Connect with us

News

JUST IN: Federal Judge Orders Release Of Hillary’s Found Deleted Emails

Things are about to get really interesting

Published

on

Things are about to get really interesting in the Clinton household.

As it turns out fired FBI director James Comey had Hillary Clinton’s backup email device the entire 2016 election cycle but never bothered to searched it. But today thanks to the work of citizen researcher Larry Kawa, the determination of Congressman Ron DeSantis, and the lawyers of Tom Fitton’s Judicial Watch, a court ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss ordered the State Department to hand over the contents of the backup device by September 2018. That’s right before the coveted midterm elections where Democrats believe they will be able to win back the house and senate from the Republicans.

This finding apparently came about when the company Hillary Clinton’s used to store her emails, Platte River Networks, subcontracted to a company in Connecticut called Datto. Datto backed up the vast majority of Clinton’s deleted emails, text messages, and other electronic communications and handed six disks containing information to the FBI in October 2015. One of those disks contains at least a great many of her 30 thousand missing emails.

Comey turned the disks over to the State Department, which has been compelled to search them and release the contents.

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

Attorneys for Judicial Watch stated:

“The documents are part of the accelerated schedule of production ordered by U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg, which requires the State Department to complete processing by September 28, 2018, the remaining documents of the 72,000 pages recovered by the FBI in its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit email server. These new classified and other emails appear to be among those that Clinton had attempted to delete or had otherwise failed to disclose.”

So it looks like the mystery of the deleted Clinton emails has now been solved thanks to a company which was contracted by a third party to back up information. Let’s hope the information can all be read within the time between September and November so people can have the true facts about what went on in those emails that Hillary so didn’t want us to see. Somehow I very much doubt it has anything to do with Yoga or Chelsea’s multi-million dollar wedding.

Here is what only 22 of those emails revealed via GOPUSA:

“Digging up the Dems’ buried scandal?

The letter written by several House Republicans to Attorney General Jeff Sessions – and to FBI Directory Christopher Wray and U.S. Attorney John Huber – by several House Republicans asks him to open an investigation into Comey, Clinton and other DOJ officials involved in the Russia probe … accusing them of a coordinated bias.

”We write to refer [Comey, Clinton and DOJ members] for investigation of potential violation(s) of federal statutes … [and] are especially mindful of the dissimilar degrees of zealousness that has marked the investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, respectively,” the letter signed by 11 GOP lawmakers on Wednesday reads. “Because we believe that those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately.”

Besides seeking to get to the bottom of Clinton’s alleged criminal behavior, the letter is also looking to open the door on the current controversy revolving around Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who many believe Trump is poised to fire.

“The accusations of political bias toward President Donald Trump are related to events that contributed to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 US election,” the Business Insider reported. “Comey, whom Trump fired last May, was accused of mishandling the investigation in Clinton’s private email server and for leaking classified information of private discussions he had with Trump.”

The letter first mentions how Comey prematurely walked away from investigating Clinton – with criminal evidence stacked against her.

“Incredibly, [Comey’s] judgment [that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a criminal case against Clinton] appears to have been made prior to interviewing Secretary Clinton and as many as 17 key witnesses – including Clinton’s closest aides,” the letter continues. “Comey’s decision to not seek charges against Clinton’s misconduct suggests improper investigative conduct, potentially motivated by a political agenda.”

The letter requesting the probe comes just a day after Comey’s new Trump-bashing book hit bookstores across the nation.

“Comey specifically said in public testimony that he did not coordinate with the DOJ for his July 2016 public recommendation not to pursue charges against Clinton,” Fox News’ Catherine Herridge reported. “Meadows, however, pointed to a series of messages he claims indicate potential coordination at several ‘crucial moments of the investigation’ – including the July statement and the period in February. While the FBI is part of the Justice Department and communication between the two agencies is inevitable, Meadows’ letter also suggests some at the FBI were concerned about the perception it was not acting independently in a politically explosive case.”

Justice put on hold for political purposes?

In one of the recently uncovered messages, former Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr communicated to FBI Head of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap that the State Department was getting ready to punish the people who had misplaced the sensitive messages.

“The Department of State is prepared to take appropriate administrative action for any instances of mishandling of classified information in accordance with our own internal processes,” Starr wrote in a message dated Feb. 8, 2016, according to Fox News.

Yet justice would be put on hold … possibly indefinitely.

“However, the official added that the department did not want to hinder the ongoing FBI investigation and – if instructed – would postpone the ‘administrative action’ over the emails until after the bureau’s case had concluded,” Herridge noted.

The following revealing note written on Feb. 13 – just five days later – by an unidentified senior DOJ official addressed to FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI criminal division official Jonathan Moffa, the FBI Office of General Counsel and members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia was also discovered.

“Wanted to make sure that DOJ is kept in the loop as response is drafted,” the unnamed official in the DOJ’s National Security Division impressed in the note, according to Fox. “We have discussed a bit more here at CES [the DOJ’s counterintelligence and export control section] and have some additional thoughts on the best response on the admin action question. Can we make sure we discuss as a group as response is put together?”

It should be noted that the head of CES, David Laufman, left the DOJ earlier this year in February because of “personal reasons,” and essentially nothing has been done to look into the new possibly incriminating evidence.

“The State Department took no immediate administrative action over the 22 ‘Top Secret’ emails on Clinton’s email server,” Herridge pointed out. “Many of those involved in the matter had left the department by the time the FBI investigation closed in July 2016.”

After being buried while former President Barack Obama remained in office, efforts are being made under the Trump administration to get to the bottom of things concerning Clinton’s email scandal.

“Meadows has gotten support for his inquiry from House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.,” Herridge informed. “On Wednesday, Gowdy asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz to review allegations of coordination between the FBI and the Justice Department in the Clinton investigation.”

Caught in the web?

A number of key Democrats and others serving under the Obama administration could find themselves in serious trouble in the courtroom in the near future.

“Along with Comey and Clinton, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, and FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were named in the letter,” the Business Insider’s Pat Ralph and Sonam Sheth pointed out.

From attempted cover-ups to intentionally misleading investigations, many Clinton sympathizers and alleged anti-Trump conspirators could be facing serious consequences in the upcoming months.

“Lynch was accused of threatening reprisal of an FBI informant who attempted to present the Justice Department with information on the Uranium One deal in 2016,” Ralph and Sheth recounted. “Along with Comey, McCabe, Yates, and Boente were all accused of presenting false information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in connection with approving surveillance of former Trump aide Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).”

And things can get even worse for a number of them.

“McCabe and Yates, both of whom were fired, approved a FISA warrant on Page, [not to mention that] McCabe was also accused of political bias and lack of candor in his handling of the Clinton investigation,” Ralph and Sheth stressed. “Strzok and Page were also accused of interfering in the Clinton investigation.”

H/T Great American Politics

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.