Tag: ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR

Former Prison Official Says Ghislaine Maxwell Should be Transferred to Rikers For Her Own Safety

Alleged Epstein co-conspirator could be violently attacked by MDC inmates.

By Paul Joseph Watson – 7/9/2020

Former NYC Department of Corrections Deputy Warden Ed Gavin says that Ghislaine Maxwell should be moved to Rikers Island for her own safety.

Appearing on Fox News with Tucker Carlson, Gavin said that the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, where Maxwell is currently being held, is not suited to handler her.

Following her transfer from a New Hampshire prison to MDC, the alleged sex trafficker was called a ‘depressed loner’ and branded a ‘snooty rich bitch’ by her fellow inmates, leaving open the possibility that she might be violently attacked.

“If I were William Barr, what I would do is, I would seek to obtain a substitute jail order and I would try to have Ms. Maxwell placed on Rikers Island with the New York City Department of Corrections,” said Gavin.

According to the Sun, the former socialite will be “guarded by the highest security possible,” entirely in an effort to prevent the alleged ‘failings’ that led to Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide.

Gavin told Carlson that the MDC was notorious for its corruption.

“In 2011, there was a female corrections officer there, she had sex on duty with eight employees,” he said. “Two of them were superior officers. She also had sex with two inmates … We [also] have a lieutenant and two corrections officers recently who were convicted of sexually abusing over 10 women … So I don’t think that that facility is capable of handling it [Maxwell], there’s just too much that’s gone on there recently, and I don’t think any female inmate should be housed there.”

As we previously highlighted, Maxwell purportedly possesses secret sex tapes that would expose powerful Epstein acquaintances, a bargaining chip she hopes to use to secure a plea deal.

According to one of Maxwell’s former friends, one of those acquaintances is Prince Andrew.

 

0

Democrats failed to impeach Trump, but they won’t give up trying – it’s all they’ve got

CAP

by Nebojsa Malic

Even before President Donald Trump was elected US president, Democrats began talking about impeachment. Now that it has failed, will they finally accept the result of the 2016 election? Don’t get your hopes up.

Trump’s acquittal in the Senate on Wednesday was a foregone conclusion, given as it takes two thirds of the senators present to convict. The only way for 20 Republicans to switch sides was for the House case to be open and shut – something that only Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) and ‘Russiagate’ truthers in the media actually believed.

In the end, the sole Republican to break ranks was Mitt Romney, and only on one of the articles. Not guilty, exonerated, case closed, let’s “move on” – as Democrats themselves advised in 1999, after the same thing happened to Bill Clinton.

Not so fast. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has rejected the verdict, calling it “meaningless” because what happened in the Senate “wasn’t a trial.” It’s a retreat to last week’s talking points, arguing that the Senate should have called additional witnesses and documents that the House didn’t care to obtain before rushing to impeach back in December.

Never mind that doing this would have meant the House process was flawed, fatally undercut the second article – “obstruction of Congress” – or that the House managers themselves objected to any new evidence being introduced. If you’re expecting logic rather than lawfare, you’re in the wrong town.

Democrats began talking impeachment from the second Trump took office, having failed to prevent that from happening through a variety of long-shot schemes such as “Hamilton electors.” Their initial strategy was to allege “emoluments” and harp on Trump’s undisclosed tax returns, before settling on “Russiagate.” Then the Mueller Report came out and proved to be a dud of epic proportions. Hopes to at least get obstruction of justice charges out of it were decisively crushed by Attorney General William Barr.

Report came out and proved to be a dud of epic proportions. Hopes to at least get obstruction of justice charges out of it were decisively crushed by Attorney General William Barr.

Under tremendous pressure to find something – anything – to impeach Trump over, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi turned to Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff, a fellow Californian. Schiff seized upon a phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he was told about by staffers in touch with their former colleagues inside the intelligence community.

Schiff seized on Trump’s reference to Joe Biden’s bragging about getting a corruption prosecutor in Ukraine fired, to claim that this amounted to “soliciting foreign interference” in the 2020 election, since Barack Obama’s former VP was the front-runner for the Democrats’ presidential nomination.

While Schiff and his crew did their best to conjure a crazy conspiracy involving Trump holding up military aid for political leverage – mind-reading and inventing fake transcripts along the way – their case was ultimately smoke and mirrors. Zelensky himself said he was not being extorted, and the parade of other witnesses from within the very bureaucracy Trump had sworn to purge (but obviously hadn’t) had only their personal, anti-Trump opinions to offer.

Paradoxically, impeachment only made Trump stronger – and more popular, if the latest polls are anything to go by. By contrast, Democrats have gone from one defeat to the next this week, starting with Monday’s fiasco at the Iowa caucuses and continuing with Pelosi’s tantrum at Trump’s State of the Union on Tuesday.

“This impeachment was a destructive debacle in every conceivable respect, but don’t worry I’m sure [Democrats] will change their behavior moving forward, they have a well-established track record of taking responsibility for failure,” quipped political journalist Michael Tracey after the Senate acquittal.

If Trump wins re-election in November – which increasingly looks like it might happen – expect the Democrats to try to impeach him again. What for? It doesn’t matter, any excuse will do.

CAP

Simply put, they have to. In retrospect, impeachment seems to have always been a coping mechanism for 2016, the election that neither Hillary Clinton nor her party ever recovered from losing.

Clinton herself offered more proof of that on Wednesday, accusing 52 Senate Republicans of betraying their oath to the Constitution and saying the US was “entering dangerous territory for our democracy.”

She’s actually correct about that, though not in a sense she may have intended. Democracy works only so long as all participants agree to abide by electoral results. Refusing to accept defeat and attempting to rules-lawyer one’s way out would be bothersome enough at a board game night, but is downright toxic when it infects national politics.

Kaiser Report co-host Stacy Herbert summed it up best, calling the last three years “one horrible remake of ‘Goodbye, Lenin’ in which the entire political and media classes have constructed an elaborate alternative reality so as to avoid having Hillary encounter any further distress which might compound her humiliation.”

Unlike in the 2003 German film, nothing so far has been capable of bursting this particular delusion bubble – which means that America’s long national nightmare is nowhere near over.

 

0

Perfect Timing: Anonymous Sources Claim Bolton Book Manuscript Accuses Trump of Tying Ukraine Aid to Biden Investigations

by Kristinn Taylor

Several anonymous sources have reportedly told The New York Times that a book manuscript by Ambassador John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor to President Trump, accuses Trump of tying the hold up of aid to Ukraine last year with his desire for investigations into the Bidens and interference by Ukraine in the 2016 election, something Trump has vehemently denied but has been impeached by the House and is on trial for in the Senate.

The Times reported on descriptions of the manuscript Sunday evening, as the President’s defense team prepares for day on two Monday of their rebuttal to the Democrat House Managers’ case against Trump. Bolton was blocked by Trump from testifying in the House impeachment inquiry on national security grounds of executive privilege, however Bolton has said he would testify in the Senate trial if he was issued a subpoena. Motions to allow witness testimony in the trail have been tabled until after the first stages of the trial are complete: Prosecution, defense and then questions from senators. The report by the Times is timed to influence the votes of Republicans to allow witnesses as the Democrats are all on record as being in favor.

The Times does not claim to have seen the manuscript, but is basing its report on anonymous sources who claim to have given The Times descriptions. There are no quotes from the manuscript.

Excerpt:

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.

The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

…Key to Mr. Bolton’s account about Ukraine is an exchange during a meeting in August with the president after Mr. Trump returned from vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J. Mr. Bolton raised the $391 million in congressionally appropriated assistance to Ukraine for its war in the country’s east against Russian-backed separatists. Officials had frozen the aid, and a deadline was looming to begin sending it to Kyiv, Mr. Bolton noted.

He, Mr. Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper had collectively pressed the president about releasing the aid nearly a dozen times in the preceding weeks after lower-level officials who worked on Ukraine issues began complaining about the holdup, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Trump had effectively rebuffed them, airing his longstanding grievances about Ukraine, which mixed legitimate efforts by some Ukrainians to back his Democratic 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, with unsupported accusations and outright conspiracy theories about the country, a key American ally.

…In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine…

End excerpt. The entire Times article can be read at this link at MSN.com. It includes Bolton going after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr.

Democrats have responded to the report with renewed calls for Bolton’s testimony.

The Democrat House Managers issued a statement:

CAP

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), “John Bolton has the evidence. It’s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump’s actions testify in the Senate trial.”

CAP

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), “For months there just hasn’t been any question what happened. But Republicans hung on to the idea that if they kept Trump’s top people from testifying, they could plausibly deny he was behind it all.
The game is now up. Their coverup has fallen apart. BOLTON MUST TESTIFY.”

CAP

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), “Last month, I wrote in @nytimes that we need to hear from John Bolton—who shopped his testimony to book publishers instead of speaking with Congress—because he clearly has a lot to say. It’s undeniable now: Bolton must testify in Trump’s trial.”

CAP

UPDATE: Statement from Bolton aide Sarah Tinsley reported by many in the media, “Several weeks ago, the ambassador sent a hard copy of his draft manuscript to the White House for prepublication review by the National Security Council. The ambassador has not passed that manuscript to anyone else for review. Period.”

CAP

More from Tinsley, “Bolton spokeswoman says he did not leak his own manuscript to the NY Times — and had only submitted it for pre-review to the National Security Council.”

CAP

And, “The ambassador transmitted a hard-copy draft of his manuscript to the White House for pre-publication review by the National Security Council. The ambassador has not passed the manuscript to anyone else, only the NSC.”

0

Don Lemon Takes On Thanos, Everyone Loses (Impeachment Part 5)

By John Ward – 12/12/2019

Dismayed by the un-respect of quote unquote THE NEWS, amateur host for boutique fanfic outlet CNN – Worst Journalist of the Year Don Lemon (Worst Journalist of the Year) – took it upon xirself to tackle the Real Issues by offering a hot and possibly infected take on President Donald Trump’s “Thanos Meme.” Listen closely, and you can hear seven distinct horn blasts in the background!

 

0

Eric Holder Sends Warning to John Durham, Says William Barr ‘Unfit’ to be Attorney General, in WaPo Op-Ed

by Kristinn Taylor

Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder sent a chilling message in a very public way to U.S. Attorney John Durham–the man investigating abuses by the FBI and Justice Department against President Trump and members of his administration and campaign in the Russia-election investigation–warning Durham he is risking his reputation.

 

Holder wrote an op-ed published Wednesday night by the Washington Post calling current Attorney General William Barr “unfit” to serve as attorney general. The threat to Durham iss buried in the op-ed, but jumps out like a dagger thrust from the dark.

…As a former line prosecutor, U.S. attorney and judge, I found it alarming to hear Barr comment on an ongoing investigation, led by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, into the origins of the Russia probe. And as someone who spent six years in the office Barr now occupies, it was infuriating to watch him publicly undermine an independent inspector general report — based on an exhaustive review of the FBI’s conduct — using partisan talking points bearing no resemblance to the facts his own department has uncovered.

When appropriate and justified, it is the attorney general’s duty to support Justice Department components, ensure their integrity and insulate them from political pressures. His or her ultimate loyalty is not to the president personally, nor even to the executive branch, but to the people — and the Constitution — of the United States.

Career public servants at every level of the Justice Department understand this — as do leaders such as FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Their fidelity to the law and their conduct under pressure are a credit to them and the institutions they serve.

Others, like Durham, are being tested by this moment. I’ve been proud to know John for at least a decade, but I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general’s findings. Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.

This is certainly true of Barr, who was until recently a widely respected lawyer. I and many other Justice veterans were hopeful that he would serve as a responsible steward of the department and a protector of the rule of law.

Holder closes with his statement that Barr is ‘unfit’. His case is totally based on policy differences and his claimed understanding of the nature of the job, which is odd considering Holder once called himself Obama’s “wingman” when he served as his attorney general and called Obama “my boy”: “I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr’s words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution. Which is why I now fear that his conduct — running political interference for an increasingly lawless president — will wreak lasting damage.

The American people deserve an attorney general who serves their interests, leads the Justice Department with integrity and can be entrusted to pursue the facts and the law, even — and especially — when they are politically inconvenient and inconsistent with the personal interests of the president who appointed him. William Barr has proved he is incapable of serving as such an attorney general. He is unfit to lead the Justice Department.

Barr, 69, is serving as attorney general a second time–the first during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. Barr is at the peak of his profession and is immune to Holder’s criticism.

Durham, on the other hand, while also Barr’s age, has been a career assistant U.S. attorney who was promoted by President Trump to U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut in 2017 after 35 years of service there. Holder’s message to Durham is clear, play ball or face ruin.

Durham’s statement that so “troubled” Holder:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Why would Holder find that statement so troubling that he would send a warning to Durham via the Washington Post? Holder knows very well what he is doing with his carefully worded threat and should know better than to warn or threaten a prosecutor–but the Deep State and its corrupt actors must be protected and “wingman” Holder has a job to do.

UPDATE: Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) understands, “Did Eric Holder obstruct justice in this threat to US Atty Durham?
“Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember …”

CAP

0

Schitt Show: Intel Chair Performs Fake Conversation Between Trump, Ukraine President Pencil Neck Dunks on Self

CAP

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) performed an entirely made-up conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his opening statement at a committee hearing Thursday morning.

The White House released a transcript of a phone call between Trump and Zelensky on Wednesday, but Schiff made up and fabricated his own transcript that he read at the hearing, which sought to create the quid pro quo that Democrats have accused the president of making.

“This is the essence of what the president communicates,” Schiff began.

“We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from YOU though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good,” Schiff read from his fabricated conversation.

“I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it,” he continued.

“On this and on that. I’m gonna put you in touch with people and not just any people,” he continued, affecting an accent meant to resemble Trump’s. “I’m going to put you with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.”

ADAM

“And I’m gonna put you in touch with Rudy, you’re gonna love him, trust me,” Schiff said, still avoiding any real quotations from the transcript. “You know what I’m asking, so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And by the way don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I’ve asked.”

Schiff said of his made-up conversation, “This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate.”

Republican lawmakers slammed Schiff for making up the conversation entirely, instead of going off the transcript of what was actually said between Trump and Zelensky.

Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) called the statement “fiction”:

While the chairman was speaking, I actually had someone text me, ‘Is he just making this up?’ And yes, yes he was. Because sometimes fiction is better than the actual words or the text. But luckily the American people are smart. They have the transcript, they’ve read the conversation, they know when someone is just making it up.

After Turner’s scolding, Schiff said his “summary of the president’s call was at least meant to be in part parody.”

He added, “The fact that that’s not clear is a separate problem in and of itself. Of course the president never said, “If you didn’t understand me, I’m going to say it seven more times.’ My point is, that’s the message the Ukrainian president was receiving in not so many words.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) accused Schiff of being intentionally misleading.

“I think it’s a shame that we started off this hearing with fictional remarks — the implication of a conversation that took place between a president and foreign leader, putting words into it that didn’t exist, they’re not in the transcript. And I would contend that they were intentionally not clear,” he said.

“The chairman described it as parody, and I don’t think this is the time or place for parody when we are trying to seek facts,” he added.

“And unfortunately today, many innocent Americans are going to turn on their TV and the media’s only going to show that section of what the chairman had to say, but I’m also glad to know that many Americans have seen this movie too many times and are tired of it.”

0

Schiff Posts 🕳️🍔 Deep State Complaint… Pelosi Humiliated Dossier 2.0: POTUS Seeks ‘interference from a foreign country in the election’… …Trump Covering Up Ukraine Call Transcript!

CAP

By Joshua Caplan

The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday released a redacted version of the partisan federal employee’s whistleblower complaint regarding President Donald Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In the nine-page document, the so-called “whistleblower” claims that the president was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” While characterizing the Trump-Zelensky call based on hearsay, it accuses the White House of attempting to conceal records related to their conversation. Further, it claims President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is a “central figure” in the effort and alleges U.S. Attorney General William Barr “appears to be involved as well.”

“The interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the president’s main domestic political rivals,” the complaint states. “The president’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.”

The transcript of the call was released Tuesday, showing no pressure to investigate Biden, and President Zelensky denied in person that he felt any such pressure from the conversation. Nonetheless, following the transcript’s release House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reaffirmed her support for a formal impeachment inquiry, accusing the president of using “taxpayer money to shake down other countries for the benefit of his campaign.”

“Either the President does not know the weight of his words or he does not care about ethics or his constitutional responsibilities,” the speaker added. “The transcript and the Justice Department’s acting in a rogue fashion in being complicit in the President’s lawlessness confirm the need for an impeachment inquiry. Clearly, the Congress must act.”

The so-called “whistleblower’s” complaint was released shortly before acting National Intelligence Director Joseph Maguire appeared before the House intelligence committee to discuss the handling of the complaint. The hearing began at 9 a.m. EDT and is being streamed live.

“This complaint is a roadmap for our investigation, and provides significant information for the committee to follow up on with other witnesses and documents,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement Thursday before the hearing.

Following the complaint’s release, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement: “Nothing has changed with the release of this complaint, which is nothing more than a collection of third-hand accounts of events and cobbled-together press clippings—all of which shows nothing improper.”

ADAM

Last week, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson appeared before the committee to discuss the whistle-blower complaint in a closed session. It was Atkinson who first received the complaint and thought it serious enough to report to Congress.

The complaint was made available to lawmakers Wednesday and was viewed by members of the House and Senate intel panels.

President Trump and Giuliani have said they encouraged Ukraine in other conversations to investigate the Bidens for pressuring Ukraine to fire Kiev Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the gas company Hunter Biden worked for.

As Breitbart News reported earlier this year, Biden forced out former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin as he was investigating an energy company called Burisma Holdings, which was paying Biden handsomely as a member of its board. The former vice president even boasted to the Council of Foreign Relations last year that he had threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless the prosecutor was fired. (He did not tell the audience about his son’s role.)

On Tuesday, President Trump said he asked White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to withhold the aid from Ukraine roughly one week before he spoke with Ukraine’s leader.

“As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid,” President Trump said ahead of his address before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. “They were fully paid.”

“I want other countries to put up money. I think it’s unfair that we put up the money,” he added. “Then other people call me. They said, ‘Oh, let it go.’ And I let it go. But we paid the money, the money was paid.”

Meanwhile, President Trump and his allies appear none-too-worried about the Democrats’ formal impeachment inquiry and have not only suggested it’s a sign that Pelosi has lost control of her caucus, but that it will bolster the president’s 2020 re-election chances.

“[Speaker Pelosi’s] been taken over by the radical left, the whole Democrat Party. You take a look at what’s happening in the media today. The whole party is taken over by the left and thank you very much — my poll numbers have gone up,” the president said Wednesday.

Of the impeachment probe, House Republican leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Breitbart News that Democrats “lost their minds” and predicted it will “backfire on them” in the 2020 election.

“The left has officially lost their minds — they are so fixated on their imaginary impeachment that they are getting nothing else done,” said McCarthy. “266 days in power and what have Nancy Pelosi and the Socialist Democrats accomplished? Absolutely nothing.”

On Wednesday, President Trump’s reelection campaign announced  – along with the Republican National Committee (RNC) – that $5 million had been raised following Pelosi’s announcement of the impeachment inquiry.

“In the 24 hours since news of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment announcement, @realDonaldTrump’s campaign & @GOP have BLOWN OUT fundraising!” Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale wrote on Twitter.

“$5 Million combined in 24 hrs. Donors in all 50 states Huge groundswell of support leading to Trump landslide in 2020!” he added.

Read the redacted version of the partisan federal employee’s complaint below:

House Intel ‘whistleblower’ complaint by Breitbart News on Scribd

The UPI contributed to this report. 

0

FAKE NEWS: New York Times and Washington Post Sink to New Lows with False Reporting on Trump’s Transcript

These shameless fake news agencies are outdoing themselves.

By Shane Trejo

The fake news is in maximum overdrive, as the New York Times and the Washington Post are printing extremely deceptive headlines on the front pages of their Thursday papers regarding the rough transcript released describing President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

CAP

The Times took the transcript out of context to make it look as damning against Trump as humanly possible, while running inaccurate sensationalist headlines to accompany the misleading excerpts.

In one headline article titled, “Witnesses Bolster Whistle-Blower Complaint,” the Times could only cite “potential presidential misconduct” that may have “created a national security risk.” They brought up this conjecture before noting the whistle-blower’s likely partisan political bias and the fact that the whistle-blower was “not in a position to directly listen to the call” before reporting it to authorities.

In another headline article titled, “President Denies Pressuring Leader of Ukraine to Investigate Biden,” the Times referred to the “favor” Trump asked of Zelensky in the lede without mentioning that it had to do with CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm that conducted the investigation into the DNC’s hacked servers without ever handing the servers over to the FBI. CrowdStrike was never even mentioned on the front page of the Times.

Shockingly, the Post was even more dishonest in their coverage of the transcript than the Times. The Bezos-funded lobbying rag mendaciously edited the transcript to make it look as if Trump’s “favor” pertained to Joe Biden instead of CrowdStrike. The headline, “Trump Offered Justice’s Aid for a Probe of Biden,” only added to the deception.

“President Trump repeatedly urged the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden, one of his chief political rivals, and offered to enlist the U.S. attorney general in that effort while dangling the possibility of inviting the foreign leader to the White House, according to the rough transcript of the call released Wednesday,” a falsified lede on today’s front page of the Post reads, according to a CNN reporter.

The actual transcript shows that President Trump did not dangle the possibility of inviting Zelensky to the White House. It was just a matter of scheduling an inevitable meeting between the two leaders who share exemplary relations.

“Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you,” Trump told Zelensky.

“I look forward to seeing you in Washington,” Trump added.

The fake news is attempting to crucify President Trump for being a skilled diplomat while excusing former Vice President Joe Biden’s corrupt actions even while he boasts about them publicly.

President Trump gave the fake news a fair warning on Wednesday that they should drop the nonsense about his dealings with the Ukrainians, or they would further bury themselves.

Unfortunately for the fake news, they never know when to stop. Their phony coverage of this non-scandal may be their biggest failure yet, and the Democrats – by launching an impeachment inquiry against Trump over it – will likely be joining them in the gutter.

 

0

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

MSNBC’s FBI Expert Panics: Why Is AG Barr Doing Interviews?

Screen Shot 2019-06-03 at 11.11.16 AM

Deep State goon terrified of Barr’s candor and transparency

By Newswars.com

A former FBI agent expressed his dismay on MSNBC over Attorney General William Barr’s string of televised interviews explaining the Department of Justice’s actions in investigating the origins of the Deep State Russia witch hunt.

Speaking on “AM Joy” on Saturday, expert Clint Watts lamented Barr’s network appearances, claiming he’s “advancing” Trump’s “conspiracy” that the Deep State tried to overthrow him with the FBI’s Russia probe.

“Why is the Attorney General doing interviews?” Watts asked. “The Attorney General answers questions, he doesn’t raise them. So every time he goes out and does one of these interviews, he is advancing the conspiracy without evidence.”

“The attorney general’s job is to present evidence on the basis of cases. A year ago, when he’s out in the private sector and he’s hanging out and he wants to write a 19-page memo, he has the right to do that.”

“He doesn’t need to be asking questions and sowing a conspiracy,” Watts added.

Interesting take, considering the media and Democrats, in a massive propaganda effort, have been pushing the conspiracy theory for over two years without evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election.

 

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑