Government Corruption

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner texted with Russian oligarch lobbyist in effort to contact dossier author Christopher Steele

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, according to text messages obtained exclusively by Fox News. “We have so much to discuss u need to be careful but we can help our country,” Warner texted the lobbyist, Adam Waldman, on March 22, 2017. “I’m in,” Waldman, whose firm has ties to Hillary Clinton, texted back to Warner. Steele famously put together the anti-Trump dossier of unverified information that was used by FBI and Justice Department officials in October 2016 to get a warrant to conduct surveillance of former Trump adviser Carter Page. Despite the efforts, Steele has not agreed to an interview with the committee. Secrecy seemed very important to Warner as the conversation with Waldman heated up March 29, when the lobbyist revealed that Steele wanted a bipartisan letter from Warner and the committee’s chairman, North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr, inviting him to talk to the Senate intelligence panel. Throughout the text exchanges, Warner seemed particularly intent on connecting directly with Steele without anyone else on the Senate Intelligence Committee being in the loop — at least initially. In one text to the lobbyist, Warner wrote that he would “rather not have a paper trail” of his messages. An aide to Warner confirmed to Fox News that the text messages are authentic. The messages, which were obtained from a Republican source, are all marked “CONFIDENTIAL” and are not classified. They were turned over to the Senate panel by Waldman last September. Waldman, who did not return calls seeking comments, runs the Endeavor Group in Washington. Waldman is best known for signing a $40,000 monthly retainer in 2009 and 2010 to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of controversial Russian billionaire Oleg V. Deripaska. Deripraska had his visa revoked by the State Department in 2006 because of charges, which he has denied, that he has organized crime ties.

With each new day, the whole Russia collusion narrative being pushed by the Dems, and the dominantly liberal mainstream media, continues to unravel.  And, ironically, the tables have turned.  We’re finding out that the whole thing was a sham and driven by the DNC, Hillary, and Dems like Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) who really have been “colluding” with Russians all along to undermine our democratic processes and the last election.  For more on this developing story, click on the text above.

Obama-era Russian Uranium One deal: What to know

As federal investigators continue to look into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors are also probing an Obama-era sale of a uranium mining company. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year directed federal prosecutors to look into the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company – a transaction that President Trump has called the “real Russia story.” The Hill reported that Russian officials engaged in a “racketeering scheme” to further its energy goals in the U.S. And an FBI informant recently told congressional committees that Russia paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in an effort to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make sure the deal was successful. In 2013, Rosatom, backed by the Russian state, acquired a Canadian uranium mining company, now called Uranium One, which has assets in the U.S. Uranium is a key material for making nuclear weapons. Through the deal, Russia is able to own about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. However, Colin Chilcoat, an energy affairs specialist who has written extensively about Russia’s energy deals, said that the company only extracts about 11 percent of uranium in the U.S. The deal also “doesn’t allow for that uranium to be exported at all,” Chilcoat told Fox News. “It’s not like it’s leaving the U.S. or somehow finding its way to more insidious players.” The agreement was approved by nine government agencies with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency group that reviews how certain foreign investments can impact national security. The State Department under Clinton was one of those agencies, though Clinton told WMUR-TV in 2015 that she was not “personally involved” in the agreement. Some investors reportedly donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton also received a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia and reportedly met with Vladimir Putin around the time of the deal, Republicans, who are largely critical of the deal, have said. The FBI had looked into the agreement and uncovered that some Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in nefarious dealings, which included extortion, bribery and kickbacks, The Hill reported. Evidence of wrongdoing by Vadim Mikerin, the Russian official overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion in the U.S. who was eventually sentenced to prison, was discovered by the FBI before the deal was approved, according to The Hill. Author Peter Schweizer – who wrote about the deal in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash” – told Fox News that there is no evidence that the people involved with approving the agreement knew that the FBI had an ongoing investigation into it. But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News “if anyone colluded for a foreign government in [the 2016] election, it was the Clinton campaign [and] the Democrats.” Douglas Campbell, the FBI informant, alleged that Moscow paid millions of dollars to a lobbying firm to help Bill Clinton’s charities in order to influence Hillary Clinton, who was then former President Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Campbell made the claims in a 10-page statement given to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative.” “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months,” Campbell said in the statement. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.” APCO Worldwide is a global public affairs consulting agency.

Pres. Trump is correct in saying that THIS is the “real Russia story.”  To read the rest of this outstanding analysis, click on the text above.

Opinion: Trump is right — He and his campaign were victims of a political attack by the Justice Department and FBI

Whatever the media and Democratic detractors say, the memo released by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee Friday that revealed how the FBI and Justice Departments abused their powers to spy on the Trump presidential campaign is breathtaking. This kind of thing should not happen in America. Average Americans have not heard the last of this. They were betrayed. In sum, President Trump was right. As he said in tweet Saturday morning: “This memo totally vindicates ‘Trump’ in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on.” It turns out the much-maligned chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is one of the most daring whistleblowers in modern American history. Nunes was right to be distressed at what he discovered. All Americans should be. Why Democrats on the Intelligence Committee do not share this distress is beyond understanding, except because of shortsighted maneuvering for political advantage. The memo by Republicans on the committee summarizes raw intelligence confirming that formerly steady and professional staff of the Justice Department and FBI were motivated to act against candidate Trump by personal antipathy toward him, media-stoked fear of him, and perhaps personal loyalties to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. As a result, they traded their integrity for betrayal of democratic principles and our Constitution. Ironically, I have interacted with some of these professionals during the past two decades, and never perceived them as political. But something overcame them, grabbed them and turned them into something else during the 2016 election campaign. They devolved into political animals. The four-page memo confirms that Justice Department and FBI leadership were directly and personally intertwined with a company hired by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee to conduct opposition research on Trump. The research produced a series of false allegations tying Trump and his campaign to Russia. The allegations were compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and have collectively become known as the Steele dossier. Though unsubstantiated, Steele’s allegations were hard to counter, because it is always hard to prove a negative. Steele was clearly politically motivated. As the Republican memo released Friday states: “Steele admitted to (Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce) Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’” Steele’s false claims were attached to a sworn affidavit, presented as “fact” to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which then authorized unprecedented electronic surveillance – that is, overt and invasive open-ended spying on a private citizen, Carter Page – ostensibly due to his ties to the Trump campaign. The sweater was unraveled by that thread; through one false assertion, others could be made, and a narrative could be pushed to the media with vigor. An anti-Trump cabal grew within Justice Department and FBI, animated by the cry to save America from itself by preventing Donald Trump from being elected president. Perhaps the innumerable “unmasking” events tie also to this. The power of the federal government is enormous, can smash a private citizen and could crush most political campaigns. Amazingly, Trump and the American preference for him survived. That is remarkable and sobering. Like the Sept.11, 2001 terrorist attacks and even more than the Watergate scandal, Friday’s revelations should shake us. They change our assessment of the ostensibly non-political Justice Department and FBI, giving us pause. We are living in a time when senior Justice Department and FBI officials felt justified, for political reasons, to deceive the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and all Americans. The court grants surveillance warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes surveillance of individuals believed to be agents of foreign powers. The House Intelligence Committee memo shows that federal officials appear to have violated the public trust and their oaths of office, subverting laws for political outcomes. This should never happen.

Agreed!!  This excellent analysis was written by former Assistant Secretary of State, litigator, and naval intelligence officer Robert Charles.  For more, click on the text above.

Hillary Clinton backer paid $500G to fund women accusing Trump of sexual misconduct before Election Day, report says

One of Hillary Clinton’s wealthy pals paid $500,000 in an unsuccessful effort to fund women willing to accuse President Trump of sexual misconduct before the 2016 election, The New York Times reported Sunday. Susie Tompkins Buell, the founder of Esprit Clothing and a major Clinton campaign donor for many years, gave the money to celebrity lawyer Lisa Bloom who was working with a number of Trump accusers at the time, according to the paper’s bombshell report. Bloom solicited donors by saying she was working with women who might “find the courage to speak out” against Trump if the donors would provide funds for security, relocation and possibly a “safe house,” the paper reported. Former Clinton nemesis turned Clinton operative David Brock also donated $200,000 to the effort through a nonprofit group he founded, the paper reported in an article entitled, “Partisans, Wielding Money, Begin Seeking to Exploit Harassment Claims.” Bloom told the Times that the effort was unproductive. One woman requested $2 million then decided not to come forward. Nor did any other women. Bloom said she refunded most of the cash, keeping only some funds for out-of-pocket expenses accrued while working to vet and prepare cases. The lawyer told the paper she did not communicate with Clinton or her campaign “on any of this.” She also maintained that she represented only clients whose stories she had corroborated and disputed the premise that she offered money to coax clients to come forward, the paper reported. “It doesn’t cost anything to publicly air allegations,” Bloom said. “Security and relocation are expensive and were sorely needed in a case of this magnitude, in a country filled with so much anger, hate and violence.” The Times article said it learned of Buell and Brock’s connection to Bloom from two Democrats familiar with the financial arrangements who also said Bloom’s law firm kept the money from Brock’s nonprofit group but refunded the $500,000 that Buell contributed. Brock declined comment, according to the paper. Clinton campaign representatives said they were unaware of his work with Bloom. Buell would not comment on the financial arrangement, according to the Times. Still, she claimed she was frustrated that Trump had escaped the repercussions that have befallen many other powerful men accused of similar misconduct. The Times article expanded on a report in The Hill two weeks ago that said Bloom worked with campaign donors and tabloid media outlets during the final months of the presidential election to arrange compensation for the alleged Trump victims and a commission for herself, offering to sell their stories. In one case Bloom reportedly arranged for a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempted to score a six-figure payout for another woman. The woman with the mortgage ultimately declined to come forward after being offiered $750,000, The Hill reported. The paper reported reviewing one email exchange between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were solicited, without naming which ones. Bloom, who is the daughter of famous attorney Gloria Allred and, like her mother, specializes in representing women in sexual harassment cases, worked for four women who were considering accusing Trump. Two went public, and two declined.

Wow..  This is a HUGE story!  It completely destroys the credibility of Lisa Bloom and all of the women she offered money to share their alleged harassment by President Trump in the weeks leading up to the election.  More fake news ginned up by the dominantly liberal mainstream media (i.e. MSNBC, CNN, etc.), and now even the “failing” liberal NY Times had to eat crow and put out this story.

Pelosi, other Democrats pocket campaign cash from owners of sex-trafficking website

After California’s then-Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced felony pimping charges last year against the two owners of — a classified-ad website that is a hub for sex trafficking and prostitution, one of the men cut a $10,000 check to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s super PAC. Mrs. Pelosi’s political action committee, House Majority PAC, has resisted giving the money back, and an aide to Mrs. Pelosi said the California Democrat knows nothing about the contribution. The uproar over sexual harassment that began with the Harvey Weinstein scandal has intensified the scrutiny of political contributions linked to Backpage, which law enforcement officials say is the chief platform for activities far worse than harassment, including sexual slavery and child prostitution. Mrs. Pelosi isn’t the only Democrat struggling to deal with the piles of cash that Backpage’s owners spread around to candidates and state Democratic parties over the years. Even Ms. Harris, a California Democrat who is now a U.S. senator, ducked the issue. Her office wouldn’t respond to repeated emails about Backpage money going to House Majority PAC and other Democratic organizations. Since 2010, the owners and their wives have shoveled about $99,000 to candidates and about $95,000 to Democratic parties in Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, according to federal campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. Bowing to mounting pressure, including a bipartisan Senate investigation that found the owners knowingly sold ads to pimps who coerced minors into prostitution, Backpage in January closed down its adult services sections. The websites, however, continue to be marketplaces for the sex trade. Detroit police last week arrested two men who were using Backpage to run a sex trafficking ring after an underage girl told police she was brought to the city and put to work as a prostitute, with “dates” arranged on the website. In June, a Chicago man was arrested after using Backpage to sell a 16-year-old girl who was eventually killed by a client. Such stories of prostitution and sex trafficking linked to Backpage are relatively commonplace across the country. The founders and controlling shareholders of Backpage, Michael Lacey and James Larkin, and Backpage executives and shareholders John Brunst and Scott Spear, have made fortunes from the websites. In California alone, Backpage rakes in about $2.5 million per month, according to charging documents in the Golden State. Mr. Larkin made the contribution to the House Majority PAC in October 2016, a week after he and Mr. Lacey were charged in California. A judge, citing federal law that shields internet sites from most liability, dropped the pimping charge in August. Related money laundering charges are proceeding against the men. Legislation spearheaded by Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, would tighten federal law to hold accountable websites such as Backpage that host thinly disguised ads for commercial sex and child prostitution. The bill is expected to easily pass the Senate early next year. There is still the question of what to do about the Backpage money.

Wow..  More Democrat corruption..  To read the rest of this article, click on the text above..

Gregg Jarrett: Mueller’s allegedly lawless acts have corrupted his probe and demand his removal

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is accused of acting in complete disregard for the law and must be removed. And so, too, must his entire team. There is devastating new evidence to suggest that Mueller and his staff of lawyers improperly, if not illegally, obtained tens of thousands of private documents belonging to President-elect Trump’s Presidential Transition Team (PTT). The material includes emails, laptops and cell phones used by 13 PTT members. Critically, a “significant volume of privileged material” was taken by Mueller, according to the Trump transition lawyer, and then used by the special counsel team in its investigation. Mueller’s staff apparently admits this egregious violation, which the law strictly forbids. Under the law, the only remedy is Mueller’s dismissal from the case. The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential. On November 16, 2016, roughly ten days after Trump was elected president, the Chief Records Officer of the U.S. Government sent a letter to all federal agencies reminding them that “the materials that PTT members create or receive are not Federal or Presidential records, but are considered private materials.” Yet Mueller seems to have ignored the law. Without a warrant or subpoena, his team of lawyers brazenly demanded these private records from the General Services Administration (GSA) which held custody of the materials. The GSA does this as a service to all incoming presidents out of courtesy, but it neither owns the documents nor is authorized to release them to anyone under any circumstances because they are deemed entirely private. Counsel for the Trump Transition Team has sent a letter to Congress alleging the Fourth Amendment was violated in “failing to obtain a warrant for the search or seizure of private property in which the owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 489).” Mueller might contest the claim of an unlawful seizure because the GSA willingly handed over the documents, but this disregards the fact that the GSA broke the law and Mueller surely knew it when he pressured the agency to do so. The most serious charge against Mueller is that he obtained, reviewed and used material that is privileged. For months, Mueller allegedly failed to disclose to the transition team that he acquired these privileged documents. Under the law, he and his lawyers are not entitled to possess or read any of them. Even worse, the transition team says it warned the special counsel six months ago that it had no right to access the records without gaining permission from the PTT. Courts have clearly stated what prosecutors are supposed to do under these circumstances: “An attorney who receives privileged documents has an ethical duty to cease review of the documents, notify the privilege holder, and return the documents.” (U.S. v. Taylor 764 Fed Sup 2nd, 230, 235) Did Mueller do this? Apparently not. He never notified PTT when his staff of lawyers encountered the privileged documents and he compounded his violation of the law by possessing and accessing them for months. Only the owner of such materials can waive the privilege that protects them. Since the GSA does not, under the law, own the records, only the transition team can make such a waiver. It did not. Hence, if any illegally obtained documents have been used in the Trump-Russia case, then the results are tainted and invalid. This is a well-established principle of law. The use by Mueller of even one privileged document can, and must, result in his disqualification from the case. The case of Finn v. Schiller, 72 F.3rd 1182, 1189 spells out the required remedy for this violation of the law: “Courts have frequently used their supervisory authority to disqualify prosecutors for obtaining materials protected by the attorney-client privilege.” Statutory law also demands Mueller’s removal. Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.501, government employees, including prosecutors, are directed to “take appropriate steps to avoid an appearance of loss of impartiality in the performance of his or her official duties.” The lawyer for the Trump transition team states that the special counsel’s office admitted in a telephone conversation on Friday that it failed to use an “ethical wall” or “taint team” to segregate any privileged records. This is often done to keep them isolated from lawyers and investigators involved in the case. Yet, Mueller did not adopt such precautionary measures. Instead, he apparently allowed his team to utilize the documents while questioning witnesses in the Trump-Russia case. If true, Mueller’s conduct is not only unethical and improper, it constitutes lawlessness. On this basis, he must be removed and replaced. Given the insular nature of the special counsel operation, it is reasonable to conclude that all the lawyers and investigators likely accessed the privileged documents. Therefore, not just Mueller, but his entire team must be dismissed. This would include Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who oversees the case. Either Congress should take aggressive action or the Presidential Transition Team (now Trump for America, Inc.) must petition a federal judge to order their removal. The integrity of the special counsel probe has been deeply compromised by numerous allegations of corrupt acts. In its current composition, it seems beyond repair.

Agreed!!  And well said, Gregg.  Gregg Jarrett is a former defense attorney, and current legal analyst at Fox News and Fox Business Network.  Excellent analysis!!

Taxpayers paid $220G to settle suit alleging sexual harassment by Democratic rep, report says

The Treasury Department paid $220,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a former congressional staffer alleging sexual harassment by Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., it was reported Friday. According to Roll Call, which cited documents related to the case, Winsome Packer alleged that Hastings touched her inappropriately and made unwanted sexual advances. On one occasion, Packer said Hastings asked her what kind of underwear she was wearing. The former Republican Hill staffer alleged that the harassment occurred while she worked for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), also known as the Helsinki Commission. The commission, which helps shape U.S. policy in Europe, includes nine members of the House and nine members of the Senate. Hastings, 81, is one of the commission’s ranking members. In a statement, Hastings said had not seen the settlement agreement between Packer and the CSCE until the Roll Call report came out. “At no time was I consulted, nor did I know until after the fact that such a settlement was made,” Hastings said. “I am outraged that any taxpayer dollars were needlessly paid to Ms. Packer.” Roll Call reported that Packer sued Hastings and the CSCE in 2011 under a federal statute that allows individuals to seek damages from federal officials for civil rights violations. Hastings’ name was dropped from the lawsuit the following year after he argued that the statute did not apply to members of Congress. The House Ethics Committee conducted a separate investigation into Hastings, which it closed in December 2014. The committee concluded that Hastings “did admit to certain conduct that was less than professional,” but the most serious charges against him “were not supported by evidence.” The claim against Hastings came to light on the same day that Rep. Trent Franks, Ariz., announced he would resign from Congress with immediate effect. Franks’ resignation followed a claim by a former aide that the congressman repeatedly asked her to carry his child, at one point offering her $5 million to do so.

More Democrat corruption..  But, worse, this time we, the taxpayers, are stuck with the bill to cover it up.