Brookings Institution

A 501(c)(3) non-profit Democratic Think-Tank in Washington, D.C. that was founded in 1916 by Robert Brookings. Currently led by globalist Strobe Talbott, it is funded through donations from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003.

BI defines itself as “a private nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions.” Professing to be without a political agenda, it aims to “provide the highest quality research, policy recommendations, and analysis on the full range of public policy issues … for decision-makers in the U.S. and abroad on the full range of challenges facing an increasingly interdependent world.”

The Brookings Institution is an outgrowth of the Institute for Government Research (IGR), which was founded in 1916 to analyze public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR’s supporters, St. Louis businessman and philanthropist Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school (as part of Washington University) bearing his name. In 1927, the three entities merged to form the Brookings Institution. Its first Board included Mr. Brookings; Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter; Charles W. Eliot, former President of Harvard; Fredric Delano, uncle of future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Herbert Hoover; and Frank Goodnow, who would become the first Chairman of the IGR’s Board of Trustees and President of Johns Hopkins University.

Mr. Brookings officially opposed FDR’s expansion of the welfare state during the Great Depression, and then-Brookings Institution President Harold Moulton concluded that the National Recovery Administration had actually impeded recovery. The Institution assisted in the planning of World War II, providing the government with manpower estimates and price control data; it also offered suggestions on the most efficient way to carry out the rebuilding of Europe after the War.

The Brookings Institution’s capacity to shape government policy increased dramatically in the 1950s, when it received substantial grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.  President Robert Calkins reorganized the Institution into Economic Studies, Government Studies, and Foreign Policy Studies programs, and by the mid-1960s Brookings was conducting nearly 100 research projects per year for the government as well as for private industry, making it the preeminent source of research in the world.

Under the Nixon administration, Brookings’ relationship with the White House deteriorated, largely because many of the Brookings staff were Democrats who identified with the policies of the Great Society, opposed the Vietnam War, and advocated America’s accelerated or unilateral nuclear disarmament. Brookings became part of the Watergate investigation as a result of  Nixon’s decision to authorize a break-in to the Institution’s headquarters in 1971, in connection with the Pentagon Papers leak; He also ordered the FBI to wiretap the telephone of Morton Halperin, a Brookings Fellow.

Brookings tipped back to the political right in the 1970s and 80s, as evidenced by the presence of longtime Republicans like Stephen Hess (one-time speechwriter for President Eisenhower) and Roger Semerad (former Assistant Secretary of Labor under Ronald Reagan) in key positions. Brookings’ then-President, Bruce MacLaury, was Under-Secretary of the Treasury for President Nixon.

Brookings has in recent years shifted back to the political left, particularly in its foreign policy positions. Condemning President Bush’s Iraq policy, in April 2004 Brookings hosted Senator Edward Kennedy in an event aimed at discrediting the Iraq War. As the 2004 Presidential election neared, the Institution’s Fellows endorsed Democratic candidate John Kerry‘s call for a “more sensitively” fought war on terrorism. They have also called for the American government to permit Islamic radicals like Tariq Ramadan to enter the U.S. with work visas.

The research topics addressed by the Brookings Institution include: BusinessCities and SuburbsDefenseEconomics, EducationEnvironment and EnergyGovernancePoliticsScience and Technology, and Social Policy.

The Brookings Institution’s President since 2002 has been Strobe Talbott, who served as President Clinton‘s Deputy Secretary of State. The Board of Trustees features Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry; Zoe Baird, failed Clinton appointee for Attorney General; and Lawrence Summers, former Harvard President and U.S. Treasury Secretary.

Brookings income derives from a wide variety of sources, including seminars run for government and businesses, and a vast array of corporate and government contracts.  In recent years, Brookings has received grants from the Aetna Foundation, the American Express Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Family Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Open Society Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the Verizon Foundation, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Julie Kelly at American Greatness released a report where she addresses the connections between the Brookings Institute, Democrats and foreign entities.  She summarizes her report:

Accepting millions from a state sponsor of terrorism, foisting one of the biggest frauds in history on the American people, and acting as a laundering agent of sorts for Democratic political contributions disguised as policy grants isn’t a good look for such an esteemed institution.

One would be hard-pressed to name a more influential think tank than the Brookings Institution. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit routinely ranks at the top of the list of the best think tanks in the world; Brookings scholars produce a steady flow of reports, symposiums, and news releases that sway the conversation on any number of issues ranging from domestic and economic policy to foreign affairs.

Brookings is home to lots of Beltway power players: Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, former chairmen of the Federal Reserve, are Brookings fellows. Top officials from both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations lend political heft to the organization.

From 2002 until 2017, the organization’s president was Strobe Talbott. He’s a longtime BFF of Bill Clinton; they met in the 1970s at Oxford University and have been tight ever since. Talbott was a top aide to both President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Kelly continued:

Brookings-based fellows working at Lawfare were the media’s go-to legal “experts” to legitimize the concocted crime; the outlet manipulated much of the news coverage on collusion by pumping out primers and guidance on how to report collusion events from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment to his final report.

Now, testimony related to a defamation lawsuit against Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous “dossier” on Donald Trump, has exposed his direct ties to Talbott in 2016 when he was still head of Brookings. Talbott and Steele were in communication before and after the presidential election; Steele wanted Talbott to circulate the dossier to his pals in John Kerry’s State Department, which reportedly is what Talbott did. Steele also briefed top state department officials in October 2016 about his work.

But this isn’t the only connection between the Brookings Institute and the Russia collusion and Ukrainian scandals.  The Gateway Pundit reported that the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) in the Steele report, the main individual who supplied Steele with bogus information in his report was Igor Danchenko.

In November 2019, the star witness for the Democrat Representative Adam Schiff’s impeachment show trial was announced.  Her name was Fiona Hill.

Today we’ve uncovered that Hill is a close associate of the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) for the Steele dossier – Igor Danchenko – the individual behind most all the lies in the Steele dossier.  No wonder Hill saw the Steele dossier before it was released.  Her associate created it.

Both Fiona Hill and Igor Danchenko are connected to the Brookings Institute. They gave a presentation together as Brookings Institute representatives:

Kelly writes about the foreign funding the Brookings Institute partakes:

So who and what have been funding the anti-Trump political operation at Brookings over the past few years? The think tank’s top benefactors are a predictable mix of family foundations, Fortune 100 corporations, and Big Tech billionaires. But one of the biggest contributors to Brookings’ $100 million-plus annual budget is the Embassy of Qatar. According to financial reports, Qatar has donated more than $22 million to the think tank since 2004. In fact, Brookings operates a satellite center in Doha, the capital of Qatar. The wealthy Middle Eastern oil producer spends billions on American institutions such as universities and other think tanks.

Qatar also is a top state sponsor of terrorism, pouring billions into Hamas, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name a few. “The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level,” President Trump said in 2017. “We have to stop the funding of terrorism.”

An email from a Qatari official, obtained by WikiLeaks, said the Brookings Institution was as important to the country as “an aircraft carrier.”

The Brookings Institute was connected to spying by Communist China in a post at the Washington Free Beacon:

The Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington, D.C., think tank, partnered with a Shanghai policy center that the FBI has described as a front for China’s intelligence and spy recruitment operations, according to public records and federal court documents.

The Brookings Doha Center, the think tank’s hub in Qatar, signed a memorandum of understanding with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in January 2018, the institution said. The academy is a policy center funded by the Shanghai municipal government that has raised flags within the FBI.

The partnership raises questions about potential Chinese espionage activities at the think tank, which employs numerous former government officials and nearly two dozen current foreign policy advisers to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

Sources:

Lynch, Loretta

(born 1959) served as the 83rd Attorney General of the US succeeding the corrupt Eric Holder in the Obama administration on Nov 8, 2014. On April 23, 2015, she was confirmed by a 56–43 vote in the United States Senate and sworn in on April 27, 2015. She set Hillary Clinton free during the email scandal after obvious criminal actions a week after Lynch met Bill Clinton on an Arizona tarmac, an environment eliminating a paper trail and to avoid NSA electronic metadata collection, in a botched clandestine meeting before the election. In April 2018 a criminal referral was made for Lynch who threatened an FBI informant that tried to come forward with information on the Uranium One bribery scandal during the 2016 presidential election.

Loretta Lynch was born in 1959 in Greensboro, North Carolina. In 1981 she earned an A.B. from Harvard College, where she was an original member of Delta Sigma Theta, a newly formed African-American sorority chapter; another noteworthy original member was Sharon Malone, who subsequently went on to marry Eric Holder.

After completing her undergraduate studies, Lynch in 1984 earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was a member of the Black Law Student Association. From 1984-90 she was a litigation associate for the New York-based firm of Cahill, Gordon & Reindel.

In 1989 Lynch donated $550 to the New York City mayoral campaign of Democrat David Dinkins, who defeated both the incumbent Ed Koch (in a five-way Democratic primary) and Republican challenger Rudolph Giuliani (in the general election).

In 1990, Lynch began an 11-year stint during which she worked in various capacities for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.

Appointed As U.S. Attorney by President Clinton

In 1999 President Bill Clinton appointed Lynch as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a job she would hold until the end of the Clinton administration in January 2001. Though she was the second African American to be named to that post, Lynch depicted her appointment as historic in a 2000 speech: “I took office last summer, and as I did I am sure that a long line of dead white men rolled over in their graves. But at the same time, I am sure that just a stone’s throw away from here, in the African burial ground, a long line of people for whom the law was an instrument of oppression, sat up and smiled.”

In 2000, Lynch was a member of the trial team in the highly publicized United States v. Volpe civil-rights case against a New York City police officer who had brutalized a black Haitian immigrant named Abner Louima. That same year, Lynch spoke of how black police officers and prosecutors “often face a dual challenge — trying to improve a system that traditionally was one of the harshest to us.”

Also during her years in the U.S. Attorney’s office, Lynch was a frequent instructor in the Justice Department’s Criminal Trial Advocacy Program, and she worked as an adjunct professor at the St. John’s University School of Law during the fall 2000 semester.

Private Practice & The Federal Reserve Bank

In 2002 Lynch began an eight-year stint as a partner with the New York law firm of Hogan & Hartson, where her practice focused on commercial litigation, white-collar criminal defense, and corporate compliance issues. From 2003-05 she served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Big Donor to Democratic Candidates

According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Lynch contributed a total of $10,700 to Democratic political candidates from 2004-08. The Hill newspaper reports: “Of that money, $4,600 went to [Barack] Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Another $1,000 went to the campaign of the late Rep. Major Owens (D-N.Y.), and $2,100 went to his son Chris’s unsuccessful 2006 House campaign. Lynch also contributed $1,000 to the failed 2008 campaign of North Carolina investment banker Jim Neal, and $2,000 to the fruitless 2008 campaign of Oregon politician Steve Novick.

Supporting Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama

In 2008 Lynch initially supported Hillary Clinton‘s presidential campaign. But after Mrs. Clinton was defeated in the Democratic primaries by Barack Obama, Lynch donated a combined $9,200 to Obama For America (later known as Organizing For America and Organizing For Action) and the Obama Victory Fund.

Reappointed As U.S. Attorney by Barack Obama

In May 2010, President Obama appointed Lynch to the same post she had held towards the end of the Clinton administration—U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In that capacity, she was responsible for overseeing all federal and civil investigations and cases in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, as well as Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.

Blaming Banks, Rather Than Government Policies, for the Financial Crisis of 2008

During her four-and-a-half years as U.S. Attorney, Lynch developed a close relationship with Attorney General Eric Holder. In early 2013 she was named chair of Holder’s advisory committee, and she collaborated with the AG in a high-profile Justice Department investigation that ultimately (in July 2014) forced Citigroup to pay a $7 billion fine for having helped trigger the financial crisis of 2008. Specifically, Citigroup was charged with: (a) making mortgage loans that had material defects and a high probability of default, and (b) securitizing and selling pools of these defective loans to investors. Said Lynch: “[A]fter collecting nearly 25 million documents relating to every residential mortgage-backed security issued or underwritten by Citigroup in 2006 and 2007, our teams found that the misconduct in Citigroup’s deals devastated the nation and the world’s economies, touching everyone.” By contrast, Lynch made no mention of the various government policies—most notably the Community Reinvestment Act—which, in the name of social and economic justice, had required banks to knowingly lend money to underqualified borrowers, particularly nonwhite minorities.

Cover-Up of HSBC’s Malfeasance

WorldNetDaily reports that Lynch, in her capacity as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, apparently participated in covering up the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute HSBC Bank for its involvement in a massive money-laundering scheme with Latin American drug cartels and Middle Eastern terrorists. Whistleblower John Cruz, a former HSBC vice president and relationship manager, provided more than 1,000 pages of evidence and secret audio recordings to substantiate the allegations. Lynch, for her part, allowed the bank to enter into a “deferred prosecution” settlement that garnered $1.9 billion in fines and the admission of “willful criminal conduct.” But in exchange, she agreed not to pursue criminal investigations and prosecutions of HSBC directors or employees. For additional details on this matter, click here.

Advisory Board Member of The American Constitution Society

In addition to her work in government and with private law firms, Lynch also served a stint as an advisory board member with the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Nominated for Attorney General by President Obama

On November 8, 2014, President Obama nominated Lynch to succeed Eric Holder, who had recently announced his intent to step down from the post of attorney general.After President Obama formally announced, on November 20, 2014, that he was taking executive action (i.e., without Congressional approval) to prevent the deportation of some 5 million otherwise deportable illegal immigrants, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Lynch about her position on that executive action. He subsequently told reporters that Lynch had been evasive: “I mean, she would say nothing; if I asked her if the sky was blue, I don’t think she would have committed to it in the meeting. I found her responses in the conversation about executive amnesty not just frustrating … but sort of unbelievable.” According to a report in National Review:

“Vitter says that when he asked Lynch directly about her legal assessment of the president’s executive action, she made a vague statement suggesting that Obama was within his legal rights when he exercised prosecutorial discretion to defer or delay the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But when Vitter pressed her about the legality of producing new documents and work permits to satisfy the action, which he says has no basis in law, she clammed up.”

During Lynch’s Senate confirmation hearing on January 28, 2015, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) asked her who she believed has a greater right to work: illegal immigrants, or lawful immigrants and American citizens? “Senator, I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here,” Lynch replied. “And certainly, if someone is here—regardless of status—I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.”

Moments later, the following exchange took place:

Sessions: “[I]f a person comes here [to the U.S.] and is given a lawful right under the president’s executive amnesty to have Social Security and a work authorization card, what if somebody prefers to hire an American citizen first? Would you take action against them? Do you understand this to mean that those who are given executive amnesty are entitled as much as anybody else in America to compete for a job in America?”

Lynch: “Well, I don’t believe that it would give anyone any greater access to the workforce, and certainly an employer would be looking at the issues of citizenship in making those determinations.”

Sessions: “Would you take action against an employer who says, ‘No, I prefer to hire someone that came to the country lawfully rather than someone given executive amnesty by the president’? Would [the] Department of Justice take action against them?”

Lynch: “With respect to the — the provision about temporary deferral, I did not read it as providing a legal amnesty, that is, that permanent status there, but a temporary deferral. With respect to whether or not those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if — if that is the purpose of your question, again, I haven’t studied that legal issue….”

In the same Senate hearing, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Lynch whether she believed that waterboarding was torture. Lynch replied: “Waterboarding is torture, Senator. And thus illegal.”

Lynch Confirmed by the Senate

On April 23, 2015, the U.S. Senate confirmed Lynch in a 56-43 vote. She began her tenure as attorney general on April 28, 2015.

**LYNCH’S VIEWS ON VARIOUS MAJOR ISSUES

Denouncing America’s Racism and Indifference to the Poor

**Shortly after the city of Los Angeles was overrun by deadly riots in response to the April 1992 acquittal of four policemen involved in the infamous beating of Rodney King, Lynch stood before a Baptist church congregation in South Carolina and denounced a “morally lost” society where minorities were routinely abused. “There is a poverty of spirit afflicting America that is crippling it,” she said. “Los Angeles has been burning for a long time, but no one noticed it. New York City is burning right now. Chicago is burning. Atlanta is burning. No one notices until the fire inside builds and strikes an outer match, and the flames rise above the skyline.”

In the same speech, Lynch harshly criticized the United States for the way it addressed the issues of poverty and the first Gulf War. “A society that takes away hundreds of thousands of jobs, and then blames people for not working, is morally lost,” she said. “A society that drops everything to save Kuwait, but barely lifts a finger to help the 13 million American children living in poverty in this country is sending the moral message that those children are not important, that they don’t matter. And if our society tells people that they don’t matter, how can we expect people to act like anything matters?”**

Condemning Racism & Disparate Impact in the Criminal-Justice System**

Lynch has long believed that the American criminal-justice system is rife with racism against nonwhite mnorities.

  • Consider, for example, her reaction to the infamous case where, in March 2006, a black stripper accused three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team of having beaten, raped, and sodomized her during an off-campus party. These charges triggered an instantaneous eruption of outrage among left-wing civil-rights activists. All charges against the defendants were eventually dropped, however, when it became evident that the plaintiff’s allegations were entirely fabricated, and that District Attorney Mike Nifong was not only guilty of serious procedural violations, but also of outright deceit. Yet Lynch refused to condemn Nifong. Instead, “as someone who grew up in Durham,” she lamented the “community divide” that existed between majority-white universities and surrounding black neighborhoods. In matters of criminal justice, Lynch suggested, “I guess where you stand depends on where you sit.” Moreover, she stated that slogans about being “tough on crime” have traditionally meant that “I’m going to be tougher on African Americans.”
  • By the same token, Lynch opposes capital punishment because of its alleged bias against blacks and Hispanics. “Apply the death penalty to securities fraud prosecutions [committed mostly by whites] and [you’ll] wipe out [the racial disparity] just like that,” she said sarcastically during a 2002 roundtable discussion. But when the defendants of certain crimes are mostly poor and minority, she charged, “you don’t have anybody there on the floor of Congress saying, ‘Wait a minute.’” By Lynch’s reckoning, capital punishment would be immoral even if it were applied without any racial bias at all—because of the disparate impact it would continue to have on nonwhites, who commit homicides (i.e., the crimes subject to the death penalty) at much higher rates than whites: “That, to me, has always been the problem with the death penalty. Because you can be as fair as possible in a particular case, but the reality is that the federal death penalty is still going to hit harder on certain groups.”
  • Lynch has participated in a number of Justice Department conferences that subsequently issued reports about the “pervasive” nature of racism in American society. In April 2014, for instance, she took part in a panel discussion titled “Strengthening the Relationship Between Law Enforcement and Communities of Color,” along with such notables as Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, and Bill de Blasio. One of the panel’s action items stated: “Remember that racial bias is pervasive. Research has shown that people who are not consciously mistrustful of African Americans or intentionally racist can still behave in a way that is influenced by racial bias.”
  • In August 2014, Lynch spoke about the need to “eliminate,” from the American criminal-justice system, all forms of “racial discrimination” against “the most vulnerable members of society.” She stated that she and Eric Holder were focused “not just on the prosecution of crime, but on eradicating its root causes as well as providing support for those re-entering society after having paid their debt to it.” Lamenting that the U.S. “currently … imprisons approximately 2.2 million people” who are “disproportionately people of color,” Lynch emphasized the need to “reform … this aspect of our criminal justice system,” which she described as a “drain on both precious resources and human capital.”
  • That same month, Lynch, along with Al Sharpton, participated in a closed-door meeting with the family of Eric Garner, a black New Yorker who had died after a recent altercation with a white police officer. Lynch assured Garner’s family that her U.S. Attorney’s Office was closely monitoring a pending state investigation.
  • In a 2013 speech which she delivered at the Martin Luther King Center in Long Beach, New York, Lynch asked the young people in the audience: “What is it that makes you feel oppressed? Is it the prison of racism?”

Prisoners’ Rights & Alternatives to Incarceration

Lynch contends that “stringent mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug crimes” should be “reserved [only] for the most serious criminals”—on the premise that, “quite often, less prison can also work to reduce crime.” Advocating the implementation of “alternative programs in place of incarceration,” she stresses the need to “provid[e] formerly incarcerated people with fair opportunities to rejoin their communities and become productive, law-abiding citizens”; to “restore voting rights to those who have served their debt to society, thus ending the chain of permanent disenfranchisement that visits many of them”; and to “identify [and eliminate] policies that result in unwarranted disparities within criminal justice.” Vis à vis the latter, Lynch has supported “the expansion of the federal clemency program,” “the retroactive reduction of penalties for non-violent drug offenders,” and “the reduction in the sentencing disparity” between crimes involving crack cocaine (a drug most often used by poor blacks) and powder cocaine (whose users are typically more-affluent whites.

Alleging That Voter ID Laws Are Racist

Lynch believes that voter ID laws are part of a racist effort to suppress minority turnout at the polls. “Fifty years after the civil rights movement,” she said in 2013, “we stand in this country at a time when we see people trying to take back so much of what Dr. [Martin Luther] King fought for…. People try and take over the State House and reverse the goals [gains] that have been made in voting in this country.” In line with this view, Lynch emphasized that she was “proud” of the Justice Department for having filed suit against North Carolina’s voter ID laws that “seek to limit our ability to stand up and exercise our rights as citizens.”

Alleging That School Discipline Policies Are Racist

Lynch has also suggested that school discipline policies, which result in higher rates of suspension and expulsion for nonwhite children than for whites, are—because of their disparate impact—racist. “The dream is still continuing not only in the courts but in our schools,” she told a mostly black audience in 2013. “And we all know, education is the key. And we understand that discipline is important. We understand that rules are important, but we also know that when we sit and look at schools that have these zero-tolerance programs, they are often used, and they take our babies, minority children, black children, Hispanic children, and they put them out of school before they have a chance to learn.” Building on this theme, Lynch praised the Department of Justice for having “gone into the South, although we’re looking further, and brought the first … ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ cases against school districts in Alabama.”

Dissociating Islam from Terrorism

In 2012, when the 66-year-old Shiite imam Kareem Ibrahim was sentenced to life-in-prison for the role he had played in a failed plot to firebomb New York’s JFK Airport five years earlier, Lynch said that Ibrahim had “abandoned the true tenants [sic] of his religion” by participating in the conspiracy.

Lynch’s Position on Civil Forfeiture

Lynch’s position on civil forfeiture—a process by which the government can take and sell people’s property without ever convicting, or even charging, them with a crime—is noteworthy. In January 2015, for instance, Lynch—as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York—signed off on a settlement that returned $447,000 to Bi-County Distributors, a Long Island business targeted for nothing more than a suspicious pattern of bank deposits. The federal government had held that money for almost three years, during which time the owners had never gotten a hearing before a judge, and no criminal charges had been filed. Instead they had received a series of offers from Lynch’s office to return part of the money—until the negative publicity associated with the case threatened to derail Lynch’s nomination for the post of Attorney General. Nonetheless, Lynch characterizes civil forfeiture as a “wonderful tool” that innocent people need not worry about, because: (a) it “is done pursuant to supervision by a court,” and (b) “the protections are there.”

Vows to Prosecute Anti-Muslim Rhetoric That She Deems Dangerous

On December 3, 2015—the day after two Islamic terrorists in San Bernardino, California, had murdered 14 people and wounded 22 others—Lynch addressed the Muslim Advocates‘ 10th anniversary dinner in Washington, DC. Telling the attendees that “we stand with you,” she noted the frequency with which her DOJ had launched “investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred” and “bigoted actions” against Muslims. Also among Lynch’s remarks were the following:

  • “[M]y greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people,… is that [retaliatory anti-Muslim] rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence.”
  • “Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action” – i.e., prosecute them.
  • “I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”
  • “My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is, ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.’”

*
MORE ON LYNCH AS ATTORNEY GENERAL
*

Abandoning the Use of the Words “Felon” and “Convict” When Referring to Former Prisoners

In May 2016, Lynch’s Justice Department announced that its Office of Justice Programs (OJP) would no longer use words such as “felon” or “convict” to refer to released prisoners. Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason, the head of OJP, wrote a guest piece in The Washington Post which said:

“In my role as head of the division of the Justice Department that funds and supports hundreds of reentry programs throughout the country, I have come to believe that we have a responsibility to reduce not only the physical but also the psychological barriers to reintegration. The labels we affix to those who have served time can drain their sense of self-worth and perpetuate a cycle of crime, the very thing reentry programs are designed to prevent.  In an effort to solidify the principles of individual redemption and second chances that our society stands for, I recently issued an agency-wide policy directing our employees to consider how the language we use affects reentry success.

This new policy statement replaces unnecessarily disparaging labels with terms like ‘person who committed a crime’ and ‘individual who was incarcerated,’ decoupling past actions from the person being described and anticipating the contributions we expect them to make when they return. We will be using the new terminology in speeches, solicitations, website content, and social media posts, and I am hopeful that other agencies and organizations will consider doing the same.”

DOJ “Transgender Bathrooms” Lawsuit Against North Carolina

On May 9, 2016, Lynch announced that the DOJ had filed suit against the state of North Carolina over HB 2, which sought to protect citizens from being intruded upon by transgenders, authentic or fraudulent, in public restrooms by dictating that all people should use the bathroom of their biological sex. At a press conference, Lynch said the following:

“Today, I’m joined by [Vanita] Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.  We are here to announce a significant law enforcement action regarding North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, also known as House Bill 2.  The North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 2 in special session on March 23 of this year.  The bill sought to strike down an anti-discrimination provision in a recently-passed Charlotte, North Carolina, ordinance, as well as to require transgender people in public agencies to use the bathrooms consistent with their sex as noted at birth, rather than the bathrooms that fit their gender identity.  The bill was signed into law that same day.  In so doing, the legislature and the governor placed North Carolina in direct opposition to federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.  More to the point, they created state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals, who simply seek to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security – a right taken for granted by most of us.

“Last week, our Civil Rights Division notified state officials that House Bill 2 violates federal civil rights laws.  We asked that they certify by the end of the day today that they would not comply with or implement House Bill 2’s restriction on restroom access.  An extension was requested by North Carolina and was under active consideration.  But instead of replying to our offer or providing a certification, this morning, the state of North Carolina and its governor chose to respond by suing the Department of Justice.  As a result of their decisions, we are now moving forward. Today, we are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state of North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina.  We are seeking a court order declaring House Bill 2’s restroom restriction impermissibly discriminatory, as well as a statewide bar on its enforcement….

“This action is about a great deal more than just bathrooms.  This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to protect them – indeed, to protect all of us.  And it’s about the founding ideals that have led this country – haltingly but inexorably – in the direction of fairness, inclusion and equality for all Americans.

“This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation.  We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation.  We saw it in fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education.  And we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry.  That right, of course, is now recognized as a guarantee embedded in our Constitution, and in the wake of that historic triumph, we have seen bill after bill in state after state taking aim at the LGBT community.  Some of these responses reflect a recognizably human fear of the unknown, and a discomfort with the uncertainty of change.  But this is not a time to act out of fear.  This is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, diversity, compassion and open-mindedness.  What we must not do – what we must never do – is turn on our neighbors, our family members, our fellow Americans, for something they cannot control, and deny what makes them human.  This is why none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not, or invents a problem that doesn’t exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment.

“Let me speak now to the people of the great state, the beautiful state, my state of North Carolina.  You’ve been told that this law protects vulnerable populations from harm – but that just is not the case.  Instead, what this law does is inflict further indignity on a population that has already suffered far more than its fair share.  This law provides no benefit to society – all it does is harm innocent Americans.

“Instead of turning away from our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues, let us instead learn from our history and avoid repeating the mistakes of our past.  Let us reflect on the obvious but often neglected lesson that state-sanctioned discrimination never looks good in hindsight.  It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference.  We have moved beyond those dark days, but not without pain and suffering and an ongoing fight to keep moving forward.  Let us write a different story this time.  Let us not act out of fear and misunderstanding, but out of the values of inclusion, diversity and regard for all that make our country great.

“Let me also speak directly to the transgender community itself.  Some of you have lived freely for decades.  Others of you are still wondering how you can possibly live the lives you were born to lead.  But no matter how isolated or scared you may feel today, the Department of Justice and the entire Obama Administration wants you to know that  we see you; we stand with you; and we will do everything we can to protect you going forward.  Please know that history is on your side.  This country was founded on a promise of equal rights for all, and we have always managed to move closer to that promise, little by little, one day at a time….”

Refusing to Attribute a Jihadist’s Mass Murder to Islam

On June 19, 2016 — a few days after a self-proclaimed Muslim jihadist used an AR-15 rifle to murder 49 people and wound 53 others in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida — Lynch announced that the FBI would soon be releasing a transcript of the 9-1-1 call (lasting 50 seconds) which the gunman made to police during his rampage. “It’s been our goal to get as much information into the public domain as possible,” she told CNN, “so people can understand, as we do, possibly what motivated this killer, what led him to this place, and also provide us with information.” When CNN asked what the transcript would reveal about his motivation, Lynch replied: “He talked about his pledges of allegiance to a terrorist group. He talked about his motivations for why he was claiming at that time he was committing this horrific act. He talked about American policy [vis-a-vis Muslim countries]…”

But ultimately, Lynch on June 20 released only an edited, partial transcript wherein the shooter’s references to his own Islamic terror ties and his grievances about American foreign policy were completely scrubbed. “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch explained. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State]…. The reason why we’re going to limit these transcripts is to avoid re-victimizing those who went through this horror.”

Later on June 20, pressure from Republican leaders caused Lynch and the Justice Department to reverse themselves and release a full, unredacted transcript of the Orlando terrorist’s 9-1-1 phone call. At that point, it became clear that the original FBI transcript had changed the gunman’s use of the word “Allah,” to “God,” and had deleted the words “Islamic State” and the name of ISIS leader “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi”: “I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].” The new transcript read: “I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.” (Notably, the latter version still substituted the word “God” for “Allah”.)

During remarks to Orlando media on June 22, Lynch told members of the LGBT community: “We stand with you to say that the good in this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity transcends our differences, and that our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love …”

Mandatory Bias Training for All DOJ Employees

In June 2016, Lynch announced that all Department of Justiuce employees (than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors) would thenceforth be required to undergo mandatory bias training to eliminate “impact biases” in their law enforcement judgment. “Implicit bias also presents unique challenges to effective law enforcement, because it can alter where investigators and prosecutors look for evidence and how they analyze it without their awareness or ability to compensate,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said in a memo.

*After Gunman at “Black Lives Matter” Rally Murders Five Police Officers, Lynch Urges Activists to “Not Be Discouraged” *

On July 7, 2016, Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists held anti-police-brutality demonstrations in numerous cities across the United States, to protest two recent incidents where white police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana had shot and killed black suspects. At one of those demonstrations — in Dallas, Texas — marchers shouted “Enough is enough!” while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?” Then, suddenly, at just before 9 pm, a black gunman opened fire on the law-enforcement officers who were on duty at that rally. Five officers were killed, and seven additional police were wounded. The following day, Lynch delivered a series of remarks that drew a moral equivalence between the police and the protesters:

  • “The peaceful protest that was planned in Dallas last night was organized in response to the tragic deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota.  We have opened a civil rights investigation in Louisiana and we are providing assistance to local authorities in Minnesota who are leading the investigation there.”
  • “After the events of this week, Americans across the country are feeling a sense of helplessness, of uncertainty and of fear.  These feelings are understandable and they are justified.  But the answer must not be violence.”
  • “Above all, we must remind ourselves that we are all Americans…. Those we have lost this week have come from different neighborhoods and backgrounds – but today, they are mourned by officers and residents, by family and friends – by men and women and children who loved them, who needed them and who will miss them always.  They are mourned by all of us.”
  • “To those who seek to improve our country through peaceful protest and protected speech: I want you to know that your voice is important.  Do not be discouraged by those who use your lawful actions as cover for their heinous violence.  We will continue to safeguard your constitutional rights and to work with you in the difficult mission of building a better nation and a brighter future.”

Lynch Meets with Bill Clinton, Just Prior to Announcing That Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Indicted

On June 27, 2016 — as the Justice Department was preparing to announce whether or not it would indict Hillary Clinton for her reckless use of a private, unsecured email server (in violation of the Espionage Act) throughout her entire four-year term as Secretary of State — Lynch, aboard a plane on a private tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport, had a private 30-minute meeting with former President Bill Clinton. News of the meeting was broken by Christopher Sign, morning anchor at ABC-15 in Phoenix, who had received a tip from a “trusted source” that Clinton and Lynch would be meeting aboard the plane.

When reports of the Clinton-Lynch meeting were subsequently made public, an aide to Mr. Clinton said: “The President’s conversation with the attorney general was unplanned and was entirely social in nature. But recognizing how others could take another view of it, he agrees with the attorney general that he would not do it again.” Hillary Clinton, for her part, told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd: “Obviously, no one wants to see any untoward conclusions drawn, and they said they would not do it again.” And Lynch said: “I certainly wouldn’t do it again because I think it has cast this shadow over what it should not, over what it will not touch. It’s important to make it clear that that meeting with President Clinton does not have a bearing on how this matter will be reviewed and resolved…. It really was a social meeting, and it was, it really was in that regard. He spoke to me, he spoke to my husband for some time on the plane, and then we moved on.”

On July 6, 2016 — nine days after her meeting with Mr. Clinton — Lynch announced that the DOJ would not be indicting Hillary Clinton. Said the Attorney General: “Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

On November 2, 2016, the American Center for Law and Justice sued the Justice Department to obtain more information about the Lynch-Clinton meeting at the Arizona airport.

 

Lynch Refuses to Explain Her Decision Not to Indict Hillary Clinton

After Lynch chose to abide by FBI Director James Comey’s July 5, 2016 recommendation that the Justice Department not indict Hillary Clinton for her felonious email transgressions which had violated the Espionage Act, the attorney general was called to testify about her decision before the House Judiciary Committee. Seventy-four times during her July 12 testimony, Lynch either declined or refused to answer a question. Toward the end of Lynch’s appearance, Congressman David Trott, who headed the proceedings, said: “I knew you weren’t going to answer our questions today and I apologize for wasting so much time here because it’s really not been very productive. It’s one of two things: Either you’re saying that to avoid the appearance of impropriety in which case you should have recused yourself, or you’re trying to protect Hillary Clinton.”

Lynch Refuses to Answer Questions about the Obama Administration’s $1.7 Billion Ransom Payment to Iran

In early October 2016, Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo presented Lynch with a series of questions about how and why the Obama administration had approved and carried out a secret $1.7 billion cash transfer to Iran (in foreign hard currency) nine months earlier — a transfer that coincided with Iran’s release of four American hostages on January 17, prompting many analysts to characterize it as a ransom payment. In an October 24 response to the Rubio/Pompeo letter, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf by refusing to answer the questions. Rubio and Pompeo then sent a follow-up letter to Lynch, stating that her decision to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” was “unacceptable.”

**Lynch Objects to FBI Director Comey’s Announcement That the Investigation into Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server Was Being Reopened

**Lynch objected when FBI Director James Comey publicly announced in late October 2016 that because of the recent discovery of some 650,000 emails on a laptop computer belonging to Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, he was reopening the Bureau’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s illicit use of a private, unsecured email server (in blatant violation of the Espionage Act) during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009-13. Comey’s decision to go public was based on: (a) a July 2016 pledge he had made to inform members of Congress about any significant developments that might subsequently arise in the case, and (b) mounting pressure by angry FBI agents who had felt betrayed when Comey (in July) failed to recommend that Clinton be indicted; indeed, nearly 100 agents were threatening to quit their jobs prior to the upcoming November 2016 presidential election. Lynch, for her part, wanted Comey to keep quiet about the newly uncovered emails until after the election. Said one Justice Department official: “Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership. It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”

Lynch and DOJ Try to Obstruct FBI Investigation of the Clinton Foundation

On October 30, 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported that, for more than a year, the FBI had been investigating the Clinton Foundation for potential financial crimes and influence peddling. “In September,” said the Journal, “agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the [Hillary] Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn” — where Loretta Lynch had been U.S. Attorney from 2010-15, and where she had hired and supervised many of the attorneys who worked in that office. Added the Journal:

“Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information. Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan…. [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe … told them no and added that they couldn’t ‘go prosecutor-shopping.’”

Notably, when McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, had run for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015, her campaign was given $675,000 in cash and in-kind contributions by political committees controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a strong Clinton ally and a former Clinton Foundation board member.

In response to the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote: “When we learn that Clinton Foundation investigators are being denied access to patently relevant evidence by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn,thoseare … Loretta Lynch’s prosecutors [whom] we are talking about.” Further, McCarthy noted that Lynch’s Justice Department had:

  • “refused to authorize use of the grand jury to further the Clinton e-mails investigation, thus depriving the FBI of the power to compel testimony and the production of evidence by subpoena”;
  • “consulted closely with defense attorneys representing subjects of the investigation”;
  • “permitted Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — the subordinates deputized by Mrs. Clinton to sort through her e-mails and destroy thousands of them — to represent Clinton as attorneys, despite the fact that they were subjects of the same investigation and had been granted immunity from prosecution (to say nothing of the ethical and legal prohibitions against such an arrangement)”;
  • “drastically restricted the FBI’s questioning of Mills and other subjects of the investigation”; and
  • “struck the outrageous deals that gave Mills and Samuelson immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the FBI with the laptops on which they reviewed Clinton’s four years of e-mails.”

“That [immunity] arrangement,” McCarthy added, “was outrageous for three reasons: 1) Mills and Samuelson should have been compelled to produce the computers by grand-jury subpoena with no immunity agreement; 2) Lynch’s Justice Department drastically restricted the FBI’s authority to examine the computers; and 3) Lynch’s Justice Department agreed that the FBI would destroy the computers following its very limited examination.”

Lynch Tries to Influence the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton, and to Influence the 2016 Presidential Election

During his televised testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey said that Attorney General Lynch had directed him to refer to the Hillary Clinton email probe as a “matter,” rather than as an “investigation” — language that precisely matched the way in which the Clinton campaign was referring to the investigation. Comey added that Lynch’s request had “confused and concerned” him, and had caused him to make his own, independent announcement about the Clinton case in July 2016. Later in the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Comey clarified that the Clinton matter was a “criminal investigation,” and that the campaign’s use of “euphemisms [like] security review” [to describe the FBI’s work] were “inaccurate” and “gave [him] a queasy feeling.”

Comey subsequently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed-door session and revealed additional information about Lynch’s handling of the Clinton investigation. Circa.com reported on June 13, 2017:

“Comey told lawmakers in the close door session that he raised his concern with the attorney general that she had created a conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac while the investigation was ongoing. During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton. Comey said ‘the attorney general looked at the document, then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,’ said one source who was briefed. Comey ‘took that interaction and the fact she [Lynch] had met with Bill Clinton as enough reason to decide he would not allow the Justice Department to decide the fate of the case and instead would go public’ with his own assessment that the FBI could not prove Mrs. Clinton intended to violate the law when she transmitted classified information through her private email and therefore should not be criminally charged.”

Lynch Calls for Continued Mob Protests Against the Trump Administration

In early March 2017, Lynch made a video plea calling for continued street demonstrations protesting the presidency of Donald Trump. Said Lynch:

“I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it’s a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers. And that it has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled, yes, some of them have died. Yes. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”

Lynch Says Politicians Need to “Hear” the “Pain” of Violent Rioters

In the aftermath of the May 25, 2020 death of George Floyd — a black man who had died after being abused by a white police officer in Minneapolis — a number of U.S. cities were overrun by violent riots. Commenting on the riots, Lynch said:

“I think that what we look for in our leaders and what we hope for in our leaders, particularly our president, is to be heard. We want them to hear us. We want them to hear our pain. We want them to lead the entire country. We want them to look at us, even if our experience is not their experience, we want to see empathy and an ability to connect and an ability to say, ‘Even if I’m not experiencing what you’re experiencing, I do see the pain that this is causing. And we as a country will come together and work to heal.’ That’s what we look to see, and I leave it to people to decide where that message is coming from at this point in time.”

Source: https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/loretta-lynch/

Uranium One

a company created by Canadian entrepreneur Frank Giustra, in conjunction with former president Bill Clinton, in a deal that began in 2005 when Guistra and Clinton decided to corner the uranium market in Kazakhstan and ended up with the Clinton Foundation receiving $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow, with the speaking fee paid by Renaissance Capital, RenCap, a Cyprus-registered corporation controlled by former Russian intelligence officers with close ties to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Among important facts not mentioned in a Jan 12, 2012 DOJ statement are Lambert-Mikerin-Putin connections to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, Robert Mueller, Barack Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and other top Obama administration officials involved in facilitating or covering up the Uranium One treason scandal.

Along the way, Clinton secretly established WJC, LLC, a limited liability company registered in Delaware using his initials as a code easily recognized by Clinton family members to serve as a “shell corporation” through which Giustra (and others) could make under-the-table money-laundered cash and stock payments to Clinton for services rendered, while various Canadian entrepreneurs made millions of dollars in mostly anonymous contributions shuffled to the Clinton Foundation in New York City via Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) in Canada.

The deal with Russia was completed in 2013, thanks to approval by the Obama administration, which had received a crucial “thumbs up” from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS.) The CFIUS is an interagency committee that must approve transactions where a foreign entity might acquire control of a U.S. business or assets impacting national security. Among the nine voting members of the CFIUS at that time were: Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (CFIUS chairman), Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder — and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In an August 26, 2016 article titled “Hillary-Putin Uranium Deal: How Long Will Media Ignore It?” The New American reported that Secretary Clinton and President Obama had ignored repeated warnings from U.S. officials about the Russian scheme to acquire a strategic position within the U.S. uranium market, as well as the broader energy market. “Among the many documents to surface recently,” we reported, “is a State Department cable from October 2009 warning of the intentions of  Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, as it ‘flexes muscles’ with regard to the global uranium market.”

State Department officials in Europe cabled Secretary Clinton, warning that a Russian strategy paper they had obtained showed Kremlin plans to gain “long-term supply of nuclear fuel” so they could, among other objectives, “shut” the U.S. company Westinghouse out of the nuclear market and expand Russia’s influence over Europe. The cable also warned Clinton that the plan detailed in the Russian paper “is consistent with Russia’s efforts to dominate the gas supply market in Europe.”

One named contribution involved Ian Tefler, a longtime associate of Giustra who made a fortune as a gold investor while he also served as chairman of Uranium One, who funneled $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2009, through a Canadian entity he controlled called the Fernwood Foundation.  Tefler made his contribution to a separate entity, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership – Canada, but as was the case with CGSGI, the funds ended up in the Clinton Foundation in New York City.

Then, in October 2010, Secretary Clinton, with the State Department being one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency committee operating out of Treasury, allowed Rosatom to acquire majority control of Uranium One, effectively giving Vladimir Putin control of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium, with Hillary Clinton allowing the State Department as a CIFUS member to vote a second time, in 2013, giving Rosatom permission to acquire all remaining shares of Uranium One, with the result nobody but Putin owned 20 percent of all U.S. uranium.

Throughout this period, 2010 through 2013, Mueller, who served as FBI head from Sept. 4, 2001 to Sept. 4, 2013, did nothing to investigate the complex payments to Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation that give the appearance of a “pay-to-play” arrangement with Frank Giustra that allowed Bill and Hillary to reap millions of dollars, provided Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did her part to push the Uranium One deal with Putin’s Rosatum to a CFIUS approval.

Records show that Frank Giustra ultimately contributed $31 million to the Clinton Foundation and State Department cables released by WikiLeaks that show State Department officials had obtained in the Fall of 2009, an internal Rosatom memo that warned about Moscow’s intentions as it “flexes muscles” in uranium markets.  Despite this warning – a year before the first CIFUS approval – Clinton did not recuse the State Department from the two CIFUS votes that gave Putin control of 20 percent of the uranium mined in the United States.

Hillary sends Mueller to Russia with uranium

The WikiLeaks tweet referenced a cable Secretary of State Clinton sent to the John Beyrle, U.S. Ambassador in Russia, the United States Ambassador to Georgia Embassy Tbilsi, and the Russian Embassy, dated Aug. 17, 2009, indicating FBI Director Mueller was planning to fly to Moscow on Sept. 21, 2009, to deliver on the tarmac a sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) that the cable identified had been confiscated by the U.S. Department of Energy during a 2006 “nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices.”

The key operational language of the cable was contained in paragraph six:

  • (S/Rel Russia) Action request: Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives to Moscow on September 21. Post is requested to convey information in paragraph 5 with regard to chain of custody, and to request details on Russian Federation’s plan for picking up the material. Embassy is also requested to reconfirm the April 16 understanding from the FSB verbally that we will have no problem with the Russian Ministry of Aviation concerning Mueller’s September 21 flight clearance.

On June 19, 2017, Shephard Ambellas, the editor-in-chief of Intellihub.com, noted that the classified State Department cable in question proposed that FBI Director Mueller be the one to personally conduct the transfer of a 10-gram sample of HEU to Russian law enforcement sources during a secret “plane-side” meeting on a “tarmac” in early fall of 2009 was reminiscent of “the infamous Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton meeting which occurred on a Phoenix, Arizona, tarmac, back in June of 2016.”

Exactly why Secretary Clinton decided it was critical to arrange a clandestine transfer of this purloined uranium sample back to Russia, carried by FBI Director Mueller in a secret trip to Moscow has never been made clear. But several WikiLeaks cables show the State Department had been tracking Uranium One dealings with Kazakhstan since 2008, as seen here, here, and here. While Clinton apologists have insisted Mueller’s secret uranium mission to Russia has no connection to Uranium One or Secretary Clinton’s role in the CIFUS votes that allowed Putin to control 20 percent of U.S. uranium, the issue demands detailed investigation, especially since there is abundant evidence Mueller turned a blind eye to numerous highly suspicious, potentially criminal Clinton Foundation financial transactions related to Frank Giustra.

Did Secretary Clinton decide to return to Russia the sample of HEU the U.S. acquired in a 2006 Bush-era sting because the Clintons sought to communicate to Russia an interest in allowing Russia to gain control of one-fifth of all U.S. uranium via Frank Giustra’s Uranium One corporation, through transactions that promised to put hundreds of millions of dollars in the Clintons’ pockets?

In the final analysis, the question a Department of Justice grand jury needs to investigate include both whether the Clinton Foundation financial transactions involving Frank Giustra and Uranium One constituted criminal violations of federal laws regulating charities, and whether Robert Muller, as head of the FBI, acted as a “Clinton Foundation and Uranium One fixer,” equally complicit in the alleged Clinton Foundation crimes.

As Clinton Cash author Peter Schweitzer has noted:

A lot of people don’t realize it now, in parts of the Midwest American soil is owned by Vladimir Putin’s government because this deal went through. And in addition to the $145 million Bill Clinton got half a million dollars, $500,000 for a 20-minute speech from a Russian investment bank tied to the Kremlin, two months before the State Department signed off on this deal. It just stinks to high heaven and I think it requires a major investigation by the federal government.”

Now isn’t that special? Both the Clintons and their donor made out handsomely. Uranium One, which was gradually taken over by the Russians, would later be involved in a curious deal involving Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. As the New York Times reported:

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well…

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

So in exchange for donations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with husband Bill, gave Vladimir Putin’s Russia, a nuclear power, control of 20 percent of the world’s uranium supply. Is that what Hillary Clinton meant by a “Russian reset”? Yet neither Congressional Democrats, who accuse Trump and his son of being too cozy with Moscow, nor their wholly owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, are eager to talk about the Clinton uranium deals with Russia.

Actually, we no longer need an investigation of Hillary Clinton and Uranium One. This FBI investigation in conjunction to what we already knew is prima facie evidence of criminal corruption and intentionally putting of American national security at risk for personal financial gain. If an indictment of Hilary Clinton is not forthcoming, then Jeff Sessions should also be fired.

Writing for The New American in November 2017 (UraniumGate “Secret Witness” Comes Forward; Clinton Says Trump Behind Investigation), C. Mitchell Shaw reported on the then-pending testimony of William Douglas Campbell to Senate and House committees investigating the charges of Clinton-Obama-Putin collusion, as well as allegations of Trump-Putin collusion. Campbell was a confidential source/witness for the FBI for several years, providing thousands of pages of documents, as well as audio and video recordings, which are crucial to the Uranium One investigation and related Clinton-Russia deals.

Incredibly, although he was the crucial source/witness in the case for prosecuting Russian official Vadim Mikerin, Campbell was never interviewed by the Obama/Holder Justice Department, nor called to testify. Campbell was blocked from testifying to House and Senate committees by Loretta Lynch, who became attorney general when Eric Holder resigned in 2015. Clearly, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their Deep State crime cabal cronies and managers want to keep the Uranium One story buried. They know they can count on their “mainstream media” allies help them in this regard, while diverting public attention with contrived Fake News stories, such as the Mueller investigation and the alleged “s***hole countries” remark by President Trump.

It’s not like the establishment press doesn’t know about all of this. In 2015, the New York Times published a pretty detailed report on Uranium One by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, entitled “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.” Five years earlier, in 2010, the Washington Post published an article by Philip P. Pan, entitled “Clinton adviser intervened to help with uranium deal, ex-Kazakh official says,” that lifted the lid (at least a little bit) on the Clinton-Giustra-Russia conspiracy. A smattering of similar articles have appeared over the past decade in the controlled media organs of the Deep State puppet show. Some of them have even been fairly revealing. However, in matters such as this, timing is everything, and the handful of articles that have been scattered over the past few years serve merely as window dressing that the media propagandists can point to and say: “Been there, done that; nothing more to see, move along.”

Thankfully, there remain some gutsy reporters and investigators — notably John Solomon, Sara A. Carter, Peter Schweizer, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Chris Farrell, Lou Dobbs, and Sean Hannity — who have refused to knuckle under and follow the controlled media herd.

Candidate Donald Trump repeatedly pledged that “Crooked Hillary” would go to jail. Although the Uranium One treason scandal is but one of the Clinton crime family’s many Russiagate crimes, and Russiagate is but one of many offenses in the larger Clinton crime wave, it is one of the most visibly important of Hillary Clinton’s transgressions crying out for prosecution.

Hillary and her co-conspirators in the Uranium One conspiracy need to go to jail. For reasons unknown, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has dragged his feet on this issue, and even misled congressional committees by stating that Lambert-Mikerin-TENEX/Rosatom prosecution is not connected to Uranium One, when in fact it is. Perhaps it is because he is listening to his Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the Obama holdover that Trump and Sessions unwisely put in the No. 2 position at DOJ. Like Robert Mueller, whom Rosenstein appointed to be Special Counsel to investigate Trump-Russia “collusion,” Rosenstein has a concentrated interest in keeping the focus on Trump and associates — and away from the Clinton-Obama cabal. A genuine investigation/prosecution of the real “Russiagate” collusion, conspiracy, and treason would put not only Bill and Hillary Clinton (and possibly Chelsea) behind bars, but also Barack Obama, Eric Holder, John and Anthony Podesta, Frank Giustra, Robert Mueller — and Rod Rosenstein.

Source: InfowarsAmericanThinkerTheNewAmerican

Chronological History of Events Involving Uranium One

Huber's Faux Investigation of Hillary Clinton Ends After Claiming ‘Nothing Worth Pursuing’

Huber’s Faux Investigation of Hillary Clinton Ends After Claiming ‘Nothing Worth Pursuing’

An investigation launched into Hillary Clinton in November of 2017 by the DOJ and US Attorney John Huber has ended. Failed Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Huber to investigate Clinton Foundation. The investigation ended without charges. Huber never interviewed any key figures in the two-plus years of his investigation. And key whistleblowers were never interviewed and their evidence was lost during the sham investigation. The House Oversight Subcommittee ...
Read More
Sixteen FBI Agents Raid Home of Clinton Foundation, Uranium One Whistleblower

Sixteen FBI Agents Raid Home of Clinton Foundation, Uranium One Whistleblower

On the morning of November 19th, sixteen FBI agents raided the Maryland home of a DOJ whistleblower who was in possession of Clinton Foundation and Uranium One documents. The whistleblower came across the devastating documents while he was working for an FBI contractor, according to the whistleblower’s lawyer. (Note: This order was likely in the works before Jeff Sessions was fired.) The Daily Caller exclusively reported ...
Read More
FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In "Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy"

FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In “Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy”

Undercover FBI informant William Campbell gave written testimony to Congressional investigators after an "iron clad" gag order was lifted in October Campbell was a highly valued CIA and FBI asset deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI Campbell was required by the Russians, under threat, to launder large sums of money - which allowed the FBI to uncover a massive Russian "nuclear ...
Read More
House Republicans Request Investigation on the Clinton Foundation

House Republicans Request Investigation on the Clinton Foundation

A request to investigate the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation on charges of “public corruption” was made in a letter by 64 House Republicans to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charging the foundation is “lawless.” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen referred congressional charges of corrupt Clinton Foundation “pay-to-play” activities to his tax agency’s exempt operations office for investigation. Political and corporate favors follow ...
Read More
Rancher Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Rancher Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

The incident began when the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon were seized and occupied by an armed group affiliated with a sovereign citizen movement to defend against big government bullying and injustice. The seizure occurred immediately after an earlier peaceful march in protest of the prison sentences for ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammond's were convicted of arson for starting a backfire to prevent a larger lightning ...
Read More

Clinton, Hillary

(born Oct 26, 1947) an American politician, former diplomat, and First Lady of the U.S. from 1993 to 2001. ‘Crooked Hillary‘ (as she was dubbed by Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential election) served as the junior U.S. Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009 and as the 67th U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. In 2008, she sought and lost the Democratic nomination for President to then-Senator Barack Obama. She became the Democratic nominee for President in the 2016 election and managed to lose a rigged election meant for her to win. Born in Chicago and raised in the suburb of Park Ridge, Clinton graduated from Wellesley College in 1969 and earned a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1973. After serving as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas and married Bill Clinton in 1975. From Whitewater to Benghazi to Emailgate, Hillary’s time in national politics (and before) has been spent in constant scandal. Hillary used her powerful political power and positions as a way to funnel money to herself and to powerful friends and has made billions off the American taxpayers in illegal schemes and backroom deals. The media refuses to discuss her dirty deeds while she has escaped legal consequences due to a large legal team, constant intimidation of anyone who speaks out, and a long list of timely ‘suicides’ and murders.

Hillary’s top scandals (22 from a list compiled by WND in 2015):

1) Clintons turn IRS into ‘gestapo’

Few federal agencies are more feared and loathed by Americans than the Internal Revenue Service – especially when corrupt presidents abuse the power of the IRS to harass and exact revenge on political enemies. As WND has reported, during Bill Clinton’s terms in office, IRS audits were conducted against individuals and groups who caused problems for the administration. Several prominent conservative groups found themselves facing IRS audits following their criticism of the president and his policies. Among the conservative groups targeted for audits were the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association, Concerned Women of America, Citizens Against Government Waste, National Review, American Spectator (which was burglarized three times), the National Center for Public Policy Research, the American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, David Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the Western Journalism Center.

Individuals singled out for audits during the administration included Clinton paramours Gennifer Flowers and Liz Ward Gracen, sexual assault accusers Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick, fired White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale and attorney Kent Masterson Brown. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, an outspoken critic of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, said he was audited three times during the Clinton presidency.

A 1996 survey by the Washington Times could not identify a single liberal public policy organization that had been audited during the entire Clinton administration.


2) Covering Bill’s dirty deeds

The Clintons have been accused of hiring private investigators to not only dig up dirt on perceived adversaries – such as Juanita Broaddrick, the woman allegedly raped by Bill, and other abused women such as Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones – but to stalk, scare and threaten them. Willey asserts Hillary was behind a campaign of intimidation and harassment against her that fit a pattern employed against numerous other women whose claims of sexual impropriety or assault by Bill Clinton threatened the couple’s political fortunes.

As WND reported, Willey and her husband, Ed, were Democratic activists who founded Virginians for Clinton and helped send Bill and Hillary to the White House in 1992. While serving as a volunteer in the White House and facing financial hard times, Willey says she met with Bill Clinton in the Oval Office to request a paying position. But instead of getting help, she says, she was subjected to “nothing short of serious sexual harassment.” Distraught, Willey fled Clinton’s presence, only to discover that her husband Ed had committed suicide that same tragic afternoon. Later, she was drawn “unwillingly” into the Paula Jones lawsuit, the Ken Starr investigation and impeachment proceedings.

Willey, author of the 2007 book, “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” has claimed the Clinton tag team used mob-style intimidation campaign to keep her silent, even purportedly breaking into her home to steal her memoirs of the events.

Despite Bill’s 20 years of alleged and admitted extra-marital relationships, Hillary famously came to his defense shortly after the Monica Lewinsky affair broke in 1998. Asked about the accusations, the then-first lady said, “Certainly, I believe they’re false. Absolutely.”

Then, in a memorable interview with the “Today” show’s Matt Lauer, she explained years of accusations by women such as Willey, Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning: “Bill and I have been accused of everything, including murder, by some of the very same people who are behind these allegations,” she said, pointing to a “vast right-wing conspiracy. … So from my perspective this is part of a continuing political campaign against my husband.”

Later, however, when placed under oath, Bill Clinton admitted to an affair with Flowers, as he did with Lewinksy. But Hillary’s actions, Willey contends, indicated by word and deed that her main concern was to ensure her husband’s proclivities didn’t ruin their political careers.

In her book, Willey cites sources who contend Hillary began engaging private investigators during their time in Arkansas so she could head off any repercussions from her husband’s behavior. The first to be dispatched were her own father and brother when she committed to marry Bill, according to author Jerome Levin in “The Clinton Syndrome.” Bill had left Yale University for Arkansas to teach law, and she went to work in Washington, D.C.

When Bill was governor, Hillary sent out a group of investigators known at the “Truth Squad” to discourage many of her husband’s lovers from going public.


3) Looting the White House

When the Clintons left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2001, they reportedly vandalized and looted the White House. Hillary tried to ship furniture to the Clintons’ personal home in Chappaqua, New York. The Clintons came under fire when they reportedly tried to take $190,000 in gifts and furnishings from the presidential mansion. Additionally, the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, reported that ”damage, theft, vandalism and pranks did occur in the White House complex” during the presidential transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush – including the theft of a presidential seal. According to the General Accounting Office, the cost of the White House vandalism reached about $14,000 and included $4,850 to replace computer keyboards with damaged or missing “W” keys. The agency said some of the destruction was intentional, including glue smeared on desks, broken furniture, offices full of trash and graffiti in a men’s restroom stall that disparaged Bush. There were also missing doorknobs, medallions and office signs.During their time in the White House, the Clintons also reportedly auctioned off and sold taxpayer-financed government goods and services in exchange for political campaign contributions and personal profit. Among the items sold by the Clintons, which Judicial Watch uncovered in various lawsuits, and the media and Congress in their investigations, were: 1) seats on overseas trade missions; 2) export licenses for high technology sales to communist China and elsewhere; 3) commissionerships and judgeships; 4) rides on Air Force One; 5) overnight stays in the White House’s Lincoln Bedroom; 6) graves at Arlington Cemetery; 7) meetings with key Clinton-Gore administration leaders; and other favors.

The Clintons’ $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y., where Hillary attempted to send White House furniture and other items as her husband left office in 2001


4) Filegate: FBI files on GOP enemies

The Clinton duo was involved in a scandal known as “Filegate” in which they illegally obtaining FBI files on perceived adversaries, most of whom served in previous Republican administrations.“In an effort to discredit the women who charged President Clinton with sexual misconduct, personal files and papers were illegally obtained and released. The courts found, under the Privacy Act, that the privacy of Linda Tripp and Kathleen Willey had been violated,” a Judicial Watch report said, citing just a few of more than 900 relevant files. Judicial Watch said Hillary had been linked “directly to the center” of the controversy.

The scandal was first detected by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which investigated the Clintons’ Travelgate caper. The committee found that the FBI files had been improperly accessed by Craig Livingstone, a former bar bouncer Hillary had hired to work in the White House Counsel’s Office. However, Hillary called the whole affair a “completely honest bureaucratic snafu.”


5) Hillary’s ‘Muslim Brotherhood princess’

Huma Abedin, who served as Hillary’s longtime deputy chief of staff and has worked with her for nearly 20 years, has known ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – a group bent on “destroying Western civilization from within” – and other Islamic supremacists. As WND has extensively reported, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacist connections not only extend to Abedin’s mother and father, who are both deeply tied to al-Qaida fronts, but to Abedin herself.

As WND reported, a manifesto commissioned by the ruling Saudi Arabian monarchy places the work of an institute that employed Abedin at the forefront of a grand plan to mobilize U.S. Muslim minorities to transform America into a Saudi-style Islamic state, according to Arabic-language researcher Walid Shoebat.

Abedin was an assistant editor for a dozen years for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The institute – founded by her late father and currently directed by her mother – is backed by the Muslim World League, an Islamic organization in the Saudi holy city of Mecca that was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders. The 2002 Saudi manifesto shows that “Muslim Minority Affairs” – the mobilizing of Muslim communities in the U.S. to spread Islam instead of assimilating into the population – is a key strategy in an ongoing effort to establish Islamic rule in America and a global Shariah, or Islamic law, “in our modern times.”

WND reported Abedin also was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation.

At her father’s Saudi-financed Islamic think tank, WND reported, Abedin worked alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is accused of financing al-Qaida fronts. Naseef is deeply connected to the Abedin family.

WND was first to report Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, was the official representative of Naseef’s terror-stained Muslim World League in the 1990s.

Shoebat previously reported that as one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood, the de facto female version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saleha Abedin served alongside Nagla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s now ousted president.

Saleha Abedin and Morsi’s wife both were members of the Sisterhood’s Guidance Bureau, Shoebat found.

WND also recently reported Abedin used emails hosted on Hillary’s private server while she was secretary of state.


6) Vince Foster’s 1993 death

Vince Foster was deputy White House counsel and Hillary’s friend and law partner who had connections to the Travelgate and Whitewater scandals. In 1993, Foster was found dead in a park with a fatal gunshot wound to his mouth. As WND reported, his suicide was the subject of much speculation and three official investigations.

Investigations by the U.S. Park Police, the Department of Justice, the FBI, Congress, Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr concluded Foster’s death was a suicide. However, as WND reported in 2003, one of Starr’s key investigators challenged the official line, insisting the probe’s result was predetermined, only a few plotters were required to engineer the result, the crime scene was altered and that major newspaper editors killed stories by reporters pursuing the truth. The Washington Post reported that federal investigators were not allowed to enter Foster’s office after his death, but “White House aides enter[ed] Foster’s office shortly after his death, giving rise to speculation that files were removed from his office.”

In his 2005 book “The Truth about Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, And How Far She’ll Go to Become President,” Edward Klein wrote of Hillary’s involvement in the effort to remove Foster’s files:

The night of [Foster’s] death, Hillary launched one of the most shameful – and illegal – cover-ups of her entire career.

She sent two of her most trusted White House loyalists – Maggie Williams, the First Lady’s chief of staff, and Patsy Thomasson, who was in charge of White House administration – into Foster’s office to retrieve embarrassing and incriminating documents related to Whitewater and Hillary’s other personal affairs. While White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum barred investigators from entering Foster’s office, Maggie Williams, Patsy Thomasson, and Craig Livingston, Hillary’s director of White House security, removed armloads of files and loose-leaf binders.

“In addition, a White House staffer allegedly tampered with the titles of several memos and removed the First Lady’s initials in an effort to erase her role in improper behavior.”


7) Emailgate: ‘She should go to prison for this’

In March 2015, WND reported Hillary kept all her official correspondence as secretary of state, as well as her personal emails, on a private email server located at her home – instead of using the government-mandated process while serving in the high appointed position. Her email system was unsecured for months while she used it for government business, and she did not sign a standard agreement when she left office that promised she had left government property behind.The Hill reported Hillary did not encrypt her private email service with a digital certificate for the first three months of her tenure as secretary of state.” That was while she was traveling to China, Egypt, Israel, Japan and South Korea.

Several present and former members of the U.S. intelligence community said Hillary’s private email server was a major security risk, and America, going forward, ought to assume enemies of the state all had access to it.

“The name Clinton right on the email handle meant this was not a difficult find,” said John Schindler, a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer, Investors Business Daily reported.

In April, J. Michael Waller – a longtime consultant to government entities ranging from the secretary of defense to the U.S. Senate to the U.S. Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory – told WND the Russians hack into the U.S. government, and so does any foreign intelligence worth its salt, most likely through Hillary’s private server. Waller said Hillary deserves prison time for insisting on an email system that clearly left the nation vulnerable to attack.

“This is the national-security equivalent of drunken driving,” he said. “She should go to prison for this. When you drink and drive, you know in advance that you’re putting other people in danger. Yet, you think because you’re so smart or so clever or just don’t care, that nothing’s going to happen and then something does, so it’s your fault. This is precisely what she did on the national security sphere.”

Hillary gave 55,000 emails from her private email account to the State Department in December. On March 10, Clinton announced she had deleted 30,000 emails she considered personal. She was warned by Congress way back in 2012 against using a private email account for government business – and her response? Silence.


8) Chinagate: Sale of high-tech secrets

Chinagate, documented by Judicial Watch, was uncovered by Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman. Technology companies allegedly made donations of millions of dollars to various Democratic Party entities, including President Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign, in return for permission to sell high-tech secrets to China. B

ernard Schwartz and his Loral Space & Communication Ltd. later allegedly “helped China to identify the cause of [a rocket failure], thereby advancing China’s missile program and threatening U.S. national security,” according to records.

In a 2013 column titled “Proof Hillary isn’t fit to be president,” Klayman wrote:

Not to be outdone by her prior scandals, Hillary … masterminded a scheme whereby the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign of 1996 took bribes from communist Chinese banks and their government to bankroll the president’s and the Democratic Party’s re-election efforts when it appeared, due to their low standing in the polls, that all the stops needed to be pulled out. It was the lawsuit that I brought against Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, where at Hillary’s instruction, he literally sold seats on Department trade missions to China and elsewhere, which principally uncovered this. In late 1996 and early 1997, the scandal had burgeoned to such a level that joint congressional hearings were empaneled, ultimately to be shut down when Democrats uncovered illegal fundraising by some Republicans. The two parties, faced with mutual assured destruction, simply took an exit stage left. However, I soldiered on with my lawsuit. And, while I uncovered a lot about Bonnie and Clyde and their Chinese ‘friends,’ this scandal ultimately took back seat to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, since the media preferred sex to foreign espionage and graft. Hillary and Bill were ironically saved by Monica, who became the lightening rod drawing attention away to what at the time was perhaps the biggest scandal – Chinagate – in American history.


9) Travelgate: Always room for friends

In the Travelgate scandal, the staff of the White House travel office was fired to make way for Clinton cronies, including Bill’s 25-year-old cousin, who was reportedly promised the position of office director.

Hillary allegedly fired seven employees and gave the positions to her Arkansas friends. According to the Washington Post, there was an effort to award a White House airline contract to a Clinton friend.

Also, Hillary reportedly had the FBI investigate the former head of the travel office, Billy Dale, who was fired without notice and removed from White House grounds. Dale was charged with embezzlement but found not guilty of the crime in 1995. He was later audited by the IRS.


10) Whitewater: Jail for friends, but not Clintons

The Whitewater investigation by independent counsel Kenneth Starr began in 1994 with accusations of impropriety against the Clintons and others concerning improper campaign contributions, political and financial favors, and tax benefits. Its initial subject was a failed Arkansas real-estate venture involving the Clintons in the 1980s that was linked to the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, a Little Rock savings bank run by the Clintons’ Whitewater business partners. Clinton friends James and Susan McDougal went to jail for fraud (James died while serving his sentence), as did former Arkansas Gov. Jim Tucker and municipal judges David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh.

The probe eventually expanded to include the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster, the dismissal of White House travel office employees, receipt by the White House of a number of FBI files and the issue of whether President Clinton lied or obstructed justice to hide an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Continued on next page…

Clinton Body Count

Call it conspiracy theory, coincidence or just bad luck, but any time someone is in a position to bring down Bill or Hillary Clinton – they wind up dead. In fact, there’s a long history of Clinton-related body counts, with scores of people dying under mysterious circumstances. While Vince Foster remains the most infamous, the body count continues to add to its numbers. It’s quite a long list, full of suicides, car accidents, plane crashes or explosions, people dying of gun shot wounds and people dying from falling out of high apartment buildings.  Since the overwhelming majority were officially ruled as suicide, the Clinton’s enjoy plausible deniability, which the elite regularly use as a legal shield behind which to hide their horrendous crimes.

Google, a deep state creation, altered its search algorithm during the 2016 election in order to prevent searches for “Clinton body count” from auto-completing, despite the term auto-completing when typed in on virtually any other search engine. The list below is not a complete list, as some lists are over 100, but there are a few dozen in this list! During the 2020 election cycle, Michael Bloomberg was considering Hillary Clinton  as his running mate. Dick Morris, a political advisor for Bill Clinton going back to his bid for Governor of Arkansas and as well as helping with both of Clinton presidential runs in the 90’s, tweeted To: Mike Bloomberg: Before you put Hillary on your ticket, better hire a taster.” Good advice! But good luck finding someone stupid enough to take the taster job even if Bloomberg is dumb enough to make Hillary his running mate.

Chronological History of Events Related to the Clinton Body Count

DHS Whistleblower against Obama Administration, Philip Haney, Found Dead – Shot and Killed

DHS Whistleblower against Obama Administration, Philip Haney, Found Dead – Shot and Killed

DHS whistleblower Philip Haney was found shot dead near his vehicle in California. Haney died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot, according to a statement issued Saturday afternoon by the Office the Sheriff-Coroner for Amador County, California that cautioned the investigation was “active and ongoing”. Haney had been missing for two days. “My friend Phil Haney was found shot yesterday in CA. I had lunch with him a ...
Read More
Elite Sex Trafficker Jeffery Epstein 'Suicided' While in Prison Awaiting Trial

Elite Sex Trafficker Jeffery Epstein ‘Suicided’ While in Prison Awaiting Trial

On August 9, 2019 more documents were unsealed with victim statements alleging they were forced to have sex with Bill Clinton, former Clinton United Nations Ambassador Bill Richardson, and Democrat Majority Leader George Mitchell among others of the global elite.[59] 24 hours later, Epstein was dead at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan while in the U.S. Marshall Service custody. CBS News reported "shouting and shrieking" coming from Epstein's ...
Read More
FBI Agent Investigating the Clinton Foundation Commits Suicide in Austin Night Club. Witnesses Told to "Keep Quiet"

FBI Agent Investigating the Clinton Foundation Commits Suicide in Austin Night Club. Witnesses Told to “Keep Quiet”

A report claims that witnesses to the bizarre dance floor suicide of an FBI agent in an Austin nightclub were told to “keep quiet” about the incident. Salvatore “Sal” Cincinelli, a former Wall Street broker, was one of the Bureau’s top financial crimes supervisors and also allegedly probed the finances of the Clinton Foundation. Cincinelli, 41, was found with at least one gunshot wound inside the ...
Read More
NYPD Chief “Commits Suicide” 1 Month Before Retiring; Was Directly Involved in Anthony Weiner Laptop Computer Evidence Handling

NYPD Chief “Commits Suicide” 1 Month Before Retiring; Was Directly Involved in Anthony Weiner Laptop Computer Evidence Handling

A high-ranking New York City Police Department officer has died from an allegedly self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Deputy Chief Steven Silks was found in an unmarked patrol car wearing civilian clothes Wednesday evening, just one month before he would turn 63 and face mandatory retirement. He allegedly shot himself in the head, with the gun reportedly discovered beside him. He was very closely and heavily involved in ...
Read More
Former Clinton And Obama Advisor Alan Krueger Found Dead Of Apparent Suicide Ahead Of New Book Release

Former Clinton And Obama Advisor Alan Krueger Found Dead Of Apparent Suicide Ahead Of New Book Release

Princeton police reported that they were called to the professor’s home on March 23rd where they found him unresponsive, The New York Times reported. One of the interesting things about the 'suicide' is that Krueger had a book set to hit the shelves in June, 2019 and seemed to have everything to live for. Two people probably not stunned by this news, Bill and Hillary Clinton ...
Read More