Category: conspiracy theories

Trump DOJ to Disclose Identity of Saudi-Connected Man Alleged to Have Aided 9/11 Perpetrators

More truth about the Sept. 11 attacks is going to be released to the public.

By Shane Trejo

The Trump administration is getting ready to release the identity of a man who allegedly aided and abetted the Sept. 11, 2001 attackers, believed to be an individual with deep ties to the Saudi government.

Attorney General William Barr made the final determination for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release this information on Thursday, one day after the 18th anniversary of the attacks.

The information will be released to attorneys that are representing the families of victims who have filed a lawsuit accusing the government of Saudi Arabia of helping to coordinate the terror attack that took their loved one’s lives. The attorneys will have to petition the DOJ to release the name to the greater public for the man’s identity to be widely known.

While it is commonly understood that 15 of the 19 terrorists who committed the attacks were Saudi nationals, the Saudi government has denied any complicity in the attacks, and the official investigation has largely cleared them of any wrongdoing. Additional information released to the public has shown that the Saudis may have been more intimately involved in planning the attacks than what was initially claimed by the Bush administration.

Stunning disclosures illuminating previously unknown facts about who provided material support to the 9/11 attackers have been made available to the public, as 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 were finally released in 2016. The unredacted information provides shocking details that show the Saudi government had more than a passive role in facilitating the attacks.

The report states: “Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative resources on [redacted] Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’”

The 28 pages contain evidence that the 9/11 attackers contacted and received support from individuals closely connected to the Saudi royal family. The report also indicated that CIA and FBI officers were aware of these connections, but they were mysteriously covered up. The Saudis also stonewalled the investigative process and made it difficult for federal authorities to get answers after the attacks took place.

“A number of FBI agents and CIA officers complained to the Joint Inquiry about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11 attacks,” the report states.

While some lawmakers see the release of the documents as a substantial victory for transparency, Saudi authorities still refuse to take any culpability for their behavior that led to the worst attacks in American history.

“The information in the 28 pages reinforces the belief that the 19 hijackers — most of whom spoke little English, had limited education and had never before visited the United States — did not act alone in perpetrating the sophisticated 9/11 plot,” former Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham said in a statement after the documents were released.

“It suggests a strong linkage between those terrorists and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Saudi charities, and other Saudi stakeholders. The American people should be concerned about these links,” he added.

“Hopefully, these pages will provide some resolution to the families of victims of the attacks and help our government craft better foreign policy moving forward,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said after the pages were released.

“Several government agencies, including the CIA and the FBI, have investigated the contents of the ’28 Pages’ and have confirmed that neither the Saudi government, nor senior Saudi officials, nor any person acting on behalf of the Saudi government provided any support or encouragement for these attacks,” Saudi Ambassador to the United States Abdullah Al-Saud said in 2016.

“We hope the release of these pages will clear up, once and for all, any lingering questions or suspicions about Saudi Arabia’s actions, intentions, or long-term friendship with the United States,” he added.

Nothing will be cleared up until an authentic independent investigation takes place into what really took place on 9/11. The new release of a four-year academic study showing that World Trade Center building seven did not collapse due to office fires only underscores the need for another investigation.

 

0

Sorry Democrats and Never-Trumpers… Import Prices are Down Despite Trump Tariffs!

CAP

by Joe Hoft September 13, 2019

President Trump has said for years that the US was hurt by politicians that didn’t protect US jobs.  He decided to do something about and the US is winning because of it!

The far-left Washington Post wrote in August that President Trump’s tariffs will cost the average family hundreds of dollars a year –

More than a year into the U.S.-China trade war, American consumers are about to find themselves squarely in the crosshairs for the first time, with households estimated to face up to $1,000 in additional costs each year from tariffs, according to research from JPMorgan Chase.

Consumers, whose spending fuels about 70 percent of the U.S. economy, have been largely shielded from previous rounds of tariffs, which have left businesses reeling and upended global supply chains. But that’s about to change with the 10 percent levies on roughly $300 billion in Chinese imports, about a third of which will take effect Sept. 1. Those tariffs will primarily target consumer goods.

But it was just more fake news from the far left Washington Post.

Sorry liberals, Trump’s tariffs are having little to no impact on the cost of goods to the consumer.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this morning that the costs of imports actually went down in August.

Prices for U.S. imports fell 0.5 percent in August following a 0.1-percent increase in July and a 1.1-percent decline in June. With the exception of the August and June decreases, U.S. import prices advanced in each month of 2019. Despite the increases, the price index for U.S. imports declined 2.0 percent from August 2018 to August 2019. (See table 1.)

Fuel Imports: Import fuel prices decreased 4.3 percent in August, after rising 0.7 percent the previous month. Prices for import fuel fell 11.1 percent over the past 3 months. In August, lower petroleum prices more than offset higher prices for natural gas. The price index for import petroleum declined 4.8 percent, after increasing 0.9 percent the previous month. Fuel prices decreased 8.7 percent over the past 12 months; prices for import petroleum fell 9.6 percent over the same period. The price index for natural gas imports rose 16.0 percent in August, after declines in each of the previous 4 months. Despite the August increase, natural gas prices fell 6.1 percent over the past year.

All Imports Excluding Fuel: Prices for nonfuel imports were unchanged for the second consecutive month in August following 0.3-percent decreases in both June and May. In August, lower prices for foods, feeds, and beverages and nonfuel industrial supplies and materials were offset by price increases for automotive vehicles and consumer goods. Prices for nonfuel imports declined 1.0 percent over the past 12 months, led by price decreases for industrial supplies and materials and capital goods.

President Trump said years ago what he would do years ago about China to stop their theft of American jobs – tax China 25%.

Winning, Winning, Winning!

0

BETO O’ROURKE: “HELL YES, WE’RE GONNA TAKE YOUR AR-15”

Beto O'Rourke: "Hell Yes, We're Gonna Take Your AR-15"

The days of Democrats saying, “Nobody wants to take your guns,” are behind us

  – SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

Beto O’Rourke solidified himself as the Civil War candidate after proclaiming, “we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” during Thursday night’s Democrat debate.

The amazingly stupid presidential hopeful is openly promoting a policy that would rip the country apart by sending armed government agents to seize semi-automatic rifles from law-abiding Americans.

Beto even reiterated his bold stance on Twitter, repeating, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15.”

CAP

O’Rourke previously tried to mask his intentions by calling his plan a “mandatory government buyback,” but most people understood exactly what that means.

The Texas Democrat is using his anti-gun platform to raise money, asking people to donate money so he can ban semi-automatic rifles.

CAP

The 2020 field of Democrats is the most anti-Second Amendment group of politicians to ever run for office in America.

Gungrabbers Unite! BETO, Biden, Kamala and Klobuchar All Pledge To Go After Your 2nd Amendmenthttps://assets.infowarsmedia.com/videos/f5cb7028-ae4c-4f8c-b2d3-ab25d319bd15.mp4

0

Federal Appeals Court Revives Emoluments Case Against Trump

CAP

By Joshua Caplan

A U.S. federal appeals court ruled Friday that a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause can move forward.

The lawsuit, filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), was dismissed for lack of standing by a lower-level judge in December 2017. The plaintiffs, comprised of the president’s rivals in the hospitality industry, have alleged that the president’s profiting off his “foreign and domestic government clientele” have hurt their businesses.

CAP

“The Plaintiff establishments cater to foreign and domestic government clientele, and allege that they are direct competitors of hospitality properties owned by the President in Washington D.C. and New York City. The complaint alleges that President Trump, operating through corporations, limited‐liability companies, limited partnerships, and other business structures, is effectively the sole owner of restaurants, hotels, and event spaces, which are patronized by foreign and domestic government clientele,” reads the appellate court’s explanation of the case.

“The President has announced that, since assuming office, he has turned over day‐to‐day management of his business empire to his children and established a trust to hold his business assets. However, he maintains sole ownership, receives business updates at least quarterly, and has the ability to obtain distributions from the trust at any time,” it added.

Noah Bookbinder, CREW’s executive director, lauded the development and called on the president to “end his violations” of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses.

“We thank and applaud the judges of the Second Circuit for their decision today. We never wanted to be in a position where it would be necessary to go to court to compel the President of the United States to follow the Constitution,” Bookbinder told Law&Crime. “However, President Trump left us no choice, and we will proudly fight as long as needed to ensure Americans are represented by an ethical government under the rule of law.”

“If President Trump would like to avoid the case going further and curtail the serious harms caused by his unconstitutional conduct, now would be a good time to divest from his businesses and end his violations of the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution,” he added.

 

0

US Attorney Recommends CRIMINAL CHARGES Against Andrew McCabe – DOJ Rejects His Last Minute Appeal

CAP

by Cristina Laila September 12, 2019

US Attorney Jessie Liu has recommended charging former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

The potential charges against McCabe are related to his false statements to feds in the FBI’s investigation into Hilary Clinton.

Via Mark Meadows–

CAP

Fox News reported:

U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu has recommended moving forward with charges against Andrew McCabe, Fox News has learned, as the Justice Department rejects a last-ditch appeal from the former top FBI official.

McCabe — the former deputy and acting director of the FBI — appealed the decision of the U.S. attorney for Washington all the way up to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general, but he rejected that request, according to a person familiar with the situation.

A source close to McCabe’s legal team said they received an email from the Department of Justice which said, “The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office.”

Comey confidant Benjamin Wittes said in a Lawfare blog post a couple weeks ago that he expected former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to be indicted any day now.

Wittes wrote in a blog post that he was “shocked” to find out federal prosecutors were in the final stages of deciding whether to indict McCabe on charges he lied to federal investigators, referring to the New York Times bombshell released a couple weeks ago.

The potential indictment of McCabe stems from the Inspector General’s findings that the FBI official lied to federal investigators.

McCabe was criminally referred to the US Attorneys office for prosecution in the Spring of 2018 and they are finally getting around to (maybe) indicting him.

The process has been dragged out because of internal deliberations and the case is taking so long that the term expired for the grand jury evidence. One of the lead prosecutors on the case has since left the DOJ out of frustration, according to the NYT.

0

Some airplanes did something?! New York Times article ‘de-terrorizes’ 9/11 attacks

CAP

On the anniversary of the most devastating terrorist attack on US soil, a story by the New York Times suggested that “airplanes” brought down the twin towers. The seeming shift of responsibility did not sit well with readers.

“18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center,” read a tweet from the New York Times on Wednesday. “Today families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.” Inside an accompanying article, the same bizarre sentence was repeated.

Though technological dystopia was all the rage in 2001, what with the success of ‘The Matrix’ two years earlier and the passing of Y2K after that, the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by sentient airplanes, but by terrorist hijackers. Enraged readers made sure the NYT knew that, slating the newspaper for omitting the terms ‘Islamic terrorists’ or even the less-loaded ‘Al Qaeda’ from its story.

CAP

CAP

The Times later deleted the tweet and amended its story, which, this time around, read: “Eighteen years have passed since terrorists commandeered airplanes to take aim at the World Trade Center and bring them down.” Responsibility was placed squarely with Al Qaeda in the updated article.

But why the strange phrasing in the first place? The Times did not report the recent mass shootings in Texas as the work of a disembodied AR-15. Nor does the paper attribute President Donald Trump’s executive orders to levitating pens, or climate change to fossil fuels deciding to burn themselves.

CAP

To some observers, the watered-down description of the attacks was an effort to… not offend anybody, including ordinary Muslims who risk guilt-by-association for sharing their religious beliefs with the perpetrators. “Some airplanes did something,” jibed one commenter, comparing the Times’ coverage to a much-maligned soundbite from Democratic Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar earlier this year, in which Omar summarized the attacks as “some people did something.”

CAP

CAP

To be fair, radical Islamic terrorists aren’t alone in having their deeds sanitized by the New York Times in recent days. The paper marked the 43rd anniversary of Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong’s passing on Monday with a tweet describing how Chairman Mao “began as an obscure peasant” and “died one of history’s great revolutionary figures.”

After a similar backlash, the tweet was deleted, with the paper apologizing for not providing “critical historical context;” namely the famines that occurred on Mao’s watch and his role in the 1966-1976 ‘Cultural Revolution,’ events that left tens of millions of Chinese citizens dead.

 

0

House Judiciary Committee Passes Resolution on Impeachment Inquiry Rules

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 27: House Judiciary Ranking Member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) is pictured on Capitol Hill June 27, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

By Joshua Caplan

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a resolution which defines the scope of a potential impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The party-line 24-17 vote occurred after two hours of debate between Democrats and Republicans about the so-called inquiry’s parameters.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) tried to clear up any misconceptions as the committee approved guidelines for impeachment hearings on President Trump. Some of Nadler’s fellow Democrats — including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) — have stumbled over how to explain what they’re doing.

“Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature,” Nadler said as he opened the meeting. “But let me clear up any remaining doubt: The conduct under investigation poses a threat to our democracy. We have an obligation to respond to this threat. And we are doing so.”

Republicans disagree with Nadler and they argue that the House has never voted to open an official inquiry. Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), the top Republican on the committee, said the committee “has become a giant Instagram filter … it’s put in there to look like something, but it’s really not.”

Collins said Democrats are trying to have it both ways.

“My colleagues know very well they don’t have the votes to authorize impeachment proceedings on the House floor, but they want to impeach the president anyway,” Collins said. “So, they are pretending to initiate impeachment.”

Impeachment has divided Democrats who control the House. Democrats on Nadler’s committee, including some of the most liberal members of the House, have been eager to move forward with the process. But moderates, mostly first-term lawmakers who handed their party the majority in the 2018 election, are concerned about the committee’s drumbeat on impeachment and the attention that comes with that continued action.

With regard to impeachment, the biggest elephant in the room is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has long opposed Congress taking the lead on ousting the president. Instead, Pelosi has insisted that committees continue their investigations into President Trump and his associates in search of possible wrongdoings. Earlier this week, the speaker dismissed concerns that Nadler’s recent maneuvers exhibit how she’s losing control over her caucus. “I think you should characterize it [the resolution] for what it is,” Pelosi told Fox News. “It’s a continuation of what we have been doing. You know, we all work together on these things”

Not only is Pelosi unwilling to move the ball forward on impeachment, but the speaker also believes the American people do not want to see lawmakers take up the matter at this time.

“The public isn’t there on impeachment. It’s your voice and constituency, but give me the leverage I need to make sure that we’re ready and it is as strong as it can be,” Pelosi said during a caucus-wide conference call last month.

“The equities we have to weigh are our responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution and to be unifying and not dividing. But if and when we act, people will know he gave us no choice,” she added.

Meanwhile, President Trump took to Twitter following the vote to seemingly underline the political motivations behind an impeachment inquiry and quoted Rep. Al Green (D-TX), who introduced articles of impeachment in June.

““We can’t beat him, so lets impeach him!” Democrat Rep. Al Green,” the president recounted the lawmaker proposing earlier this year.

CAP

0

FLASHBACK: On This Day in 2001, Bush Officials Announced That $2.3 Trillion Went Missing at the Pentagon

And then we all know what happened a day later…

By Shane Trejo

While the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are remembered every year with heavy hearts, the bizarre and inexplicable events that happened the day before are usually glossed over, lost down the memory hole due to the war on terror that has gripped the nation for nearly 18 years now.

On Sept. 10, 2001, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion had gone missing at the Pentagon. He made a statement blaming the corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy for these funds vanishing essentially into thin air.

CBS News issued a report as apart of their “Eye on America” series about the loss of funds, and how that scandal was conveniently lost in the shuffle only a day after it was made public:

While Rumsfeld’s announcement could have garnered widespread outrage and eventually sparked an impetus to reform the out-of-control Pentagon bureaucracy, that was made impossible after the attacks as the public suddenly supported even more national defense spending to defeat global terrorism.

Since the attacks, the problem of disappearing defense funds has gotten exponentially worse. It was widely reported earlier this year that the Pentagon can not account for $21 trillion in spending as the military-industrial complex has swelled to unforeseen proportions while endless wars continue throughout the Middle East.

Forbes published an analysis by top economists of the astronomical military waste at the Pentagon:

Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, conducted a search of government websites and found similar reports dating back to 1998. While the documents are incomplete, original government sources indicate $21 trillion in unsupported adjustments have been reported for the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the years 1998-2015.

While government budgets can be complex, our government, like any business, can track receipts and payments and share this information in ways that can be understood by the public. The ongoing occurrence and gargantuan nature of unsupported, i.e., undocumented, U.S. federal government expenditures as well as sources of funding for these expenditures should be a great concern to all tax payers.

Taken together these reports point to a failure to comply with basic Constitutional and legislative requirements for spending and disclosure. We urge the House and Senate Budget Committee to initiate immediate investigations of unaccounted federal expenditures as well as the source of their payment.

While the credible reports of unprecedented government waste are disheartening enough, new developments show that more than bureaucratic incompetence may have proceeded the 9/11 attacks. A recent academic study commissioned by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks has concluded that office fires could not have caused the fall of building seven of the World Trade Center, casting aspersions on the official story offered by federal investigators.

Until a new independent investigation is commissioned, serious and troubling questions will always remain about arguably the most consequential day in American history.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑