Connect with us

News

Hours Before Damning IG Report Was Released, Look What Scandalous FBI Agents Were Caught Hiding

‘agents threatened to leak the fact they found more’

Published

on

In a previously unreleased text message exchange between FBI agents Peter Strozk and Lisa Page, they drop a bombshell revelation regarding their purpose and intent in sabotaging the Trump campaign in an effort to ensure he was not elected. This text reveals what is perhaps the most significant and the most direct indicator of the feelings of both agents regarding a potential Trump presidency.

Both agents were removed from the probe by special counsel Robert Mueller but both are still currently employed with the FBI.

The Washington Post reported that Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report includes an August 2016 text message exchange between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page about Trump’s chance of being elected president.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Michael Horowitz’s review from a few months ago previously revealed other alarming anti-Trump messages between Strozk and Page who were known to be romantically involved. The so-called “stop Trump” text takes the previously discovered texts a step further and gives credence to claims from President Trump and the White House that the FBI was actively working against him during the 2016 Presidential election.

Yet, the IG report itself states: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”
It is also important to note the leaked conclusion from the Inspector General’s report specifically states – “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.” According to the IG’s office, this is in thanks to policies designed to protect the institutions from allegations of abuse, political interference, and biased enforcement of the law.”

The highly anticipated report from the DOJ’s Inspector General (OIG) regarding Horowitz’s conclusions were leaked to Bloomberg Thursday morning with claims stating that despite any personal animus the FBI employees had against President Trump, bias did not creep into their conduct or affect them in any way. This is even in spite of the changes made in the language of Hillary Clinton’s  “exoneration” letter through extensive edits.  Those edits effectively decriminalized her behavior.

Many people and even some Washington officials disagree with the IG’s assessment. Sen. John Kennedy (LA-R) went on the record with Fox News’ “Outnumbered Overtime” to state: “In Louisiana, we call that bias, we don’t call that objective.”

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, (SC-R), said in a statement the report shows “an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI.”

“Peter Strzok’s manifest bias trending toward animus casts a pall on this investigation…His bias impacted his decision making and he assigned to himself the role of stopping the Trump campaign or ending a Trump Presidency,” Gowdy said. “This is not the FBI I know.”

Needless to say, the IG report – what we know of it, is starting to seem a lot like disgraced former FBI Director James Comey laying out all of Hillary’s alleged crimes in great detail, only to exonerate her by saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against the former Secretary of State.

And in yet another twist it seems Inspector General Horowitz himself is coming under suspicion for displaying personal bias of his own, despite a reputation amongst right-leaning individuals as a servant of justice and above reproach.

According to a bombshell revelation from Paul Sperry, a freelance investigative journalist for the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News, Horowitz may have been closer to Comey than previously thought. Sperry tweeted of Horowitz’s possible bias, stating – “CAUTION: IG Michael Horowitz and James Comey worked together in 1990s in US Attorneys office in Manhattan. In addition, Horowitz married to former CNN and PBS producer, who gave money to Obama and who previously worked as a senior aide to Dukakis during presidential campaign.”

It seems Horowitz did little more than spend American tax dollars in an effort to perpetuate a government coverup for continued corruption.

For example, the report revealed the FBI general counsel was “concerned with potential Hatch Act violations” by former Deputy Director to the FBI Andrew McCabe after he met with Clinton operative Terry McAuliffe at the governor’s mansion to raise money for his election wife’s campaign to run for the Virginia state Senate as a Democrat, as well as conflicts of interest concerning the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and into Hillary Clinton herself.

The FBI then failed to reassess or even investigate McCabe’s potential Hatch Act violations and investigative conflicts after he left the Washington field office to take the position as the deputy FBI director at FBI headquarters. The IG report states – “When McCabe served as [associate deputy director], he was occasionally present at meetings where the [Clinton email investigation] was discussed.” So McCabe was, in fact, actively involved in the Clinton email probe in 2015 while his wife was actively campaigning and running for political office, as well as receiving campaign donations from known associates of the Clintons themselves.

Not only was McCabe actively involved in the Clinton investigations, the IG found at least three separate instances where McCabe continued to involve himself in the Clinton investigation matters in spite of November 1, 2016, recusal from the Clinton Foundation investigation.

Comey then claimed to the IG through the course of the investigation that he did not know that his deputy’s wife had taken money from Clinton’s former campaign manager until he read about the glaring conflict in the Wall Street Journal in Oct 2016.  Comey further stated that had he known, he would have taken McCabe off the Clinton email case immediately.

The IG report further reveals that Comey did not want to condemn Clinton while clearing her. The only reason he decided to condemn her actions at all is because former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was caught meeting with Bill Clinton in the now infamous meeting on the tarmac just days before FBI agents interviewed Hillary for the first and only time. Apparently clearing her looked bad enough, now he had to make it look good so he made a public show of scolding her.

The only reason Comey consented to reopened the Clinton case just prior to the 2016 presidential election was because New York bureau agents threatened to leak the fact they found more State Department emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, husband to Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin.  Comey was loathed to reopen the case and in fact, sat on the information along with McCabe for more than a month.  No further investigation, no subpoena, no action whatsoever despite knowing national security was actively being compromised. They did NOTHING for another month!

Yet the American people are supposed to believe this report from the IG’s office is unbiased? Is this more of the same dog and pony show and the American taxpayers are once again footing the bill?

What do you think?

Share this with a friend.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending