Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election post-mortem confirms plan to smear Trump with Russia, like intel

Newly declassified evidence shows the FBI was alerted to intelligence in 2016 indicating Hillary Clinton planned to smear then-candidate Donald Trump by linking him to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and then bureau leaders played right into the campaign’s strategy by conducting a sweeping investigation into false claims of Trump-Russia collusion.

Now a major question hovers over the Justice Department strike force set up by Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the affair: was it just a political dirty trick or did it rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy?

Clinton’s own words in a 2016 election post-mortem are likely to be key to investigators. 

Public records show Clinton herself, in coordination with her campaign general counsel Marc Elias, campaign manager Robby Mook, campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri, campaign policy adviser Jake Sullivan, and others launched an effort to link Trump to Putin as the 2016 battle for the White House raged.

Newly declassified evidence dubbed the “Clinton Plan intelligence” included purported intercepted communications from a George Soros ally suggesting that Clinton’s 2016 campaign against Trump was plotting an effort to demonize the Republican nominee by connecting him to Putin, and that the Clinton campaign expected the FBI would put more fuel on the fire.

Keep reading

What did Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it?

This May 16, 2016, quote from Nancy Pelosi has haunted me:

“Donald Trump is not going to be President of the United States. Take it to the bank, I guarantee it.”

All these years, I’ve wondered, how could she be so certain?  This wasn’t just the usual campaign hyperbole. Her phrasing was a simple noun-verb construction, nakedly declarative, and absolutely certain. She left herself absolutely no wiggle room for later, just in case. Seasoned politicians don’t do that sort of thing typically, and Nancy Pelosi is most definitely seasoned. So why??  Why do it?

We may have gotten our answer.

The long-classified annex from the Durham report was declassified this Thursday. What it tells us is that the clock, as it were, on when the organizational malfeasance — the coup — against Donald Trump began may have to be ratcheted back months.

Down at the bottom of the now-declassified page in this X post is a paragraph from hacked emails the Russians had exfiltrated in March of 2016:

…The Clinton staff, with support from special services is preparing scandalous revelations of business relations between Trump and ‘The Russian Mafia.’  Currently, they are studying his connections…

Ironically, these are the first actual Russian-hacked emails we have proof of after all these years! As you may recall, the DNC “hack” has never been proven, as the FBI has never examined the hard drives.

The internet is now speculating what “special services” means, but I know what I read it to mean, in the context (you’ll see it in a moment) of the entire document:  the FBI. 

Now, where did this information come from? Whose hacked email are we talking about?

Keep reading

Former FBI Director Chris Wray Criminally Referred to DOJ Over Claims He Lied to Congress

Former FBI Director Christopher Wray has been criminally referred to the Justice Department, according to Fox News.

The Oversight Project referred Wray to the DOJ for allegedly making false statements to Congress and obstructing proceedings related to two cases: The FBI’s anti-Catholic bias and the FBI’s involvement blocking an investigation into a Chinese mail-in voting scam.

Last month, Senator Chuck Grassley released new information from declassified documents that reveal the FBI blocked an investigation into the allegations that the Chinese Communist Party manufactured thousands of fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the US in a scheme to help Joe Biden win the election by fraudulent mail-in votes.

The FBI hid the investigation in order to protect dirty FBI Director Chris Wray who had lied to Congress about the election.

Wray also lied to Congress about the Richmond memo targeting Catholics.

In February 2023, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government launched its investigation after whistleblower Kyle Seraphin exposed the Richmond memorandum within the FBI’s internal systems.

The leaked memo suggested that, to infiltrate Catholic parishes, FBI agents could use clergy and parish staff as “tripwires” and monitor online communities associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has called the memo “appalling” and stated that it was retracted promptly upon discovery.

Keep reading

Origins of Medical Harm

The level of compensation doctors receive from Medicare is currently under renewed scrutiny; these standards are mirrored by health insurers. The quantity of reimbursement weighted to specialists is likely to shift towards primary care physicians. Reconfiguration of doctors’ fees is overdue, although they are determined by a secretive American Medical Association committee

Analysis and debate about the ongoing healthcare crisis emphasize misdirected funding rather than considering how to revitalize the ethics of medicine. The Hippocratic Oath clarifies the priorities essential for the mindset of a physician. Despite its primary warning, first, do no harm, damage done to patients is rampant. Resolution of this tragic dynamic appears insoluble. 

When decisions are made by any medical organization with financial interests, the primary impetus of the Oath is lost; the AMA’s control over payment schedules reinforces and exemplifies a corrupt institutional flaw. The harm done by the business of medicine needs to be evaluated and controlled.

The seemingly intractable conflict of interest undermining medical care is directly tied to a profit-oriented model in mitigating human suffering. Dispensing treatments with earnings in mind is a form of profitable planned obsolescence and ultimately a methodology that degrades patient autonomy and vitality. 

Although there is often consensus among critics of the healthcare system about its numerous faults, approaching the central issue of profiting from illness is virtually avoided. 

In an attempt to broach the topic of money and medicine, the AMA’s Journal of Ethics presents a self-justifying analysis. The following excerpt exposes how this inherently conflicted view of healthcare depends on the illness of the nation. 

Keep reading

DOJ Official Who OK’d $2M Payouts To Russia Hoax Lovers Now Running Anti-Trump Lawfare Group

The Biden Justice Department official who greenlit $2 million in taxpayer-funded payouts to disgraced FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page has resurfaced at the helm of a Democrat-aligned group dedicated to suing Donald Trump into oblivion, records show.

According to documents obtained by The Federalist, Brian Netter, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Merrick Garland, personally approved the eye-popping settlements. Strzok, who infamously plotted the “insurance policy” against Trump while investigating the Clinton campaign’s Russia collusion hoax, pocketed $1.2 million. His mistress, ex-FBI lawyer Page, scored $800,000 [reeee sexist bribe gap!].

The duo had sued the DOJ, whining that the release of their scandalous, government-resource–written texts violated their privacy. Instead of fighting, the Biden team cut them fat checks – at taxpayer expense.

Now, Netter has taken his talents to Democracy Forward, where he serves as legal director. The left-wing group, proudly launched in 2017 to fight Trump with endless litigation, brags about taking the 45th president to court more than 100 times. The New York Times even hailed them last fall: “Liberal Legal Group Positions Itself as a Top Trump Administration Foe.”

The group’s board reads like a Who’s Who of Democratic Party royalty: Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, Biden’s ex–chief of staff Ron Klain, Vice President Kamala Harris’ sister Maya Harris, and Democratic strategist Mindy Myers. We’re sure Podesta is dazzling them with his famous walnut sauce on pasta and whatnot.

At the top sits Marc Elias, the Democratic super-lawyer notorious for bankrolling the Clinton campaign’s Russia collusion scheme through his law firm and masterminding the chaotic 2020 mail-in ballot expansion. Clinton’s campaign was fined just $113,000 for disguising opposition research as “legal services.”

Netter’s ties to Democratic power brokers run even deeper. He’s married to Karen Dunn, a high-powered Democratic lawyer who prepped Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris for presidential debates. The 2009 wedding? Officiated by none other than Merrick Garland.

Dunn, a former Hillary confidante widely floated for White House Counsel if Clinton had won in 2016, co-founded a law firm with Jeannie Rhee, a Mueller probe alum who helped keep the Russia hoax alive. They later hired yet another Mueller hand, Rush Atkinson.

Both Netter and Dunn clerked for liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, while Dunn also clerked for Garland on the D.C. Circuit.

Congressional Republicans had long tried to learn who authorized the cushy settlements for Strzok and Page but were stonewalled by Biden’s DOJ, which claimed it didn’t know.

Keep reading

White House PressSec Slams Media Over Silence On Russia Collusion Hoax Bombshells

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt took members of the press corps to task over their refusal to cover newly released evidence that shows Hillary Clinton approved the Russian collusion hoax against Donald Trump.

Leavitt’s comments come on the heels of a newly declassified appendix to the Durham Report that exposes a reported Clinton campaign plan to falsely accuse President Trump of collusion with Russia.

Leavitt chided members of the press, telling them, “This is a story that every outlet in this room should be covering,” and that “This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton approved the Russia Hoax against President Trump. Her campaign financed it.”

Leavitt added that “the FBI and the CIA were both weaponized to accelerate this hoax against then-candidate and former president Trump.”

The Press Secretary told reporters that, “The president wants to see justice served and he trusts the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to implement that justice and hold these people accountable.”

The so-called “Durham annex” to John Durham’s Special Counsel report was released yesterday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and brings previously classified information to light regarding the Clinton campaign’s plans to falsely tie Trump to Russia.

In a press release, Grassley said, “History will show that the Obama and Biden administration’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies were weaponized against President Trump. This political weaponization has caused critical damage to our institutions and is one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history. The new Trump administration has a tremendous responsibility to the American people to fix the damage done and do so with maximum speed and transparency.”

At a press conference just one week ago, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard said that the Obama administration promoted a “contrived narrative” that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Gabbard stated, “There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true it wasn’t.”

Independent journalist Matt Taibbi has suggested that mainstream media has left itself few options because it cannot cover the most recent disclosures without making major admissions to its own part in the hoax.

Keep reading

Are Vaccines Big Money-Makers for Pediatricians? RFK Jr. Comment on Tucker Carlson Sparks New Debate

Do pediatricians generate a significant portion of their profits by pushing vaccines? If so, what role do insurance companies play in that scheme?

Or, as The New York Times recently reported, is the opposite true — are vaccines a “money pit” for doctors?

In a July 15 article, the Times took issue with a comment made by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., during a June 30 interview with Tucker Carlson. Kennedy told Carlson that there are “perverse incentives” for pediatricians to push vaccines.

The Times article featured a doctor who couldn’t afford to offer vaccines, and comments from leadership at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) who said statements like the one Kennedy made during his interview with Carlson are “misleading and dangerous.”

The AAP also responded on X, linking to the Times article, with a picture of Kennedy and the comment: “Pediatricians do not profit off vaccines.” In a Facebook post, the AAP said, “As The New York Times explains, most pediatricians either break even or even lose money when they offer vaccines.”

Ryan Champlin, who coordinates vaccine purchasing contracts for doctors at Cook Children’s Health Care System in Texas, told The Defender that incentives for vaccination are typically linked to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) childhood immunization schedule.

Champlin said doctors get the extra payments when a certain percentage of their patients — typically 80% or more — take all of the vaccines on the schedule.

The Times article, despite its criticism of Kennedy’s “perverse incentives” comment, acknowledged that about half of pediatricians have “value-based contracts” with insurers, an insurance reimbursement model that rewards providers with extra payments for hitting specific metrics that are considered markers for “quality of care.”

According to Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland, these types of incentives have “completely distorted pediatric care in America.”

Keep reading

For Media, Trying to Help Gazans Survive Turns Heroes Into Zeroes

US media know who Chris Smalls is.

  • The New York Times (4/6/22) ran a profile: “Christian Smalls Is Leading a Labor Movement in Sweats and Sneakers.”
  • New York (7/18/22) put him on its cover, saying, “Chris Smalls Did the Impossible: Organize an Amazon Warehouse.”
  • “He Was Fired by Amazon Two Years Ago,” an NPR report (4/2/22) declared. “Now He’s the Force Behind the Company’s First Union.”
  • “He Came Out of Nowhere and Humbled Amazon,” read a Time headline (4/25/22). “Is Chris Smalls the Future of Labor?”

Last week, Smalls took on another Goliath. As part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, he tried to deliver life-saving aid—including food and baby formula—to the people of Gaza, who are suffering from a severe famine deliberately engineered by the Israeli government.

The Handala, the ship carrying the aid, was illegally seized in international waters by Israel’s military, and Smalls was singled out for violence, choked and kicked by Israeli soldiers, apparently because he’s Black. Past attempts to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza have been dealt with even more harshly by Israel: In 2010, 57 activists aboard the aid ship Mavi Marmara were shot—nine of them killed—on their way to Gaza (Guardian6/4/10).

Keep reading

Office of Special Counsel Launches Investigation Into Jack Smith

The Office of Special Counsel has launched an investigation into Jack Smith for possible violations of the Hatch Act.

Jack Smith was appointed as Special Counsel in 2022 by Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump just one day after Trump announced his 2024 bid for the White House.

The Office of Special Counsel opened the investigation after Senator Tom Cotton earlier this week sent a letter alleging Jack Smith’s actions politically harmed Trump during the 2024 election.

The New York Post reported:

The Office of Special Counsel has launched a formal investigation into Jack Smith, the first official legal probe into his conduct, The Post has learned.

Smith is the justice department lawyer who oversaw two criminal investigations into President Donald Trump during the Biden administration, one into Trump’s handling of classified documents, the other as to whether his actions on Jan. 6th, 2021, were an attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Both cases were dismissed.

An email reviewed by The Post states The Hatch Act Unit, which enforces a law restricting government employees from engaging in political activities, has begun reviewing the former Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice. The email was written by Senior Counsel Charles Baldis at OSC.

“I appreciate the Office of Special Counsel taking this seriously and launching an investigation into Jack Smith’s conduct. No one is above the law.

“Jack Smith’s actions were clearly driven to hurt President Trump’s election, and Smith should be held fully accountable,” said Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) in a statement to The Post.

Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami in June 2023 for lawfully storing presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate which was protected by Secret Service agents.

Trump was charged with 31 counts under the Espionage Act of willful retention of national defense information and 6 other process crimes stemming from his conversations with his lawyer.

Last summer Judge Cannon dismissed Jack Smith’s classified documents case based on unlawful appointment and funding of the special counsel.

In a separate case in Washington DC, Jack Smith indicted Trump on four counts: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Keep reading

The Cincinnati Cop-Outs

Recently, a large group of black youths began pummeling several white adults in downtown Cincinnati.

The original altercation apparently broke out between a black and white male in he-said/he-said fashion. But that dispute soon turned into a virtual free-for-all.

Numerous male and female black youths sucker-punched a middle-aged woman and a man. Others continued to kick or body slam the victims, who were sprawled on their backs and seemingly unconscious.

There were many disturbing aspects to the beat-downs.

One, the violence broke out along racial and age fault lines. After the initial one-on-one dispute, groups of black youths swarmed solitary older white bystanders to pound them.

Two, the surrounding assembled group of black youths not only failed to intervene to restrain the bullies. They also recorded the beatings for social media and were heard cheering on the one-sided violence.

Three, there was neither a police presence nor any timely Good Samaritan interventions.

Instead, what ended the attacks was simply the fact that at least two of the targets appeared nearly comatose. So their assailants apparently concluded that their agenda of beating whites into unconsciousness was mostly complete.

Four, oddly few of the usual black spokespeople who habitually comment on interracial violence were to be seen.

During the fake Jussie Smollett attack, self-appointed leaders from Al Sharpton to Kamala Harris immediately issued warnings about so-called systemic white racism that had reared its ugly head to victimize Smollett.

Yet when it was revealed Smollett had concocted the entire charade — and even hired his own assaulters — there were few if any retractions from those once so eager to shout “racist!”

Such demagoguery is a well-known pattern dating back to the days of the Tawana Brawley rape hoax, the Duke Lacrosse charade, the Covington kids ruse, the Michael Ford “Hands-up-Don’t Shoot” fabrication, the “pseudo-transformation of George Zimmerman into a ‘white Hispanic,'” or the NASCAR noose fable.

Racialists too often concoct white racist attackers and go silent when the evidence proves fabricated — only to be primed to manipulate the next hoax.

Five, the media and authorities did their best to either hide or play down the violence.

City leaders, the chief of police, and the media variously blamed the mass black-on-white violence on 1) social media, 2) the original one-on-one dispute, 3) alcohol, 4) the lack of civilian intervention to stop the violence, and 5) a festival atmosphere — anything except endemic racial hatred shown toward whites from the crowd of black youths.

Six, had a gang of white toughs beat middle-aged African-Americans senseless, recorded it, and cheered on the violence, there would have been immediate national outrage.

Nor did anyone wish to raise the taboo topic of inordinate black crime rates, disproportionate to respective demographic realities. In rare interracial violent crimes, the asymmetrical ratio of black-on-white versus white-on-black assaults ranges from three to five times greater.

Seven, the quiet of the left-wing media to the reprehensible violence stands in marked contrast with their usual rush-to-judgment racialism in two near-simultaneous incidents.

When a shooter of mixed African-American heritage recently entered a New York City corporate headquarters and executed four innocents, CNN falsely raised the speculation that a “white male” was perhaps responsible — despite the photograph of the suspect, who was as clearly male as he was not white.

Keep reading