“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

The Corruption of Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama is simply staggering

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”

In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.

That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.

Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries. In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.
Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.

His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI. The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.
In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.

“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.
“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.
The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI. The probe is not focused on McAuliffe's conduct but rather on whether McCabe's attendance violated the Hatch Act or other FBI conflict rules.

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles. A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.

The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.

One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.

Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap.

But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged.
The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.

By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.

The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.

The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.

On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.

Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.

“I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.

Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

This story was updated at 6:50 p.m.

Indictment Affidavit by M Mali on Scribd
Warrant Affidavit by M Mali on Scribd
Mikerin Plea Deal by M Mali on Scribd


  1. It is no wonder that Obama was in full ghetto panic in the last weeks of the Clinton collapse.

    As usual Eric Holder was up to his squinty eyeballs in coverup..

    Can someone please wake up Jeff Sessions?

    1. Mr Sessions is chasing illegal aliens in California.

      He has no time for political intrigue, back in DC.

  2. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is sending a Justice Department federal hate crimes lawyer to help prosecute the murder of a transgender teenager in Iowa, according to a report Sunday.

    It is unusual for the Justice Department to involve its lawyers in a local case, signifying the importance of the case to Sessions.


    In March, six House members asked Sessions in a letter to investigate seven cases involving killings of transgender black women.

    Sessions ordered civil rights prosecutors and the FBI to review each of the cases and contacted local authorities to offer assistance, the Times said.

    1. Oughta send 'em where the illegal raped and murdered the Muslim teen too.

  3. More Harvey fallout revelations:

    Hillary regrets not fighting off Web Hubbel when she had the chance.

    She apologizes to Chelsea for those floppy lips

    1. Hillary was pro-life then, what was she to do ?

  4. Sessions's tenure at the Justice Department has been rocky at times, due to disagreements with President Donald Trump. Amid talk in late July that Trump might fire Sessions, Oklahoma Republicans urged him not to.

    U.S. Sen. James Lankford said Sessions was "doing what an attorney general needs to do." U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said of Sessions: "I've never known a person I respect more."

    When Sessions was a senator, his longtime chief of staff was an Oklahoma native and University of Oklahoma graduate: Rick Dearborn, of Edmond. Dearborn is now the deputy White House chief of staff.

  5. October 18, 2017
    Obama's Russian Collusion
    By Jerold Levoritz

    The Hill’s release of information on the collusion between American corporate interests, U.S. government agencies and Russia seems to be all-new material. The text outlines the failure of the U.S. government under Obama to take account of information generated by the FBI on attempts by Russia to gain a financial advantage in the U.S. nuclear industry. “The Swamp” is reflected in the matter of Rosatom at every angle from which it can be viewed. While Rosatom has been in the news before, nothing has brought it to the level of significance seen in these primary documents and the specificity of the charges found in the text of the article. Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein should be summarily fired, along with anyone else who touched these papers above the level of the FBI. The responsible individuals must be dragged into the court system where their actions can at the very least become part of the public record.

    According to the Hill:............

  6. October 17, 2017
    Judicial Watch: FBI caught 'red-handed' suppressing documents on Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting
    By Thomas Lifson

    Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, is not a man given to hyperbole. So the language he is using to describe the behavior of the FBI is worth paying attention to. Speaking to Lou Dobbs on Fox Business Network, he raised serious doubts about the integrity of the nation's premier police agency. J.W.'s initial requests for documents related to the notorious secret tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton while the DoJ was investigating Hillary's emails encountered what looks like deliberate obstruction, with no documents allegedly found. Yet a later request turned up documents that were related: 30 of them. The FBI is now redacting them, prior to release, a process that itself is raising suspicions..........

  7. October 18, 2017
    China's War Timing Firming Up
    By David Archibald

    Part of Obama’s baleful legacy is that during the Scarborough Shoal Incident of April to June 2012, the Filipino president travelled to Washington to ask Obama for U.S. support. Obama didn’t offer support, no operational support followed and China read that as the signal to seize territory from a U.S. ally. As is the usual pattern, the consequence of not dealing forcefully against a minor aggression will lead to a much bigger war down the track.

    The Chinese leader that organised the seizure of Scarborough Shoal, Xi Jinping, became a national hero and that gave him the political momentum to see off rivals to become president of the People’s Republic of China the following year. As retired U.S. Navy captain James Fanell noted, while in the West the Scarborough seizure was treated as a minor fisheries dispute, Chinese scholars recognized the significance of Xi’s template for mooting U.S. alliances by undercutting confidence in defense agreements, calling it the ‘Scarborough Model’....

    ....Now is the time to ask Lenin’s question “What is to be done?” The important thing is to shun anything made in China because that just funds their aggression. Choose the Samsung offering over the iPhone for no other reason. And be nice to any Japanese or Vietnamese you meet. We need them to have courage.

  8. Hmmmm....

    October 18, 2017
    The Left's Last Spasm
    By J.R. Dunn

    ....This is exactly what we’re seeing. Antifa and its associates are not operating in isolation. Last June’s Virginia ballpark shooting and the Las Vegas massacre are also examples of the left’s lunge toward violence, a connection that would be obvious were it not for the legacy media’s eagerness to obscure the issue. James Hodgkinson’s actions in Alexandria speak for themselves. As for Stephen Paddock, whatever his actual motive – psychopathy inherited from his father or recruitment by Jihadis – it is evident that his malice was fueled by a consuming hatred of the United States and everything associated with it. The Antifa literature found in his suite, his participation in anti-American demonstrations, and his fulminations on the net render any other conclusion moot. Paddock was that not-uncommon figure, the wealthy man who loathes the society that gave him success. (George Soros is only one other example.) ....

    The Antifa literature found in his suite, his participation in anti-American demonstrations, and his fulminations on the net render any other conclusion moot.

    All news to me.

    1. .

      The Antifa literature found in his suite...

      He had a copy of A Tale of Two Cities.

      This is American Thinker after all.


  9. October 18, 2017
    The Evolutionary Origins of Human Morality
    By Ben Cohen

    ....Once people began living in groups, cooperation became more important, and more cooperative groups out-competed less cooperative groups. This was, according to Haidt, the origin of human morality.....

    ....Jonathan Haidt does a thorough job of debunking the naive moral rationalism of psychologists such as Lawrence Kohlberg. Haidt offers a plausible explanation for the emergence of human morality; group level selection favored more cohesive groups of people, and this selected for altruistic genes. Haidt’s moral foundation theory, along with his description of the differences between liberals and conservatives, is promising, but it needs to be tested by other researchers.

    While I found The Righteous Mind persuasive, I worry that Haidt has given short shrift to moral rationalism. His book details how easily human intuitions can be manipulated by researchers; given this, shouldn’t we be cautious about trusting our intuitions? Also, the people we admire most really do appear to be acting from a sort of Kantian motive of duty, defying group pressure in order to do what’s right.

    Haidt’s book suggests two very different readings. One could conclude that everyone else is irrational, driven by gut feelings and immune to reason. One could also conclude that everyone, including oneself, employs reason to justify their beliefs; therefore, one should be humble about one’s beliefs. If readers adopt the second interpretation, Haidt’s book will be a success.

  10. What Do We Need? Missile Defense.

    When do we need it? Now.

    5:08 AM, OCT 13, 2017 | By ROBERT ZUBRIN

    1. “The best defense is a good offense,” as the old saw goes. The nature of that “good offense” matters, though. Too often, American officials mistake “any offense” for a “good offense.” As tensions between North Korea and the United States continue to escalate, it is apparent that American policymakers haven’t yet determined what form its “good offense” will take. Sanctions on the Kim regime have not worked and will not work as a means of defending the United States against North Korean aggression—nor do sanctions appear to be restricting North Korea’s development of nuclear bomb-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). A preemptive strike would invite disaster. Empty threats and tweeted insults are an absurd counterstrategy.

      For the crisis with North Korea, the best defense would be a “good defense”: The United States should develop and deploy a comprehensive antimissile defense system.

      President Ronald Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983 with the long-term goal of making nuclear weapons obsolete. He wanted to deploy a system that could neutralize the vast Soviet nuclear arsenal. The plan as he first proposed it was technically not feasible, and SDI opponents made much hay out of that fact.

      To this day, many on the left still disdain the concept of national missile defense and continue to pooh-pooh “Star Wars” (as Reagan’s plan was derisively dubbed) as folly. They rarely mention that Reagan’s subordinate goal of protecting the United States from nuclear threats posed by lesser powers was achievable. The time would come, Reagan administration officials understood, when such ICBMs and nuclear arms would see wider distribution. It could not be expected that they would remain the monopoly of a few leading powers—and they haven’t. Today, according to the Arms Control Association, 31 countries have ballistic missiles, and 9 of those countries are known to have or are believed to have nuclear weapons.

      The U.S. military has a fairly robust antimissile defense arsenal, including Patriot missiles, Aegis warships, Iron Dome technology, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems. But these systems are designed to deal with short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles. They are not capable of countering ICBMs, which come in much faster. So the missile defenses the United States now possesses are suitable for regional defenses, which is why we can share our defensive capabilities with South Korea, Japan, and Israel—allies who have adversaries or face potential threats from short- or intermediate-range missiles—but lack national coverage here at home.

      Indeed, the American homeland is nearly defenseless against ICBMs.....

    2. ....Second, there’s an urgent need for new systems, including revolutionary directed-energy weapons capable of destroying enemy missiles in their boost phase and dealing with the hypersonic re-entry threat. For example, the Airborne Laser system—a laser mounted on a Boeing 747—proved capable in 2010 tests of shooting down missiles during ascent. This program, begun during the Clinton administration and advanced in earnest during the Bush administration, was shut down by the Obama administration. It would certainly be a nice capability to have available now. We need to rebuild it, deploy it, and develop even better airborne-laser antimissile systems that are small enough and light enough to be placed aboard tactical aircraft or drones....


  11. Democrat Doug Jones -- once thought to be a longshot in the Deep South -- has tied Republican nominee and former judge Roy Moore in Alabama's US Senate race, a new poll shows.

    The two are tied at 42% each among registered voters, the Fox News poll published Tuesday, ...

  12. Senate Judiciary opens probe into Obama-era Russian nuclear bribery case

    BY JOHN SOLOMON - 10/17/17 11:38 PM EDT

    The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a full-scale probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, gets his first chance to raise the issue in public on Wednesday when he questions Attorney General Jeff Sessions during an oversight hearing.

    Though the hearing was scheduled for other purposes, aides said they expected Grassley to ask Sessions questions about a story published in The Hill on Tuesday that disclosed the FBI had uncovered evidence showing Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving bribes, kickbacks and money laundering designed to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business on U.S. soil.

    The evidence was first gathered in 2009 and 2010 but Department of Justice officials waited until 2014 to bring any charges. In between that time, President Obama's multi-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) gave approval to Russia's Rosatom to buy a Canadian mining company called Uranium One that controlled 20 percent of America's uranium deposits.

    The committee's members at the time included former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband collected large speech fees and millions in charitable donations from Russia and other entities interested in the outcome of the decision.

    Grassley dispatched letters late week to all the federal agencies whose executives served on the CFIUS when the decision was made, demanding to know whether they were aware of the FBI case before they voted.

    He also questioned whether the documented corruption that was uncovered posed a national security threat that should have voided approval of the uranium deal.

    "It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction," Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.....

    1. In a year or two they ought to be able to issue a report.


  13. Las Vegas guard Jesus Campos surfaces on Ellen DeGeneres' show

    Still no conspiracy.

  14. .

    Saw an article this morning titled

    The Trump Doctrine: Obama built it, I broke it, You fix it

    Succinct and True. What can you say? That title just about says it all.


    1. He's turning control of the country back to the people, where it belongs ?

      It's up to us to fix things, as it should be.

    2. .

      Good lord.

      These are people that are great, brilliant business minds, and that’s what we need, that’s what we have to have so the world doesn’t take advantages of us,” Trump, told a crowd of about 6,000 in Cedar Rapids. “We can’t have the world taking advantage of us anymore. And I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don’t want a poor person.

      Translation (for us poor folk):

      I just love you poor people, your precious. Unfortunately, you are just too damn stupid to be making important decisions.

      Grow a brain, Bob.


    3. .

      ...Well, it took almost a year, but we now have the “Trump Doctrine.” It’s very simple. And, as you’d expect, it fits neatly into a tweet. On nearly every major issue, President Trump’s position is: “Obama built it. I broke it. You fix it.”

      And that cuts right to the core of what is the most frightening thing about the Trump presidency. It’s not the president’s juvenile tweeting or all the aides who’ve been pushed out of his clown car at high speed or his industrial-strength lying.

      It’s Trump’s willingness to unravel so many longstanding policies and institutions at once — from Nafta to Obamacare to the global climate accord to the domestic clean power initiative to the Pacific trade deal to the Iran nuclear deal — without any real preparation either on the day before or for the morning after.
      Indeed, Trump has made most of his climate, health, energy and economic decisions without consulting any scientists, without inviting into the White House a broad range of experts, without putting forth his own clear-cut alternatives to the systems he’s unraveling, without having at the ready a team of aides or a political coalition able to implement any alternatives and without a strategic framework that connects all of his dots.

      In short, we’re simply supposed to take the president’s word that this or that deal “is the worst deal ever” — backed up by no serious argument or plan about how he will produce a better one.
      Continue ...


    4. You wanted an answer, so I gave you one.

      The Donald loves poor people.

      The Lord does as well.

      'The Lord must love poor people, he makes plenty of them'

      Abe Lincoln, or Walt Whitman, can't recall which....

    5. .

      You wanted an answer, so I gave you one.

      Most people, even some English majors, would be able to recognize that "What can you say?" was being used rhetorically in my comment and no response was required or expected especially given the interrogative was followed by the declarative "That title just about says it all."

      The Donald loves poor people.

      Possibly true, but then, who knows? Surely, you don't accept that claim simply because Trump said it.

      However, more relevant to my original comment and probably more accurate would be the statement, 'The Donald loves poor people as long as they know their place.'


    6. "That title just about says it all."

      Meaning that there is something left to be said, and you are asking ""What can you say?"

      So you got:

      He's turning control of the country back to the people, where it belongs ?

      It's up to us to fix things, as it should be.

      People like you want Uncle Sam to cook your food, and wipe your ass, and fix your bike.

      REAL AMERICANS want Uncle Sam to stay out of their lives !

    7. .

      As I stated above, most people, even some English majors, would be able to recognize that "What can you say?" was being used rhetorically. You obviously fall into neither category 'most' or that subset of English majors, a problem in itself. However, if you demand to answer rhetorical questions one can only hope you would offer something more than platitudes and inanities.

      Let's see, I don't recall any White House polls being run asking the American people what they thought before Trump gutted the ACA and offered nothing to replace it, cancelled regulations affecting the health and safety of many Americans, pulled out of the Paris Accord, offered up a tax reform package that offers massive benefits to the rich and a budget that pays for it by cutting services to ordinary Americans. You say...

      He's turning control of the country back to the people, where it belongs ?

      It's up to us to fix things, as it should be.

      Examples please.


    8. a tax reform package that offers massive benefits to the rich

      By this do you mean the corporate tax rate cut ?

    9. Trump gutted the ACA and offered nothing to replace it

      He had, if you were paying attention, tried twice to repeal and replace.

      Three or four Rinos put an end to that.

      We should have pulled out of the Paris Accords.

      Cutting what services to ordinary Americans ?

      What health and safety rules have been cancelled ?

      He is trying to allow clean coal.

      Did you know we are about the only nation that has actually met, and exceeded, the mandates of the Paris Accords ?

      Talk to the Chinese and Hindus about meeting some goals.

      It's up to us to fix things, as it should be.

      Didn't mean that exactly literally. Though it's a good slogan.

      Almost all programs have to go through Congress. It's up to us to elect a decent Congress.

    10. He wants to keep the tax deduction for charitable giving, last I heard.

      Here we can say it is up to us to fix things up.

    11. It's philanthropy, Quirk, not philandery -

      Why Philanthropy Is Worth Defending in the Tax Code
      By Karl Zinsmeister
      October 18, 2017

      Reduced charitable giving by middle-class families—on a scale of tens of billions of dollars—could be an unintended consequence of a Republican tax reform plan that reduces itemizing of deductions.

      That change would exacerbate other forces ranging from declining American religious participation to deferral of marriage, childbearing, and home-owning that have depressed the rate of private giving in the U.S. from 66 percent of all households in 2000 to 55 percent in the latest year.

      Any further contraction in donating could debilitate America’s voluntary sector—which remains our most inventive way of addressing social problems, and which is vastly more efficient, effective, and personal than government bureaucracies.

      With this danger beginning to sink in on Capitol Hill, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Rep. Mark Walker, has proposed folding a bold countermeasure into the tax template now before Congress. It would allow all Americans to deduct their charitable contributions, not just the typically upper-income earners who itemize. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady has expressed sympathy for similar ideas in the past

      What do history and recent practice have to say about the utility of voluntary philanthropic activity? I’ve recently published evidence showing that charitable giving is crucial to American success in a variety of ways, and that active measures to increase it are necessary. With urgent challenges visible in our communities, and government in stalemate, we ought to be encouraging more charitable problem solving, not truncating it as a side effect of tax reform.

      The potent ability of donors and volunteers to untangle knotty public problems has been demonstrated repeatedly, even in areas we tend to think of as wholly governmental responsibilities. During World War II the development of radar was languishing until a private donor (the great-grandfather of Netflix founder Reed Hastings) jump-started both the basic research and practical production of working radar sets. Many valuable social reforms in America have also been driven by charitable giving and action. Public support for the abolition of slavery was methodically built by donors such as Arthur and Lewis Tappan. The campaigning that significantly cut alcohol use per person over the last century was powered by private donors. So was much of our recent success in reducing smoking and drunk driving.

      The most effective education innovation of the last generation—charter schooling—took off only because donors and social entrepreneurs created 7,000 new schools, training the teachers and principals who run them, and acquiring the buildings where they operate.......

  15. I, Q

    Smarter people more likely to suffer mental illness....DRUDGE

    Study surveys 3,715 members of American Mensa with an IQ higher than 130

    We all know Quirk is, pleasantly, 'a little off', has a loose screw, 'odd in a becoming English sort of way'.....

    No we know why.

    More brains than good sense.....

    1. Now we know why.

      Quirk's got more brains than good sense.

    2. Out this way we'd say:

      Quirk's barn door is a little ajar, Quirk's hay loft leaks rain

  16. Official Timeline

    Timeline: The Clintons, The Russians, And Uranium
    JOHN SEXTONPosted at 1:01 pm on October 18, 2017

    I created most of this timeline more than two years ago but with the recent revelations about Russian bribery and extortion efforts within the U.S., I thought it was time for an update. Most of the links are to articles published by the NY Times which ran several important pieces on this topic in 2015.

    Late 2004: Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra creates a company to invest in uranium mining called UrAsia Energy Ltd.

    Samantha Power: Somebody else must have made those unmasking requests with my name on them

    June 2005: Giustra meets Bill Clinton at “a fundraiser for tsunami victims at Mr. Giustra’s Vancouver home.” The two hit it off. (Note: Newsweek reports Clinton and Giustra first met in January, not June.)......

  17. I've been watching al jazeera, Fox being off line, and it isn't all that bad.

    Wonderful story about slave girls in Nepal being freed....

  18. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., adamantly stood by her characterization of President Donald Trump's phone call with the widow of a fallen soldier in an interview with ABC News today, calling his words "terrible" and adding that the president didn't even know the man's name.


    She also said the deadly ambush in Niger that killed Sgt. Johnson and three other special operations soldiers leaves so many unanswered questions that "this is going to be Mr. Trump's Benghazi," a reference to the 2012 attack that killed four Americans.

    1. .

      Trump is a hypocrite. Everyone should know this by now.

      He goes on for weeks pounding his chest about players taking a knee during the national anthem kicking out numerous tweets on the subject; yet, he doesn't have time to call or write to all the servicemen who give their lives in service to the country (face it, there just aren't that many of them right now); he forgets to send out the money he promised to one of the families, he politicizes the death of his chief-of-staff's son; he lies about the actions or other presidents in an attempt to make himself look better.

      Trying to offer consolation to anyone especially a grieving mother is tough, words well-intention can be misunderstood (giving Trump the benefit of the doubt), but forgetting the dead kids name when it's you making the call is pretty pathetic.



  19. He had, if you were paying attention, tried twice to repeal and replace

    Wrong again, Draft Dodger.

    Mr Trump supported the Senate's failed legislation .... But that legislation did not repeal ObamaCare, nor did it replace it.

    Your tripe is now well worn

    1. Have it your way then, Self Confessed War Criminal, Dead Beat Dad, Jew Hater and Liar.

      He tried to get something done and failed.

    2. Should I start quoting you, Draft Dodger, chapter and verse of the Anti-American Peterson Doctrine.

      Quotes on theft by fraud justified as being payback against banks charging the agreed upon terms?

      Really, Draft Doder Peterson, is tbat where you and Uncle Hank want to go?

  20. This year -- 2017 -- is the second-warmest year on record for the entire globe, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday.

    The records date back 138 years to 1880, the NOAA said.


    Meanwhile, much of Europe had cooler than average temperatures. Ireland and Austria had their coolest Septembers since 2009 and 2007, respectively. Russia also recorded cooler than average temperatures.

  21. .

    Did you know we are about the only nation that has actually met, and exceeded, the mandates of the Paris Accords ?

    There were/are no mandates in the Paris Accords. It's all voluntary. Each country sets its own goals. No mandates and no penalties.

    Try to get up to speed.

    Even if what you put up had any truth to it, the first question that pops to mind is 'Then, why the hell are we pulling out of it?'


    1. GOALS then, if that suits you better, Sir !

      Quirk, we all know you are a Trumpophobe and hate his guts.

      I can't see he's been so bad, so far.

      I wish he'd give up most of the idiotic tweeting though, and mouthing off too much.

      But he's better than Hillary !!

    2. He got an excellent Supreme Court Judge confirmed.

      I hope he gets a couple more.

    3. .

      But he's better than Hillary !!

      It's early days, son.

      He got an excellent Supreme Court Judge confirmed.

      How do you know? We've seen before that nominating justices for SCOTUS is like buying a pig in a poke. It takes some time and some decisions before you get a feel for what he will be.


    4. You are just being contrary and ornery, and cantankerous, disagreeable, and dyspeptic.

      I like what I've read of his behavior so far.

  22. .

    BobWed Oct 18, 06:23:00 PM EDT
    a tax reform package that offers massive benefits to the rich

    By this do you mean the corporate tax rate cut ?

    I meant what I said, the rich.

    The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center released a preliminary analysis of President Trump’s tax plan on Friday, showing that the proposed tax cuts would get smaller over 10 years for all but the top 1 percent of earners.

    Some major findings:

    Most, but not all, taxpayers would get a moderate tax cut next year. While most taxpayers would benefit at least modestly, taxes would increase for others, particularly those with incomes of $150,000 to $300,000. The increases would primarily come from the repeal of several itemized deductions, such as the state and local tax deduction...


    The bottom 99 percent of taxpayers would see their federal tax rates drop 0.4 to 1.7 percentage points on average next year. But the top 1 percent would benefit much more, with average tax rates falling by 5.7 percentage points. Gains are even higher for the top 0.1 percent, or people with income higher than $3.4 million.

    The top 1 percent would also pay a smaller proportion of all federal taxes next year, 23.5 percent compared with 26.1 percent under current law...


    By 2027, tax cuts would shrink for every group except the top 1 percent, and a quarter of taxpayers, many in the upper middle class, would pay more than they would without the new plan.

    For example, taxpayers with incomes of about $150,000 to $215,000 would receive, on average, a $1,140 tax cut in 2018. But in 2027, they would pay $820 more than if nothing changed...

    Under Trump’s Plan, Tax Cuts Shrink Over Time for Everyone but the Richest


    1. taxes would increase for others, particularly those with incomes of $150,000 to $300,000

      Out this way if you have an income of $150,000 to $300,000 you are rich.

      I thought I read recently that the top 1% rate was set to stay the same.

      We need an actual tax bill that is passed and signed.

      Only then, if you follow my logic, will we know what is in it.

      Till then there isn't much about which to talk.

    2. .

      I thought I read recently that the top 1% rate was set to stay the same.

      You thought? Who do you think said that? Trump? Pam Geller?

      Out this way if you have an income of $150,000 to $300,000 you are rich.

      That's the group that gets the largest increases. The lowest quintiles are also hit.

      As for rich or not rich, it's no where near the 1%.


    3. .

      Till then there isn't much about which to talk.

      Yet, you continue anyway.


    4. I was answering your pestering questions, nitwit.

      (i love your word nitwit, nitwit)

    5. The Donald defeated ISIS.

      They are JV again.

      Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    6. .

      I meant what I said, the rich.

      That's not to say the corporations won't be dipping their beak big time.

      The plan would cost $2.4 trillion over 10 years.

      The single biggest cost would be reducing the corporate tax rate and repealing the corporate alternative minimum tax, which would total $2 trillion.

      I've talk about this before so I won't go into it again.


    7. .

      The Donald defeated ISIS.



    8. I've talked about this before so I won't go into it again.

      Thank The Living Christ.

    9. I'd rather listen to the stock market talking about it, anyway.

    10. .

      Treats for Trump

      President Donald Trump’s tax framework could save him and members of his cabinet tens of billions of dollars in taxes collectively, according to a report from a left-leaning policy organization released by Senate Democrats.

      The White House and GOP leaders’ tax plan unveiled last month calls for ending the estate tax and slashing the tax rate for pass-through businesses. Those two provisions could cut taxes for Trump and members of his cabinet including Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and senior adviser Jared Kushner, the study says.

      The findings by CAP Action contrast with the message Trump has been delivering during his tax speeches over the past few months -- that the middle class would be the biggest beneficiaries under his plan, and neither he nor his “rich friends” would benefit.


      Trump reaffirmed his commitment to abolishing the estate tax on Tuesday night during a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group. “We are ending the horrible and very unfair estate tax, also known as the death tax,” he said to applause.

      The Republican tax framework calls for slashing the rate for partnerships, limited liability companies and other so-called “pass-through” businesses to 25 percent -- down from a current top rate of 39.6 percent. While the White House has pitched the change as a boon for small business owners, CAP Action says 86 percent of taxpayers with pass-through business income are already in the 25 percent tax bracket or lower.

      Trump’s financial disclosure forms show that he has interests in roughly 500 entities, most of which are organized as limited liability companies. That could mean an annual tax break of $23 million under the pass-through change, according to the study. DeVos could get an annual break of as much as $5 million, while Kushner could see an annual tax cut of as much as $17 million, the study said. The group based its findings on financial disclosures by the candidates and prior Bloomberg News estimates of Trump and cabinet members’ net worth.

      The estate tax is a 40 percent levy applied to estates worth more than $5.49 million for individuals or $10.98 million for couples. Although Republicans say it penalizes small businesses and farmers, data from 2013 show that just 3 percent of estates subject to the tax were businesses and farms, according to the Tax Policy Center.

      Eliminating the estate tax could provide a combined $3.5 billion “windfall” to the estates of about half of the current members of Trump’s cabinet, including Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, according to CAP Action...


    11. according to a report from a left-leaning policy organization released by Senate Democrats

      Why should anyone read further ?

      The commie tune is always the same regarding taxes.

    12. "We'll go where the money is"

      Hillary on taxes

      And she's right, it's tough getting money from those that don't have any.

      In my little world, I don't want the tax deductions for State and local taxes taken away.

    13. "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money"

      The Iron Lady

  23. Caught between Washington and Tehran, the EU 3 will struggle to find a compromise. Whether they can resist American pressure, or avoid splitting over support for the US, is hard to predict.

    One way forward would be to push for separate talks on ballistic missiles and Iran’s role in the Middle East, which are of concern to Europe as much as the US. Enlisting Russian and Chinese backing for a new diplomatic track with Iran — Moscow and Beijing are also signatories to the nuclear deal — would encourage Iranian participation in new talks.

    Convincing Iran to make concessions may not be impossible so long as it is framed outside the nuclear agreement. The lesson of the accord that Mr Trump is keen to destroy is that the chances of Iranian co-operation are much greater when world powers show a united front.

    Nuclear Deal

  24. Alyssa Mastromonaco, who served as a deputy chief of staff under Obama, was among those to immediately lash out at Trump.

    'That's a f***ing lie,' she tweeted. 'To say President Obama (or past presidents) didn't call the family members of soldiers KIA - he's a deranged animal.'


    A GoFundMe page has since been set up to help support the children of Sgt Johnson.

    It has already raised more than $390,000 in one day.

  25. "Despite President Trump's suggestion that I have recanted my statement or misstated what he said, I stand firmly by my original account of his conversation with Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson. Moreover, this account has been confirmed by family members who also witnessed Mr. Trump's incredible lack of compassion and sensitivity," the congresswoman said.

    Wilson said she hasn't had any discussion with the family about what Trump should do next.

    "But I would like to make a suggestion to the president going forward," Wilson said. "If he ever has to do this, perform this task again, I would suggest to him that he call up and he say, "I'm so sorry. Your son, your daughter, paid the ultimate price for our nation, and I'm going to send you a letter in the mail.'"

  26. Two White House officials said Kelly was also frustrated that the controversy had distracted from a significant military win over the Islamic State in Raqqa, Syria.

    Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who led the Pentagon for a portion of the time Kelly served as commander of U.S. Southern Command, was bitterly critical of Trump’s comments.

    “If there is one sacred ground in politics it should be the ultimate sacrifices made by our military,” Hagel wrote in an email to the AP. “To use General Kelly and his family in this disgusting political way is sickening and beneath every shred of decency of presidential leadership. Beyond the dignity of the office.”

  27. President Donald Trump’s “proof” seemed to grow more elusive Wednesday afternoon after White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a briefing that there was no recording of his call with the fallen soldier’s wife but that there were many people in the room. The Miami Gardens congresswoman who felt the president was insensitive, the White House said, “is trying to politicize the call to the widow.”


    Wilson, however, said there was no conversation. “He did all the talking. She didn’t say nothing except when he got ready to hang up she said he was calling him, ‘Your guy.’ He didn’t even know his name. That’s what he said. ‘Your guy. Your guy.’”

    As of Wednesday afternoon, Trump has not made his proof known to the public.


    By Pamela Geller - on October 18, 2017


    Thank Gd. And thank you to the good people serving on the jury of the trial of the Muslim ringleader in a plot to behead me. I am alive today thanks to the quick work of the Boston police department, which took down one of the jihadis before he could commit the heinous act.

    This is described in detailing my life under death, FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA.

    This is but one in a number of plots to kill me for my work in defense of the freedom of speech. America is woefully misinformed as to the jihad threat to our freedoms.

    Brian Dowling Wednesday, October 18, 2017

    David Daoud Wright, an Islamic State-inspired jihadi, has been found guilty on all of the counts he faced in connection with a plot to head a prominent blogger.

    Wright, 28, was found guilty today in federal court in Boston of conspiracy to provide support for a foreign terrorist group, conspiracy and obstruction of justice, for recruiting his uncle, Usaamah Rahim, 26, and Nicholas Rovinski, 26, to carry out an ISIS-inspired plot to behead New York political activist Pamela Geller and police officers. Rahim was shot dead by Boston police and federal agents when he confronted them with a knife two years ago.

    Rovinski pleaded guilty last year to conspiring to provide material support to ISIS and commit acts of terrorism in exchange for a 15- to 22-year sentence. He testified against Wright and is due to be sentenced Dec. 5.

    Wright is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 19.

  29. October 19, 2017
    How Much Did Mueller and Rosenstein Know about Uranium One?
    By Daniel John Sobieski

    Back in July, I called for a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s collusion with Russia to turn over control of 20 percent of our uranium supplies to Russian interests in return for some $145 million in donation to the Clinton Foundation. Now it turns out that there was one, an FBI investigation dating back to 2009, with current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to their eyeballs in covering up evidence of Hillary’s collusion, bordering on treason, with Vladimir Putin’s Russia:

    Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill….

    John Solomon and Alison Spann of The Hill: Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show….

    From today’s report we find out that the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.

    Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015.

    If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair are not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, what is? Rosenstein and Mueller, by their silence on this investigation hidden from Congress and the American people, are unindicted coconspirators in Hillary’s crimes and should be terminated immediately.

    One can understand the Obama Justice Department covering up and slow-waking this investigation, but what about the Trump DOJ and our missing-in-action Attorney General Jeff Sessions? Was this the reason Democrats were hot-to-trot on him recusing himself from all things Russian? How could Rosenstein sit before Congress and not say anything, only to appoint Mueller to investigate Team Trump? Rosenstein and Mueller are poster children for duplicity and corruption.

    Collusion itself is not a crime but jeopardizing American national security by conspiring to supply the Russian nuclear program with our uranium is a crime of the highest order. No one to date has provided any evidence that any favor was granted as a result of that meeting or that the Trump campaign benefited in any way from the meeting.

    One cannot say the same thing about Hillary Clinton and her role in the Uranium One deal with Russia. Clinton played a pivotal role in the UraniumOne deal which ended up giving Russian interests control of 20 percent of our uranium supply in exchange for donations of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a federal crime......

  30. Grassley probes Clinton 'conflicts of interest' amid new questions in Russia uranium deal
    Judson Berger By Judson Berger, Fox News

    Sen. Grassley presses Sessions on Obama-era uranium deal

    Republican senator from Iowa questions the attorney general about whether the Justice Department has investigated whether Russia compromised Obama administration decisions.

    A top Senate Republican is probing potential “conflicts of interest” for Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration regarding the 2010 approval of a controversial uranium deal with a Russian company, amid new details about donations from “interested parties” and an FBI corruption probe involving employees of the same Russian firm.

    “This committee has an obligation to get to the bottom of this issue,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday, at the start of a hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

    The Hill reported a day earlier that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. -- but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway........

    Mueller was head of the FBI during all this.

  31. October 19, 2017
    Justice for all...don't reporters care?
    By Jack Hellner

    There have been massive cover ups, stonewalling and malfeasance at the Justice Department for years and most of the complicit media hasn't cared.

    We have known for years that:

    On Fast and Furious, the Justice Department and Obama Administration were not cooperative with Congress on providing documents and Eric Holder even committed perjury testifying before Congress;

    We have recently learned that.:

    Although the FBI had said they could find no documents related to the tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, they have been hiding them. Now we may see heavily redacted documents.

    On the pretend Hillary investigation where they did not even require Hillary to take an oath to tell the truth and where the interview wasn't even recorded, we have learned that James Comey drafted his conclusions months before the supposed investigation ended despite what Comey said to Congress. Comey lied.

    On the Uranium sale to Russia we have learned that FBI was investigating Russian fraud and kickbacks to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton himself for years, even before the sale to Russia was approved. The documents were withheld from the public and Congress. The Obama Administration, Mueller, and Comey were well aware of the actual Russian collusion and corruption.

    Somehow little of this seems to be of interest to most of the media. Normally, continuous corruption, perjury, violating of laws and hiding documents by high level government officials would be great stories for investigative reporters to cover but somehow with the Obama Administration there was little interest. They were even willing supporters of the clearly corrupt Hillary to be elected and to put a known sexual predator and his wife, a serial destroyer of women, back in the White House for eight years.......


    How an FBI Uranium investigation was corrupted to protect the Clinton’s Russian connection.

    October 19, 2017 Daniel Greenfield

    Hillary is demanding to know the truth about Trump and Russia. The truth is that every accusation about Russian ties that Hillary and her associates have hurled at President Trump is really true of the Clintons.

    In ’14, Hillary Clinton made headlines by comparing Russia’s Vladimir Putin to Hitler. But if the Russian strongman really was ‘Hitler’, what did that make stooges like Hillary, Bill and Barack Obama?

    Five years earlier, Hillary had been posing with a ‘Reset Button” with one of Putin’s henchmen. But Hillary was bringing a lot more to the meeting than a mislabeled button pilfered from a swimming pool. The ‘Reset’ had the same pattern as other Clinton scandal: a shadowy foreign financial pal with an agenda, the Clinton Foundation being used to launder money and a government cover-up.

    Officially, the ‘Reset’ was pushing Obama’s nuclear arms reduction plan and a joint effort to address Iran’s nuclear program. But the nuclear materials that truly interested Hillary Clinton weren’t in Russian missiles or in Iranian reactors, but in the ground in Kazakhstan. By the time Hillary showed off the ‘Reset Button’, the Clintons had been enjoying a long relationship with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining mogul. Giustra had moved tens of millions into Clintonworld and Bill built up his profile in Kazakhstan.

    But by ’09, the Clintons had a lot more to trade on than a Senate seat and ex-presidential prestige.

    When Secretary of State Clinton unveiled the ‘Reset’, the unspoken truths outnumbered the spoken platitudes. Some of the unspoken truths were obvious. Hillary Clinton and Obama would break with Bush’s criticisms of human rights in Russia. From now on, they would have nothing to say about it.

    The man who allegedly agreed to that dirty deal was Michael McFaul who is currently bashing President Trump for being “soft” on Putin.

    But the bigger unspoken truth was that Giustra’s company had been bought by Uranium One. And the Russians were sniffing around Kazakhstan. Either the Russians would get Uranium One. Or they would expose the dubious ways that Uranium One had gotten its Kazakhstan mining rights. But if Rosatom, a Russian government corporation, bought into Uranium One, it would need approval from State because such a deal would provide Russia with control over more than 20% of America’s Uranium supply.

    Good thing, Uranium One and Putin had a friend in Hillary Clinton. And not just Hillary.

    Uranium One and Rosatom didn’t just need the State Department. They also needed the Justice Department to turn a blind eye. And they got that too from Attorney General Eric Holder.

    The same year that Hillary brought over her ‘Reset Button’, the FBI was investigating a top Rosatom figure in America for racketeering, extortion, bribery and money laundering. The investigation was supervised by the controversial current Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe who has his own financial ties to the Clintons. The investigation dragged out for five years. Just enough time for the Rosatom deal to be approved. When the charges were brought in ’14, the Russians had gotten it all. And the charges were a whitewash that ignored the most damning accusations. Especially those involving the Clintons.

    Holder’s DOJ, like Hillary’s State, signed off on the Rosatom-Uranium One deal despite the ongoing investigation. Holder and his associates at the DOJ kept the investigation under their hats. The trails leading to the Clintons were closed off. And the nails were hammered in hard to keep them closed.....