Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

The Case Is Moving Forward

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Fox News posted an article about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s choice to ignore a Congressional subpoena. When Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro did that, they were sent to jail. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Clintons. I suspect they are calling in a lot of favors right now.

The article reports:

The House Oversight Committee voted to refer former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for chamber-wide votes on criminal contempt of Congress charges with the help of multiple Democrats, including two members of the far-left Squad, for defying subpoenas related to the panel’s Jeffrey Epstein probe.

Lawmakers voted to advance a pair of contempt resolutions against the Clintons on Wednesday after they did not appear for scheduled depositions earlier this month.

The committee voted 34-8 to advance one contempt recommendation against Bill Clinton, with two members voting present, and another on Hillary Clinton in a 28-15 vote, with one member voting present. Nine Democrats voted with Republicans to advance contempt recommendations against Bill Clinton and three Democrats joined Republicans in the vote against Hillary Clinton.

…The Democrats who voted to advance Hillary Clinton’s resolution were Stansbury and “Squad” members Lee and Tlaib.

“The committee does not take this action lightly. Subpoenas are not mere suggestions,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said of the Clintons’ no-show. “[Subpoenas] carry the force of law and require compliance. Former President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were legally required to appear for depositions before this committee.”

“They refused,” he added.

The article concludes:

“No one should be above the law, including presidents and former presidents, and congressional subpoenas are an important part of that rule of law. And I think the Clintons should be here. I think it’s very shameful that they’re not,” Min (Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif.) said.

With the committee having voted to suggest House-wide contempt resolutions against the Clintons, the chamber will likely consider them sometime in February, according to statements Comer made to Fox News Digital last week.

Stay tuned.

Do We Really Have Equal Justice Under The Law?

Posted on by

Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro served jail time for defying a Congressional subpoena. Bill and Hillary Clinton are about to find out if that same standard applies to them.

On January 13, Fox News reported:

Former President Bill Clinton appears to have defied a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday morning.

Clinton was compelled to sit for a sworn closed-door deposition in the House’s bipartisan probe into Jeffrey Epstein, but Fox News Digital did not see him before or after the scheduled 10 a.m. grilling.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., had threatened to begin contempt of Congress proceedings against Clinton if he did not appear Tuesday.

Comer said Tuesday morning, “We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress.”

The article notes:

The Clintons’ attorneys tore into Comer’s leadership of the investigation, accusing him of violating the Constitution’s separation of powers and trying to obfuscate the search for real information.

“President and Secretary Clinton have already provided the limited information they possess about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the Committee. They did so proactively and voluntarily, and despite the fact that the Subpoenas are invalid and legally unenforceable, untethered to a valid legislative purpose, unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers,” the letter said.

“Your continued insistence that the former President and Secretary of State can be compelled to appear before the Committee under these circumstances, however, brings us toward a protracted and unnecessary legal confrontation that distracts from the principal work of the Congress with respect to this matter, which, if conducted sincerely, could help ensure the victims of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell are afforded some measure of justice for the crimes perpetrated against them, however late. But perhaps distraction is the point.”

I believe that the excuse that President Clinton used during the Monica Lewinsky scandal was that he needed to focus on running the country. I expect to hear similar excuses from the Clintons in the near future.

The Corruption Was Known, Visible, And Ignored

Posted on by

It is interesting to me that the Charity Navigator, supposedly a guide to the administrative costs of charities and the amount of good that they do, rates the Clinton Foundation at the Navigator’s highest rating. The rating includes accountability, tax filings, revenue and expenses, etc. The Charity Navigator gives them a 100% rating. Operation Blessing has a 99% rating, and Samaritan’s Purse has a 100% rating. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) might not totally agree with the rating of the Clinton Foundation. It is possible that the Clinton Foundation has cleaned up its act, but the Foundation has had some questionable activities in the past.

On Sunday (updated Monday), Just the News posted an article about the Clinton Foundation.

The article reports:

A top Republican senator has provided Just the News a timeline written by FBI investigators laying out the repeated political obstruction those agents faced from their own bosses and the Justice Department during the 2016 election and beyond as they probed whether Hillary Clinton engaged in a pay-to-play corruption scheme involving her family foundation.

“Field agents were frustrated. But HQ would not let it go forward,” the newly-released and lengthy investigative timeline reveals. “We were trying to explore the [Clinton] Foundation, and we were told ‘NO’ by FBI HQ.”

…This follows Patel (FBI Director Kash Patel) unearthing a shorter timeline, written in 2017, which also chronicled the extensive stonewalling that bureau investigators in three cities faced from the Obama-era DOJ and FBI during the 2016 election.

FBI agents tried to get the help of federal prosecutors to determine whether or what crimes occurred while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, most notably, because at that time, her family foundation solicited hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign and U.S. interests with business before her department.

“Shut it down!” then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is quoted as demanding in the shorter timeline of the politicized barriers that agents in New York City, Little Rock, Ark., and Washington D.C. reported. 

The shorter timeline — written by a DOJ lawyer assigned to the FBI under former bureau Director James Comey — was secured by top aides to Patel and was obtained by Just the News earlier this year. The newly-released and longer timeline was handed over to Grassley’s office by the FBI along with a host of corroborating internal emails and was recently provided to Just the News.

The article concludes:

But John Durham’s 2023 special counsel report said that his appointment order by then-Attorney General Barr did not include the Uranium One saga within its scope, with the Durham report stating that “we have not interpreted the Order as directing us to consider matters addressed by the former United States Attorney for the District of Utah.”

The differences in how the Justice Department and FBI handled cases related to Clinton and Trump were stark — publicly exonerating Clinton for her mishandling of classified information when using a private email server as Secretary of State and not even allowing the Clinton Foundation investigation to get off the ground, while at the same time launching a sprawling inquiry into the Trump campaign and the candidate (and then the president) himself on the now-proven-false pretext of Russian collusion.

Special Counsel Durham later pointed out that “the immediate opening of Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation contrasts with the care taken in connection with the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and other matters.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is long, but worth it. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for the orange jump suits. Will anyone ever be held accountable for government corruption?

This Could Get Very Interesting

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Just the News posted an article stating that the Clintons might have to pay a price for defying a Congressional subpoena.

The article reports:

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer on Tuesday said he would give former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the same treatment Democrats gave Steve Bannon if they do not comply with congressional subpoenas to testify on their alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein. 

House Democrats referred Bannon for prosecution after he failed to comply with a House January 6 subcommittee subpoena. He was later convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress and sentenced to four months in prison in 2022.

Comer said the Clintons are two Democrats that his committee has not heard back from regarding subpoenas for their testimony on their ties to Epstein, and that continued silence will be met with criminal referrals. 

The law is supposed to be enforced equally. The Democrats should have considered that in dealing with Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. Evidently, the Democrats planned on being perpetually in power (until their candidate ran out of steam).

The article concludes:

“So we expect the Clintons to come in, or I expect the Clintons to be met with the same fate that Bannon and [Peter] Navarro were met with when the Democrats were in control,” he concluded.

Comer also noted that other Democrats have not helped bring the Clintons in to testify because they are too focused on trying to criminally connect Trump to Epstein. Neither Trump nor the Clintons have been accused of any wrongdoing.

“The Democrats have Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Comer said. “They’re just hoping and praying that there’s something in these documents, somewhere they don’t know where, but somewhere that would implicate Trump.”

Stay tuned.

The Files In The Burn Bags

Posted on by

We now have the smoking gun(s) on the Russia Hoax and the Hillary Clinton email scandal. The documents hidden in the back room have been declassified and made public. Whether or not anyone will be held accountable remains to be seen. Someone who I consider a reliable source experienced in handling classified material told me that he believes the documents were saved on purpose by a future whistleblower. Because of the the procedure for dealing with classified information, that makes sense. Normally all no-longer-needed classified information is put in a burn bag and incinerated daily. The security officer on site is supposed to make sure all of it burns before he leaves the premises.

On Thursday, Townhall posted an article about some of the information that has been declassified.

Some highlights from the article:

First, we have George Soros ties, with emails from Open Society Foundations Regional Director Leonard Bernardo that were authentic, which spoke to the Trump-Russia collusion narrative being used against the then-incoming president. The Obama FBI never investigated this angle. Moreover, as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) noted in his press release about the annex, no investigative steps were taken to follow up on any leads related to Russiagate. The answer is simple: they were all in on peddling this operation.

Second, while Barack Obama ordered the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, Hillary Clinton also signed off on using the Russian collusion hoax to attack Trump. Obama-Clinton—quite the gruesome twosome.

The article concludes:

James Clapper seems to be the only member of this plot who has knowingly admitted to lawyering up. Brennan, Obama, and Clinton should be next. They should be charged, especially Brennan, who likely committed perjury in his May 2017 testimony, where he said the Steele Dossier “wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done.”

DNI Tulsi Gabbard set that narrative aflame, nuking it from orbit with her document disclosures. This was a seditious conspiracy, and the media is just as culpable. Without them, this operation dies quickly. We should demand more documents, but for now, we have enough to charge people. 

Obama has already been referred to the DOJ for potential prosecution.

We may never get accountability, but we can consume a lot of popcorn watching the show.

Fake News Isn’t Only About What You Say–It’s Often About What You Don’t Say

Posted on by

The majority of the American media is owned by a few large corporations. None of them are conservative. Thus, if you watch the mainstream media, you are not getting the whole story. If you are looking for media that is actually reliable, I strongly recommend NewsMax and One America News. The lack of coverage of the newly declassified documents released by  Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is one example of the news media controlling the narrative to avoid telling the truth.

On Tuesday, The American Thinker reported:

Most fake news isn’t incorrect facts or flat-out lies; that’s way too obvious and easy to prove wrong.  Instead, most fake news is done by omission — telling part of the story so the reader comes to a different conclusion or completely omitting the story so the reader has no idea that it ever happened.  A great example of fake news by omission was during the 2020 election cycle, when most “mainstream” media refused to report on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Recall October 2020: The N.Y. Post published the explosive story about the contents of Hunter’s laptop.  The laptop contained thousands of emails, documents, photos, etc. that proved that Joe Biden (and Biden Inc.) is completely corrupt.  The laptop had been in the FBI’s possession for almost a year.  They had verified its authenticity and had certainly informed their leftist and Democrat media sources of the laptop’s veracity.

The hardcore leftist media completely ignored the laptop story.  They engaged in fake news by omission.  It was almost impossible to find the Post’s story anywhere.  And when they were called on it, they used all kinds of excuses that centered on “the story couldn’t be verified” and “fifty-one former intel officials claim it was Russian disinformation.

…Last Friday (July 18), previously classified documents were released that prove that the Trump-Russia-collusion story was concocted and initiated by then-president Obama and executed by U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI.  Tulsi Gabbard, former Democrat presidential candidate and now Trump’s director of National Intelligence (DNI), released over 100 documents that prove that on Dec. 7, 2016, the Intel Community told Obama that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 election.  Two days later, Obama then “tasked” the intel agencies to look “into Russia election meddling,” meaning the intel agencies should fabricate intel reports to appear as though Russia had interfered in favor of Trump.

The article concludes:

The blockbuster story broke almost exclusively on conservative media because the leftist, liberal, Democrat media newscasts and websites almost completely ignored the story in the same manner that they ignored Hunter’s laptop.  CNN did cover it but at the very bottom of the webpage and only after such stories as the Texas floods, Superman goes “woke,” Americans at risk of extreme heat, Colbert’s Late Show canceled, Sergio García snapped golf club in frustration, man plows car into crowd, David Beckham’s haircut mishap, and CEO resigns after viral Coldplay concert video.

Ignoring this story is the ultimate fake news by omission.  However, it really doesn’t matter as long as the DOJ follows through and investigates what all American Thinker readers have known for years.

Final thought: In a just world, those guilty of perpetrating the Russia hoax would spend years in prison.  However, the world is not fair.  I doubt if any Dem will ever be prosecuted for these treasonous crimes, further proving we have a two-tier standard of justice.

Let’s hope there are enough people who care about America to hold the people who dreamed up this hoax responsible.

The Hair-On-Fire Media

Posted on by

Lighting someone’s hair on fire tends to take their focus away from anything else going on. The tendency is to deal with the crisis at hand and focus on it until it is resolved—particularly if there is something going on that you want to ignore. In my opinion, the recent dust-up over the Epstein Files was designed to distract from the information political insiders knew was coming.

The mainstream media’s reaction to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s declassification of records regarding the 2016+ Russia Hoax has been interesting. Most of the media has ignored it. The media that has reported it (MSNBC for example posted the headline, “DNI Gabbard concocts odd ‘treasonous conspiracy’ theory, eyes Russia probe prosecutions,”) has simply denied that there is any substance to the charges against President Obama and his cadre. However, the CYA memo by Susan Rice on January 20 gives credence to the idea that something that was at least questionable was afoot. The subject of the memorandum that was released by the Director of National Intelligence is titled, “Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing “Russian and criminal actors did not impact” the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure.” This is not news to anyone who has done their own research in recent years.

Bill Still, of The Still Report videos on YouTube, is a retired newspaper editor and publisher. He reported on Hillary Clinton’s behavior after the September 7, 2016, debate where moderator Matt Laurer asked her a question that had not been previously submitted to her. Bill Still reports that she went into a screaming fit and yelled that she’d get that f*****g Lauer fired for this. Referring to Donald Trump, Clinton said, ”If that f*****g bastard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished, and if I lose, it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.” People don’t hang for losing elections. (source here) That quote also gives credence to what is revealed in the Director of National Intelligence Memorandum.

It will be interesting to see how much of the media is willing to cover this story accurately and to see where the story leads. This is a scandal, and it remains to be seen whether or not the Democrats and the mainstream media can successfully make it go away.

Does Anyone Believe Her?

Posted on by

On Friday, The Daily Wire posted an article about the  Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the House of Representatives on Friday. The SAVE Act requires proof of American citizenship to vote and that all non-citizens be removed from the voting roles. The documents required to prove citizenship are listed in the bill.

Some of the documents listed include:

A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.

A valid United States passport.

The applicant’s official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

Most people have at least one of these things. However, Hillary Clinton has declared that the bill will make it hard for married women to vote.

The article reports:

On Thursday, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton faced blowback for claiming a GOP bill “threatens” voting access for millions of married women.

Clinton, who is also a former United States senator and first lady, reacted to the House passing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which aims to require individuals to show proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in elections for federal office.

“Update: The House just passed the Republican voter suppression measure that threatens voting access for millions of Americans, including 69 million women whose married names don’t match their birth certificates,” Clinton said. “Make sure your senators know you expect them to stand against it.”

The article notes:

“Hillary Clinton argues that the SAVE Act ‘threatens voting access’ for ’69 million women whose married names don’t match their birth certificates,’” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who introduced a companion version of the bill in the Senate.

“If that were true — and it’s definitely not — the same women would be unemployable as they’d be unable to complete an I-9, which requires proof of citizenship,” he added. “Her argument proves too much, is refuted by the plain text of the bill, and cannot withstand review.”

With a post of his own, Roy alluded to how four Democrats voted in support of the bill and said, “Just show an ID. Why would you not want to verify citizenship?”

The only reason to oppose this bill is that it might limit cheating. Most married women know how to change their name on the appropriate documents when they get married.

When You Forget Past History, You Say Stupid Things

Posted on by

There is so much garbage in the media right now about President Trump going after his political enemies. It is garbage. I would like to remind everyone that if Hillary Clinton had been anyone other than Hillary Clinton, she would have gone to jail for her secret server and for destroying evidence. President Trump, in the interest of not further dividing the country, chose not to take that route. There was a legitimate open-and-shut case to send her to jail. Other people have gone to jail for similar crimes.

On Saturday, The Hill posted an article by Jonathan Turley about the Democrats wanting pre-emptive pardons from President Biden before he leaves office. If President Trump did not put Hillary Clinton in jail when there was an obvious violation of the law, why would he put his political enemies in jail? The Republicans are not the party that does that.

The article reports:

Liberal pundits and press in Washington are facing a growing nightmare in Washington. No, it is not the victory of President-elect Donald Trump or the Democrats’ loss of both houses of Congress and the popular vote in this election. It is the possibility that democracy may not collapse as predicted, and Trump might not even round up his opponents en masse.

For months, liberals have been telling voters that this will likely be their last election and that democracy is about to end in the U.S. ABC host Whoopi Goldberg declared on “The View” that Trump will immediately become a dictator who will “put you people away … take all the journalists … take all the gay folks … move you all around and disappear you.”

I hope that Americans are smart enough to recognize total propaganda when they see it.

The article concludes:

Trump may be the only one who is not interested in a trophy pardon. What is the value of being part of the resistance if you are not being pursued, persecuted or pardoned?

It seems like some of the same people who had hoped to be on the list for the Biden Inaugural balls are now making calls to make the Biden pardon list. If Biden were to yield to calls for hundreds or even thousands of pardons, the loss of political standing for those not making the list could become intolerable. For any self-respecting armchair resistance fighter in 2025, a Biden pardon could become the latest status symbol.

Good grief!

The Role The Media Has Played For The Past Nine Years

Posted on by

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. Unfortunately, most of our mainstream media seems to have been stricken by the disease. Also unfortunate is the fact that because they have been stricken by the disease, they have done some serious damage to America.

On Thursday, Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at American Greatness detailing some of the escapades of the American press in the past nine years. It all began when Donald and Melania Trump came down the escalator.

Here are a few of the lies that have been told:

Citing the bogus “Steele dossier,” loser Hillary Clinton and other Democrat grandees claimed that the victorious Trump was an “illegitimate” president.

Almost immediately, the left and media then pushed for the appointment of special prosecutor Robert Mueller. He assembled a ‘dream team’ of partisan prosecutors to prove Trump-Russian collusion

…More hysteria followed when Trump was impeached in December 2019.

The left claimed he had pressured the Ukrainian government to look into the family of Joe Biden (then a potential 2020 election opponent) for its corruption with Ukrainian oligarchs—as a condition for releasing military aid designated to Kyiv.

Yet Hunter Biden was paid nearly $1 million a year by a Ukrainian energy company to enlist his father, Vice President Joe Biden, for quid pro quo services.

In turn, Joe Biden himself later bragged he had pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor, Victor Shokin—who happened to be looking too closely into the various shady schemes of the Biden family.

The deceptions and lies continued.

The article contains numerous examples of how the media lied to influence public opinion–one of the most egregious being the media and intelligence community’s lies about the Hunter Biden laptop. A lie that probably greatly impacted the results of the 2020 election.

The article concludes with a recent lie:

During the 2020 Democratic primaries, the general election, and throughout the first three years of the Biden administration, it was evident that Joe Biden was physically and mentally incapable of serving as president.

Yet his aides and the media all misled the American people. They insisted that Biden was vigorous and sharp.

Then suddenly in June 2024, within a 24-hour period, Biden was declared by these same insiders as unfit to continue as the Democratic nominee.

Their new problem with Biden was not just his long-standing embarrassing dementia. Rather bad polls increasingly warned that voters no longer believed their lies and thus would likely not reelect Biden but would instead punish most Democrats in the upcoming 2024 election.

So, a new media narrative arose: the once-hale Biden was forced to resign as the Democrat nominee. His once widely caricatured vice president, Kamala Harris, just as abruptly was coronated as his replacement candidate by an equally suddenly gushing and colluding media.

In sum, for some nine years, the media and the left have successfully fed the country a succession of rank deceptions and conspiracies.

They did so because they proclaimed Donald Trump too dangerous to be president and therefore any means they employed to stop him were to be justified. And they are doing so yet a third time in 2024.

As they continue, they have all but destroyed democracy, ruined the reputation of the media, alienated the public—and embarrassed their country before the world.

There are still people who still trust the mainstream media. We will see how many Americans believe what they are being told on November 5th.

I Guess That Didn’t Go Exactly As Planned

Posted on by

Evidently all is not roses and sunshine in the Democrat party right now. Although it seems that Kamala Harris is the candidate, not everyone is thrilled. I don’t know if there will be a bait and switch at the Democrat Convention next month, but I am not ruling it out. Once you ignore the votes of all the people who voted in your primary elections, I suspect that you can do pretty much anything you want to at your convention.

On Friday, The New York Post reported the following:

There’s buzz swirling within the Biden camp that the president’s swift endorsement of Kamala Harris was his revenge on prominent party leaders — including Barack Obama — who pressured him to bow out of the race against his will, sources told The Post.

Joe Biden, who said he was dropping out “in defense of democracy” during his public address Wednesday, had been told by Obama to allow delegates at next month’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago to decide a new candidate, a source close to the Biden family claimed.

“It was Joe’s big f–k you,” the source said. “Joe said, ‘If I’m out, then I am endorsing her.’”

Talk among insiders is that Biden saw this as a final way to assert some control over his ouster.

It is my impression that there are three camps in the current Democrat party–the Clinton camp, the Obama camp, and the Biden camp. Keep in mind that the Clinton and Biden camps both are not fans of the Obama camp. Also remember that the Clinton camp got a little closer to George Soros and his money and influence recently when Huma Abedin announced her engagement to Alex Soros, the son of George Soros. Speculation is that President Obama’s choice for the Democrat presidential candidate was Mark Kelly of Arizona. Kelly would have been a better candidate and might have had a positive impact for Democrats on the down ballot in Arizona.

The article concludes:

According to a source close to the Biden family, prominent Democrats threatened to invoke the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution and urge the vice president and the cabinet to remove Biden from office, the source said.

The source said that the belief within the family is that Obama wanted to get Biden out of the race — and an op-ed written by George Clooney in the New York Times, asking him to step aside, was a part of that plan.

Calls to the offices of Obama and Biden, as well as the Democratic National Committee, were not returned.

Obama persuading Biden not to run for the presidency in 2016, allowing Hillary Clinton a shot at the Oval Office, has since been a sticking point between the two men, according to reports.

“He was not encouraging,” Biden later told the New York Times, referring to Obama.

As for the race ahead, Obama has little faith in Harris, the source close to the Biden family claimed.

“Obama knows she’s just incompetent — the border czar who never visited the border, saying that all migrants should have health insurance,” the source said.

“She cannot navigate the landmines that are ahead of her.”

It is possible that the Democrat Convention will be very interesting. I don’t think President Obama gives up easily.

The Maneuvering Begins

Posted on by

President Biden will not be the Democrat candidate for President in November. This was announced today. The obvious choice to replace him as a candidate is Kamala Harris, but so far President Obama and Nancy Pelosi have not endorsed him. On Sunday, Breitbart reported that Alex Soros, now who is now the head of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) George Soros led for so many years, has endorsed Kamala Harris as the candidate. Hillary Clinton has endorsed Kamala.

Let’s walk down memory  lane with Kamala Harris for a minute. She encouraged people to donate to post bail for the rioters arrested during the summer riots of 2020. She will probably campaign as the first African-American woman to run for President. Her mother was from India and her father was a college professor who arrived in America in 1961 from Jamaica. Her upbringing had little to do with the ‘black experience,’ but I doubt you will hear that. She was named the ‘border czar’ early in the Biden administration. She may have visited the border once or twice. People who support her will have to decide whether or not they want to listen to her cackle for four years if she wins.

My observation is that Hillary Clinton wants to be on the ticket. I would be surprised if she wanted to be Vice-President rather than President. It is common knowledge that the Obamas and the Clintons do not get along. This is going to be an interesting few weeks as the Democrats prepare for their convention in Chicago on August 19th. To add to the mix, Robert Kennedy, Jr., has stated that he wants an open convention and wants to be nominated.

All of the people who voted in the Democrat primary elections have now had their votes cancelled because the Democrats were not honest about the state of President Biden’s health.

President Biden is expected to make a statement about his withdrawing as a candidate some time this week.

Keep the popcorn handy.

 

If This Is A Surprise, You Haven’t Been Paying Attention

Posted on by

There is a website called Discover the Networks. It is an amazing website that provides a lot of insight into the core of elites that are currently running our country and running influence operations in our country. If you have investigated any of the connections–social and otherwise, the following information will not be a surprise to you.

On Wednesday, Breitbart reported that Huma Abedin, the former aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now engaged to Alex Soros, the son of left-wing activist George Soros. This is a merger of the Clinton and Soros influence peddlers. I am not sure how this impacts the Obama family. That remains to be seen.

The article reports:

Several sources informed Page Six that the younger Soros, who is ten years younger than she, proposed to Abedin, the ex-wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), a convicted sex offender, about six weeks ago.

The article concludes:

The Daily Mail has described the younger Soros as having been “known as a playboy heir” for a large portion of his life:

For much of his life, Alex was known as a playboy heir who threw lavish parties in the Hamptons and attended many a red carpet event – until last year when he was named as the official heir to his father’s $25 billion Open Society Foundations (OSF) empire in a shock decision that saw him usurp his older brother Jonathan in a corporate battle that many likened to the HBO series Succession.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Soros said that he would be more politically involved than his father had been and would financially support issues like abortion rights.

Stay tuned for abortion being a major issue in the 2024 presidential campaign, with multiple lies and half-truths included.

 

To Debate or Not to Debate

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Televised presidential debates first started with the 1960 presidential contest between John Kennedy and Ricard Nixon. It is generally believed that the debate process helped Kennedy and harmed Nixon. Debates during subsequent presidential races have had varying impact on the outcome of the races. The Biden regime’s surprise request to hold two debates with Donald Trump raises some questions.

First, the request for debates came on the heels of the most recent polls showing that Trump has a significant lead in key swing states and is gaining support with minorities, whose support the Democrats have always taken for granted. Is this just a coincidence? I think not. The Biden regime must believe that debates can be used to reverse Trump’s lead in the polls. Given Biden’s obvious lack of mental acuity, this is quite surprising and raises the question about who will control the debates and whether they can be stacked against Donald Trump. Let’s look at the how the debates will be conducted.

The channels selected to hold the debates at this time are CNN and ABC. Members of what Trump calls the “Fake Media.” So too with the moderators. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are notoriously anti-Trump, as are likely ABCs moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. The fact that first debate will be held on June 27th before either candidate has actually secured their party’s nomination is suspicious and has never been done before. Perhaps, if Biden performs very poorly, the Democrats can use that as another reason not to nominate him at their convention. If that happens, Trump may find himself having to debate a yet unknown candidate one or more times, closer to the election. The Biden regime is also requiring that there will be no live audience to react to the candidates remarks during the debate. Surely they do not want to have to deal with applause for Donald Trump during the televised debates. Another restriction is that the candidates’ microphones can be turned off by the moderators to prevent comments from the candidates from being broadcast. In the 2016 debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it was subsequently revealed that Hillary Clinton had been given the questions before the debate.

Trump’s ability to outshine Biden in any fairly run debate is not in question. However, given the Democrat’s track record and their desperation over the recent polls, they will make every effort to sway the debate in Biden’s favor. Here are some reasonable requirements that Trump should demand before final agreement on the debates: (1) Debates should not occur until both candidates have been officially nominated; (2)There must be balance as to the networks broadcasting the debates. CNN should be replaced by NewsMax, preferably, or FOX News (3) Both candidates should be given the main questions they will be asked by the moderators, which is the only way of preventing only one candidate getting the questions and the other not. (4) Candidates should be allowed to ask questions of each other. (5) A non-selected audience should be allowed. (6) Both candidates should be required to take a drug test.

It is all very well, and admirable of Trump to agree to debate Biden “any time, any place” as he has said. However, he is ahead in the polls and must ensure that any debate is fair to both candidates. Otherwise, he may be jeopardizing his campaign by making himself vulnerable to his unscrupulous opponent. There is an old saying “The Pride before the Fall.” Trump should heed this truthful admonition!

 

Why Hasn’t This Case Been Thrown Out Of Court?

Posted on by

On Friday, Just the News posted an article about the classified documents trial of President Trump.

The article reports:

In a stunning admission, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team is admitting that key evidence in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents criminal case was altered or manipulated since it was seized by the FBI, and that prosecutors misled the court about it for a period of time.

Legal experts told Just the News the revelation could prove to be a serious problem for prosecutors and a violation of court rules to preserve evidence in the state it was seized.

In a new filing Friday, Smith’s team said that the order of documents in some of the boxes of memos that were seized by the FBI from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was altered or jumbled, leaving two different chronologies: one that was digitally scanned and another the physical order in the boxes.

“Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants’ review of the boxes,” Smith’s team wrote in a new court filing to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

The article concludes:

The alteration of evidence has been an issue in earlier political scandals and prosecutions in Washington.

Erasure of an 18 1/2 minute segment of Richard Nixon’s White House tapes became a very important aspect of the Watergate scandal.

The Iran-Contra scandal exploded during the Reagan years with the revelation that documents were shredded before they could be obtained by investigators.

The Hillary Clinton classified email scandal became more complicated in 2015 with the revelation that her team used a “Bleach Bit” program to erase emails on her secret computer server, and had email devices destroyed. 

In the above cases, one can assume that the government was not directly involved in the alteration of evidence. In the case of President Trump, I strongly suspect that the government was the party that altered the evidence. It should also be noted that Hillary Clinton was never charged for destroying cell phones or erasing emails on her computer. President Trump realized that charging her would tear the country apart and chose not to do it. Unfortunately, the never-Trumpers in our government don’t really care what they are doing to the American justice system or the country.

Does Lawfare Work?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Conservative Review posted an article about the possible impact of the trial of President Trump in New York. Based on what I know of the charges, the trial is frightening because it illustrates how an overzealous justice department can put anyone on trial for anything. Is the jury aware that Congress has a specific fund to deal with allegations of a sexual nature against Congressmen?

In 2017, CNN reported:

So far, there’s been little specific data to help illuminate just how pervasive sexual harassment is on Capitol Hill, but one figure has emerged: the total that the Office of Compliance, the office that handles harassment complaints, has paid to victims.

On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s. That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases.

So are we going to arrest whoever disburses the money?

The article at The Conservative Review reports:

On Monday, trial arguments began in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against the former president. Trump is accused of falsifying business records related to payments made to Stormy Daniels. The trial is expected to take weeks, which means Trump’s ability to campaign is severely hampered. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, is ramping up his campaigning.

That juxtaposition — Trump in a courtroom versus Biden on the campaign trail — could help Trump, Turley predicted.

“This is becoming the split-screen election,” the law professor said on Fox News. “Earlier it was pretty damaging to see the split screen between Trump in different courtrooms. This is even more effective when the other side of the screen shows Biden campaigning in key states like Pennsylvania while [Trump’s] held in this courtroom.

The article at The Conservative Review concludes:

“Keep in mind: this is what Hillary Clinton’s people did,” he pointed out. “Remember, when they funded the Steele dossier — which they denied to reporters — they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying, ‘But it was a legal expense.’ Now you’ve got some of the same Democrats supporting this bizarre theory.”

Turley, moreover, agreed there is credence to the narrative that Bragg’s case is “coordinated” with the Justice Department, owing to the fact that Michael Colangelo, who once worked in the Biden DOJ, helped present opening arguments on Monday.

It’s only illegal when Republicans do it!

That Was Then; This Is Now

Posted on by

On Monday, the trial of President Trump for paying ‘hush money’ began. One of the points being made by the media and other left-wing sources is that keeping the story of Stormy Daniels quiet influenced the 2016 election causing Hillary Clinton to lose (yes, they said that). The money that was used to keep the story silent was put in bookkeeping entries as legal fees. That essentially is the crime that is being charged. But wait a minute–what about the money Hillary Clinton paid to create the Russia Hoax?

An article at PJ Media on April 15th notes:

Before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims.

The funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias. (The FEC later sanctioned the campaign over its hiding of the funding.). When a reporter tried to report the story, he said Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Likewise, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was called before congressional investigators and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

Yet, there were no charges stemming from the hiding of the funding, though it was all part of the campaign budget.

How is using campaign funds to pay for a fraud different from using campaign funds to hush up a damaging story?

This is the world we currently live in. The justice system in America has been corrupted to the point where it doesn’t matter what you did–it matters who you are. Unfortunately, because of an amendment to the FISA bill that was passed in the House of Representatives on Monday night, things are going to get worse for those of us who do not parrot what the mainstream media tells us. The Himes-Turner amendment to FISA dramatically expands the ability for the government to surveil Americans’ communications, updating the definition of electronic service provider to include “any other service provider who has access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications.” This expands the number of businesses and employees who could be asked to spy on customers and provide warrantless access to their communications systems.

In the immortal words of the Chad Mitchell Trio, “If mommie is a commie, then you gotta turn her in.” Only today it’s, “If mommie does not support the Biden regime, you gotta’ turn her in.”

 

Jonathan Turley Comments On The Hearings

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Red State posted an article about the hearings yesterday in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. The article included some interesting comments by Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

The article reports:

While Republicans continued to stress the two-tiered justice system in the case of Biden’s classified documents vs. those of Donald Trump, Democrats continually tried to put words in Hur’s mouth that neither he nor his report said. 

So how bad were the Democrats? George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said the Democrats’ questioning of Hur “seemed almost to border on the delusional.”

During an appearance on Fox News’s “America Reports,” Turley gave a perfect example.

Well, I thought the Republicans did a particularly good job today. Often the Democrats are way ahead in framing of hearings, but at points the Democrats seemed almost a border on the delusional. 

When you had Hur say ‘I did not exonerate the president’ and then Democrats would say ‘OK, so you exonerated the president’ and he would say ‘No, I didn’t’ and they would say ‘Thank you for that, with that exoneration.’ 

So for a lot of people watching, they probably kept on having to sort of reverse and see if they missed something here.

The thing to remember when Democrat politicians play this kind of nonsensical game is that they’re playing solely to their base — low-information voters who don’t give a damn about the facts. 

The article also notes:

Turley continued:

The fact is that Hur tried over and over again to distinguish between his findings, which is that he was not confident he could convict if he did bring any charges, and the statement of Democrats that the president was cleared.

Like most people who aren’t Democrats, Turley remains shocked that no charges were brought against Biden, particularly given the charges against Trump.

But out of this hearing, it came really some quite shocking observations. I mean, at the end, you’re sort of still wondering why he wasn’t charged, including Hur saying ‘Look, we have audio tape of the president referring to the fact that he found classified evidence in his basement.’ Well, okay, that seems like full knowledge. But he kept on coming back to the fact that I think a jury might have been persuaded that this is a nice, elderly man with a faulty memory.

There have been four people that I am aware of in the past few years that have been charged with mishandling classified information. Two of them have had very few consequences–Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. When does this tell us about our justice system?

Is There An Ulterior Motive Here?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about some recent statements by Hillary Clinton. I would like to make a few observations about Ms. Clinton and those statements. Ms. Clinton has been out of the spotlight for a while. Her popularity rises when she is out of the spotlight. Are we looking at Ms. Clinton on the comeback trail?

The article notes:

  • Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 76, said President Joe Biden, 81, and former President Donald Trump, 77, are both ‘old’
  • Despite Biden’s age, Clinton said voters should still support him, as Trump poses a threat to democracy
  • Her comments come as polls find voters are upset with the ages of both party’s presidential frontrunners 

I wish the people who keep talking about ‘threats to democracy’ would acknowledge that we are not a democracy.

The article notes:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted President Joe Biden, 81, is ‘old’ Tuesday, adding Americans need to ‘accept the reality’ of his age and vote for him to save democracy from Donald Trump. 

Clinton’s jab at Joe’s age came during a radio segment with host Zerlina Maxwell.

She told Maxwell about a recent conversation she had about the president’s age. 

‘Somebody the other day said to me … ‘Well, but, you know, Joe Biden’s old.’ I said, ‘You know what, Joe Biden is old. Let’s go ahead and accept the reality. Joe Biden is old,’ Clinton, 76, said. 

‘So we have a contest between one candidate who’s old but who’s done an effective job and doesn’t threaten our democracy,’ she continued. ‘And we have another candidate who is old, barely makes sense when he talks, is dangerous, and threatens our democracy.’

She was referring to former President Donald Trump, who is just one year older than her at 77. 

Pay attention. This is a search for relevancy from someone who has been irrelevant for a while. This could get very interesting.

The Next Big Climate Scare

Posted on by

In America (and in some other places) we just aren’t paying enough attention to our impending doom due to global warming, global cooling, or whatever climate change is currently fashionable. Therefore, it is time to raise the stakes to get our attention. Brace yourself, we are about to start hearing about deaths due to climate change. How you actually calculate that is a mystery, but that hasn’t stopped the propagandists yet.

On Thursday, wattsupwiththat reported:

The next big climate scare is on the way. Advocates of measures to control the climate now propose that we begin counting deaths from climate change. They appear to believe that if people see a daily announcement of climate deaths, they will be more inclined to accept climate change policies. But it’s not even clear that the current gentle rise in global temperatures is causing more people to die.

In December, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at COP28, the 28th United Nations Climate Conference, and mentioned climate-related deaths.

“We are seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate,” she said. “And by far the biggest killer is extreme heat.”

According to Ms. Clinton, Europe recorded 61,000 deaths from extreme heat in 2023, and she estimated that about 500,000 people died from heat across the world last year.

Global temperatures have been gently rising for the last 300 years. Temperature metrics from NASA, NOAA, and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom estimate that Earth’s surface temperatures have risen a little more than one degree Celsius, or about two degrees Fahrenheit, over the last 140 years. But are these warmer temperatures harmful to people?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most cases of influenza occur during December to March, the cold months in the United States. Influenza season in the southern hemisphere takes place during the cold months there, April through September. The peak months for COVID-19 infections tended to be the cold periods of the year. More people usually get sick during cold months than in warm months.

More people also die during winter months than summer months, according to many peer-reviewed studies. For example, Dr. Matthew Falagas of the Alfa Institute of Medical Sciences and five other researchers studied seasonal mortality in 11 nations. The research showed that the average number of deaths peaked in the coldest months of the year in all of them.

It’s easier to stay healthy when the weather is warm–the sun provides Vitamin D, and as long as you don’t overdue it, fresh air and sunshine are healthy.

Please follow the link to the article. It includes some very interesting charts, including the one below:

 

Numbers don’t lie.

A New Level Of Trump Derangement Syndrome

Posted on by

On Friday, The Western Journal posted an article about a recent commentary published in Salon Magazine.

The article includes a screenshot of the commentary headline:

Somehow, with all of the illegals pouring across our southern border and our government having no idea who they are, I don’t think it will be the MAGA and Christian Republicans who are responsible for the next terrorist attack in America.

The article notes

He (Brian Karem) went on to insist that that “There is little difference between [South Carolina Sen. Tim] Scott, [Louisiana Rep. Steve] Scalise and Hamas,” and outrageously added, “Further, there is little or no difference between most of the GOP leadership, including Jim Jordan and Donald Trump, and the leaders of Hamas.”

“Donald Trump and his followers are terrorists,” Karem added.

This is an outright calumny, of course. Republican leaders are nothing like Hamas. They have killed no one. They have not murdered babies, raped and decapitated women or murdered large swaths of people, like Hamas has — and like Hamas proudly says it will continue doing.

…The original title of the piece proclaimed, “MAGA and Christian nationalism: Bigger threat to America than Hamas could ever be.” Salon changed it to read, “Far-right MAGA theocrats: Most dangerous threat to America.”

Neither headline contained any truth. But both articles are perfect examples of how the far left in America has worked against half the country, with FBI stormtroopers “investigating” and harassing parents at school board meetings and MAGA voters, the IRS harassing Christian organizations or Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton calling MAGA voters “deplorables” and haters.

 

 

Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud

Posted on by

Hopefully this will never happen, but a recent statement from Hillary Clinton is concerning. It is particularly concerning when you look at the government’s efforts to label anyone who doesn’t agree with the current party in power as a terrorist.

On October 6th, The Independent Journal Review reported:

During a CNN interview Thursday night, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed supporters of former President Donald Trump may need to enter “formal deprogramming.”

She told Chief International CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour, “So many of those extremists, those MAGA extremists, take their marching orders from Donald Trump.”

Clinton stated Trump “has no credibility,” cited his legal battles, and called patriotic Americans who follow America First ideology “cult members.”

The response on social media was entertaining.

Here are a few examples:

Podcast hosts The Hodgetwins posted a clip of the interview on X, formerly Twitter, and stated, “Tyrants love re-education camps.”

…Make America Great Again Inc. spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt wrote, “President Trump has said countless times that they are only coming after him, because he stands in their way from coming after you — and Hillary Clinton just confirmed that to be true.”

…Libs of TikToc creator Chaya Raichik noted, “Nothing to see here… just Hillary Clinton wanting to put Republicans into re-education camps.”

…APR Nurse Rochelle Maryn wrote, “Interpretation: Hillary feels like she may not be able to manipulate and force feed her garbage down the throats of the American people any longer.”

…MAGA Activist the Salty Texan responded, “As if we didn’t nose dive face first into Communism enough already, here is Hillary Clinton implying that “MAGA EXTREMISTS” will need to be “deprogrammed” because we are “cult members.”

Thank God this woman was not elected President.

Living In A Really Bad B Movie

Posted on by

For what it is worth, I believe that the Democrat plan is to remove President Biden from office some time before the end of summer and put their preferred 2024 candidate in as Vice-President. The deep state has played this game before. That is how the Republicans got President Ford. I have no idea what the details of the plan are, but I feel as if we are trapped in a really bad B-Movie that is being totally orchestrated behind the scenes.

On Wednesday, The U.K. Daily Mail reported the following:

IRS whistleblower says he was STOPPED from pursuing leads into ‘big guy’ Joe in the Hunter investigation

  • IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley claimed Hunter did receive special treatment 
  • Said he was prevented from taking routine steps in probe into president’s son
  • House Republicans released more WhatsApp messages Tuesday between Hunter Biden and a Chinese business associate

All of the information we are hearing now about the millions of dollars flowing into the Biden family from overseas is not new. I am sure Washington insiders have been aware of it for decades. It was kept quiet in order to elect Joe Biden to carry out President Obama’s third term. Hillary Clinton was supposed to do that, but the vote manipulators underestimated the popularity of President Trump.

There is a quote that has never been denied that is in a book written by Donna Brazile.

This is the quote from election night 2016:

According to Bill Still’s source — an unnamed “NBC associate producer of the forum” — Hillary was so enraged that, after the forum, she went into a ballistic melt-down, screaming at her staff, including a racist rant at Donna Brazile, calling Brazile a “buffalo” and “janitor”. Brazile recently turned against Hillary — now we know why.

…She screamed she’d get that f**king Lauer fired for this. Referring to Donald Trump, Clinton said, ‘If that f**king b***ard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished, and if I lose, it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.’

You don’t generally hang from a noose after you lose an election (at least no so far in America). What did she mean by that, and isn’t it time someone looked into it?

There Was Some Interesting Information In The Durham Report

Posted on by

On Thursday, Breitbart posted an article about some things in the Durham that have slipped under the radar.

The article reports:

Special Counsel John Durham’s highly-anticipated report on the origins of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 revealed that top leaders at the Bureau shut down four criminal investigations into Hillary and Bill Clinton.

In 2014, the FBI investigated a “well-placed” confidential source’s claims that an unnamed foreign government intended to “contribute to Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency,” the report said.

The field office investigating these claims “almost immediately” sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant, but it remained “in limbo” for approximately four months, primarily due to Clinton’s then-expected presidential campaign.

As stated in Durham’s report:

According to another agent, the application lingered because “everyone was ‘super more careful’” and “scared with the big name [Clinton]” involved. 321 “[T]hey were pretty “tippy-toeing’ around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next President.”

Durham’s report also revealed that three separate FBI field offices in Washington, DC; Little Rock, Arkansas; and New York City, New York, opened investigations into “possibly criminal activity involving the Clinton Foundation” less than one year before the November 2016 presidential election.

Historically, people investigating the Clintons have a very high rate of suicide or accidental death.

The article concludes:

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee’s Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee, told the DailyMail that Durham’s report warrants “additional exposure and review.”

“The Clintons had a team of people at the FBI running interference for them to avoid criminal culpability,” Gaetz told the outlet. “These matters absolutely warrant additional exposure and review.”

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said the FBI’s investigations into the Clintons “were shut down by the higher-ups who had an obvious political desire to see Donald Trump lose and Hillary Clinton win.”

“It’s disgusting really. Absolutely these investigations should be revisited,” he told DailyMail. “There’s no reason why Congress can’t have a series of hearings with the field agents who were pursuing the Clinton Foundation, and public interviews with them as well.”

There have been problems with the FBI since J. Edgar Hoover. I wonder if we currently have enough elected officials willing to dig into the dirt and clean up the Bureau.

Is Lying To The FBI Only Important Sometimes?

Posted on by

On Monday, Just the News posted an article about a recent development in the Special Counsel John Durham investigation.

The article reports:

Special Counsel John Durham is revealing new smoking gun evidence, a text message that shows a Clinton campaign lawyer lied to the FBI, while putting the courts on notice he is prepared to show the effort to smear Donald Trump with now-disproven Russia collusion allegations was a “conspiracy.”

In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton’s campaign, her researchers and others formed a “joint venture or conspiracy” for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump’s election chances and then the start of his presidency.

“These parties acted as ‘joint venturer[s]’ and therefore should be ‘considered as co-conspirator[s],'” he wrote.

Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say.

The existence of the text message between Sussmann and then-FBI General Counsel James Baker was revealed in a court filing late Monday night by Durham’s team. Prosecutors said they intend to show Sussmann gave a false story to the FBI but then told the truth about working on behalf of the Clinton campaign when he later testified to Congress.

So why are we hearing this now? Remember, the news is controlled by the Democrats. They do not want Joe Biden to run for President in 2024. I would say based on this story that they also do not want Hillary Clinton to run for President in 2024. The news media is clearing the way for someone–I have no idea who. I have a few guesses, but at this point they are merely guesses.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. Then as yourself why this information was not available before 2020. Then ask yourself if the corruption is all through the Democrat party or if the Clintons were an isolated example.