It would surprise no one if Hillary Clinton ended up being the Democratic nominee for president. From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:
Anybody else notice Joe Biden styling himself as Abe Lincoln this week? Uh, bad career move, pal. Someone ought to notify the Democratic Party leader that a) Mr. Lincoln was a Republican, and b) he was a racist through and through (BLM certified). The presidential frontrunner is unlikely to win more “woke” hearts-and-minds with this latest stunt. Maybe if they put him in a wheelchair the voters might think he was the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt (though he actually looks more like post-stroke Woodrow Wilson, a racist to the bone, they say).
Notice, too, that Uncle Joe appeared in Honest Abe drag to announce that US coronavirus deaths had reached “a hundred and twenty million.” Say, what? That would be roughly one-third of the US population! Excuse me for wondering if the candidate is being a little less than perfectly frank with us. And the costume didn’t really put that gag over, either. Anyway, the Democratic Party must be lovin’ it, despite the crocodile tears about the virus shed by The New York Times, because a new wave means that even more American businesses will be destroyed, more jobs lost, more careers extinguished, the battered economy will get brutally smacked down again, and it will all make President Trump look even more unelectable.
The alternate media started poking holes in Russiagate early and got it right. The mainstream media peddled nonstop lies and got it embarrassingly wrong. They keep ignoring evidence and refuse to ask the hard questions about their own culpability. From Thomas J. Farnan at thenationalpulse.com:
CrowdStrike – the forensic investigation firm hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to inspect its computer servers in 2016 – admitted to Congressional investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of Russian hacking, recently declassified documents show.
CrowdStrike’s president Shawn Henry testified, “There’s not evidence that [documents and emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There’s circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.”
This was a crucial revelation because the thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the positive assertion that CrowdStrike had definitely proven a Russian hack
This sworn admission has been hidden from the public for over two years, and subsequent commentary has focused on that singular outrage.
The next deductive step, though, leads to an equally crucial point: Circumstantial evidence of Russian hacking is itself flimsy and collapses when not propped up by a claim of conclusive forensic testing.
THE COVER UP.
On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails to an unknown entity in a “spear phishing” scam. This has been called a “hack,” but it was not. Instead, it is was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the internet.
For all those who’ve followed this story since before Trump took office, here’s a comprehensive timeline of the entire sordid effort to depose Trump. From Sharyl Attkisson at sharylattkisson.com:
It’s easy to find timelines that detail Trump-Russia collusion developments. Here are links to two of them I recommend:
Politifact Russia-Trump timeline
Washington Post Russia-Trump timeline
On the other side, evidence has emerged that makes it clear there were organized efforts to collude against candidate Donald Trump–and then President Trump. For example:
- Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
- A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material–in part–to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
- There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press, including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
- The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and politially-motivated “unmaskings” of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
- Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump’s alleged Russia ties.
But it’s not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these events.
Related: Obama Era Surveillance Timeline
Here’s a work in progress.
Posted in Crime, Cronyism, Government, Intelligence, Investigations, Law
Tagged Department of Justice, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller investigation, Russiagate, Ukraine controversy, Wikileaks
A major flaw of polls is that they measure quantities but not quality—how passionately respondents either favor or oppose a person or proposition. From Eric Zuesse at thesaker.is:
Hillary Clinton, of course, received the Democratic Party nomination in 2016 and was widely expected to beat Trump but she lost to him (though she won California by 4,269,978 in the popular vote, and so beat Trump by 2,864,974 in the nationwide popular vote, while she lost all other states by 1,405,002 votes, and so she would have been California’s President if she had won, but the rest of the nation wouldn’t have been happy).
Among the top reasons why Democrats in primaries and caucuses voted for Clinton was that they thought she would have a higher likelihood of beating the Republican nominee than Sanders did. This was the impression that the Democratic National Committee spread, and the Party’s voters believed in it. However, by the time when Election Day rolled around, the passion that Republicans felt for their nominee, Trump, was much stronger than was the passion that Democrats felt for their nominee, Clinton. During the Democratic primaries, polls were showing that the Democrats who were voting for Sanders to become their Party’s nominee were far more passionate in their support of him than was the case regarding the Democrats who were voting for Clinton to become the Democratic nominee. And nobody questions that Trump was the passion-candidate in the Republican Party’s primaries and caucuses.
Bloomberg has hinted he might make Hillary Clinton his vice president nominee, but it may go the other way, with Clinton on the top of the ticket and Bloomberg on the bottom. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:
It’s been obvious to me since he declared that Mike Bloomberg is not a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination. He is everything the Democratic base doesn’t want — white, billionaire, oligarch, Wall St. 0.000001%’er.
Oh, and until just a couple of years ago, he was a Republican. Billionaires like Bloomberg change parties to where ever they see their money will go the farthest.
Right now, that is the quickly fracturing Democrats, who are staring at a revolt to Bernie Sanders that doesn’t sit with Wall St. at all.
It’s also obvious that Bloomberg is animated by personal animus towards Donald Trump that I suspect is as much about Mike’s ego as it is his desire to protect Wall St. from having any of its dirty laundry aired during a Trump 2nd term.
Because with the failure to convict Trump in the Senate those that were behind that coup attempt are now uniquely exposed to his retribution. And that trail of tears for all involved leads right back up to Hillary Clinton’s poisoned garden of a 2016 presidential bid.
Hillary’s trying to upend Bernie Sanders’ run for the presidency, just as she did in 2016. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:
“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician.” So says Hillary Clinton of her former Senate colleague and 2016 rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders.
Her assessment of Sanders’ populist-socialist agenda?
“It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
Does that assessment still hold with Sanders now running strong in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, and having emerged, according to The New York Times, as “the dominant liberal force in the 2020 race”?
“Yes, it does,” said Clinton, who left open the possibility she might not support Sanders if he became the nominee.
In her interview with The Hollywood Reporter to promote a documentary that premieres Saturday at the Sundance Film Festival, Clinton also tore into Bernie’s backers.
“It is not only him. It’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women,” said Clinton. “It should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted (he) seems to be very much supporting it.”
The Democrats and Deep State’s moves to get rid of Trump can best be thought of as a preemptive strike to keep Trump from going after them. From Robert Bridge at strategic-culture.org:
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him from office – namely, ‘abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of congress’ –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been guilty of for nearly half a decade: abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they desperately need a ‘get out of jail free’ card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
“Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet,” wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico. Yet impeachment, he noted, is “already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress.”
For some reason all the underhanded things Hillary Clinton did during the 2016 election are above reproach or investigation. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too – then Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent.
Contained within Monday’s FISA report by the DOJ Inspector General is the revelation that Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the Steele dossier, “was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media.” (P. 369 and elsewhere)
Eric Zuesse presents an elaborate, well-researched, and exhaustive account of “Ukrainegate.” From Zuesse at zerohedge.com:
Authored by Eric Zuesse,
Since this news-report is going to be especially harsh regarding today’s Democratic Party in the United States, readers should be aware that until that Party nominated Hillary Clinton in 2016, this writer was, and consistently voted as, a Democrat, and that I have never been, and never could be, a Republican. In no way does this article reflect a Republican viewpoint. It is not partisan — not favoring one person’s viewpoint over any other’s. (Though it does favor trustworthy evidence over untrustworthy hearsay and witnesses, etc.) This article is written by a consistent progressive, which means a person whose top value is truth, nothing else than 100% honesty and reflecting only personally verified sources, real facts. Intense care has therefore been taken in checking and cross-checking and validating information before accepting here anything as constituting information instead of as being disinformation (which is sadly rampant). The following article is written only because it reports what my own independent researches have found to be the actual case regarding what is now commonly called “Ukrainegate” (the focus of the impeachment-proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump).
PART ONE: TRUMP’S 25 JULY 2019 PHONE-CALL TO ZELENSKY
The ‘news’-media and the Democrats have been grossly misrepresenting what the “Ukrainegate” narrative and the impeachment proceedings against the current U.S. President are all about; and, as a result of this widespread misinformation, ABC News headlined on November 18th, “70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL”, and reported that “32%, say they made up their minds about impeaching the president before the news broke about Trump’s July phone-call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.” This poll found that 100% of the 506 scientifically sampled respondents had heard at least some of the impeachment hearings, and that 51% of them agreed with the statement, “President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate,” while 6% agreed instead with “President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House but NOT removed from office by the Senate.” 25% agreed instead with “President Trump’s actions were NOT wrong.”
Posted in Crime, Cronyism, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Governments, History, Investigations, Law, Politics
Tagged Adam Schiff, Burisma, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Ukraine, Ukraine coup, Volodymyr Zelensky
The Democratic Party’s documented history of electoral skullduggery has eroded faith in the whole process. How could it not? From Elizabeth Vos at consortiumnews.com:
With the U.S. presidential cycle gearing up, Elizabeth Vos takes stock of lessons from 2016.
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project blame for the public’s doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party’s subversion of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment’s willingness to address even one of these critical failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party’s bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel doubling down on its right to rig the race during the fraud lawsuit brought against the DNC, as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova, indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also likely impact outcomes in 2020.