Do You Still Trust The Mainstream Media?

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article which sums up how the mainstream media works.

The article reports:

Carlson (Tucker Carlson, Fox News) said, “According to highly informed sources we spoke to–highly informed–top management at CNN directed its employees to undermine Brazile’s credibility. Anchors and producers were vocally offended by her attacks on their friends, the Clintons. If you’ve been watching that channel, you may have noticed CNN’s anchors suggesting that Donna Brazile cannot be trusted, precisely because she took part in efforts to break the primaries for Clinton.”

The Daily Caller co-founder then played a clip of CNN hosts trying to make Brazile look bad over her sharing a primary debate question with Clinton’s campaign, which he compared to political talking points.

The mainstream media has a stake in this fight. They supported Hillary Clinton for President and pretty much ignored any unfavorable stories about her. I think the most damaging thing in Donna Brazile‘s book is her comment about Seth Rich. Seth Rich was killed in Washington, D.C., in what was described as a foiled robbery–nothing was taken from him. There are people who believe that Seth Rich was the person leaking information to Wikileaks. Julian Assange has stated numerous times that the leaked emails he received were not from Russia–they were from inside the campaign. Considering the number of Clinton associates or people who have told the truth about the Clintons who have died suddenly in mysterious circumstances, I can understand why Donna Brazile feared for her safety.

The article reminds us:

The former DNC interim chair revealed in Politico last week that the Clinton campaign had a fundraising agreement with the DNC long before it was clear she would be the nominee, a move that many saw as tipping the scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The federal government pretty much allows parties to run their campaigns with minimum federal intervention, but this may cross a line. I do know that the funneling of money through various entities to the Clinton campaign probably violated campaign finance laws. We will have to see how much of what was done was illegal and if charges will be brought.

The Nightmare The Opponents Of The Patriot Act Saw Coming

It would be nice to believe that we are a nation led by honorable men. In the past that has occasionally been true and I am sure that it will occasionally be true in the future. I am hoping it is true in the present. However, our Founding Fathers understood that we would not always be led by honorable men and set up the U.S. Constitution accordingly. The power was supposed to rest with the people–not with the government. The government was supposed to be responsive to the wishes of the people and accountable to the people. The framework was beautiful. Had we paid closer attention to following it, we would be in a very different place. I am particularly concerned about recent violations of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act allowed for the collection of electronic data unprecedented in American history. The idea behind it was to prevent terrorist attacks. Some Congressmen warned that the act could be used to violate the rights of average Americans. Evidently they were right.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted a story about electronic surveillance under the Obama Administration. Evidently that surveillance went far beyond what was necessary or legitimate.

The article reports:

Barack Obama‘s CIA Director John O. Brennan targeted Trump supporters for enhanced surveillance, intelligence sources confirm to GotNews’ Charles C. Johnson.

The surveillance took place between Trump’s election on November 8 and the inauguration in January, according to White House and House intelligence sources.

The focus was on General Mike Flynn, billionaire Erik Prince, and Fox News host Sean Hannity — all of whom had close ties to Trump before and after the November election and had helped the future president with managing his new diplomatic responsibilities.

Hannity was targeted because of his perceived ties to Julian Assange, say our intelligence sources. Hannity was reportedly unmasked by Susan Rice at Brennan’s behest thanks to his close relationship with Trump and Julian Assange.

Blackwater founder Erik Prince, a former CIA covert asset, has long criticized the CIA’s bloat and incompetence, including the Brennan-run CIA drone program’s failure to properly target terrorists rather than Afghan civilians. Prince has repeatedly called for restructuring the CIA and argued against Brennan’s tenure.

This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of these citizens. At the very least, lawsuits are in order. More appropriately, people who authorized or participated in this need to lose their jobs and possible go to prison. In the Watergate Scandal, which is peanuts compared to this, people went to prison. That would also be appropriate here.

 

 

Why Americans Don’t Trust The Media

This showed up on my Twitter feed this morning:

Julian Assange has flatly stated that Russia was not his source, but that has not stopped CNN from reporting that Russia was his source. (To read the entire story on Julian Assange’s comments, you have to go to the British newspapers.) This is totally aggravating. Has it occurred to anyone that people inside the Democratic Party or people inside the national intelligence community might have been concerned about the way Hillary Clinton handled classified information? Having your maid collect classified documents off of your printer is a violation of common sense as well as a violation of pretty much any law regarding the handling of classified information. This might have concerned some of the patriotic professionals.

This whole kerfuffle is dirty politics at its finest. Hopefully, most Americans recognize it for what it is.

Some Perspective On The Emails Leaked During The Election

Admittedly The Guardian is an unusual source for me, but on Saturday they posted an article that caught my attention.

This week we have been bombarded with claims that Russia gave the Presidential Election to Trump by hacking the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s emails. We are supposed to believe that the Russians would prefer a Trump presidency to a Hillary Clinton presidency. I don’t think so. Hillary Clinton would be a continuation of  President Barack Obama. We seem to have forgotten that on March 26, 2012, major news sources reported that President Obama had told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. The Russians have done what they wanted during Obama’s  Presidency, why wouldn’t they expect more of the same under Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump, however, is not for sale and has learned a few things in his years as a successful businessman. The basic premise that the Russians would support Trump as President is not logical.

The article in The Guardian reports:

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

The California Republican congressman Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the Trump transition team, said: “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

On Friday the White House announced that Obama had ordered intelligence officials to conduct a broad review of election-season cyber-attacks, including the email hacks, to report before he leaves office on 20 January.

The review, led by intelligence agencies, will be a “deep dive” into a possible pattern of increased “malicious cyber activity” during the campaign season, the White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. It would look at the tactics, targets, key actors and the US government’s response to the recent email hacks, as well as incidents reported in past elections, he said.

You could fertilize your garden with the information coming out of the mainstream media and the White House right now. This is a bunch of people who still do not understand why they lost the election who are doing everything they can to try to dilute the power of the incoming administration. The people who have done well ‘in the swamp’ that is Washington do not want someone coming into office who will drain the swamp. That is what Donald Trump will do. The current kerfuffle is the perfect example of fake news. It is an attempt to mislead the public and diminish the effectiveness of the incoming administration. Unfortunately I think we can expect much more of the same.

How To Undermine An Investigation

Wikileaks is giving us tremendous insight into the corruption that seems to encompass Washington politics, but there are still some people who are doing investigative reporting and posting the information on the internet for everyone to see. This article is a combination of an article citing information from Wikileaks and an article that is the result of some good investigative reporting.

Yesterday Lifezette posted an article about some emails released by Wikileaks relating to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The article reports:

The email in question is a list of recent voicemail messages left for Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta around Oct. 6, 2015, including one from McCaskill. “Give me a call back at your convenient [sic] on my cell or at home. Got some info about the state department IG,” she said. “You guys should digest and figure out what if anything we can do.”

…Adam Jentleson, a top aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, planted a story in The New York Times alleging a past connection between a single staffer in the IG’s office and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley was evidence of “fishy” activity.

Jentleson noted the deputy inspector general at the State Department was Emilia DiSanto, who had previously been a top aide to Grassley and alleged DiSanto could be improperly feeding information on the State Department inquiry to her former boss.

“There does seem to be a fishy pattern here, and a fishy connection,” Jentleson told The New York Times.

A separate email released by WikiLeaks last week seems to confirm the Clinton camp had put Reid’s office up to the attack on the IG’s credibility.

Let’s get something straight. Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a threat to national security. There is little doubt that the server was hacked by any foreign intelligence service worth its salt. This is a national security matter–not a political matter. It speaks volumes that the Democratic party and The New York Times were willing to turn it into a political matter.

Now to go to the investigative reporting part of the story. Twitchy posted an article yesterday about another aspect of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server.

The article reports:

The quick and dirty summary is that Gov. McAuliffe’s super PAC donated the $467,500 in a failed attempt to elect Dr. Jill McCabe to the state senate in 2015. She lost the race to the incumbent Republican, but shortly after the election her husband — Andrew McCabe — was promoted to Deputy Director of the FBI and one of his jobs was an “oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.”

It is long past time to clean house in Washington. Americans have become the victims of political incest!

The Future In America?

Yesterday Lifezette reported that Julian Assange’s internet connection at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London was severed Sunday, according to WikiLeaks.

The article includes the following:

“Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans,” the organization tweeted around 10:30 p.m. on Sunday evening.

WikiLeaks has not pointed a finger directly at any specific government, nor has it provided any evidence that a state actor is indeed responsible for the attack on Assange’s internet link.

Wikileaks has been a major player in the American presidential campaign. One can only speculate as to who actually cut the cord.

The article states:

However, WikiLeaks has been a major inconvenience for the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration of late, releasing a hoard of hacked emails from Clinton’s campaign Chairman John Podesta. So far over 12,000 of the alleged 50,000 Podesta emails in WikiLeaks’ possession have been released.

Both the U.S. government and the Clinton campaign have blamed these leaks on Russia and have sought to paint WikiLeaks as some sort of satellite department of Russian intelligence. If a state actor is truly responsible for pulling the plug on Assange’s internet connection, current events strongly suggest the actor with the most motivation would be the United States.

You have to wonder if the American government cut the cord. The thing to remember when viewing this is the degree to which Donald Trump is a threat to the status quo and the establishment. There is little doubt that his presidency would involving cleaning house in Washington and removing a lot of dead wood. It is quite likely that some of that corruption and dead wood had something to do with cutting the WikiLeaks internet connection. Is this the direction freedom of speech will take if Hillary Clinton is elected?

A New Low In Presidential Campaigning

Below is an excerpt from an article posted at Hot Air today. Draw your own conclusions. I suspect this has been done before, but it is disgusting:

TrumpLeaks is an effort to uncover unreported video or audio of Donald Trump so voters can have access to the Donald Trump who existed before running for president and before his recent affinity for teleprompters. TrumpLeaks can provide some compensation to those who have usable, undoctored video or audio that has been legally obtained or is legally accessible.

Translated that means that David Brock, Hillary’s media hatchet man, has put out the word that his Correct the Record super PAC is ready to pay for dirt on Donald Trump.

The article reports:

This story is revealing in a couple of ways. First, Brock is effectively an arm of the Clinton campaign. If she found this offensive she could shut it down with a phone call. So next time you hear Clinton or the media claim she is taking the high road in this campaign, e.g. ‘we care about the issues that are important to Americans’ keep in mind that her people are eager to pay for dirt on her opponent.

Second, it was a big story when Trump off-handedly said he hoped Russia would find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails. The Clinton campaign instantly ran with the claim that Trump was calling on a foreign government to conduct “espionage” against Hillary. That never made any sense given that Hillary’s long ago deleted emails would be on a defunct server now in the possession of the FBI. But the fact that it was nonsense didn’t stop the media from running with it for days. It will be interesting to see if the media even bothers to make the Clinton world effort to pay for dirt on Trump a story.

Second, the fact that this is being called TrumpLeaks suggests just how much WikiLeaks has Democratic insiders spooked. The DNC has already lost a party chairwoman, a CEO, a CFO and several other high ranking figures because of embarrassing leaks. Julian Assange promises there will be more to come.

Donald Trump may be smarter about what he writes down than Hillary.

If We Had An Honest Media, This Video Would Be Unnecessary

The following video was posted on YouTube yesterday. The video is an interview of Julian Assange. Regardless of how you feel about this man, it is a very interesting interview.

PJ Media posted an article that included the video yesterday.

The article includes the following:

Assange claimed that Clinton knew full well what the (C) was for —  because she has used it thousands of times herself. He dropped the bombshell at the end of his interview with Sean Hannity.

“In the FBI report released Friday, I agree with your analysis, it is very strange that was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend,” Assange said. “I do think it draws questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. … Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a ‘C’ in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in WikiLeaks knows it stands for classified, confidential. And in fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton…with a ‘C’ in brackets right there,” said Assange while producing one of the documents. “Thousands of examples, where she herself has used a ‘C’ in brackets, and signed it off, and more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this ‘C’ in brackets. So, it’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie. She is lying about not knowing what that is, but it’s a bit disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

Here is the video:

 

Draw your own conclusions.

There Are More Questions Than Answers In This Story

Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that Julian Assange of Wikileaks suggested that Seth Rich, who was murdered in Washington, D.C., on July 10, was responsible for the leak of the DNC emails to wikileaks. Those emails resulted in the firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I honestly do not know what to think of this claim.

The article reports:

Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”

…On Tuesday Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.

Now this…
Julian Assange suggested on Tuesday that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant.

There are a few things here that are interesting. Why did Wikileaks offer a reward? If it was a robbery, the thief was definitely inept. If Seth Rich leaked the emails, what was all the fuss about the Russians and their relationship with Donald Trump? Is it possible that Seth Rich leaked the emails because he was an honest man trying to reveal the truth?

The article also includes this statement:

Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

This is very strange, and I don’t know if we will ever know the actual truth or find the culprit. It does seem odd that a number of people associated with the Clintons seem to meet untimely deaths.

 

 

Sometimes The Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction

After the airport meeting between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a lot of Americans have concluded that Hillary Clinton now has a ‘get out of jail free card.’ That may or may not have been the intention of the meeting, but at any rate, a wrench has been thrown into the works.

The Hill is reporting today that WikiLeaks has published more than 1,000 emails from Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. These emails relate to the war in Iraq.

The Hill reports:

The website tweeted a link to 1,258 emails that Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee sent and received. They stem from a trove of emails released by State Department in February.

WikiLeaks combed through the emails to find all the messages that reference the Iraq War.

The development comes after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said last month the website had gathered “enough evidence” for the FBI to indict Clinton.

“We could proceed to an indictment, but if Loretta Lynch is the head of the [Department of Justice] in the United States, she’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton,” Assange told London-based ITV. “That’s not possible that could happen.”

First of all, the article does not make this clear, but according to another source, these emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request–the server was not hacked to obtain them. The server may have been hacked, but we don’t know that for sure. Second of all, the emails I would be looking at if I were going to build a criminal case would be the emails regarding the Clinton Foundation. There were many foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. These are the emails the government says they will not release until two and a half years. Much of the money was funneled through a charity in Canada so that the money would not be directly traceable. Recently, Charles Krauthammer explained this on Bill O’Reilly’s show:

1. You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case, the Clintons set it up in Canada.

2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did – contributing mega millions. I’m sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin’s buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity)

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then “spends” some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clintons , pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these “clerical errors” and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

7. Net result – foreign money goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering. Oh, by the way, the Canadian “charity” includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. Uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia . This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the
approval was granted.

Get out the popcorn, the show has begun.