Connect with us

News

Hillary Hit With Fresh Evidence Of Hidden Collusion – Now She Faces An Official Charge

Published

on

The most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by BREITBART.COM:

The non-profit Coolidge Reagan Foundation on Thursday filed a Federal Election Complaint against Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, their law firm Perkins Coie, and Christopher Steele, the ex-British spy that authored the “pee dossier,” for violating campaign finance laws.
The non-profit charged that those parties hid payments made to and received by Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to produce the dossier, in violation of finance laws.

Democrats have accused the Trump administration of colluding with foreigners, when in reality it was the Democrats who colluded with foreigners, the non-profit charged.

“For over a year, Democratic officials have accused the Trump Administration of collaborating with foreign interlopers to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. In reality, it was the Clinton-backed Democratic machine that conspired with foreigners in violation of both federal campaign finance law and basic decency to manipulate the election,” it said in a complaint.

Trending: Patriots Former Tight End Martellus Bennett Just Made Sickening Allegation About Trump

“The Clinton campaign weaponized American intelligence and law enforcement communities — led by Democratic appointees of President Barack Obama —through false, malicious, wholly manufactured lies about the Republican nominee, now President, Donald J. Trump,” it said.

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation is described in the complaint as a not-for-profit charitable organization whose mission is to “defend, protect, and advance liberty, and particularly the principles of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

The 22-page complaint walks through in detail how Clinton and DNC officials colluded with Steele and anonymous former and current Russian officials to produce a dossier aimed at influencing the 2016 elections, and violated election laws while doing so.

The complaint describes how the Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie lawyer Marc Elias for the 2016 presidential election cycle. Elias then hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump. The Clinton campaign and the DNC then funneled over $1 million through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS. Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook personally approved the payment to Perkins Coie, the complaint said.

The non-profit argued that that since Fusion GPS’s work was to further the Clinton campaign and the DNC’s political goals, rather than providing legal advice or assisting with any litigation, it was not protected by attorney-client, work-product, or any other privileges.

However, the Clinton campaign and the DNC hid their payments to Fusion GPS in campaign finance filings. The Clinton campaign reported all of its payments to Perkins Coie from January 2016 through December 2017 as being for the purpose of ”LEGAL SERVICES,” but did not mention Fusion GPS.

Meanwhile, the DNC reported its payments to Perkins Coie between January 2016 and December 2017 as being for the following purposes:

● “LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE CONSULTING,”
● “LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES,”
● “OFFICE SUPPLIES/EXP,”
● “TRAVEL,”
● “PRINTING & COPYING,”
● “DATA SERVICES SUBSCRIPTION,”
● “POSTAGE AND SHIPPING,”
● “CATERING,FOOD & BEVERAGE,”
● “INTERNET,”
● “CELLULAR/MOBILE,”
● “ADMINISTRATIVE FEES,”
● “FED/STATE FEES & LICENSE,”
● “RESEARCH CONSULTING” (a single entry on August 16, 2016, for $66,500), and
● “DATA ANALYTICS.”

“None of these entries accurately describe the DNC’s payments to Perkins Coie for Fusion GPS’s opposition research into Donald Trump,” the complaint said.

“By using Perkins Coie as a straw man intermediary for this pervasively political, non-legal work, [Hillary for America] and the DNC were able to mask their relationship to Fusion GPS from the public in the critical weeks before the 2016 presidential election, in direct violation of federal campaign finance law,” it said.

The complaint details how Fusion GPS paid a total of approximately $168,000 to Steele and/or his company Orbis, and how Steele solicited foreign nationals — particularly current and/or former members of the Russian government and intelligence service — for information relating to Trump.

“Thus, a foreign citizen controlled the collection and dissemination of information, largely from foreign government agents and other foreign nationals, intended to influence a federal election,” the complaint said.

Steele then produced a dossier based on “dubious, unverified, and largely unverifiable information” he received from his “confidential sources of questionable credibility.” The dossier was then given to Fusion GPS, then to Perkins Coie, and then the Clinton campaignprovided a copy of the dossier to Fusion GPS, who provided it to the Clinton campaign and/or the DNC, the complaint said.

The Obama Administration’s Justice Department went on to use the dossier to seek a secret surveillance warrant on the Trump campaign, without informing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it was funded by, and developed at the behest of, the Clinton campaign or the DNC, it said.

Steele also gave a copy of the dossier to Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn, who wrote an article days before the election entitled “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.”

“His intent in providing that material to Corn was to influence the outcome of the election by preventing Donald Trump from becoming President, either by sparking an investigation into Trump or by inducing voters to vote against him, due to concerns about his relationship to Russia,” the complaint said.

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation lists seven counts of FEC violations against the Clinton campaign, the DNC, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie, and Steele.

They include: False Specification of Expenditure Purpose; False Identification of Expenditure Recipient; False Identification of Expenditures’ Purpose and Recipient; Solicitation of Donations (or Contributions) from Foreign Nationals; Substantially Assisting Solicitation of Donations from Foreign Nationals; Donation or Expenditure by a Foreign National; and Foreign National Participation in Political Committees’ Decisionmaking Processes Concerning Expenditures.

In summary, the complaint says:

“Using their law firm, Perkins Coie, LLP, as a front to shield their illegal machinations from public scrutiny, Hillary for America and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) worked with British national Christopher Steele to generate and disseminate the so-called “Steele Dossier”—a collection of lies and spurious allegations against the President compiled at great cost.

“The dossier was valuable due to the substantial and illegally unreported cost of generating it, its use in attempting to sway the outcome of the election, and the veneer of credibility it possessed as a result of the various sources of information from which it was derived and the obfuscation of its origin as a politically motivated campaign trick. Many of the dossier’s allegations against President Trump stem from current and former Russian government officials.

“Thus, the Clinton campaign, not Trump, collaborated with the Russians in a desperate, and ultimately failed, attempt to steal the election. Though the American people ultimately rejected Clinton, both the Trump Administration and the nation as a whole still languish in the aftermath of her campaign’s impropriety.”

“The interminable investigations into the President ultimately stem from the collection of fabrications covertly funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign. Their funding of the Steele dossier allowed foreign nationals to directly, substantially influence the 2016 election in favor of Clinton. Steele, a foreign national acting without actual or apparent authority from the DNC or Clinton campaign, unilaterally decided to release the Steele dossier to the American media (as well as the FBI) in an attempt to swing the election in Clinton’s favor.

“Compiled from lies, innuendo, and fabrications from foreign nationals, the dossier itself was a vehicle through which current and former agents of the Russian government were able to attempt to undermine Donald Trump’s candidacy. This Commission should immediately investigate and pursue these violations to the full extent of the law.”

 

 

 

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

No trending posts found at this time.