JANUARY 2, 2019
Live-streamed cooking videos.
After Cortez’s live stream got good press, every Democrat appears to have followed.
This is the greatest outreach strategy since Hillary Clinton said she carries “hot sauce” in her bag!
By Robert Bridge
In light of the epic events that shaped our world in 2018, it seems the Yellow Vests – the thousands of French citizens who took to the streets of Paris to protest austerity and the rise of inequality – would have been a nice choice for the Financial Times’ ‘person of the year’ award. Instead, that title was bestowed upon the billionaire globalist, George Soros, who has arguably done more meddling in the affairs of modern democratic states than any other person on the planet.
Perhaps FT’s controversial nomination was an attempt to rally the forces of neoliberalism at a time when populism and nascent nationalism is sweeping the planet. Indeed, the shocking images coming out of France provide a grim wake-up call as to where we may be heading if the globalists continue to undermine the power of the nation-state.
It is no secret that neoliberalism relentlessly pursues a globalized, borderless world where labor, products, and services obey the hidden hand of the free market. What is less often mentioned, however, is that this system is far more concerned with promoting the well-being of corporations and cowboy capitalists than assisting the average person on the street. Indeed, many of the world’s most powerful companies today have mutated into “stateless superpowers,” while consumers are forced to endure crippling austerity measures amid plummeting standards of living. The year 2018 could be seen as the tipping point when the grass-roots movement against these dire conditions took off.
Since 2015, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants into Germany and the EU, a groundswell of animosity has been steadily building against the European Union, perhaps best exemplified by the Brexit movement. Quite simply, many people are growing weary of the globalist argument that Europe needs migrants and austerity measures to keep the wheels of the economy spinning. At the very least, luring migrants with cash incentives to move to Germany and elsewhere in the EU appears incredibly shortsighted.
Indeed, if the globalist George Soros wants to lend his Midas touch to ameliorating the migrant’s plight, why does he think that relocating them to European countries is the solution? As is becoming increasingly apparent in places like Swedenand France, efforts to assimilate people from vastly different cultures, religions and backgrounds is an extremely tricky venture, the success of which is far from guaranteed.
One worrying consequence of Europe’s season of open borders has been the rise of far-right political movements. In fact, some of the harshest criticism of the ‘Merkel plan’ originated in Hungary, where its gutsy president, Viktor Orban, hopes to build “an old-school Christian democracy, rooted in European traditions.” Orban is simply responding to the democratic will of his people, who are fiercely conservative, yet the EU parliament voted to punish him regardless. The move shows that Brussels, aside from being adverse to democratic principles, has very few tools for addressing the rise of far-right sentiment that its own misguided policies created.
Here it is necessary to mention once again that bugbear of the political right, Mr. Soros, who has received no political mandate from European voters, yet who campaigns relentlessly on behalf of globalist initiatives through his Open Society Foundations (OSF) (That campaign just got some serious clout after Soros injected $18bn dollars of his own money into OSF, making it one of the most influential NGOs in the world).
With no small amount of impudence, Soros has condemned EU countries – namely his native Hungary – for attempting to protect their territories by constructing border barriers and fences, which he believes violate the human rights of migrants (rarely if ever does the philanthropist speak about the “human rights” of the native population). In the words of the maestro of mayhem himself: “Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human rights standards.”
Through a leaked network of compromised EU parliamentarians who do his bidding, Soros says the EU should spend $30 billion euros ($33bln) to accommodate “at least 300,000 refugees each year.” How will the EU pay for the resettling of migrants from the Middle East? Soros has an answer for that as well. He calls it “surge funding,” which entails “raising a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU’s relatively small budget.”
Any guesses who will be forced to pay down the debt on this high-risk venture? If you guessed George Soros, guess again. The already heavily taxed people of Europe will be forced to shoulder that heavy burden. “To finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later,” Soros admits. That comment is very interesting in light of the recent French protests, which were triggered by Emmanuel Macron’s plan to impose a new fuel tax. Was the French leader, a former investment banker, attempting to get back some of the funds being used to support the influx of new arrivals into his country? The question seems like a valid one, and goes far at explaining the ongoing unrest.
At this point, it is worth remembering what triggered the exodus of migrants into Europe in the first place. A large part of the answer comes down to unlawful NATO operations on the ground of sovereign states. Since 2003, the 29-member military bloc, under the direct command of Washington, has conducted illicit military operations in various places around the globe, including in Iraq, Libya and Syria. These actions, which could be best described as globalism on steroids, have opened a Pandora’s Box of global scourges, including famine, terrorism and grinding poverty. Is this what the Western states mean by ‘humanitarian activism’? If the major EU countries really want to flout their humanitarian credentials, they could have started by demanding the cessation of regime-change operations throughout the Middle East and North Africa, which created such inhumane conditions for millions of innocent people.
This failure on the part of Western capitals to speak out against belligerent US foreign policy helps to explain why a number of other European governments are experiencing major shakeups. Sebastian Kurz, 32, won over the hearts of Austrian voters by promising to tackle unchecked immigration. In super-tolerant Sweden, which has accepted more migrants per capita than any other EU state, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats party garnered 17.6 percent of the vote in September elections – up from 12.9 percent in the previous election. And even Angela Merkel, who is seen by many people as the de facto leader of the European Union, is watching her political star crash and burn mostly due to her bungling of the migrant crisis. In October, after her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a stinging setback in Bavaria elections, which saw CDU voters abandon ship for the anti-immigrant AfD and the Greens, Merkel announced she would resign in 2021 after her current term expires.
Meanwhile, back in the US, the government of President Donald Trump has been shut down as the Democrats refuse to grant the American leader the funds to build a wall on the Mexican border – despite the fact that he essentially made it to the White House on precisely that promise. Personally, I find it very hard to believe that any political party that does not support a strong and viable border can continue to be taken seriously at the polls for very long. Yet that is the very strategy that the Democrats have chosen. But I digress.
The lesson that Western governments should have learned over the last year from these developments is that there exists a definite red line that the globalists cross at risk not only to the social order, but to their own political fortunes. Eventually the people will demand solutions to their problems – many of which were caused by reckless neoliberal programs and austerity measures. This collective sense of desperation may open the door to any number of right-wing politicians only too happy to meet the demand.
Better to provide fair working conditions for the people while maintaining strong borders than have to face the wrath of the street or some political charlatan later. Whether or not Western leaders will change their neoliberal ways as a populist storm front approaches remains to be seen, but I for one am not betting on it.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
American Engagement Technologies (AET), which Hoffman gave $750,000 to, put $100,000 of the entrepreneur’s money towards New Knowledge, a cybersecurity firm which fabricated some 1,000 Russian language Twitter accounts to follow Moore.
The company used the tactic to link the controversial Republican to so-called Russian influence campaigns and then fed it to the mainstream media. They also created misleading Facebook pages urging Republicans to support a ‘write-in’ candidate instead of supporting Moore. The ploy was revealed by New York Times earlier this month.
“I find the tactics that have been recently reported highly disturbing,” Hoffman told the Washington Post. “For that reason, I am embarrassed by my failure to track AET — the organization I did support — more diligently as it made its own decisions to perhaps fund projects that I would reject.”
AET is ran by former Barack Obama administration official, Mikey Dickerson, who previously helped the US government with its adoption of new technology.
Last week, Facebook suspended five accounts linked to the operation for “engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior.”One of the accounts belonged to the CEO of New Knowledge, Jonathon Morgan, who claims he was acting alone as a researcher and not on behalf of the company.
READ MORE: Facebook suspends ‘researcher’ who faked Russian interference in Alabama election
Morgan is also one of the developers of the Hamilton 68 dashboard, a tool that purports to look into ongoing Russian social media operations by monitoring Twitter accounts, the list of which is too secret to be disclosed.
Hamilton 68 has been used by US publication Mother Jones to bolster a December 2017 article titled: ‘Russian Propagandists Are Pushing for Roy Moore to Win.’
Senator Doug Jones, the Democrat who narrowly defeated Moore last May, has called for a federal investigation. A move supported by the chastened Hoffman. “What is obvious now is that we have focused so much on Russia that we haven’t focused on the fact that people in this country could take the same playbook and do the same damn thing,” stated Jones.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
By Mark Alan
Graham called the move an “Obama-like” mistake. Rubio, apparently trying to establish himself as the leading figure of the neoconservative movement, went as far as calling the president’s decision a “retreat.” Graham and Rubio have both expressed past support for using the US military to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The response from many in the media hasn’t been too different from that of the neocons. CNN’s Erin Burnett strongly condemned President Trump’s decision. She said the president was giving Vladimir Putin an early Christmas present by withdrawing US soldiers from Syria. However, she failed to articulate why she believes the lives of US soldiers are less valuable than the alleged disruption between the US and Russia.
Burnett wasn’t the only CNN personality to attack the president for his decision. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria also bashed the withdraw of US troops from Syria. He claimed President Trump was making an even bigger mistake than former president George W Bush’s “mission accomplished” fiasco during the Iraq War. It’s worth noting that Zakaria is one of many prominent members of the media who supported the decision to invade Iraq.
Anchors from other networks also condemned the president’s choice to withdraw troops from Syria. Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade called Trump’s decision “stunning and irresponsible.” He also suggested the president was “cutting and running.” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough expressed similar sentiments on his show this morning.
The reaction of the neoconservatives and like minded members of the media shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The two groups have united numerous times in the past, salivating at the idea of a ground war to overthrow Assad in Syria. Thankfully, peace has prevailed.
United States military forces have been in Syria for over four years. The first known instance of American troops fighting on the ground in Syria occurred in July of 2014, as part of a hostage rescue operation. The Global War on Terror has already cost US tax payers nearly 6 trillion dollars. To provide that number some context, the combined value of the entire US housing market is worth about 30 trillion dollars.
Elsewhere, President Trump’s decision has been met with praise. Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul both applauded the president’s withdraw of troops from Syria. Senator Paul saidthe president’s decision is another example of Trump keeping his campaign promises. Paul further defended the move, saying the president’s decision in Syria illustrates why he won the 2016 election.
By Joe Simonson
As President Donald Trump announced his decision Wednesday to withdraw the nation’s 2,000 troops from Syria, a bipartisan cadre of opinion-havers attacked him as recklessly abandoning allies in the region and jeopardizing America’s influence over foreign affairs.
One newspaper was particularly harsh: The Times.
Quickly after Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced his resignation (in part as a protest against Trump’s decision on Syria) Thursday, America’s paper of record quickly produced a scathing editorial, proclaiming “Jim Mattis Was Right.”
“Who will protect America now?” The Times asked.
The editorial frets about how American troops leaving Syria “hampers morale” of “allied forces like the Kurds.” (RELATED: Trump Explains His Decision To Withdraw From Syria)
“It could also risk getting American soldiers killed or wounded for objectives their commanders had already abandoned,” writes The Times.
Yet almost a year ago, on Jan. 19, 2018, that same editorial board raked the president over the coals for even daring to continue America’s policy of military adventurism.
The Times expressed concern that more American troops beyond the 2,000 initially deployed could soon be sent overseas in a mission without any clear goals.
“Syria is a complex problem. But this plan seems poorly conceived, too dependent on military action and fueled by wishful thinking,” The Times said.
While on Thursday The Times worried that leaving Syria could leave the Kurds vulnerable to Turkey, at the beginning of 2018, the paper also believed that the U.S. would be setting up a clash between the minority group and a NATO ally.
“Turkey, which views the Kurds as an enemy, has threatened a cross-border assault. All of this raises the grim possibility that American troops will clash with Turkey, a NATO ally,” The Times wrote last January.
Nowhere in Thursday’s editorial does The Times ever point to an alternative timeline for withdrawal for American forces in Syria. Such an omission is quite startling, considering last January the paper’s chief criticism of sending forces to the region was setting up just another forever-war in the Middle East.
One thing is clear from these two diametrically opposed editorials: The job of The Times isn’t to provide valid criticisms of Trump, but to simply oppose him at all costs.
Actress Alyssa Milano (L) / Brian Kolfage Jr. (R) © Reuters / Danny Moloshok /Mike Segar
The actress-turned-Democratic firebrand was left red-faced as after she took aim at the crowdfunding campaign to build a border wall between the US and Mexico, now at over $13mn. In a tweet on Thursday, Milano wrote: “Oh, yes! Let’s #GoFundTheWall while not taking care of our veterans. Cool. Cool. Cool.”
It was not long before the tweet ignited a firestorm on Twitter, as many noticed Milano hand’t done her homework, as the GoFundMe page was started by Air Force veteran Brian Kolfage, a Purple Heart recipient, who lost three limbs in a rocket attack in Iraq.
The campaign, with a designated goal of $1bn, started less than a week ago and has already shot up to be one of the five top GoFundMe campaigns ever.
Milano’s fellow Hollywood celebrity and outspoken conservative James Woods led the backlash against her, pointing out who started the fund.
Many actual veterans chimed in, tweeting at Milano that they have backed the crowdfunding campaign, while others accused her of preying on the cause she did not seem to care about before.
“Bring Vets up when it’s convenient for you. Any other day you could care less,” one Guser wrote.
People argued that building the wall and helping veterans are not incompatible tasks and can both be done at the same time.
Milano, one of the most prominent #MeToo movement stars, has been rallying behind virtually every anti-Trump and pro-Democratic cause, often using her Twitter with its 3.48 million followers to spew vitriol at Trump, calling him a “piece of sh*t” and “evil creature” for the treatment of caravan migrants at the US-Mexican border in November.
However, just like this time, back then Milano was accused of hypocrisy and poor research. She was reminded that border agents used the exact same means – pepper spray – to repel rock-throwing migrants at the border when Obama was in office.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
By Mark Alan
Graham called the move an “Obama-like” mistake. Rubio, apparently trying to establish himself as the leading figure of the neoconservative movement, went as far as calling the president’s decision a “retreat.” Graham and Rubio have both expressed past support for using the US military to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The response from many in the media hasn’t been too different from that of the neocons. CNN’s Erin Burnett strongly condemned President Trump’s decision. She said the president was giving Vladimir Putin an early Christmas present by withdrawing US soldiers from Syria. However, she failed to articulate why she believes the lives of US soldiers are less valuable than the alleged disruption between the US and Russia.
Burnett wasn’t the only CNN personality to attack the president for his decision. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria also bashed the withdraw of US troops from Syria. He claimed President Trump was making an even bigger mistake than former president George W Bush’s “mission accomplished” fiasco during the Iraq War. It’s worth noting that Zakaria is one of many prominent members of the media who supported the decision to invade Iraq.
Anchors from other networks also condemned the president’s choice to withdraw troops from Syria. Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade called Trump’s decision “stunning and irresponsible.” He also suggested the president was “cutting and running.” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough expressed similar sentiments on his show this morning.
The reaction of the neoconservatives and like minded members of the media shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The two groups have united numerous times in the past, salivating at the idea of a ground war to overthrow Assad in Syria. Thankfully, peace has prevailed.
United States military forces have been in Syria for over four years. The first known instance of American troops fighting on the ground in Syria occurred in July of 2014, as part of a hostage rescue operation. The Global War on Terror has already cost US tax payers nearly 6 trillion dollars. To provide that number some context, the combined value of the entire US housing market is worth about 30 trillion dollars.
Elsewhere, President Trump’s decision has been met with praise. Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul both applauded the president’s withdraw of troops from Syria. Senator Paul saidthe president’s decision is another example of Trump keeping his campaign promises. Paul further defended the move, saying the president’s decision in Syria illustrates why he won the 2016 election.
This article contains the personal opinions of the author. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Mess of Media. This disclaimer appears on all articles that feature the personal opinions of the author, as Mess of Media is an unbiased and nonpartisan source of information.
DECEMBER 20, 2018
All of the economic numbers tell us that the economy is slowing down, and on Wednesday Fed Chair Jerome Powell even admitted that economic conditions are “softening”, but the Federal Reserve raised interest rates anyway. As one top economist put it, raising rates as we head into an economic downturn is “economic malpractice”. They know that higher rates will slow down the economy even more, but it isn’t as if the Fed was divided on this move. In fact, it was a unanimous vote to raise rates. They clearly have an agenda, and that agenda is definitely not about helping the American people.
Early on Wednesday, Wall Street seemed to believe that the Federal Reserve would do the right thing, and the Dow was up nearly 400 points. But then the announcement came, and the market began sinking dramatically.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 720 points in just two hours, and the Dow ended the day down a total of 351 points. This is the lowest that the Dow has been all year, 60 percent of the stocks listed on the S&P 500 are in bear market territory, and at this point approximately four trillion dollars of stock market wealth has been wiped out.
We haven’t seen anything like this since the last financial crisis. This is officially the worst quarter for the stock market since the fourth quarter of 2008, and it is the worst December that Wall Street has experienced since 1931.
It is insanity to raise interest rates when stocks are already crashing, but the Federal Reserve did it anyway.
They knew what kind of reaction this would cause on Wall Street and in other global markets, but that didn’t stop them. The financial world is in utter turmoil, and this move by the Fed has definitely added fuel to the fire.
Could it be possible that they actually want a stock market crash?
Some are suggesting that the reason why the vote was unanimous was because they wanted to send a “strong signal” to President Trump. He has been extremely critical of the Federal Reserve in recent weeks, and this could be a way for the Fed to show Trump who is really in charge.
They are calling this “the Trump economy”, but that is simply not true. And when Barack Obama was in the White House, it wasn’t “the Obama economy” either. Ultimately, it is the Federal Reserve that is running the economy, and they fiercely guard their independence and their authority.
President Trump knows that the only way that he is going to win in 2020 is if the economy is doing well, and he also understands that higher interest rates will slow the economy down.
So essentially the Federal Reserve has a tremendous amount of political power in their hands.
During the Obama era, the Fed pushed interest rates all the way to the floor and kept them there for many years.
But now the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates seven times since Donald Trump took office, and four of those rate hikes have been under current Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
Needless to say, it certainly doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out how Donald Trump is feeling about Powell at this moment.
Meanwhile, we continue to get more indications that the U.S. economy is heading for difficult times. Just consider the following news about FedEx…
FedEx shares are plunging after what Morgan Stanley called a “jarring” cut to its annual forecasts, suggesting global growth is slowing far more than most expect – in fact, the bank hinted at the possibility of a “severe recession” unfolding – and prompting expectations of an “uber-dovish hike” by the Fed.
The global logistics bellwether slashed its outlook just three months after raising the view, reflecting an unexpected and abrupt change in the company’s view of the global economy amid rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China. Not only were the cuts were deeper than the Street expected according to Morgan Stanley analyst Ravi Shanker, but everyone is pointing to the following comment from the press release: “Global trade has slowed in recent months and leading indicators point to ongoing deceleration in global trade near-term.”
To see the term “severe recession” used in such a context is more than just a little bit alarming.
The last time the U.S. economy went through a recession, millions of Americans lost their jobs and we saw a wave of mortgage defaults unlike anything we had ever seen before in modern American history.
Are we about to go through something similar?
Earlier today, a CNN article also used the term “recession”, and it discussed the fact that investors now want big corporations to focus on paying down their debts instead of buying back shares of stock…
Fears of an economic slowdown — or even recession — have turned a spotlight on the debt that businesses piled up during the past decade, when borrowing costs were historically low.
For the first time since the Great Recession, investors want companies to prioritize paying down debt rather than investing in the future or share buybacks and dividends, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey of global fund managers.
But stock buybacks are one of the only things that has been propping up the stock market. The only way for the bubble to continue is for corporations to go into dizzying amounts of debt in order to fund massive stock buybacks, because the Federal Reserve clearly does not intend to support the markets right now.
At least for the short-term, the Federal Reserve could have calmed the markets and encouraged economic activity by leaving interest rates alone.
In the end, they decided not to do that, and that makes one wonder what they are really trying to achieve.
Mac Slavo
December 19th, 2018
By Mac Slavo
December 19th, 2018
According to NPR, the Fed last raised rates in September. Since then, the U.S. economy has given off mixed signals. The job market remains strong, with unemployment at the lowest level in nearly 50 years and economic growth clocked in at a solid 3.5 percent in the third quarter. But the stock market is stumbling and home sales and car sales have slumped because of the higher interest rates. Not to mention the ongoing trade tensions between the United States and China which have led to growing fears about the outlook for the global economy.
President Donald Trump has even taken to Twitter to announce the Fed’s plan to hike interest rates again.
The decision to raise the interest rate will affect the rates on all kinds of borrowing, from home mortgages to credit cards. The 30-year mortgage rate in the past year climbed from 3.95 percent to a peak of nearly 5 percent in November, which is a seven-year high. It has since dropped to 4.63 percent, still higher than most borrowers would want.
Trump also called the Fed the “greatest threat” in October in an interview with Fox Business, and has singled out Fed chairman Jerome Powell for harsh criticisms., of which the central bank is in desperate need of. The Fed is answerable to no one and usually insulated from political pressure. Presidents in recent times, including Trump’s predecessors, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, have refrained from overtly criticizing the central bank, probably because they collude with the government for economic destruction.
Meanwhile, Powell has said that the economic outlook remains solid and that interest rates are nearly within a “neutral” range which seems to be indicating that the Fed may not be immediately worried about any inflation. “Interest rates are still low by historical standards,” he said in November.
Stock prices have fallen sharply since early November and it is somewhat rare for the Fed to raise rates in the face of a sustained market selloff. So there’s an outside chance the Fed could change course and pull a stunner by keeping rates steady at the Wednesday meeting.
By Gregg Re
Sixteen FBI agents on Nov. 19 raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain, who reportedly gave the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) documents related to the Uranium One controversy and potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The documents in question allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian nuclear company. Its subsidiary purchased Canadian mining company Uranium One in 2013.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, whose panel has oversight of the Justice Department, penned a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice Department IG General Michael Horowitz, requesting information on the justification for the raid. Grassley gave Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12 to respond to his request.
That deadline has come and gone, and neither the FBI nor DOJ has produced any documents or response.
“We have not yet received answers to the chairman’s questions on this matter,” a Judiciary Commitee spokesperson told Fox News late Thursday.
The FBI consistently has refused Fox News’ request for comment on the whistleblower raid and the Judiciary Committee’s requests. On Thursday, an FBI spokesperson told Fox News the agency would respond only to inquiries from the entity that requested the documents — in this case, the Judiciary Committee.
Questioning whether “we now live in a secret police state,” Cain took his frustration about the situation to Twitter earlier this week.
“So I blow the whistle on the FBI, get raided by the same FBI, and now they want to keep the FBI’s reasons secret? Do we now live in a secret police state? Feels a little like 1984,” Cain tweeted late Monday. The tweet eventually was deleted.
The Daily Caller requested that a court unseal the relevant search warrant materials, but the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, in a court filing, said: “the request should be denied.”
“Public disclosure of any search warrant materials would seriously jeopardize the integrity of the ongoing investigation,” the filing by the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. “Continued sealing is essential in order to guard against possible tampering of witnesses and destruction of evidence, to maintain the ability of the grand jury to investigate this matter, and to prevent the disclosure of sensitive investigative techniques and methods.”
A spokesperson for U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur declined to comment.
Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told The Daily Caller the agent who led the raid accused his client of possessing stolen federal property. In response, Cain reportedly claimed he was a protected whistleblower under federal law, and said he was recognized as such by Horowitz.
Socarras also claimed Horowitz had transmitted information on the sale of Uranium One to a Russian firm’s subsidiary to both the House and Senate intelligence committees.
The bureau refuses to release 37 pages of new documents related to the controversial deal; reaction and analysis from Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz, former Republican congressman from Utah.
A spokesperson for the inspector general declined to comment.
“As frustrating and violating as this feels to me and my family. I will continue to put my trust in God. Some day this life will pass away. I will stand before my maker with a clean concience[sic] and Jesus as my defender. Until then I continue to fight the good fight with God’s help,” Cain tweeted Monday night.
ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENTS’ PHONES COMPLETELY WIPED AS DOJ WATCHDOG LOOKS FOR THEIR TEXT MESSAGES
On Tuesday, he added: “Thank you for the outpouring of encouragement. You all are awesome. A boxer goes into his corner to rest for a minute, refocus, and get some sideline coaching. Then the bell rings and he’s ready to go another round. This fight is spiritual and God is in our corner. Ding! Rom 8:31.”
Fox News has previously reported that Douglas Campbell, an FBI informant involved in the Uranium One deal, has testified to lawmakers that Moscow paid millions to American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence Clinton and the Obama administration.
“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over 12 months,” Campbell said in his statement this past February. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.”
STATE DEPT PROVIDED ‘CLEARLY FALSE’ DOCS TO DERAIL CLINTON PROBE, ‘SHOCKED’ FEDERAL JUDGE SAYS
APCO has denied Campbell’s claims while Clinton called any claims of wrongdoing related to the Uranium One deal “the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone.
“In fact,” Clinton told C-SPAN in October 2017, “it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”
Separately, the DOJ and Special Counsel Robert Mueller face a Friday afternoon deadlineto turn over documents related to their questioning of fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Flynn’s team has alleged the FBI pressured him not to have a lawyer at the White House meeting in January 2017, after which Flynn was charged on one count of lying to federal authorities.
Flynn — who had to sell his house this year amid mounting legal bills — later pleaded guilty to lying to agents about a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador in December 2016 about sanctions that had recently been imposed by then-President Barack Obama. Flynn has since acknowledged seeking to convince Russia not to retaliate for those sanctions during the presidential transition period.
But Flynn’s lawyers, in an explosive Tuesday court filing that threatens to upend his pending sentencing, charged that the FBI had not finalized their pivotal, and only, account of Flynn’s statements until August 2017 — nearly eight months after their interview with him. Fired FBI Director James Comey has since admitted the Flynn meeting broke normal agency protocol.
Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
Tom's Blog 