Connect with us

News

REPORT EXPOSES High-Ranking Obama DOJ Official’s Forcing Shut Down Of FBI’s Clinton Investigation

Who put him up to this?

Published

on

The Inspector General’s report revealed just how deep Andrew McCabe’s corruption went. The IG report revealed that McCabe tried to actively use his position with the FBI to influence an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation during a time with Hillary Clinton was actively running as the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Can you say conflict of interest boys and girls?

The focus of this portion details a phone call from a high ranking Justice Department official James Wedick who received a phone call from McCabe.  Wedick believed McCabe was trying to shut down the probe into the Clinton Foundation due to perceived political pandering towards the Clintons and was exceedingly angry as a result, understandably so. Wedick believed that McCabe was unjustly trying to influence a presidential election, stating that in 35 years with the Bureau he had never fielded such a call about ANY of his cases, suggesting this was interference.

Wedick stated – “It is bizarre – and that word can’t be used enough – to have the Justice Department call the FBI’s deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption investigation. They can have some input, but they shouldn’t be operationally in control like it appears they were from this call.”

Although the inspector general report did not identify the official, sources at both former FBI and Justice Department officials identified him as Matthew Axelrod, who was the principal associate deputy attorney general — the title the IG report did use.

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

As it was, McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.

He told the Inspector General during August 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign.

“According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ‘are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’” the report said. “McCabe told us that the conversation was ‘very dramatic’ and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level department official in his entire FBI career.”

A FOOTNOTE TO THE REPORT:

In a footnote to the report, the inspector general says the Justice official agreed with the description of the call but objected to seeing that “the Bureau was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was totally unfair.”

Both the Federal Register and Justice Department documents at the time identified Axelrod as the principal associate deputy attorney general. His LinkedIn page says he held that position from February 2015 through January 2017.

As the election approached, questions surrounded McCabe’s objectivity with regards to the Clinton probe. His wife, running for a state Senate seat in Virginia in 2015, had accepted a nearly $700,000 donation from an organization linked to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. A long-time confidant, McAuliffe chaired Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign.

McCabe eventually recused himself from the Clinton investigation just three weeks before election day. “You run the risk of more publicity by going to the field,” Hosko said. “If I am that agent and I’ve been told to shut down something I’ve been working on, I’m screaming bloody murder.”

Axelrod quit the Justice Department on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, was fired by President Trump for refusing to defend his travel ban executive order.

He is now a lawyer in the Washington, D.C., office of British law firm Linklaters.

Who put this guy up to his attempt to shut down an investigation within the FBI? Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates or someone even higher up?

And in true slimeball fashion, McCabe through spoke woman Melissa Schwartz is now attempting to “rebut” the most egregious inaccuracies” in the Justice Department inspector general’s report claiming the basis of his firing is not what it seems. I guess facts are not actually “facts” either…

The report found McCabe “lacked candor” on four separate occasions, including three times while under oath, in connection with the Wall Street Journal leak. The leak that McCabe himself made while blaming it on another member of his team and then telling that same person to “get his house in order.”

Melissa Schwartz, the spokeswoman for McCabe, noted the release of the report was “fascinating” and shared on Twitter a two-page “fact” sheet pushing back on some of the IG report’s findings.

“4 weeks to the day after his termination, the Office of the Inspector General report that was the basis for the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew #McCabe is finally public,” she said, while sharing on Twitter a two-page “fact” sheet pushing back on some of the IG report’s findings, or as Schwartz called them, “egregious inaccuracies.”

“Andrew McCabe’s interaction with the WSJ – which by FBI rule and practice he was fully authorized to do – was not done in secret: it took place over the course of several days and others knew of it, including Director Comey,” she said in a separate tweet.

Facts Matter by Danny Chaitin on Scribd

According to the Washington Examiner

“The genesis of the report swirls around the leak of sensitive information to the Wall Street Journal that pushed back against an October 2016 report about large donations McCabe’s wife received from Democrats during her bid for the Virginia State Senate.

The IG finally determined that as deputy director, McCabe was authorized to make the disclosures if they fell within the “public interest exception, since the Justice Department and FBI prohibit “such a disclosure of an ongoing investigation.”

“However, we concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the [Clinton Foundation] Investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior Department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception. We therefore concluded that McCabe’s disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in this manner violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct,” the IG report said.

Schwartz works for the Bromwich Group, whose founder and managing principal is Michael Bromwich, a former DOJ IG in the 1990s.

He released a lengthy statement Friday condemning a “rush to judgment” that led to McCabe’s firing 26 hours before he was set to retire with a full pension.

“In the full context of this case, the termination of Mr. McCabe was completely unjustified. And the rush to fire him, at the goading of the President, was unworthy of the great traditions of the Department of Justice,” Bromwich said.

Bromwich also indicated legal action could be imminent.

“We have for some time been actively considering filing civil lawsuits against the President and senior members of the Administration that would allege wrongful termination, defamation, Constitutional violations and more. The distinguished Boies Schiller law firm has recently joined us in this project. This is just the beginning,” Bromwich wrote in a statement.

After he was fired, a legal defense fund was set up for McCabe. Earlier this month the GoFundMe campaign was taken down after it raised more than $530,000, far exceeding its original and updated goals.”

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.