-owned properties scattered across the U.S. The eight identified by The Intercept serve a specific function, processing AT&T customers’ data and also carrying large quantities of data from other internet providers. They are known as “backbone” and “peering” facilities.

While network operators would usually prefer to send data through their own networks, often a more direct and cost-efficient path is provided by other providers’ infrastructure. If one network in a specific area of the country is overloaded with data traffic, another operator with capacity to spare can sell or exchange bandwidth, reducing the strain on the congested region. This exchange of traffic is called “peering” and is an essential feature of the internet.

Because of AT&T’s position as one of the U.S.’s leading telecommunications companies, it has a large network that is frequently used by other providers to transport their customers’ data. Companies that “peer” with AT&T include the American telecommunications giants Sprint, Cogent Communications, and Level 3, as well as foreign companies such as Sweden’s Telia, India’s Tata Communications, Italy’s Telecom Italia, and Germany’s Deutsche Telekom.

AT&T currently boasts 19,500 “points of presence” in 149 countries where internet traffic is exchanged. But only eight of the company’s facilities in the U.S. offer direct access to its “common backbone” – key data routes that carry vast amounts of emails, internet chats, social media updates, and internet browsing sessions. These eight locations are among the most important in AT&T’s global network. They are also highly valued by the NSA, documents indicate.

The data exchange between AT&T and other networks initially takes place outside AT&T’s control, sources said, at third-party data centers that are owned and operated by companies such as California’s Equinix. But the data is then routed – in whole or in part – through the eight AT&T buildings, where the NSA taps into it. By monitoring what it calls the “peering circuits” at the eight sites, the spy agency can collect “not only AT&T’s data, they get all the data that’s interchanged between AT&T’s network and other companies,” according to Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician who worked with the company for 22 years. It is an efficient point to conduct internet surveillance, Klein said, “because the peering links, by the nature of the connections, are liable to carry everybody’s traffic at one point or another during the day, or the week, or the year.”

Christopher Augustine, a spokesperson for the NSA, said in a statement that the agency could “neither confirm nor deny its role in alleged classified intelligence activities.” Augustine declined to answer questions about the AT&T facilities, but said that the NSA “conducts its foreign signals intelligence mission under the legal authorities established by Congress and is bound by both policy and law to protect U.S. persons’ privacy and civil liberties.”

Jim Greer, an AT&T spokesperson, said that AT&T was “required by law to provide information to government and law enforcement entities by complying with court orders, subpoenas, lawful discovery requests, and other legal requirements.” He added that the company provides “voluntary assistance to law enforcement when a person’s life is in danger and in other immediate, emergency situations. In all cases, we ensure that requests for assistance are valid and that we act in compliance with the law.”

Dave Schaeffer, CEO of Cogent Communications, told The Intercept that he had no knowledge of the surveillance at the eight AT&T buildings, but said he believed “the core premise that the NSA or some other agency would like to look at traffic … at an AT&T facility.” He said he suspected that the surveillance is likely carried out on “a limited basis,” due to technical and cost constraints. If the NSA were trying to “ubiquitously monitor” data passing across AT&T’s networks, Schaeffer added, he would be “extremely concerned.”

Sprint, Telia, Tata Communications, Telecom Italia, and Deutsche Telekom did not respond to requests for comment. CenturyLink, which owns Level 3, said it would not discuss “matters of national security.”

map-gifs-4-1529435205.gif
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/
 
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/

The secrets are hidden behind fortified walls in cities across the United States, inside towering, windowless skyscrapers and fortress-like concrete structures that were built to withstand earthquakes and even nuclear attack. Thousands of people pass by the buildings each day and rarely give them a second glance, because their function is not publicly known. They are an integral part of one of the world’s largest telecommunications networks – and they are also linked to a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.
Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. In each of these cities, The Intercept has identified an AT&T facility containing networking equipment that transports large quantities of internet traffic across the United States and the world. A body of evidence – including classified NSA documents, public records, and interviews with several former AT&T employees – indicates that the buildings are central to an NSA spying initiative that has for years monitored billions of emails, phone calls, and online chats passing across U.S. territory.

The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company’s “extreme willingness to help.” It is a collaboration that dates back decades. Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T’s customers. According to the NSA’s documents, it values AT&T not only because it “has access to information that transits the nation,” but also because it maintains unique relationships with other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T’s massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies.

Much has previously been reported about the NSA’s surveillance programs. But few details have been disclosed about the physical infrastructure that enables the spying. Last year, The Intercept highlighted a likely NSA facility in New York City’s Lower Manhattan. Now, we are revealing for the first time a series of other buildings across the U.S. that appear to serve a similar function, as critical parts of one of the world’s most powerful electronic eavesdropping systems, hidden in plain sight.

“It’s eye-opening and ominous the extent to which this is happening right here on American soil,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “It puts a face on surveillance that we could never think of before in terms of actual buildings and actual facilities in our own cities, in our own backyards.”

There are hundreds of AT&T-owned properties scattered across the U.S. The eight identified by The Intercept serve a specific function, processing AT&T customers’ data and also carrying large quantities of data from other internet providers. They are known as “backbone” and “peering” facilities.

While network operators would usually prefer to send data through their own networks, often a more direct and cost-efficient path is provided by other providers’ infrastructure. If one network in a specific area of the country is overloaded with data traffic, another operator with capacity to spare can sell or exchange bandwidth, reducing the strain on the congested region. This exchange of traffic is called “peering” and is an essential feature of the internet.

Because of AT&T’s position as one of the U.S.’s leading telecommunications companies, it has a large network that is frequently used by other providers to transport their customers’ data. Companies that “peer” with AT&T include the American telecommunications giants Sprint, Cogent Communications, and Level 3, as well as foreign companies such as Sweden’s Telia, India’s Tata Communications, Italy’s Telecom Italia, and Germany’s Deutsche Telekom.

AT&T currently boasts 19,500 “points of presence” in 149 countries where internet traffic is exchanged. But only eight of the company’s facilities in the U.S. offer direct access to its “common backbone” – key data routes that carry vast amounts of emails, internet chats, social media updates, and internet browsing sessions. These eight locations are among the most important in AT&T’s global network. They are also highly valued by the NSA, documents indicate.

The data exchange between AT&T and other networks initially takes place outside AT&T’s control, sources said, at third-party data centers that are owned and operated by companies such as California’s Equinix. But the data is then routed – in whole or in part – through the eight AT&T buildings, where the NSA taps into it. By monitoring what it calls the “peering circuits” at the eight sites, the spy agency can collect “not only AT&T’s data, they get all the data that’s interchanged between AT&T’s network and other companies,” according to Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician who worked with the company for 22 years. It is an efficient point to conduct internet surveillance, Klein said, “because the peering links, by the nature of the connections, are liable to carry everybody’s traffic at one point or another during the day, or the week, or the year.”

Christopher Augustine, a spokesperson for the NSA, said in a statement that the agency could “neither confirm nor deny its role in alleged classified intelligence activities.” Augustine declined to answer questions about the AT&T facilities, but said that the NSA “conducts its foreign signals intelligence mission under the legal authorities established by Congress and is bound by both policy and law to protect U.S. persons’ privacy and civil liberties.”

Jim Greer, an AT&T spokesperson, said that AT&T was “required by law to provide information to government and law enforcement entities by complying with court orders, subpoenas, lawful discovery requests, and other legal requirements.” He added that the company provides “voluntary assistance to law enforcement when a person’s life is in danger and in other immediate, emergency situations. In all cases, we ensure that requests for assistance are valid and that we act in compliance with the law.”

Dave Schaeffer, CEO of Cogent Communications, told The Intercept that he had no knowledge of the surveillance at the eight AT&T buildings, but said he believed “the core premise that the NSA or some other agency would like to look at traffic … at an AT&T facility.” He said he suspected that the surveillance is likely carried out on “a limited basis,” due to technical and cost constraints. If the NSA were trying to “ubiquitously monitor” data passing across AT&T’s networks, Schaeffer added, he would be “extremely concerned.”

Sprint, Telia, Tata Communications, Telecom Italia, and Deutsche Telekom did not respond to requests for comment. CenturyLink, which owns Level 3, said it would not discuss “matters of national security.”

map-gifs-4-1529435205.gif
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/
Yet again you've caught on to our nefarious plot.
 
Lanny....True! However leaving radiation burns and blindness on the civilians was a secondary thought for the American leadership.
The secondary thought had to be pretty far down the list compared with saving hundreds of thousands of American lives.
 
Weekly Update: JW Sues Over Clinton Foundation Cover-Up
NOVEMBER 30, 2018

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents on Obama DOJ Effort to Shut Down Clinton Foundation Investigation
A major scandal, largely uninvestigated, is the Obama Justice Department’s protection of Hillary Clinton.

As per usual, Judicial Watch is taking the lead on this issue. We just filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communications involving any investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) into the Clinton Foundation(Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 1:18-cv-02536).

We sued after the agency failed to respond to our May 4, 2018, FOIA request for:

All records of communication, including but not limited to e-mails (whether sent or received on .gov or non-.gov e-mail accounts), text messages, or instant chats, sent between officials in the offices of the FBI Director, Deputy Director and General Counsel on the one hand, and officials in the offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and or Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General on the other hand, regarding the closure or possible closure of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Remember that it was our FOIA lawsuit that led directly to the disclosure of the illicit Clinton email system in 2015.

Then in August 2016, a related Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit broke open the email story and began making conflict of interest documents public, revealing Clinton’s shadowy pay-to-play schemes.


This lawsuit showed the sleazy details. For example, in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.


Included in the documents we received as a result of the lawsuit was a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.


We have since uncovered many other instances of seeming pay-to-play and favoritism for the Clinton Foundation at the Clinton State Department.

In January 2016, the FBI reportedly began investigating the Clinton Foundation, as it expanded from the email probe. In October 2016, FBI agents were told they did not have “enough evidence to move forward” with their investigation of the Foundation.

Earlier this year, a DOJ Inspector General report detailed evidence that the Obama DOJ sought to shut down the FBI investigation of Clinton Foundation:

McCabe [who was fired as deputy director of the FBI] told the OIG that on August 12, 2016, he received a telephone call from PADAG [Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, likely Matthew Axelrod] regarding the FBI’s handling of the CF [Clinton Foundation] Investigation (the “PADAG call”). McCabe said that PADAG expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the CF Investigation during the presidential campaign. According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking “are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe told us that the conversation was “very dramatic” and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level Department official in his entire FBI career.

Reportedly, senior DOJ officials refused FBI requests to issue subpoenas on Clinton Foundation issues in 2016.

In January 2018, information surfaced that the FBI reportedly launched a new investigation into potential Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, but there has been no indication it is proceeding.

In October 18, 2018, Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced the release of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s disciplinary file, which “reminds us how the Obama Justice Department sought to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation during the 2016 presidential election.” [Emphasis added]

The record shows the Obama Justice Department suppressed a public corruption investigation. It’s time to stop shielding the Clintons and produce records on this miscarriage of justice.

(This is only part of our investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play politics, which involves multiple FOIA lawsuits seeking documents from Hillary Clinton’s illicit email system, as well as records related to the intersection of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Our work served as a basis for the breakthrough book “Clinton Cash.”)

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ate-jw-sues-over-clinton-foundation-cover-up/
 
Weekly Update: JW Sues Over Clinton Foundation Cover-Up
NOVEMBER 30, 2018

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents on Obama DOJ Effort to Shut Down Clinton Foundation Investigation
A major scandal, largely uninvestigated, is the Obama Justice Department’s protection of Hillary Clinton.

As per usual, Judicial Watch is taking the lead on this issue. We just filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communications involving any investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) into the Clinton Foundation(Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 1:18-cv-02536).

We sued after the agency failed to respond to our May 4, 2018, FOIA request for:

All records of communication, including but not limited to e-mails (whether sent or received on .gov or non-.gov e-mail accounts), text messages, or instant chats, sent between officials in the offices of the FBI Director, Deputy Director and General Counsel on the one hand, and officials in the offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and or Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General on the other hand, regarding the closure or possible closure of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Remember that it was our FOIA lawsuit that led directly to the disclosure of the illicit Clinton email system in 2015.

Then in August 2016, a related Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit broke open the email story and began making conflict of interest documents public, revealing Clinton’s shadowy pay-to-play schemes.


This lawsuit showed the sleazy details. For example, in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.


Included in the documents we received as a result of the lawsuit was a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.


We have since uncovered many other instances of seeming pay-to-play and favoritism for the Clinton Foundation at the Clinton State Department.

In January 2016, the FBI reportedly began investigating the Clinton Foundation, as it expanded from the email probe. In October 2016, FBI agents were told they did not have “enough evidence to move forward” with their investigation of the Foundation.

Earlier this year, a DOJ Inspector General report detailed evidence that the Obama DOJ sought to shut down the FBI investigation of Clinton Foundation:

McCabe [who was fired as deputy director of the FBI] told the OIG that on August 12, 2016, he received a telephone call from PADAG [Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, likely Matthew Axelrod] regarding the FBI’s handling of the CF [Clinton Foundation] Investigation (the “PADAG call”). McCabe said that PADAG expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the CF Investigation during the presidential campaign. According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking “are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe told us that the conversation was “very dramatic” and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level Department official in his entire FBI career.

Reportedly, senior DOJ officials refused FBI requests to issue subpoenas on Clinton Foundation issues in 2016.

In January 2018, information surfaced that the FBI reportedly launched a new investigation into potential Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, but there has been no indication it is proceeding.

In October 18, 2018, Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced the release of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s disciplinary file, which “reminds us how the Obama Justice Department sought to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation during the 2016 presidential election.” [Emphasis added]

The record shows the Obama Justice Department suppressed a public corruption investigation. It’s time to stop shielding the Clintons and produce records on this miscarriage of justice.

(This is only part of our investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play politics, which involves multiple FOIA lawsuits seeking documents from Hillary Clinton’s illicit email system, as well as records related to the intersection of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Our work served as a basis for the breakthrough book “Clinton Cash.”)

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ate-jw-sues-over-clinton-foundation-cover-up/
Do you know what those rats do? They spend money, lots of money, on the disadvantaged all over the world. Those dirty rats. They deserve the satisfaction they get.
 
Comey drops legal challenge to House GOP subpoena, will testify on Trump, Clinton probes

By Gregg Re | Fox News
Former FBI Director James Comey announced Sunday he has dropped his legal challenge to House Republicans' efforts to compel him to testify in a closed-door setting about the political bias and mismanagement they say permeated the Hillary Clinton and Trump campaign probes under his watch.

Citing a history of congressional leaks creating a “corrosive narrative," Comey's lawyers had resisted the GOP's subpoena and insisted on a public hearing. They said in court documents Republicans' demand for closed-door testimony “exceeds a proper legislative purpose, is issued in violation of House rules, and unduly prejudices and harasses the witness.”

But Comey, who was called to testify on Monday and is now expected to testify later this week, relented after House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., agreed on Nov. 28 that the former FBI head's remarks would be made public in their entirety.

Fox News has confirmed that a key focus of questioning will be Comey's decision to write the July 2016 statement recommending against filing criminal charges in the Clinton email probe before she was interviewed. And, Comey likely will be pressed on intelligence activity months before the Russia investigation into Trump campaign contacts officially opened in late July 2016.

"I was disappointed that Mr. Comey filed a motion to quash the subpoena sent to him to appear for our investigation," Goodlatte said in a statement Sunday. "Mr. Comey chose to file a motion to quash despite clear Supreme Court precedent setting forth Congress’ authority to issue subpoenas compelling testimony before its committees. There was no need to use baseless litigation in an attempt to run out the clock on this Congress, and I am glad that it was withdrawn."

He added: “Mr. Comey will join us for a closed-door transcribed interview later this week. We will release the transcript of his interview to the public as soon as possible after the interview, in the name of our combined desire for transparency.”

Goodlatte had told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" earlier in the day that he expected Comey to withdraw his motion and appear to testify, saying there had been ongoing discussions to effect that outcome.

Asked why he wanted to talk to Comey now -- just weeks before House Republicans lose the majority -- Goodlatte cited new information, saying, "we certainly couldn't have done it sooner."

Separately, Goodlatte told Fox News that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will provide testimony to House Republicans under oath as well, prior to Democrats retaking control of the House.

FBI INCORRECTLY SUGGESTED TO FISA COURT THAT YAHOO NEWS ARTICLE PROVIDED INDEPENDENT BASIS TO SURVEIL TRUMP AIDE

"We have now examined thousands of pages of documents, searched through nearly a million documents, interviewed 16 other witnesses," Goodlatte said. "Mr. Comey is, as the former FBI director, at the center of both of these investigations launched in 2016 with regard to Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign."

He continued: "My hope that, by doing this, we will prevent it from happening again in 2020, or hopefully ever again. The FBI was misused in 2016. And this is an organization that is very, very important. Every day, thousands and thousands of great FBI agents and others protect us from terrorist attacks, prevent crime, solve crimes."

"The FBI was misused in 2016."

— House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

President Trump fired the former FBI chief in May 2017. Comey then leaked memos of his one-on-one interactions with Trump that suggested the president had sought improperly to influence the Russia probe. Trump, in response, accused Comey of disseminating classified information, calling him a "proven liar and leaker."

Comey oversaw a culture of media leaks in the FBI that was flagged by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his bombshell report into apparent misconduct by high-level officials in the Clinton and Russia probes.

SEVEN KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM BOMBSHELL DOJ REPORT INTO FBI MISCONDUCT

Text messages released in September showed that anti-Trump FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page regularly discussed a “media leak strategy” amid the Russia probe.

"I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go," Strzok texted Page on April 10, 2017, according to DOJ documents.

On April 22, though, Strzok wrote, "article is out! Well done, Page," and on April 12 he told her that two negative articles about Page's "namesake" would soon come out, according to Meadows. That was an apparent reference to Carter Page, the former Trump adviser whom the FBI surveilled for months after obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.

LEAKING 'LIKE MAD': TEXTS OBTAINED EXCLUSIVELY BY FOX NEWS SHOW FBI LOVERS COORDINATING PLAN

Carter Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing, and he is now suing the Democratic National Committee for defamation.

Heavily redacted documents have since shown that a dossier written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign played a key role in obtaining the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil him beginning in October 2016.

On four occasions, the FBI told the FISA court that it "did not believe" Steele was the direct source for a Yahoo News article implicating Page in Russian collusion, newly released documents have revealed.

Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the September 2016 article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele dossier. Federal authorities used both the Steele dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page.

However, London court records showed that contrary to the FBI's assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS -- the opposition research firm behind the dossier.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/co...subpoena-will-testify-on-trump-clinton-probes
 
Comey drops legal challenge to House GOP subpoena, will testify on Trump, Clinton probes

By Gregg Re | Fox News
Former FBI Director James Comey announced Sunday he has dropped his legal challenge to House Republicans' efforts to compel him to testify in a closed-door setting about the political bias and mismanagement they say permeated the Hillary Clinton and Trump campaign probes under his watch.

Citing a history of congressional leaks creating a “corrosive narrative," Comey's lawyers had resisted the GOP's subpoena and insisted on a public hearing. They said in court documents Republicans' demand for closed-door testimony “exceeds a proper legislative purpose, is issued in violation of House rules, and unduly prejudices and harasses the witness.”

But Comey, who was called to testify on Monday and is now expected to testify later this week, relented after House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., agreed on Nov. 28 that the former FBI head's remarks would be made public in their entirety.

Fox News has confirmed that a key focus of questioning will be Comey's decision to write the July 2016 statement recommending against filing criminal charges in the Clinton email probe before she was interviewed. And, Comey likely will be pressed on intelligence activity months before the Russia investigation into Trump campaign contacts officially opened in late July 2016.

"I was disappointed that Mr. Comey filed a motion to quash the subpoena sent to him to appear for our investigation," Goodlatte said in a statement Sunday. "Mr. Comey chose to file a motion to quash despite clear Supreme Court precedent setting forth Congress’ authority to issue subpoenas compelling testimony before its committees. There was no need to use baseless litigation in an attempt to run out the clock on this Congress, and I am glad that it was withdrawn."

He added: “Mr. Comey will join us for a closed-door transcribed interview later this week. We will release the transcript of his interview to the public as soon as possible after the interview, in the name of our combined desire for transparency.”

Goodlatte had told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" earlier in the day that he expected Comey to withdraw his motion and appear to testify, saying there had been ongoing discussions to effect that outcome.

Asked why he wanted to talk to Comey now -- just weeks before House Republicans lose the majority -- Goodlatte cited new information, saying, "we certainly couldn't have done it sooner."

Separately, Goodlatte told Fox News that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will provide testimony to House Republicans under oath as well, prior to Democrats retaking control of the House.

FBI INCORRECTLY SUGGESTED TO FISA COURT THAT YAHOO NEWS ARTICLE PROVIDED INDEPENDENT BASIS TO SURVEIL TRUMP AIDE

"We have now examined thousands of pages of documents, searched through nearly a million documents, interviewed 16 other witnesses," Goodlatte said. "Mr. Comey is, as the former FBI director, at the center of both of these investigations launched in 2016 with regard to Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign."

He continued: "My hope that, by doing this, we will prevent it from happening again in 2020, or hopefully ever again. The FBI was misused in 2016. And this is an organization that is very, very important. Every day, thousands and thousands of great FBI agents and others protect us from terrorist attacks, prevent crime, solve crimes."

"The FBI was misused in 2016."

— House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

President Trump fired the former FBI chief in May 2017. Comey then leaked memos of his one-on-one interactions with Trump that suggested the president had sought improperly to influence the Russia probe. Trump, in response, accused Comey of disseminating classified information, calling him a "proven liar and leaker."

Comey oversaw a culture of media leaks in the FBI that was flagged by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his bombshell report into apparent misconduct by high-level officials in the Clinton and Russia probes.

SEVEN KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM BOMBSHELL DOJ REPORT INTO FBI MISCONDUCT

Text messages released in September showed that anti-Trump FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page regularly discussed a “media leak strategy” amid the Russia probe.

"I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go," Strzok texted Page on April 10, 2017, according to DOJ documents.

On April 22, though, Strzok wrote, "article is out! Well done, Page," and on April 12 he told her that two negative articles about Page's "namesake" would soon come out, according to Meadows. That was an apparent reference to Carter Page, the former Trump adviser whom the FBI surveilled for months after obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.

LEAKING 'LIKE MAD': TEXTS OBTAINED EXCLUSIVELY BY FOX NEWS SHOW FBI LOVERS COORDINATING PLAN

Carter Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing, and he is now suing the Democratic National Committee for defamation.

Heavily redacted documents have since shown that a dossier written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign played a key role in obtaining the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil him beginning in October 2016.

On four occasions, the FBI told the FISA court that it "did not believe" Steele was the direct source for a Yahoo News article implicating Page in Russian collusion, newly released documents have revealed.

Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the September 2016 article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele dossier. Federal authorities used both the Steele dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page.

However, London court records showed that contrary to the FBI's assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS -- the opposition research firm behind the dossier.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/co...subpoena-will-testify-on-trump-clinton-probes
Fox News = Drivel
 
Judicial Watch Sues for Records of FBI Meetings with Clinton-DNC Law Firm, Perkins Coie in 2016

DECEMBER 03, 2018

Clinton-DNC Used Law Firm to Pay for Anti-Trump Dossier

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking records of all meetings in 2016 between former FBI General Counsel James Baker and the Perkins Coie law firm. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) reportedly paid Fusion GPS to create the “salacious and unverified” Clinton-DNC anti-Trump dossier.

The lawsuit cites a specific media report that FBI top lawyer Baker met with Perkins Coie lawyers to discuss allegations of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia. The meeting reportedly took place weeks before the 2016 election and before the FBI secured a controversial FISA spy warrant targeting then-candidate Trump’s campaign.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the DOJ failed to respond to an October 9, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02617)) seeking:

All records concerning any and all meetings between former FBI general counsel James Baker and one or more attorneys from Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee’s private law firm during 2016.

On October 4, 2018, Fox News reported that Baker told congressional investigators that Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann “initiated contact with him and provided documents and computer storage devices on Russian hacking.” The contact was made in late 2016 as federal investigators prepared a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

At the time, Perkins Coie had hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig into President Trump’s background. Fusion GPS paid British ex-spy Christopher Steele to compile the anti-Trump dossier, memos from which were shared with the FBI in the summer of 2016.

The DNC and Clinton campaign’s funding of the unverified dossier was revealed in a memo from House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes which was disclosed publicly on February 2, 2018.

According to an October 24, 2017, report, Perkins Coie lawyer Marc E. Elias retained Fusion GPS in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC: “The Clinton campaign and DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.” Fusion GPS gave Steele’s dossier and other research documents to Elias.

“The real collusion scandal is the hand-in-hand effort by the Clinton campaign and the Obama DOJ/FBI to spy upon and destroy Donald J. Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The FBI, pulled by the troika of Comey/McCabe/Strzok, became an arm of the Clinton campaign. And our new lawsuit aims to get to the bottom of the massive scandal.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...th-clinton-dnc-law-firm-perkins-coie-in-2016/
 
Judicial Watch Sues for Records of FBI Meetings with Clinton-DNC Law Firm, Perkins Coie in 2016

DECEMBER 03, 2018

Clinton-DNC Used Law Firm to Pay for Anti-Trump Dossier

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking records of all meetings in 2016 between former FBI General Counsel James Baker and the Perkins Coie law firm. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) reportedly paid Fusion GPS to create the “salacious and unverified” Clinton-DNC anti-Trump dossier.

The lawsuit cites a specific media report that FBI top lawyer Baker met with Perkins Coie lawyers to discuss allegations of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia. The meeting reportedly took place weeks before the 2016 election and before the FBI secured a controversial FISA spy warrant targeting then-candidate Trump’s campaign.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the DOJ failed to respond to an October 9, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02617)) seeking:

All records concerning any and all meetings between former FBI general counsel James Baker and one or more attorneys from Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee’s private law firm during 2016.

On October 4, 2018, Fox News reported that Baker told congressional investigators that Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann “initiated contact with him and provided documents and computer storage devices on Russian hacking.” The contact was made in late 2016 as federal investigators prepared a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

At the time, Perkins Coie had hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig into President Trump’s background. Fusion GPS paid British ex-spy Christopher Steele to compile the anti-Trump dossier, memos from which were shared with the FBI in the summer of 2016.

The DNC and Clinton campaign’s funding of the unverified dossier was revealed in a memo from House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes which was disclosed publicly on February 2, 2018.

According to an October 24, 2017, report, Perkins Coie lawyer Marc E. Elias retained Fusion GPS in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC: “The Clinton campaign and DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.” Fusion GPS gave Steele’s dossier and other research documents to Elias.

“The real collusion scandal is the hand-in-hand effort by the Clinton campaign and the Obama DOJ/FBI to spy upon and destroy Donald J. Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The FBI, pulled by the troika of Comey/McCabe/Strzok, became an arm of the Clinton campaign. And our new lawsuit aims to get to the bottom of the massive scandal.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...th-clinton-dnc-law-firm-perkins-coie-in-2016/
Please let me know when something that affects me or the country comes of this. I'm waiting anxiously.
 
Can you explain why trump lies so often? Also, can you show me all the charities that the trump foundation has helped?

asking for a friend
Oh come on, you're asking for me. There, now it's out there.
 
Back
Top