Published on May 1, 2019
Barack Obama’s Ukrainian Collusion Helped Advance Russian Collusion Lie
Obama’s treachery, covered up by the fake news media, is only starting to come to light.
By Shane Trejo
Former President Barack Hussein Obama hid most of his evil scheming under the cover of darkness, but his nefarious behavior in the Ukraine to assist the Russian collusion frame job of Trump is finally coming to light.
Investigative journalist John Solomon issued an op/ed in The Hill explaining the details of Obama’s sordid dealings regarding Paul Manafort’s infamous black ledger in an attempt to frame Trump and punish his Russian enemies.
“Manafort’s case is one of the cases that hurts me a lot,” corruption prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytskyy said in a statement to The Hill.
He continued: “When we discovered first in May 2016, this black ledger list, I ordered the detectives… to give nothing to the mass media in considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published themselves… one or two pages of the black ledger.”
The detectives would not give Kholodnytskyy an explanation as to why they released this sensitive information, but he immediately suspected outside interference.
“For me, it was the first… call that something was going wrong and there was some external influence in this case… and [there was] some other interest in this case not only in the interest in the investigation and a fair trial,” Kholodnytskyy said.
The investigation was jeopardized because the Obama regime wanted to build the case against Trump associates ahead of time so they could bamboozle the public with a phony Russian investigation as a backup plan if Trump were somehow to win the Presidency.
Trump would go onto defeat Crooked Hillary, and then Obama’s minions in the deep state and fake news would go on to push a hoax that would tear the United States apart.
Former political officer at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, Andrii Telizhenko, is one of the key whistle-blowers exposing the Obama regime’s foreign meddling efforts in the Ukraine. He exposed a meeting that occurred with Obama officials and Ukrainian officials in Jan. 2016 in Washington D.C. to make sure the nations’ “anti-corruption efforts [were] united.”
Kostiantyn Kulyk, who works as deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general’s international affairs office, mentioned that Ukrainian officials offered intelligence at the meeting showing the criminality of many corrupt Western officials, including the now-indicted former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig. The Obama regime did not want to hear it.
“They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else,” Kulyk said.
The FBI had previously investigated Manafort’s Ukrainian dealings in 2014, ultimately deciding not to charge the man of any crime. However, that changed when making a scapegoat of Manafort became advantageous to the Obama administration less than two years later.
“Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious,” Kholodnytskyy said.
Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) released the sensitive documents on Manafort on May 29, 2016, just ten days after he was announced as Trump’s campaign chairman. A Ukrainian court has declared this illicit collusion to be illegal election interference.
The claims made by Telizhenko and other whistle-blowers are even backed up by the DOJ’s own internal documents, which involved communications between Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele – author of the discredited dossier that has made a mockery of the entire intelligence-industrial complex.
“What is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed in the Mueller report,” Solomon wrote in his op/ed.
This is likely just the tip of the iceberg, as Obama is shown to be guilty of every crime the Democratic Party has accused Trump of committing, and so much more.
MUELLER DIDN’T FIND BARR’S MEMO INACCURATE, BUT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MSM COVERAGE
Worried that legacy media would misinterpret the investigation
MAY 1, 2019
Special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t find Attorney General William Barr’s memo summarizing his report inaccurate, but was worried about mainstream media coverage misinterpreting the investigation, according to federal officials.
The mainstream media jumped on a recently released letter Mueller sent to Barr in late March in which Mueller claimed the memo didn’t “fully capture the context, nature, and substance.”
According to the letter:
“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
On its own, this paints AG Barr in a bad light; however, the Washington Post had this to say deep within an article on the subject:
A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.
In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.
When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.
Consequently, critics have suggested that Mueller has ironically fueled media misinterpretation by not initially pointing this out in the letter.
“Did Mueller write this letter knowing it would be leaked to the public? It certainly has a different tone than the phone conversation,” PJ Media pointed out.
(CENSORSHIP) – Poynter Wants 515 Outlets Blacklisted, Including Breitbart Leaves Out All Corporate Media Behind Dangerous Hoaxes… …Vast Majority of Blacklist Compiled by One Assistant Prof
By John Nolte
Poynter Institute claims on its “About” page that “it champions freedom of expression.” And yet, on another page, Poynter published a list of 515 media sites, including Breitbart News, that it wants blacklisted and shut down.
Poynter calls this list an “index of unreliable news sites” and is openly calling for advertisers to stop sponsoring these sites, to pull their sponsorship, to put these sites out of business.
If that’s not a blacklist, tell me what is [emphasis added]:
Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging — but too often, they have little choice in the matter.
Most ad-tech dashboards make it hard for businesses to prevent their ads from appearing on (and funding) disreputable sites. Marketers can create blacklists, but many of those lists have been out-of-date or incomplete.
Aside from journalists, researchers and news consumers, we hope that the UnNews index will be useful for advertisers that want to stop funding misinformation.
This is straight-up McCarthyism. This is nothing less than the return of the 1950s’ blacklisting crusade against those who hold inappropriate, unacceptable, and unapproved opinions.
And what’s more, the lion’s share of the list cites a single source — “OpenSources,” a list curated by a single Assistant Professor from Merrimack College, Melissa Zimdars (pictured). She is the author of academic papers such as “Watching Our Weights: The Consequences and Contradictions of Televising Fatness in the ‘Obesity Epidemic’” and “Having It Both Ways: ‘Two and a Half Men,’ ‘Entourage’ and the Televising of Juvenile Postfeminist Masculinity.”
What is Zimdars’s methodology? Can’t say, exactly, as the OpenSources official site is totally blank. About two years ago, she gave an interview where she said that one of her criteria for blacklisting a site is “hate” — that is, she still believes the far-left SPLC is a credible organization whose “hate” labels should get you kicked out of public discourse.
Those of you who suddenly approve of blacklisting will argue, “Hey, this is how democracy works! A private company has the right to do or not do business with whoever they want!”
Well, how the hell do you think the 1950s’ blacklist worked? That was nothing more than private companies (movie studios, advertising sponsors) and private individuals (studio heads, producers) deciding all on their own whom they did and did not want to do business with.
Nevertheless, we rightly look back on this dark era with disgust, as an un-American era where people were persecuted and silenced (by private corporations and private individuals) for holding ideas and opinions the powerful establishment did not want shared or discussed.
And now, the 1950s’ blacklist has returned with a vengeance because the establishment media are fighting for advertising dollars and have lost their moral authority and ability to influence public opinion due to outlets like this one and the Media Research Center, Pajamas Media, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, Red State, Project Veritas, Newsmax, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Judicial Watch, Frontpage, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Caller, and the Drudge Report — all of which are on Poynter’s blacklist — exposing their lies and biases, and…
Just as the blacklisters did during the McCarthy era, they are trying to silence us by targeting our advertising sponsors.
Sure, just as some of those people targeted in the 1950s were actual communists looking to do our country harm, there are some legitimate bad faith players on Poynter’s blacklist. But here’s where Poynter’s blacklist gets especially sinister…
There is no one on Poynter’s list of “unreliable news outlets” responsible for spreading the biggest, most irresponsible and dangerous lies of the last half-decade — lies that have caused race riots and destroyed innocent lives.
In other words, the outlets Poynter does not want blacklisted are every bit as revealing as those Poynter does want blacklisted.
There is simply no question that for over five years, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, Politico, BuzzFeed, etc., have relentlessly and deliberately misled the American people on the biggest stories of the day…
-
The Trayvon Martin Hoax
-
The Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax
-
Donald Trump Can’t Win
-
The Russia Collusion Hoax
-
The Brett Kavanaugh Serial Rapist Hoax
-
The Covington High School Boys Hoax
And yet, every outlet I listed above that are part of Poynter’s blacklist either got these stories 100 percent correct, as Breitbart News did, or was at least skeptical of them.
But we are the ones these so-called “champions of free expression” are openly calling to be blacklisted, not those who have relentlessly and deliberately lied to the public for more than a half-decade.
Which proves this is not a blacklist targeting the unreliable, but a blacklist targeting those who hold ideas the un-American Poynter finds inappropriate and unacceptable.
How else to explain why Poynter wants the Media Research Center blacklisted for bias but not Media Matters?
The Poynter Institute is nothing less than a non-profit version of Joseph McCarthy, Father Coughlin, and Big Brother.
Bernie Sanders: Joe Biden Supported Iraq War, NAFTA and TPP — I Opposed Them
By Jeff Poor
Monday on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, reacted to former Vice President Joe Biden’s candidacy for the 2020 Democratic nod, as well.
Sanders pointed out the contrasts between him and Biden on trade and foreign policy.
“Well, look, I’m running against, I think, 19 other people,” Sanders said. “So I’m concerned about everybody. But I think when people take a look at my record versus Vice President Biden’s record, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA. He voted for NAFTA. I helped lead the fight against PNTR with China. He voted for it.”
“I strongly opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” he continued. “He supported it. I voted against the war in Iraq. He voted for it. So I think what I hope, Anderson, what this campaign is about — and I have to tell you, I like Joe Biden. Joe is a friend of mine. But I think what we need to do with all of the candidates, have an issue-oriented campaign, not personal attacks, but talk about what we have done in our political lives, what we want to do as president, and how we’re going to transform our economy so that it works for all of us and not just the 1 percent.”
MUST-WATCH: UNINFORMED LIBERALS GET TRIGGERED BY FACTS
Unhinged liberals scream and shout at female reporter while regurgitating MSM lies
APRIL 30, 2019
Infowars reporter Millie Weaver attempts to interview attendees of a Biden 2020 rally held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania only to get bombarded by extremely hateful liberals filled with misinformation spread by the mainstream media about President Trump, Infowars and Alex Jones.
Chicago Newspaper Uses Antifa-Linked Sources – Portrays Crooked State’s Attorney Kim Foxx As “Victim”
April 30, 2019
The Chicago Sun-Times published a story on April 27th attacking the Proud Boys, a far-right men’s group led by a person of color, in a desperate attempt to conflate the group with actual racists who showed up to protest crooked State’s Attorney Kim Foxx for her handling of the Jussie Smollett hate-hoax.
Writers Tom Schuba and Matthew Hendrickson authored the write-up, which relied on sourcing from several individuals with ties to alt-left groups like Antifa. In it, they paint the Proud Boys in the same light as actual confirmed racist groups like Identity Evropa. They cite a random Twitter account, Panic! at the discord, which is known to doxx alleged racists on Twitter, a practice that is against the platforms terms and services.
Throughout the propaganda piece, the duo claim that the Proud Boys are basically indistinguishable from dangerous racist groups, but fail to recognize that the group is led by an Afro-Cuban entrepreneur and populated with a large share of minorities in their ranks. This is a tired game that mainstream media hacks like Shuba and Hendrickson play, where anyone who doesn’t adopt the Antifa world-view is somehow a “Nazi” or “evil racist.”
The protest documented in the article from the Chicago Sun-Times follows the police union organized demonstration against Kim Foxx, who famously dropped over a dozen charges against washed up Empire actor Jussie Smollett related to his faking of a hate crime against himself several months ago. The protest was attended by a wide-variety of groups, including the Proud Boys. The entire article’s intended purpose seems to paint the majority of people protesting Ms. Foxx as racists, therefore lending her victim status with an extended on-the-record quote from the corrupt State’s Attorney.
While Shuba and Hendrickson go to great lengths to condition readers into believing that the Proud Boys are “just like” actual suspected racists who showed at the event, their thesis is incredibly thin and littered with so-called evidence from disgraced organizations like the SPLC. The SPLC has been exposed by former high-level employees who document how the organization maintains a racist work environment, all the while labeling anyone to the right of Karl Marx as “racist” or “extremist.”
They even printed an unverified quote from cop-hating alt-left political activist Tom Rainey, detailing a supposed encounter he had with a member of the Proud Boys. They did so describing Rainey as an anti-fascist activist who was allegedly swatted at by a member of the Proud Boys, yet fail to disclose Rainey’s history of assaulting police officers during a violent anti-cop demonstration in 2017. Mr. Rainey, like the Antifa linked Twitter account used for source material in the Chicago Sun-Times article, has been known to associate with dangerous alt-left groups in the Chicago-area.
Both Shuba and Hendrickson refused to respond to a series of questions about their alleged associations with radical alt-left groups, failing to deny on record any affiliations or relationships they may have with organizations like Antifa. They also failed to respond to a questions about their “off-the-clock” relationships with violent anti-cop activist Tom Rainey.
Similarly, their editors failed to explain why the Chicago Sun-Times has deemed an Antifa linked Twitter account, the SPLC and Mr. Rainey as credible sources. The writers and editors refused to explain why they spent such a great deal of time attacking the Proud Boys, and more importantly, why they failed to disclose that the group is led by a person of color and count a significant amount of minorities in their membership.
Tarrio pointed to a recent interaction members of the Florida chapter of the group had with Whoopi Goldberg, where they exchanged in a peaceful dialogue outside her Sarasota, FL event, which he says shows how his group and members of the MAGA movement are able to engage in peaceful dialogue with political opponents instead of resorting to violence like Chicago Sun-Times source Tom Rainey.
“We do not stand for racism of any kind. We love the hell out of America and what it means to be an American. Defending western values is our top priority. Socially awkward soyboys like Shuba and Hendrickson have to hide behind their roles as journalists in attempt to avoid responsibility for their lies. When these types of people are confronted in person or in the court through legal means, it’s amazing how cowardly they become.”
At the time of publishing, the Chicago Sun-Times has failed to respond to multiple requests for comment.
Tom's Blog 