Thursday, 9 November 2017
Tuesday, 7 November 2017
NO SMOKING GUN? THE JFK FILES ARE ON FIRE!
By Roger Stone and Saint John Hunt
On Thursday, October 26th I urged the President to release the balance of the classified documents regarding the assassination of Pres. John F Kennedy, after a phone conversation with my friend, colleague and sometimes co-author Saint John Hunt. Only days later the president would make the courageous decision to release this vital material.
Mainstream media is downplaying the importance of the newly released JFK files. Does that surprise you? USA TODAY, MSN.COM, FOX NEWS, U.K. TELEGRAPH and NBC NEWS are among the many mainstream news organizations to headline their report on the files, stating that there is “no smoking gun” in the newly released JFK files. How quickly they drew their conclusions only after hours of the release. We have read through hundreds of the files, both the October and the November files and I can tell you that this is a monumental effort to properly access the information in these files. Some of the more damning files are as follows:
The Soviet Union had proof that LBJ was behind Kennedy’s assassination.
Soviet spies believed that President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the death of the John F. Kennedy, according to an FBI document.
Sources told the American agency that officials in the USSR “believed there was some well-organized conspiracy on the part of the ‘ultra right’” that led to the 1963 assassination, with later claims that there was evidence to show the vice president’s involvement. The claim was part of a memo on the Soviet reaction to Kennedy’s death forwarded from then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to Johnson’s assistant Marvin Watson in 1966 and now published as part of the newly unveiled JFK archive. “Our sources added that in instructions from Moscow, it was indicated that ‘now’ the KGB was in possession of data purporting to indicate President Johnson was responsible for the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy,” one part of the document reads, citing intelligence from 1965.
Another related memo in the files tells that less than a year after President Kennedy was assassinated, a Soviet diplomat was quoted as saying that he believed a “person as nervous as” Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t capable of the attack. The remark from Soviet Consul Pavel Yatskov in Mexico City appears in the latest batch of JFK files released Friday. “I met Oswald here. He stormed into my office and wanted me to introduce and recommend him to the Cubans,” Yatskov said, according to the July 1964 memo from then-CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms. “He told me that he had lived in the USSR. I told him that I would have had to check before I could recommend him. “He was nervous and his hands trembled, and he stormed out of my office. I don’t believe that a person as nervous as Oswald, whose hands trembled could have accurately fired a rifle.”
Helms was at the time in charge of conducting the investigation of Oswald’s activities overseas. The source of the Yatskov statement was described as a “confidential contact of this Agency in Mexico City who is believed to be reliable.”
LBJ and the KKK
In an internal FBI report from May 1964, an informant told the FBI that the Ku Klux Klan said it “had documented proof that President Johnson was formerly a member of the Klan in Texas during the early days of his political career.” “ Ned Touchstone, editor of “The Councilor”, has been identified by a confidential informant (NO 1223-R) as a member of the Original Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The source advised in December 1963, that Touchstone claimed that the Klan had documented proof that President Johnson was formerly a member of the Klan in Texas during the early days of his political career.” This may not have direct bearing on JFK’s death but it serves to show what a scumbag Johnson was.
CIA lied about relationship with Oswald
When Dick Helms (CIA boss) was questioned about Oswald this is what was said:
- BELIN: Is there any information involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was in some way a CIA agent or an agent… “Agent of the FBI or any other Government agency?” Here is how Helms responds: “my recollection is not all that precise. I believe that Mr. Hoover testified that he had not been an agent of theirs either. He was certainly not an agent of the CIA. He was certainly never used by the CIA.”
Helms was lying about Oswald’s relationship with the CIA and the FBI. In a confidential memo from John McCone (Director of CIA) to James Rowley (Chief of the Secret Service) dated March 3, 1964 McCone writes: “In response to the request made by your office on 24 Feb 1964 re: Lee Oswald’s activities and assignments on behalf of this agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation, there follows a narrative summary of the internal subversive activities of the Oswald subject.”
“I recommend that unless the Commission makes a specific request for specific information contained herein, that this information not be volunteered.”
“Oswald subject was trained by this agency (CIA), under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence, for Soviet assignments. During preliminary training in 1957, subject was active in aerial reconnaissance of Mainland China and maintained a security clearance up to ‘confidential’ level.”
“Subject received additional indoctrination at our Camp Peary site from Sept. 6, to October 17, 1958, and participated in a few relatively minor assignments until arrangements were made for his entry into the Soviet Union on Sept. 1959. While in the Soviet Union, he was on special assignment in the area of Minsk.” This little-known memo answers the question of Oswald’s CIA and FBI connections. According to the once-classified CIA files on Oswald, they show that the CIA had opened a file on Oswald in 1959. The file was held by the agency’s Office of Security in December 1959, shortly after Oswald moved to the Soviet Union. This file was controlled by Betty Egerter, an aide to counterintelligence chief Angleton, who worked in an office called the Special Investigations Group. All information about Oswald received by the State Department, FBI and Office of Naval Intelligence was funneled to the SIG. Only a year later, on Dec. 9, 1960, did Egerter open a “201 file” on Oswald. A ‘201’ file is a personality assessment file.
Yet mainstream media such as the UK Telegraph, report that “Lee Harvey Oswald had no links to CIA.” As proof, the UK Telegraph reported that a 1975 CIA memo shows that the agency scoured its own records to see if Oswald was connected with it in “any conceivable way.” Stating that “an exhaustive search found no links whatsoever with the CIA or any other US government agency.” The AP via boston.com also stated Government documents newly released Friday regarding John F. Kennedy’s assassination say allegations that Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the CIA were “totally unfounded.”
Referring to Nicholas Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general at the time, Hoover dictated: “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.” Katzenbach is known from previously released documents to have shared Hoover’s concern, writing in a memo the next day, on Nov. 25, 1963, that “the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.”
E Howard Hunt’s secret diary
The missing handwritten “diary” of E Howard Hunt is buried in the October release of the JFK files. This is only, I believe, a portion of his infamous diary, and not the entire writing. As one might recall that during the first few months when the Watergate scandal was barely making headlines, there was a dramatic and dangerous campaign by Hunt and his wife Dorothy to blackmail President Nixon into paying money to Hunt for his silence. In Nixon’s own words captured in oval office recordings to his inner circle, he stresses that “Hunt knows too much.” How much did Hunt know and what did he know? Nixon placed a minimum value on Hunt’s threats to go public at over one million dollars. That may not sound like very much by today’s standards but by today’s standards, the 1972 million is now, in 2017, half a billion dollars. To be exact, it’s $585.61 million.
So what did Hunt have on Nixon? Well in the 9-page “diary” Hunt chronicles the Nixon approved, and at that time unknown CIA and Mafia plan to assassinate, among others, Fidel Castro. Back in 1972, this was political dynamite and would have caused Nixon his place in the upcoming November presidential election. Much of the “diary” is hard to read but I have worked out a great deal of what Hunt chronicled. Money was paid to Hunt but in Dec. 1972 as Dorothy Hunt was on her way to Chicago to hold a press conference with CBS anchor Michelle Clark, the plane, United 553, crashed into a residential area near Midway Airport killing Dorothy Hunt. Mrs. Hunt was carrying copies of the “diary”. Officials placed the blame for the crash on “pilot error.” On closer examination of events, it’s clear that the crash was deliberate. The day after the crash Nixon appointed White House aide Egil Krogh (Hunt’s boss in the secret “plumbers” team) Undersecretary of Transportation, supervising the NTSB and FAA investigations into the crash. One week later Nixon appointed his Deputy Assistant Alexander Butterfield head of the FAA. Five weeks after that Dwight Chapin, Nixon’s appointment secretary became a top executive at United Airlines. In the days following the crash Hunt pled guilty to charges stemming from Watergate and the blackmail threats stopped.
FILES NOT YET RELEASED
Oswald’s complete 201 file. This contains hundreds of pages on Oswald from the CIA, ONI, FBI and other agencies. See Oswald 201 File (201-289248) – Mary Ferrell Foundation
Files on George Johanides, James Angleton, and David Morales are some of the most important ones. Many more files are still not available, and one can only hope that President Trump will push for their release in the days to come. Stay tuned for more “non-smoking gun” files as we continue our investigation.
Un-redact the rest
This is the final cash of documents that are scheduled for release under the 1992 JFK documents Act passed by the Congress. President Trump should now order the National Archives to go back and review all of the documents previously released using the same standard he ordered in the release of these confidential files; material that can be redacted or withheld must regard people still living.
Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/jfk-files-j-edgar-hoover-said-public-must-believe-lee-n814881
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/soviet-diplomat-oswald-nervous-kill-jfk-cia-files-article-1.3609719
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/soviets-thought-lbj-behind-kennedy-assassination-document-article-1.3592501
from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/no-smoking-gun-the-jfk-files-are-on-fire/
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
Censored Beyond Words
By Roger Stone
How Twitter Transformed Itself from a Frivolous Online Message Board into the Leading Digital Innovator of 21st Century Techno-Fascism, Turbocharging Censorship from the Mere Deletion of Words Into Erasing Human Beings Entirely
“The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.” Samuel Adams, October 14, 1771
I always liked Twitter. It was lively, snarky and always challenging to get your bon mot into 140 characters. My feed was not for the faint-hearted. It was pungent, pugnacious and sometimes risqué. Not as over the top of the hordes on twitter who have threatened to kill me, my wife, my kids and my dogs but then Twitter doesn’t seem to care about banning them. The imbecile Keith Olbermann drops the F-bomb on President Trump daily but Twitter looks the other way. Twitter, it seems, holds me to a different standard.
Only by the grace of the Lord God Almighty that Twitter’s murky star chamber of sneaky, faceless censors, and the craven, disingenuous corporate autocrats behind it, were not around when the likes of Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and many more brave rebels chose to publicly revolt against constant royal subjugation.
Given how boldly those men defied convention and correctness, rejecting sanitized platitudes in favor of incendiary, seditious, do-or-die rhetoric, it is a safe bet they would have been quickly and summarily silenced, suspended in secret by Twitter’s selective political minders and disappeared without a trace, had they found themselves at the mercy of the Twitter content police.
Harsh, insulting, profane, indelicate, over-the-top and even outright nasty public rhetoric in the heat of partisan combat is an inherent and arguably-healthy feature of a centuries-old American political tradition.
In other words, Americans engage with our political opponents, no matter how ugly it might get. We have traditionally eschewed any resort to disingenuous offence-taking or phoney outrage or any other species of whining victimhood as a proxy for cheap point-scoring or advantage-taking over opponents.
What Americans do not do is try to censor or silence our opponents, or our opponents merely for not agreeing with our own ideology or for not conforming with some arbitrary restriction someone might try to put on our rhetoric to pre-empt full-throated engagement of any opponent.
No segment of the American political spectrum has been better acquainted with, and more prolific in, the use of mockery, profanity, contempt and, yes, hatred as means to go after opponents than the American political left.
One need not look past the instant stream of non-stop hatred, abuse and defamation that has been spewed about me, and to me, in the reply comments of nearly every Tweet I ever posted in the last two years, to see how true this is.
It is also true, and certainly curious, that none of this endless torrent of hatred and invective towards me has ever resulted in any action by Twitter against of the cyber-lynch mobsters that viciously assault me on a daily basis. It would seem that if one is a good little leftist and attacks the right people (or wrong people, as the case may) then no assault is too nasty to overlook.
Totalitarian Corporate Thought Police
It is perplexing, to say the least, how it is that Twitter treats certain public figures on their platform as though they are delicate snowflakes in need of Twitter’s special vigilante protection from big bad meanies like me.
Yet, I am treated by Twitter like a human punching bag with a target painted on it, with open season for any sort of attack to be launched against me, no matter how repugnant or hate-filled it is on the face of it, without need to stretch one’s imagination to suss a “micro-aggression.”
If Twitter’s passive inaction towards hatred spewed my way by its fellow traveler members on the screeching nasty left is any indication of its “standards” for policing offensive words toward public figures like myself, then it is absolutely within the realm of acceptability to take salty pot shots at nationally-known network “news” personalities who not only choose to be public figures but are also handsomely paid for it.
If one adds to this the overarching fact that these personalities deceitfully masquerade as reporters or journalists, of some sort, while effectively acting every bit the partisan propagandists one would expect to find as low-level hired campaign hacks, then the notion that I must be turned into a non-person in order to protect them from my salty expressions of contempt is beyond laughable, totally bizarre, and extreme to the point that there is simply no other valid explanation for it than the partisan animus of the creeps behind the Twitter star chamber.
Aside from the inherently extreme and patently discriminatory nature of my being instantly turned into a non-person by Twitter over mere insults that contained no threats or really anything of any consequence at all, except perhaps to the delicate feelings of the partisan media hitmen it was directed towards, the attempt to justify this cyber beheading by resort to “Twitter’s Rules” is too cynical and disingenuous to stomach.
Only the sneakiest and most craven of corporate fascist bullies would actually hide behind a bunch of vague, if not totally-undefined, “rules” that they alone can summarily change in any way at any time…that they alone impose whenever they want for whatever reasons they want, selectively, yet arbitrarily, without warning, hearing, or even explanation.
The plain truth is that anyone who doesn’t immediately recognize that totalitarian leftist orthodoxy is what is really at play here, maniacally intent on suppressing undesirables and their “hate” speech, is paying absolutely ZERO attention.
Regardless of who or what is involved, on any level, Twitter’s thought police are never going to qualify as some sort of high, holy tribune of rule enforcement and the maintenance of supposed “standards”.
They are clearly discriminatory, dishonest partisans who saw their chance to drive a truck through an insulting, but effectively harmless, few Tweets to run it right over me in a calculated partisan takedown.
The Twitterati, however, will soon find the runaway truckload of bullshit they ran me over with headed straight for them…..with the pedal to the metal.
from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/censored-beyond-words/
Sunday, 29 October 2017
Twitter Bans Stone: Bring Him Back, SIGN OUR PETITION
After a weekend of epic and blunt truth-telling about CNN reporters, the censorship police at Twitter have banned the official Roger Stone account. He exposed their hypocrisy on the Russia collusion hoax, and questioned the intelligence of on-air talent like Don Lemon and the dreadful Ana Navarro.
He said what we were all thinking, courageous enough to hold these scum accountable for their lies about President Trump and the millions of Americans who put him in the White House.
***SIGN THE PETITION NOW***
The ban, pushed by insane leftists Keith Olbermann, was originally supposed to last a little over three hours, but has been extended to a PERMANENT BAN, according to several news outlets.
However, thousands of Twitter users are petitioning Twitter HQ to reinstate Stone, citing examples of Olberman’s deranged tirades at President Trump and other conservatives. Use #GetMeRogerStone to join the cause.
You see, free speech is a right that the alt/tech left only want for themselves. Thankfully, according to Politico, Mr. Stone will be pursuing legal action against Twitter.
We know where the enemy stands, and now we need to know where the #GetMeRogerStone army stands.
By adding your name to our petition and sharing on your social media accounts, Roger will have no doubt about your loyalty and dedication to free-speech, a constitutional right.
***SIGN THE PETITION NOW***
from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/twitter-bans-stone-bring-him-back-sign-our-petition/
Tuesday, 24 October 2017
IS IT THE PODESTA’S TIME IN THE BARREL YET?
By Roger Stone (Part 1)
I once tweeted that “John Podesta’s time in the barrel will come.”
Well, friends, at the risk of having my barrel comments absurdly interpreted as some of sort of obscure racist slur as General John Kelly’s comment about Congressional cowgirl Frederica Wilson was this past week, put on your polka shoes because it may be time to roll out the barrel…or roll out the barrels, I should say: one for John Podesta and another for his brother and business partner, Tony Podesta.
The two Podestas – the “Podestae”, if you will — have run a highly-lucrative influence peddling shop since the first days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and continued their nefarious self-enrichment orgy at public expense well through the Obama reign.
Just yesterday it was revealed that special counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Of course, it was this inevitable scrutiny of the Podestas’ underhanded business dealings that my “time in the barrel” referred to and not, as some have quite falsely claimed, to the hacking and publication almost two months later of John Podesta’s emails.
Factcheck.org reported the plain truth that there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the substantial public record of campaign 2016 to substantiate the cynical partisan allegation by, among others, California Democrat and ranking member of the House Intelligence committee, that I predicted the Podesta email hack.
In a House hearing on March 20, 2017, Schiff stated:
“[I]n August, Stone does something truly remarkable when he predicts that John Podesta’s personal emails will soon be published. “Trust me,” he says, “it will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel, hashtag #CrookedHillary.” In the weeks that follow, Stone shows a remarkable prescience. “I have total confidence that WikiLeaks and my hero, Julian Assange, will educate the American people soon,” he says, hashtag, “#LockHerUp.” “Payload coming,” he predicts. And two days later, it does. WikiLeaks releases its first batch of Podesta emails. The release of John Podesta’s emails would then continue on a daily basis up until the election.” [Emphasis added.]
Schiff continued his allegation by asking, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that [Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman] John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that his private emails would be exposed?”
Schiff’s defamatory claim is a conclusory leap that simply does not hold to any honest, logical or factual scrutiny. He simply assumes for his own purposes that my August 21 Tweet about “Podesta’s time in the barrel” had to have been a reference to the release of Podesta’s emails by WikiLeaks two months later.
On ABC’s “This Week” on March 26, I flatly denied that I predicted Podesta’s emails would be hacked, adding — correctly — that nothing in the Tweet, “made any reference to John Podesta’s email.” Nothing in the context of my Twitter feed in which the Tweet was posted would support Schiff’s claim either. I told ABC’s This Week that my Tweet referred to Podesta’s business dealings with Russia, and the expectation that it would become a news story, before too long.
But inexplicably Factcheck.org, rather negating the whole purpose of having an organization by that name, posted a note saying “just because there is no proof whatsoever that something happened doesn’t mean it didn’t.” Thankfully we haven’t sunk quite to the point in which this passes for an evidentiary standard.
It is important to understand the context of that Tweet. Paul Manafort, who is one of my oldest friends in politics and usher in my wedding to Nydia Bertran de Espinosa (Stone), was being hounded in a media frenzy based on financial records of the political party Manafort was then legally working for being splashed all over page one of the New York Times.
We now know that a ledger reportedly showing payments to Manafort of $12 million were a forgery. The Ukrainian prosecutor handling the Manafort investigation debunked the purported ledger entirely, saying that Manafort is not a target of any impending indictment. You will not, however, read this fact in the New York Times.
Nonetheless, if Manafort’s business activities in the region were going to get scrutiny it was only fair that the Podesta Brothers’ adventures also be exposed to the public.
The Clintons were obsessed with Manafort’s reputation as a hyper-organized hard-driving political operative with extensive national experience. Those of us in the Trump Camp new that the Clinton political operation was scouring Russia and Ukraine to find negative dirt on my fellow Connecticut native, Manafort.
In Ukraine, these matters were handled by Ukrainian intelligence at the direction of Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who essentially paid the Clinton Foundation so much money that he was able to overturn the democratically-elected and U.S.-recognized government of Ukraine in a coup.
The Podesta brothers’ extensive business dealings were first revealed in the “Panama Papers”, published in January 2016, as reported by the Observer in “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection”, published on April 7, 2016.
Around August 1, 2016, Dr. Jerome Corsi briefed me in a conversation in which he detailed the extent and breadth of the Podesta’s business dealings. I asked Corsi to memorialize his outline in a memo. I must again stress that all of this had been reported and was public information, available to anyone who knew where to look.
Both Manafort and the Podesta’s retroactively-filed reports pursuant to the Foreign Agent Registration Act, though I think it can be fairly argued that neither was actively engaged in any lobbying. There are some lawyers who argue that attempting to effectuate public opinion in the United States while being paid by foreign entity requires registration. Presumably out of an abundance of caution both Manafort and the Podestas filed.
Back in August 2016, CNN reported that the FBI was investigating Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia and the Podesta Group to the Ukrainian government and the alleged corruption by the party of former Ukranian president Victor Yanukovych.
On August 19, CNN further reported that the Podesta Group issued a statement affirming that the Group had retained the Washington-based boutique law firm of Caplin & Drysdale “to determine if we were misled by the Center for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with potential ties to foreign governments or political parties.”
The Podesta Group statement to CNN continued: “When the Center became a client, it certified in writing that ‘none of the activities of the Center are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.’ We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
“We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale’s review, including possible legal action against the Center,” concluded the Podesta Group’s statement.
That same August 19, Buzz Feed reported that the Podesta Group and Manafort’s D.C. political firm were working under contract with the same group advising Yanukovych and his Ukrainian Party of Regions – namely the non-profit European Center for a Modern Ukraine based in Brussels.
Way back in 2013, Reuters reported the European Center for a Modern Ukraine paid $900,000 to the Podesta Group for a two-year contract aimed at improving the image of the Yanukovych government in the United States and that the Podesta Group told Reuters that they were implementing the contract via their contacts with key congressional Democrats.
Mainstream media attention has focused on the contract Manafort’s K-Street firm of Davis, Manafort & Freedman had from all the way back in 2007 with Yanukovych’s political party, Ukraine’s Party of Regions to perform an “extreme makeover,” re-positioning the party from being perceived as a “haven for Donetsk-based mobsters and oligarchs” into that of a legitimate political party.
On February 21, 2014, Russian leader Vladimir Putin helped then-President Yanukovych to flee violent protests seeking to oust him from office, flying him out of Ukraine and then traveling through Crimea, to arrive in Russia, where he has remained, trying desperately to restore himself to power back home in Kiev.
Just as the Trump/Russia collusion propaganda continued making headlines, the Manafort/Russia investigation was churning away, despite its lack of any evidence and documentation. In Manafort’s case, opponents have failed to demonstrate that Manafort ever received $12.7 million in some 22 previously-undisclosed cash payments from Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party, as purportedly documented by entries in a “black ledger” revealed by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Yet, this dubious, unverified “evidence” was sufficient for New York Times reporters to conclude that Manafort had hidden back-channel ties to Putin, financed by under-the-table payments arranged via Ukraine.
Ironically Putin has little use for Manafort because Manafort strongly urged Yanukovych to take Ukraine into the European Union, a move obviously opposed bitterly the Russians. Manafort did evidently briefly represent Russian oligarch and Putin crony, Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, but it was none other than U.S. Senator John McCain who met privately with Deripaska during McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, despite being warned twice by the FBI that Deripaska was a Russian asset. A source has informed me that McCain solicited money from Deripaska for the Republican Institute McCain controlled and which was legally able to accept foreign funds.
This is how the Democrat Party builds a “case” against President Trump, layering one unproven accusation on top of another, forming a chain of “evidence” that, at least to them, looks like an open-and-shut case, but in truth is nothing but a string of unsubstantiated innuendo that wouldn’t make it past the desk of any honest prosecutor or court of law.
Mainstream media, led by the drain-swirling New York Times serially reports every loose allegation and partisan leap to convenient, albeit false, conclusions and suddenly, BAM, it is news! This is what they do. This is why the term “fake news” has become a truer description than President Trump ever thought when he first coined it in the national lexicon.
From there, the Democrat narrative keeps going, suggesting that Manafort’s close relationship to the Kremlin allowed him to position the Trump campaign to receive a dump of embarrassing Clinton campaign hacked exposing the efforts Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as chairman of the DNC, took to rig the primaries for Hillary, and distinctly disadvantage her challenger, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.
But this entire Democrat Party narrative is thrown into disarray if it turns out the Podesta brothers, via the Podesta Group, have tighter and better-documented financial ties to Russia, involving far more numerous and tangled contacts than have ever been suggested to tie Manafort to Russia via Ukraine.
Among the revelations made public through the 11.5 million documents leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists detailing the legal and financial arrangements behind secretive off-shore banking transactions dating back to the 1970’s was the disclosure that Russia’s largest bank, the state-owned Sberbank, uses the Podesta Group as its registered lobbyist in Washington.
“Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector,” wrote former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler in an article entitled “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection” published by the Observer on April 7, 2016.
On April 17, 2014, the Moscow Times reported Ukraine opened criminal proceedings against Sberbank and 13 other banks on suspicion of “financing terrorism.” Schindler noted the Ukrainian criminal investigation concluded Sberbank had distributed millions of dollars in illegal aid to Russian-backed separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, with the bank serving as “a witting supporter of Russian aggression against Ukraine.”
On April 5, 2016, Lachlan Markay, reporting in the Washington Free Beacon, published the lobbying registration form the Podesta Group filed with the U.S. government proving Sberbank had contracted with the Podesta Group to advance their interests with banking, trade, and foreign relations. It doesn’t end there.
On Aug. 20, 2016, Breitbart reporter Jerome Hudson documented that the Podesta Group was paid a total of $180,000, according to public records, for the consulting work done under contract with the Russia-controlled firm Uranium One in 2012, 2014, and 2015.
As first documented in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book “Clinton Cash,” and confirmed in Jerome Corsi’s bestselling book “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House,” Uranium One directed millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.
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.”
The Daily Caller reported on April 29, 2015, that the Podesta group was to lobby the State Department while Hillary was secretary of state, with $40,000 of the total paid to lobby the State Department, the Senate, and the National Security Council on “international mining projects.”
According to a New York Times report published August 13, 2013, in 2011 a wave of mid-level program staff members departed the Clinton Foundation, “reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization.”
Around that time, in 2011, Bruce Lindsey, then the Clinton Foundation’s CEO, suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. Who stepped in to replace Lindsey for several months as temporary chief executive? None other than John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in William Jefferson Clinton’s White House, stepped in.
It’s not hard to realize that the links between Podesta and Russia are well documented and go back many years.
from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/is-it-the-podestas-time-in-the-barrel-yet/
Judicial Watch: FBI Recovered 72,000 Pages of Clinton Records
State Department Tells Court It Processed only 32,000—And Has Yet to Review 40,000 Clinton Records
Courts Orders Explanation on Processing
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that the State Department revealed in a federal court hearing that it has yet to process 40,000 of 72,000 pages of Hillary Clinton records that the FBI recovered last year. The revelation came during a federal court hearing in Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails that were sent or received during her tenure from February 2009 to January 31, 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). The case is before Judge James E. Boasberg.
The hearing focused on the State Department’s progress on processing the tens of thousands of emails Clinton failed to disclose when she served as Secretary of State, some of which were emails sent by Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on the laptop of her estranged husband Anthony Weiner. The State Department has processed 32,000 pages of emails so far, a small number of which have been released, but 40,000 pages remain to be processed.
Judicial Watch asked the court to require the State Department to identify any records from the seven FBI discs that it intends to withhold, and why, in a timely manner. The State Department disclosed to the Court that it was adding extra resources to its FOIA operation but would not commit to a faster production of the Clinton emails. On October 19, Judge Boasberg ordered the State Department to “explain how its anticipated increase in resources will affect processing of records in this case and when the processing of each disk is likely to be completed.” Surprisingly, the Tillerson State Department and Sessions Justice Department previously argued to the court that there was diminished public interest in the Clinton emails.
In November 2016, the State Department was ordered to produce no less than 500 pages of records a month to Judicial Watch, emails of which the FBI found in its investigation into Clinton’s non-government email system. The State Department has produced 23 batches of documents so far. At the current pace, the Clinton emails and other records won’t be fully available for possible release until at least 2020.
Clinton attempted to delete 33,000 emails from her non-government server. The FBI investigation recovered or found a number of these missing emails, many of which were government documents.
The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2015.
“Secretary Tillerson should be asked why his State Department is still sitting on a motherlode of Clinton emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disheartening that an administration elected to ‘drain the swamp’ is stalling the release of documents to protect Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.”
In a related lawsuit Judicial Watch recently revealed that the State Department admitted it received 2,800 Huma Abedin work-related documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that were found on her estranged husband Anthony Weiner’s personal laptop. The State Department expects to complete its review and production of the FBI records by December 31, 2017.
###
This article originally appeared on Judicial Watch.
from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/judicial-watch-fbi-recovered-72000-pages-of-clinton-records/
REXIT: Roger Stone Predicts RINO Purge
Roger Stone believes that President Donald Trump will purge Rex Tillerson by December, and reveals that the current Secretary of State is letting Bush-era neocon Condie Rice rule the state department with other Bush/Obama/Clinton gloablists.
WATCH NOW AND SHARE:
from
https://stonecoldtruth.com/rexit-roger-stone-predicts-rino-purge/