Connect with us

News

Well, Well, Well, The Trump Admin Leaker Has Just Been Caught – Now He’s Going To Pay!

See ya, buddy!

Published

on

James Wolfe is the former director of security for the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSIC). He was just indicted for lying about his contacts with the media, specifically Ali Watkins of BuzzFeed and New York Times infamy. All told, Wolfe allegedly had contact with four reporters around the time they wrote about former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Those reporters are possibly known as: Reporter #1 Manu Raju at CNN, Reporter #2 Ali Watkins at the NYT, Reporter #3 Marianna Sotomayor at NBC and Reporter #4 Brian Ross at ABC. While the jury is still out on Page having contact with the Russians since they tried to flip him as a spy, President Trump had nothing to do with any of that. But these reporters sure tried to paint it as collusion. It wasn’t.

Wolfe, who is 57, is now charged with lying to the FBI. That happened during an interview on Dec. 15, 2017 when he was asked if he knew these journalists and if he had contact with them on certain dates. In the case of Ali Watkins, he denied knowing her and having a romantic relationship with her for four years. Later he would admit to that and thus the ‘lying’ charge. He also gave information on Carter Page to Ali Watkins, who ran with it. Since then, the FBI has seized the cellphones and emails of the reporters under investigation.

Wolfe’s indictment cites a particular message he wrote to Watkins in December. She used to work for the New York Times and now works for BuzzFeed, the media outlet that was the first to break the Russian dossier story. “I always tried to give you as much information that I could and to do the right thing with it so you could get that scoop before anyone else,” Wolfe wrote to Watkins. They were an item from December 2013 to December 2017.

What isn’t clear is why Wolfe focused on leaking about Carter Page. It is probably because he was the closest thing they had to a connection to Trump over Russia. It turned out it was a weak connection at best and did not lead to collusion with Russia at all. It was a political hit job against Trump. Wolfe was arrested on Thursday. Carter Page did not publicly comment on all of this because he is currently traveling. However, he did blast all of this on Twitter, saying: “Too bad misleading [SSIC] leaks brought more terror threats.” That doesn’t clear Page by any means, but there has been no solid proof that he is connected to the Russians other than through investments either.

Trending: Elected Democrat Official Who Viciously Attacked Veteran Just Learned Her Fate

From The Daily Caller:

“Wolfe has worked for both Democrats and Republicans in his 29-year career. As the director of security for the committee, he was tasked with handling documents and contacting committee witnesses. That put him in frequent contact with Page, who was subpoenaed by the SSIC panel in October.”

“Wolfe handled court documents that ended up being cited in an April 3, 2017 BuzzFeed article written by Watkins that identified Page as “Male-1” in court filings in a Russian spy ring case, according to the indictment. The Senate panel received the documents from an executive branch agency on March 17, 2017, the indictment stated.”

“That same day, Wolfe exchanged 82 text messages with Watkins on the day the committee received the Page documents. The pair had 124 electronic communications the day the BuzzFeed article was published.”

“The Department of Justice (DOJ) seized Watkins’ email and phone records as part of an investigation into the Wolfe leaks. She has not been accused of wrongdoing in the case and has denied receiving classified information from Wolfe.”

I doubt that will last on Watkins’ part. She will eventually be charged. Wolfe got caught in the process crime of lying, so he went down first. But I don’t believe for a second she didn’t get any classified information from Wolfe. That just stretches the imagination too far when he was sleeping with her and giving her tons of info. Watkins’ article marked a crucial development in the coverage of Page, who surged to notoriety in January 2017 when BuzzFeed published the unverified Steele dossier. The 35-page document accuses Page of being the Trump campaign’s conduit to the Kremlin. Page has vehemently denied the allegation and BuzzFeed has not produced any evidence supporting it. I may not trust Page, but there is no way Trump and his campaign had any connection to the Kremlin. That’s why they can’t prove it.

Watkins’ article was the one that outed Russian agents who were reaching out to Page in 2013 in the alleged recruitment attempt I mentioned previously. The FBI queried Page very closely on his ties with a Russian intelligence operative named Victor Podobnyy. But they evidently didn’t find much as they never charged Page. Podobnyy was charged alongside two other Russian nationals with acting as an unregistered foreign agent of Russia. Page met Podobnyy at an energy conference in January 2013 and later provided him with academic papers he wrote about the energy business. Page has denied any impropriety and was not accused of any wrongdoing, but his association with the case has fanned the narrative that he was in contact with Kremlin operatives.

On October 24th, Wolfe messaged a reporter, who is identified as female, that Page would testify in a closed hearing “this week.” Page got wind of it and emailed the committee to complain about leaks from the SSIC panel. After the article about Page’s subpoena was published, Wolfe messaged the reporter who wrote that story, saying “I’m glad you got the scoop.” “Thank you,” the reporter wrote. “[Page] isn’t pleased, but wouldn’t deny that the subpoena was served.”

Wolfe’s indictment also hints that he doled out information to other reporters as I also stated previously. Wolfe was asked whether he knew a reporter who wrote an article about Page during his Dec. 15, 2017 FBI interview. Wolfe initially denied having contact with the reporter, but the FBI discovered he talked to the journalist at least five times between December 2015 and June 2017. That’s where perjury comes into play here. The article was written by three reporters and is not identified in the indictment.

James Wolfe Indictment – June 2018 by Chuck Ross on Scribd

Watkins and the media are furious that her emails and cellphone have been seized by the DOJ and claim that it violates her First Amendment rights. “Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy, and communications between journalists and their sources demand protection,” said The NYT spokeswoman Eileen Murphy.

Ben Smith, the editor at BuzzFeed, also defended Watkins’ reporting on Carter Page’s “Male-1” revelation. “I am baffled that the FBI and Justice Department are going to these dangerous lengths over a story that points to public court documents that describe Russian spies approaching a Trump adviser, who himself is quoted confirming his role in the episode,” Smith told The Daily Caller News Foundation. However, what they don’t tell you is that Page was allegedly also working for the FBI to expose these Russian spies. Smith declined to comment on Watkins’ sourcing “in the middle of an unjustifiable leak hunt.” He did not address whether it was proper for Watkins to have a relationship with a Senate staffer on a committee she was covering as well. Watkins told BuzzFeed about her relationship with Wolfe, according to The NYT.

This is a national security issue on multiple fronts and the feds see that as superseding First Amendment rights in this case. That is something that the courts are going to have to decide and it may indeed go all the way to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that the price Wolfe will pay is a prison sentence over this. The FBI and the DOJ may make an example of Wolfe, but there are a lot more leakers out there to be caught.

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.