Obama Admin Cleared Hunter for Ukraine Gig Despite Warnings State Dep’t Fear Veep’s Son ’conduit for currying influence’

CAP

By Edwin Mora

The Obama administration dismissed warnings raised by top State Department official George Kent in 2015 that the Ukrainian company that was employing then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter at the time was corrupt, the Washington Post confirmed Thursday.

The Post’s report suggested the Obama administration allowed Hunter Biden to continue serving on Burisma Holdings’ board of directors although it knew the company was corrupt.

Echoing a report from NBC News issued earlier this week, the Post noted:

A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules surrounding the deposition.

Kent said he had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people. But when Kent raised the issue with Biden’s office, he was told the then-vice president didn’t have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue involving his son as his other son, Beau, was battling cancer, said the people familiar with his testimony.

The Washington Post has previously reported that there had been discussions among Biden’s advisers about whether his son’s Ukraine work would be perceived as a conflict of interest, and that one former adviser had been concerned enough to mention it to Biden, though the conversation was brief.

Kent’s comments came during his closed-door deposition in the House Democrats’ impeachment probe on Tuesday.

When Kent raised his concerns about Burisma, the Obama administration had already cleared Hunter to serve on the company’s board of directors. Hunter joined Burisma’s board of directors in 2014. The former vice president was leading U.S. efforts to crack down on corruption at the time.

The State official explicitly warned the Obama administration that Burisma was “corrupt,” NBC News revealed near the end of its article on Kent’s testimony, noting:

During his nearly 10 hours of testimony, Kent also told members of Congress and their staff that Burisma, the energy company where Hunter Biden was a board member, was corrupt, according to a separate person who was present in the room. Kent said he told the Obama administration in 2016 that they should not hold an event with Burisma because of the company’s extensive corruption in Ukraine.

In the July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that triggered the impeachment probe, Trump urged his counterpart to investigate corruption allegations against Biden and his son Hunter.

As vice president, Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine to force the Eastern European country to fire its top prosecutor in 2016, who had investigated the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, for possible corruption.

Hunter had been serving on the board of Burisma for up to $83,000 per month at the time despite having no background in energy, prompting allegations of corruption. He admitted to ABC News last weekend that his father’s political position helped him secure the lucrative appointment to Burisma’s board of directors.

A “whistleblower” allegation that during the July 25 call Trump attempted to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens by withholding aid triggered the impeachment probe. Trump and Ukraine have denied the allegations.

The Democrats’ impeachment probe is primarily seeking to determine whether Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in a bid to get dirt on White House hopeful Biden. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the leader of the probe, has said, however, that there does not need to be a quid pro quo to impeach Trump.

 

CAUGHT: LEFTIST BANK BUSSED IN “ATTENDEES” AT DEM DEBATES

CAUGHT: Leftist Bank Bussed In "Attendees" At Dem Debates

Democrats are notorious for bringing in out-of-state supporters

  – OCTOBER 18, 2019

Millie Weaver and crew captured footage of buses bringing in “staged” protesters, marchers, and sign-wavers to the 4th Democrat primary presidential debate held in Ohio.

The buses just so happened to be chartered by SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, which is one of the largest leftist only unions that happens to own Amalgamated Bank (AMAL) which exclusively funds progressive NGOs, the DNC and Democrat party candidate campaigns through loans.

Amalgamated Bank (AMAL) is not only tied to the DNC and Democrat party candidates, but it funded the Occupy Wall Street movement, Black Lives Matter and other radical leftist protest groups.

AMAL was investigated and taken to court by the FDIC for allowing too many delinquent loans to go unpaid.

AMAL recently gave the DNC a $10 million dollar loan.

The current CEO and president of AMAL is Keith Mestrich, former executive to SEIU, who currently is on the board of directors for Democracy Alliance, founded by George Soros.

Millie Weaver recently interviewed investigative journalist Tore of Red State Talk Radio and Lauraloomer.us about AMAL and how they may be using union workers’ pension funds and investments as leveraged assets to borrow against to fund their Democrat and progressive agenda.

 

TIMES SQUARE BILLBOARD SHOWS TRUMP BEING HOGTIED & TORTURED

Times Square Billboard Shows Trump Being Hogtied & Tortured

So much for the tolerant left!

  – OCTOBER 18, 2019

A billboard being displayed in Times Square, New York shows President Trump hogtied and being tortured as part of yet another ‘woke’ advertising campaign.

The image, which shows Trump being held down by an angry female Marine Corps veteran, is a commercial for athletic clothing company DHVANI.

On the company’s Instagram page, DHVANI claims the image is a backlash to Trump having 26 credible accusations of sexual assault or rape against him (none of which are actually credible), as well as him having “no respect for the rule of law.”

“SICK: The president receives daily death threats,” tweeted Charlie Kirk. “Secret Service had to arrest an armed man outside his rally. And this is what is plastered in Times Square—a literal depiction of violence against him.”

Another image on the company’s Instagram page shows Trump on the toilet with his pants down having his phone swiped from him by a brown woman in skimpy camo gear.

View this post on Instagram

Enough is Enough . . #StandForSomething

A post shared by DHVANI (@dhvaniwear) on

The company has said it will donate a portion of profits from sales of its clothing to help fund abortions.

The left’s secret desire to inflict violence against Trump often spills out publicly.

As we reported earlier, actor Tom Arnold tweeted what amounted to a veiled assassination threat before Trump’s appearance in Dallas, Texas.

View this post on Instagram

This is not OK. Attacking Gold Star families is not OK. Mocking a disabled American on national TV is not OK. Referring to America’s allies as “shithole countries” is not OK. Calling white supremacists “very fine people” is not OK. Handing your billionaire friends massive handouts in the form of tax cuts paid for by ordinary Americans is not OK. Calling US Congresswomen of color "savages" and telling them to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came" is not OK. Consistently trying to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, threatening coverage for millions of American women is not OK. A “Gag Rule” silencing doctors & nurses from providing reproductive healthcare information to their fellow Americans is not OK. None of this is OK. For nearly three long and tiring years, our American patriotism has been exploited. We were told by our current President that he would “make America great again.” Instead, we have a nation more divided than ever before and further away from the ideals that make America truly ‘great.’ Enough is enough. We’re taking a stand. We’re standing up for a woman’s right to choose, which is the law of the land. We’re standing up for women and LGBTQ+ rights. We’re standing up for the un- & under-insured’s ability to access affordable reproductive care. We’re standing up for every American’s right to a healthy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Starting today, DHVANI will donate a percentage of our sales to non-profit organizations that support access to reproductive healthcare and fight Trump’s Title X gag rule in Congress. DHVANI is prepared for the fight of our lives. Will you #StandForSomething with us? . **DHVANI produced the images of this campaign to artistically express the frustrations we believe many women share. All images are metaphorical in nature only. DHVANI does NOT and will NEVER condone violence of ANY KIND.**

A post shared by DHVANI (@dhvaniwear) on

 

Hillary Clinton Pitches Conspiracy Theory That Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein Are Russian Assets

By Tyler Durden

Hillary Clinton is still peddling election-related conspiracy theories, this time hinting that 2020 Democratic contender Tulsi Gabbard is being ‘groomed’ to split the Democratic vote as a third party candidate, thus handing the election to President Trump. 

Speaking with former Obama 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe on his podcast, “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe,” Clinton said – without mentioning Gabbard by name: “I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians.” 

Of course, that’s “assuming Jill Stein will give it up – because she’s also a Russian asset,” Clinton continued.

CAP

CAP

Earlier in the interview, Clinton hinted that the Trump 2020 campaign is still in “contact with the Russians,” and that “we have to assume that since it worked for them, why would they quit?” 

“Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin’s dream,” Clinton added. “I don’t know what Putin has on him – whether its both personal and financial, I assume it is. But more than that, there’s this bizarre adulation Trump has for dictators.” 

Clinton also insisted that Russia “did affect the outcome of the election” in 2016, despite the DOJ concluding otherwise.

Incredible!

CAP

CAP

Elijah Cummings Signed Subpoenas From His Death Bed – But Signatures on Two Subpoenas Don’t Match

CAP

 

It was revealed Thursday morning that longtime Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummings (MD) died at the age of 68 on Wednesday.

Cummings was the Chairman of the very powerful House Oversight Committee and he was pumping out subpoenas while he was in hospice.

In fact, it was revealed that he signed subpoenas from his death bed just hours before he died.

Or did he?

The signatures on Cummings’s October 16 subpoenas look completely different from a September 30 subpoena so people are asking who really signed the documents.

CNN reported on Thursday that Rep, Cummings signed subpoenas directed to two US immigration agencies just hours before he died.

In one of his last official acts before his death, the late House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings signed two subpoenas for documents related to a temporary end to a policy change that allowed some immigrants with severe health issues to remain in the US.

Hours before his passing, staffers drove the subpoenas to Baltimore for Cummings’ signature, said a Democratic committee aide.

“Chairman Cummings felt so strongly about the children, that he was going to fight until the end,” said the aide.

Elijah Cummings’ signature on the October 16 subpoena looks very different from his signature on other documents.

Screenshot of October 16 subpoena:

CAP

Cummings’s signature on page 3 of the October 16 subpoena looks different from page one:

Pelosi Explains What Was Going On In That Photo Of Her Standing Up To Trump

CAP

|
October 17, 2019 12:15 pm

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday described her meeting with President Trump as a “meltdown” and said she was likely “excusing” herself from the room or telling Trump that “all roads lead to Putin” when an iconic photo of the gathering was snapped.

During the White House meeting Wednesday on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria, Pelosi said she told Trump that he needed to have a plan on how to fight ISIS after abandoning the Kurdish forces on the border.

Trump apparently told the room he pulled the U.S. troops out of Syria to fulfill his campaign promise to bring the troops home. Pelosi claims she retorted by questioning why U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia and Trump admitted it was because the country was paying the U.S. for them.

According to Pelosi, Trump was quickly hot under the collar over her questioning.

“I think I was excusing myself from the room,” she said of the photo. I conveyed to the President in the meeting about the 354-60 vote in the House disapproving of his Syria actions, A. B, my concerns about all roads leading to Putin. … At that moment I was probably was saying ‘all roads lead to Putin.’”

Pelosi has reveled in the release of a photo that shows her literally standing up to Trump. The President posted the image on Twitter Wednesday evening, and Pelosi promptly made it her Twitter banner image.

CAP

Democratic leadership left the meeting at the White House visibly irate with President Trump’s “nasty” demeanor and disrespectful tone. Pelosi said after the meeting that she thinks Trump was too bothered by House Republicans opposition to his Syria-pullout to be productive in the meeting.

Romney: Trump Syria Policy “A Bloodstain In the Annals Of American History”

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date October 18, 2019

Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) delivers remarks on the Senate floor on Syria. “What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a bloodstain in the annals of American history.”

Let me briefly recount what’s happened in the past seven days since the U.S. announced our withdrawal. The Kurds, suffering loss of life and property, have allied with Assad. Russia has assumed control of our previous military positions, and the U.S. has been forced in many cases to bomb some of our own facilities to prevent their appropriation by Russia and Turkey…

 

The ceasefire does not change the fact that America has abandoned an ally. Adding insult to dishonor, the Administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, even as our ally has suffered death and casualty, their homes have been burned, and their families have been torn apart…

What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history.

There are broad strategic implications of our decision as well. Iranian and Russian interests in the Middle East have been advanced by our decision. At a time when we are applying maximum pressure on Iran, by giving them a stronger hand in Syria, we have actually weakened that pressure. Russia’s objective to play a greater role in the Middle East has also been greatly enhanced. The Kurds out of desperation have now aligned with Assad. So America is diminished. Russia, Iran, and Assad are strengthened.

And so I ask how and why that decision was made?…

I ask whether it is the position of the Administration that the United States Senate, a body of 100 people representing both political parties, is to be entirely absent from decisions of the magnitude just taken in Syria?

Now some argue that we should not have been in Syria in the first place because there was not a vote taken by the Senate to engage in war there. I disagree. Congress has given the President legal authority and funding to fight against terrorists in Syria…

Others argue that we should just get out of a messy situation like this. The Middle East, they say, has had wars going on forever, just let them have at it. There’s of course a certain logic to this position as well, but again it applies only to the original decision as to whether or not we should have gone into Syria. Once we have engaged, and made the commitments we made, honor as well as self-interest demand that we not abandon our allies.

It has been suggested that Turkey may have called America’s bluff, telling the president that they were coming no matter what we did. If this is so, we should know it, for it would tell us a great deal about how we should deal with Turkey now and in the future.

Some have argued that Syria is a mess, with warring groups and sub groups, friends and allies shifting from one side to another, and thus we had to exit because there was no reasonable path for us to go forward. Are we incapable of understanding and shaping complex situations? Russia seems to have figured it out. Are we less adept than they? And are our principles to be jettisoned when we find things get messy?

The Administration claims that none of these reasons are accurate. Instead, the President has said that we left to fulfill a commitment to stop endless wars, to bring troops home, to get them out of harm’s way, perhaps to save money. I find these reasons hard to square. Why? Well, we withdrew 1,500 troops in Syria but we are adding 2,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. And all totaled, we have 60,000 troops in the Middle East.

Assuming for the sake of understanding that getting out of endless wars was the logic for the decision, why would we take action so precipitously? Why would we not warn our ally, the Kurds of what we were about to do? Why would we not give them time to also withdraw or perhaps to dig in to defend themselves? Clearly, the Turks had a heads up because they were able to start bombing within in mere hours.

I simply do not understand why the Administration did not explain in advance to Erdogan that it was unacceptable for Turkey to attack an American ally. Could we not insist that together we develop a transition plan that protects the Kurds, secures the ISIS prisoners, and meets the legitimate concerns of Turkey as well? Was there no chance for diplomacy? Are we so weak, and so inept diplomatically that Turkey forced the hand of the United States of America? Turkey?

We once abandoned a red line. Now, we have abandoned an ally.

Media and politicians didn’t care about chaos the US caused in Syria for years, but now that Trump can be blamed, they’re outraged

CAP

By Danielle Ryan

Mainstream US media has been the biggest cheerleader for Washington’s chaos production in Syria for years, but now, as President Donald Trump pulls troops out of the northeast, they’re suddenly outraged. Spare us the crocodile tears.

“Plenty of reason here for the US possibly to become involved,” pleaded a horrified MSNBC correspondent this week, chastising Trump for ignoring “war crimes” and “human rights abuses” by Turkish forces.

Yet, while he and others cloak their demands for continued US military action in humanitarian concern for the Kurds in the face of Ankara’s onslaught, there is a more selfish reason for the media outrage. They are profoundly addicted to the bogus narrative of the US as the world’s savior, and worse, they crave the kind of dramatic TV footage and tales of military heroism that US forever wars offer. If that sounds a bit too cynical, recall MSNBC anchor Brian Williams close to weeping as he shared the “beautiful pictures” of American missiles raining down on Syria two years ago.

The pleas for fresh US intervention also reveal a hyper-focus on Washington’s “image” in the eyes of the world. The media has been bleating for days about how Trump’s actions will be perceived by its allies and enemies, but who is going to break it to them that their “image” is not quite what they think it is?

Successive US administrations have pursued policies of chaos and disarray in Syria for years; first covertly attempting to sow social discontent to spur and exploit a popular uprising, then by funding, training, and backing jihadist militias (Al Qaeda, included) against Bashar Assad’s army, and prioritizing the fall of his secular government over peace for the better part of a decade.

Couple that with Washington’s continued facilitation of slaughter in Yemen, its penchant for economically choking uncooperative nations with punitive and deadly sanctions and its psychological warfare of constant threats of violence against Iran, and one wonders exactly what kind of benevolent do-gooder image there is left to salvage.

This uniquely American obsession with image on the world stage was on display during CNN’s Tuesday night Democratic presidential debate, too. The perpetually grandstanding Cory Booker claimed Trump had turned America’s “moral leadership” into a “dumpster fire,” while Pete Buttigieg lamented the president’s betrayal of American “values” that left the country’s reputation and credibility “in tatters.” 

Joe Biden, who as Obama’s former VP, shares plenty of the blame for the state of Syria today, called Trump’s pullout from northern Syria “the most shameful thing that any president has done in modern history” in terms of foreign policy. Iraqis might disagree with that statement, but remember, all pre-Trump foreign policy disasters have been conveniently flushed down the memory hole and their perpetrators rehabilitated for the purposes of comparison with the evil Orange Man.

The hand-wringing over America’s image betrays a deeply delusional but long-ingrained belief that the world at large sees the US military as a force for good. In reality, worldwide polls have shown that the US is actually regarded as the greatest threat to world peace, not — as news anchors and Washington politicians would have you believe — a facilitator of world peace.

Tulsi Gabbard was the only candidate on the Ohio debate stage willing to call a spade a spade, describing the chaos in northeast Syria as “another negative consequence” of US involvement in the region.

“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country, from both parties, who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading” it, she continued.

She slammed the US’s “draconian sanctions” on Syria, describing them as “a modern-day siege the likes of which we are seeing Saudi Arabia wage against Yemen” and promised that if she was the president, she would end support for Al Qaeda in Syria, which she said had been the US’s “groundforce” in the war.

Cue the gasps all around.

Gabbard’s insistence on forcing a reckoning with the reality of US policy in Syria makes her presence on the debate stage so necessary, but predictably her input, while entirely truthful, was met with spineless attacks in the same vein as those she has been subjected to from mainstream media for months, culminating recently with a McCarthyist hit-piece published by the New York Times implying that she is a Russian asset.

Reaction to Gabbard from journalists watching on social media was just as fierce. MSNBC’s Clint Watts called the notion of US support for Al Qaeda a “falsehood” that needed challenging. Watts, it turns out, part-authored a 2014 piece for Foreign Affairs about Ahrar al-Sham, an Al Qaeda-linked group “worth befriending.” Another reporter called Gabbard’s claims about the US arming Al Qaeda a “Russian talking point.” Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal quickly responded with a photograph of Al Qaeda firing a US-supplied TOW missile in Aleppo.

CAP

But to the regime change fanatics and war cheerleaders, these facts don’t seem to carry much weight. Narrative has always been more important.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑