FAIRY FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friend FAIRY FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article adventure, Article animation, Article fantasy, Article The latest, Article wit, we write can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title :
link :

http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT. COM.
For Tues., Nov. 21, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
All~God Bless America

Former Asst FBI Director Unleashes on Hillary, Crimes “20 Times” Worse Than Watergate

BY CILLIAN ZEAL

In a recent appearance on Fox Business’ “Varney and Co.,” former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom blasted members of the Obama administration and the Democrat Party — in particular Hillary Clinton — and said that there were crimes “20 times bigger than Watergate” that nobody was charged for.

Kallstrom, best known as the chief investigator into the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 over Long Island Sound, retired from the FBI in 1998. He’s been known since as a political commentator, particularly on the Clintons and former FBI Director James Comey.

In his appearance last week, according to PJ Media, Kallstrom said that it “was obvious to anybody that knows anything” that former President Obama wasn’t going to let Hillary Clinton get indicted for her private email server, and said that current Attorney General Jeff Sessions was “in a coma” when it came to pursuing the former Democrat standard bearer.

Kallstrom said that part of the problem was that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel after Attorney General Sessions recused himself from all things Russia — was put in place at the Department of Justice by the Democrats and that the current investigation was like “this huge forest fire is burning up (Sessions’) real estate.”

“You don’t have to put your brother in there like Kennedy did,” Kallstrom said, referring to President Kennedy’s unusual move of appointing his brother Robert F. Kennedy as attorney general. “But put somebody in there that agrees with the policies you’re trying to put together. Then Rosenstein throws this hand grenade at you by naming this counsel — which is B.S. — and putting Mueller, who has a conflict of interest 20 miles wide, in on the job.”

“I don’t know if it’s a conspiracy, but it sure smells like one.”

Meanwhile, he said that while the special counsel investigation continues without any apparent end game, there were plenty of things to investigate regarding the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton; “the unmaskings of names alone is a major scandal,” Kallstrom said.

“We got all these major crime things bubbling — all of which were 20 times bigger than Watergate! And nothing seems to be happening … the attorney general is in a coma!” Kallstrom exclaimed.

“The dogs are always going to bite your heels when you’re dealing with the Clintons,” Kallstrom said.

“Look how long the public, the American people have been dealing with the crime syndicate known as the Clinton Foundation… just look at what’s in the public domain. The Clintons have been taking advantage of their stations in life for so long.”

This isn’t just the email server, either. Kallstrom pointed to the Uranium One deal signed off on by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state and when former President Clinton “let our guidance technology for our ICBM missiles go to China.”

He also unloaded on James Comey for his lack of courage in refusing to recommend charges for Hillary.

“It turns out — unfortunately — he was a political hack,” was Kallstrom’s blunt assessment.

“I think he maybe started out in an honorable way. His opinion of himself is sky high — just an unbelievable guy with just an arrogance about him … It got him in trouble because I think he thought he was Superman and he found out that he wasn’t.”

Well, I don’t think that Mr. Kallstrom’s looking for an invite to the Clintons’ Chappaqua Christmas gathering. On the other hand, if Attorney General Sessions is looking for someone who’s going to aggressively look into Clinton’s dealings — albeit with more than just a soupçon of bias — Kallstrom certainly seems available.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you think there might be crimes “20 times bigger than Watergate” lurking out there.

What are your thoughts on what Kallstrom had to say? Scroll down to comment below!

Wyden Tries to Stop Momentum Behind Bipartisan Sex-Trafficking Bill

Oregon Democrat places hold on measure after unanimous committee passage

BY: Susan Crabtree

Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) is trying to put the brakes on a bipartisan anti-sex trafficking bill that is picking up steam and appears headed for all but certain Senate passage early next year.

The bill, which the Commerce Committee unanimously passed this week, would allow families of victims of sex-trafficking, as well as states, to sue websites like Backpage, a Craigslist competitor, that allow advertisements selling sex with minors to be posted.

Wyden on Wednesday issued a hold on the measure, arguing that it could harm start-up Internet companies, the tech economy, and innovators.

The Oregon Democrat helped write the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a provision of which the measure would alter. He also has authored legislation aimed at curbing sex-trafficking.

"Having written several laws to combat the scourge of sex trafficking, I take a backseat to no one on the urgency of fighting this horrendous crime," he said. "However, I continue to be deeply troubled that this bill's approach will make it harder to catch dangerous criminals, that it will favor big tech companies at the expense of startups and that it will stifle innovation."

Activists who support the bill are questioning Wyden's opposition to it and say it now has so much support—more than 46 sponsors in the Senate, including 17 Democrats—passage is all but certain.

"He's starting to look like one of those hold-outs on an armed camp on federal land as the National Guard closes in," said Jamie Court, president of the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, which has strongly backed the bill along with the National Center for Sexual Exploitation and several other anti-trafficking groups.

"I don't know why Wyden is doing it—only Wyden knows. Google certainly appears to be the last holdout among the tech companies in adopting the simple notion that there has to be some accountability when an Internet site aids and abets underage sex trafficking," Court said.

Employees of Google and its parent company Alphabet Inc., have donated a total of $62,725 to Wyden so far in this 2018 election cycle, making the company his seventh-highest donor, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign-finance watchdog.

Google did not return a Washington Free Beacon request for comment for this story.

A Wyden spokesman forwarded the senator's previously released statement spelling out his opposition to the bill and did not respond to questions on whether Google's donations influenced the decision in any way.

Wyden's one-man hold cannot block the legislation, but would force the Senate to use up valuable floor time to debate it and pass it with a recorded vote, instead of simply by unanimous consent.

The measure's authors say sex-trafficking is on the rise and point to a Senate report released late last year that found Backpage.com, a Craigslist competitor, repeatedly deleted terms like "Lolita" and "little girl" out of advertisements—red flags in the industry for underage girls being sold for sex.

A Free Beacon survey of the Backpage.com sex ads in October showed that terms such as, "Where is daddy" and "YOUNG & Fun" were still being used.

The main authors of the bill are confident it will pass with broad bipartisan Senate support and are happy to have the open and public debate about the bill.

"We look forward to the Senate passing it in an overwhelming fashion," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Sen. Rob Portman (R, Ohio).

Portman is the primary sponsor of the measure, along with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.).

Wyden, who co-authored the section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that the bill would alter, argues the law has been instrumental in helping the United States to become a global leader because it protected Internet startups from having to worry about liability for the user-generated content they hosted.

He testified against the legislation during a Commerce committee hearing in September, and maintained his opposition as the bill gathered strong allies over the last month from a major civil rights group, media companies such as Disney and Twentieth Century Fox, several tech giants and both California Democratic senators.

Powerful Silicon Valley forces, such as Google and Facebook, previously opposed the measure, arguing that it erodes Internet freedom and places too much liability on websites.

Those companies appeared to back down last week when the Internet Association, which includes Google and Facebook as members, backed the bill after technical modifications that made clear that state attorneys general would need to use federal law, not state law, as the basis for their lawsuits.

That support came just days after Facebook, Twitter, and Google executives took a beating on Capitol Hill during hearings scrutinizing their role in allowing Russia propaganda to flow on their sites during the election.

However, Google has not said publicly whether it now supports the modified bill. Engine Advocacy, a nonprofit that has several senior executives who previously worked for Google and is at least partially funded by Google, according to the company's transparency page, still strongly opposes the measure.

Google said in mid-October it was working on an amendment that would "give victims and survivors the right to civil litigation and enable prosecutor to hold bad actors accountable for their crimes."

"This proposal has received a lot of support, and we'll continue to engage members of Congress, anti-trafficking groups and the industry to try and get to a resolution," former New York Rep. Susan Molinari, Google's vice president of public policy, told the Free Beacon.

The Internet Association's support for the bill came the same day California Sens. Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, announced their strong support for the modified bill, along with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D., Nev.).

Harris's support was particularly notable. As California attorney general, Harris had tried, unsuccessfully, to prosecute Backpage, and had asked Congress to go even further in changing federal law to allow such lawsuits to move forward.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation criticized Harris’ reticence over the past few months on the bill and questioned whether Google and their donations to her were influencing her decision to stay on the sidelines for month until announcing her support last week.

Harris did not respond to the Free Beacon's requests for comment.

Trump Issues Powerful Message To UN, Democrats Hate This

Frank Spear

President Donald Trump effectively passed a strong message to the United Nations. Their response has people around the country talking about how the President is showing the world that the US will not bend under pressure.

When President Trump signed a budget bill that reduced the funding to the UN global warming program to zero, the Democrats were panicked. As a result, the UN is now trying to find a way to make up that extra money. According to The Daily Caller, the President, unwilling to budge, essentially forced French President Emmanuel Macron into paying for the United States’ share of the global warming funds.

One of the programs that the President is refusing to fund is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is a shocking turn of events for the Left, who had former President Barack Obama practically shoveling money at the UN.

Since 1988, the US contributed nearly $44 million to the IPCC. Out of the $4.5 million the IPCC had in 2015, $1.9 million of it came from then-President Obama.

Compare those numbers to the $215,000 given by France in 2015, or Germany, who only sent $320,000 during the same period.

Finally, the UK only sent about $252,000 combined. It is easy to see that a large majority of the funding came from the United States.

Many wonder how the French President is going to pick up the tab left over from the US leaving the agreement. France already has trouble with truckloads of immigrants coming into their already overcrowded cities every day.

Under the Obama administration, there was another $3 billion pledged to the UN’s Green Climate Fund. This fund takes money in and funnels it out to energy and mitigation projects in developing countries.

Only $1 billion of the total $3 billion pledged was contributed to the fund. This left many with questions, although Obama was unwilling to budge on this issue.

The Republican Congress battled with Obama to defend the extra funds going to the UN climate programs for years. While he was a candidate, President Trump stated that he wanted to defund these programs. Many people took this statement with a grain of salt.

When President Trump followed through on his promise, the Left went into melt-down mode. They predicted the end of the world within years, among other outlandish claims. These were all scare tactics to infuriate people of the President’s decision. Many realized that the claims were baseless and that no scientific facts could confirm the claims and warrant widespread panic.

Truth is what it all comes down to — something Democrats have historically struggled handling. There are no clear facts to support human causation and prevention with global warming. The argument “We should plan just in case” can be applied to everything, but it doesn’t mean it will work with global warming.

Ultimately, it is purely fear tactics and smear campaigns to imply that the fate of the world is suddenly in danger simply because the US will no longer contribute to a UN global warming fund. Money certainly doesn’t impact climate change.

Sen. Al Franken Spokesman: Senator Will Not Resign Despite Allegations

by KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ

Sen. Al Franken’s (D-MN) spokesman announced that Franken would not resign despite allegations that he groped a woman’s breasts and kissed her without her consent.

“He is spending time with his family in Washington, D.C., and will be through the Thanksgiving holiday, and he’s doing a lot of reflecting,” the spokesperson told the Minneapolis Star Tribune on Saturday.

Sexual harassment allegations against the Minnesota senator surfaced this week after Los Angeles-based journalist Leeann Tweeden accused Franken of fondling her breasts while she was sleeping and aggressively shoving his tongue down her throat.

Franken, who had not worked in politics at the time, had apparently traveled with the woman on a USO tour overseas in 2006 when the alleged incident took place.

The December 2006 photo that depicted Franken fondling Tweeden’s breasts surfaced shortly after Tweeden went public with her story, fueling the allegations against the Minnesota senator.

Franken verified that the photo was accurate after it surfaced and apologized for taking the picture with her. In an updated statement, he apologized to Tweeden and everyone he has ever worked with or represented.

“The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women,” Franken said.

Tweeden responded by accepting Franken’s apology.

A second woman also accused Franken of harassment this week, claiming that the senator followed her and repeatedly called her home phone number.

As allegations against the Minnesota Democrat grew and several senators requested an investigation into Franken’s conduct, Franken called for a Senate ethics investigation into his behavior.

Remember When Civil Rights Groups Wanted Police Body Cams? Look At What They're Saying Now.

By HANK BERRIEN

Photo by Linda Davidson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Remember when civil rights advocates demanded accountability from police and wanted them to wear body cams? Those body cams cost police departments a good chunk of money.

But now, a group called The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights avers that body cams pose a “threat to civil rights.” They released a report titled, “The Illusion of Accuracy: How Body-Worn Camera Footage Can Distort Evidence," in which they decry body cams because the officers can view the footage before they write incident reports.

In the report, Vanita Gupta, the leader of the Leadership Conference, who is a former ACLU director and former acting assistant attorney general of the civil rights division under former President Obama, writes, “The vast majority of the nation’s leading police departments with body-worn camera programs allow unrestricted footage review – meaning, officers are permitted to review footage from body-worn cameras whenever they’d like, including before writing their incident reports or making statements.”

The report adds:

Unrestricted footage review creates an illusion of accuracy because it produces a false impression about how much officers actually remember about an incident. It makes officers’ memories appear to be more accurate, and thus more credible, than the memories of other eyewitnesses — which can distort how an independent factfinder, like a judge or a jury, might understand how an incident truly unfolded. In the worst cases, because of the inherent limits of body-worn cameras, unrestricted footage review allows officers to square their version of events to the footage, and potentially create false beliefs about what actually happened.

You would think that those championing civil rights would want to simply see the facts of the case, but the report seems to be more concerned that a police officer might be more credible than some eyewitness:

Yet unrestricted footage review gives officers the opportunity to augment their initial incident reports with information that would not otherwise be available to them from their own memory. This makes officers’ reports artificially consistent with video footage and appear to be unnaturally comprehensive and credible, particularly compared to reports of other witnesses to events.

And as we all know, whether it’s Ferguson, Missouri or anywhere else, supposed eyewitnesses are uniformly accurate in their depiction of events.

Corrupt Dem Senator Gets Awful News, He Deserves This

Laura Widener

On Thursday, the corruption trial of Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) ended in a mistrial when 10 of 12 jurors favored acquittal, resulting in celebration on the Left. However, Sen. Menendez is not yet out of trouble.

As The Daily Caller reported, Sarah Isgur Flores, Spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, appeared on Fox News to discuss the trial. She told the Fox & Friends hosts that the DOJ will look into the case and are interested in a retrial.

Isgur Flores said, “We’re going to look at retrying that case. It’s always disappointing when you don’t win in court, but Bob Menendez was facing several felony bribery and corruption charges and those are serious allegations.”

The 10-week trial against Sen. Menendez and his co-defendant, Salomon Melgen, brought 18 felony charges against the pair for corruption. Melgen’s separate trial included Medicare fraud charges exceeding $100 million cited in the joint trial. In April, Melgen was convicted by a jury of 67 felony counts in a US District Court in Florida.

Sen. Menendez’s misdeeds include collecting campaign donations and other gifts and favors from Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist, in exchange for lobbying for leniency on matters related to Medicare billing and other business interests.

One examine includes a meeting Sen. Menendez influenced with then-Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, during which Menendez advocated changing the billing practices of Medicaid and Medicare. Coincidentally, Melgen has over-billed nearly $9 million for Medicaid and Medicare patients.

Melgen donated over $750,000 to Sen. Menendez’s campaign, provided use of a private jet, and even paid for a trip to Paris for Menendez and his girlfriend. These luxuries were seen as bribes considering Menendez’s influence on Melgen’s behalf.

Prosecutors argued that Sen. Menendez “sold his office for a lifestyle that he couldn’t afford.” However, Menendez insisted on his innocence, maintaining that the two were friends.

The jury deliberated for five days, although the latter two days followed the replacement of one juror, Evelyn Arroyo-Maultsby, who said she wanted to acquit Menendez. She also told reporters that the jury was hung, and stated “If I would have stayed (on the jury), he would have been ‘not guilty’ on every charge.

After the second time the jury announced to the judge that they could not agree on a decision, US District Court Judge William H. Walls concluded there was “no alternative to declaring a mistrial.”

“He wasn’t acquitted. This was a hung jury,” Isgur Flores noted.

“The jury did think about it for several days before they decided they couldn’t come to a conclusion. So we’ll look at retrying him,” she said. “Several counts, and reaching that standard to have a grand jury indict, is pretty serious allegations,” she concluded.

After the case concluded in a mistrial, Sen. Menendez spoke to the press. “The way this case started was wrong. The way it was investigated was wrong. The way it was prosecuted was wrong. The way it was tried was wrong as well.”

He issued a warning to those he believes were influencing the trial for political reasons. “To those who were digging my political grave so they could jump into my seat: I know who you are, and I won’t forget you.”

It’s unclear whether or not Sen. Menendez, who is up for reelection next year, will decide to resign after the legal battle. If Menendez would’ve been convicted, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) could’ve selected a replacement, likely adding another buffer to the Republican majority the Senate. That measure could be a possibility if the DOJ decides to pursue a retrial and a conviction can be had.

Hillary Employees Reveal New Sex Scandal, This Is Gross

Frank Spear

Following the 2016 election, the American people heard Hillary Clinton come out and say that she lost the election due to sexism and misogyny. It turns out that there was sexism taking place, but not in the Republican party.

Lillian Adams was 19 when she first started working for the Democrats. She took place on Clinton’s campaign for the election and was subject to sexual harassment during her time there. According to The Huffington Post  Adams dealt with sexual harassment for months in her position on the Clinton campaign. Even after reporting the situation to her superiors, there was still little done about the harassment — until much later.

Adams’ claims are indeed alarming. She stated that the man who made the remarks towards her knew she was bisexual, and that is where he started targeting her.

The offender would make homophobic remarks, again, on the Clinton campaign, and directed the comments towards her. It is important to address the fact that this took place when and where it did because it blows the Democrat narrative out of the water.

Adams went on to say that the offender would try to force her into situations where the two of them would be alone. Even if he couldn’t get her alone, he would still encourage her not to wear bras to work.

According to Adams, “He made multiple comments about my body, told people we were dating, would constantly try to get me to drink (I was 19), try to force me into situations where we were alone, encouraged me not to wear bras, etc.”

Huffington Post confirmed that they spoke with someone close to Adams. This person cleared the story and said that the events described by Adams did, in fact, occur.

The media has tried to reach out to the person who Adams alleged committed these acts to see if they would reply or comment. Up until this point,  they have refused to comment on the matter.

Adams reached out to her superiors with the hopes of getting the offender fired for his harassment. The issue remained, and by August, Adams claimed that she had lost all hope that the problem would get resolved.

Finally, her harasser was terminated from his position. Text messages back and forth between Adams and her superior confirmed that the everything was okay, and that Adams could comfortably go back to work again.

Adams soon discovered that another state rehired her offender in September. He was still working on the Clinton campaign, but with another state party. “So he was technically fired but still ended up working for Hillary via the [other state] Democratic Party,” Adams said.

She then explained why she thinks this is a problem, and where it stems from in most cases. “You have a lot of young passionate people who want to help change the world through Democratic politics,” Adams said. She continued, “Older Democratic operatives see this passion and exploit it, putting us in an extremely stressful and unhealthy work environment.”

Despite all else, it appears that there were serious cases of sexual harassment happening within the Clinton campaign, who claimed that they are there to help women and protect them from heinous people like the ones that they hire.

FBI has not verified Trump dossier

by Byron York

In face-to-face briefings with congressional staff, according to those sources, FBI and DOJ officials have said they cannot verify the dossier's charges of a conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

FBI and Justice Department officials have told congressional investigators in recent days that they have not been able to verify or corroborate the substantive allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign outlined in the Trump dossier.

The FBI received the first installment of the dossier in July 2016. It received later installments as they were written at the height of the presidential campaign, which means the bureau has had more than a year to investigate the allegations in the document. The dossier was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.

An August 24, 2017 subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee to the FBI and Justice Department asked for information on the bureau's efforts to validate the dossier. Specifically, the subpoena demanded "any documents, if they exist, that memorialize DOJ and/or FBI efforts to corroborate, validate, or evaluate information provided by Mr. Steele and/or sub-sources and/or contained in the 'Trump Dossier.'"

According to sources familiar with the matter, neither the FBI nor the Justice Department has provided documents in response to that part of the committee's subpoena. But in face-to-face briefings with congressional staff, according to those sources, FBI and DOJ officials have said they cannot verify the dossier's charges of a conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

The news appears to contradict recent statements from some top Democrats. "A lot of it has turned out to be true," Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence panel, told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.

"The biggest thing that I think people need to realize about the dossier is that Christopher Steele discovered that the Russians were embarked on a broad effort to help the Trump campaign before our own intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion," Schiff told the Journal. "In the broadest outline of what he investigated, he proved more than prescience — he proved accurate in terms of the Russian involvement and what their motivations were."

There have been many questions surrounding the dossier. Who paid for it? Who were its sources? Did the FBI use it as a basis to request a secret court's authorization to spy on Americans? But the most important question about the dossier is the most basic one: Is it true?

The dossier, 35 pages long, contains many specific assertions that could be verified by an organization with the resources of the FBI -- verified, that is, if they were accurate in the first place. Here are a few:

• The alleged 2013 Moscow hotel episode, in which "TRUMP's (perverted) conduct in Moscow included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton hotel, where he knew President and Mrs. OBAMA (whom he hated) had stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him. The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to."

• Trump's alleged participation in other "sex parties" in St. Petersburg.

• Alleged meetings between Carter Page, the low-influence, short-term Trump foreign policy advisor, and Igor Sechin, head of Rosneft, Russia's giant state-owned oil company, as well as between Page and Igor Divyekin, a top official in the Putin government, during Page's trip to Moscow in July 2016.

• An alleged offer from Sechin to give Page and/or Trump associates "the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatised) stake in Rosneft" -- worth potentially billions of dollars -- in return for ending U.S. sanctions against Russia.

• An alleged meeting between close Trump aide Michael Cohen and "Kremlin representatives" in Prague, Czech Republic in August 2016. The dossier reported that Cohen also met "clandestinely in an EU country" with lawyers from the Putin government, also in August 2016, "to clean up the mess left behind by western media revelations of TRUMP ex-campaign manager MANAFORT's corrupt relationship with the former pro-Russian YANUKOVYCH regime in Ukraine and TRUMP foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE's secret meetings in Moscow with senior regime figures in July 2016."

• The alleged attendance at the alleged Cohen meeting of a leading pro-Putin legislator, Konstantin Kosachev, "an important figure in the TRUMP campaign-Kremlin liaison operation" who "facilitated the contact in Prague and by implication, may have attended the meeting/s with COHEN there in August."

• An alleged meeting between Viktor Yanukovych, the ousted Ukrainian president, and Putin "in secret on 15 August near Volgograd, Russia" -- a meeting at which "the western media revelations about MANAFORT and Ukraine featured prominently on the agenda." The dossier reported that "YANUKOVYCH had confided in PUTIN that he did authorise and order substantial kick-back payments to MANAFORT as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this."

• An alleged directive from Putin in which Putin "issued direct orders" to Kremlin staff not to discuss Russian attempts to influence the U.S. election "in public or even in private."

Some Republicans point out that at least one group of assertions, the ones concerning Michael Cohen, have been convincingly debunked. (Cohen has produced proof that he was not in the Czech Republic, or even in Europe, when the purported meeting took place.) The dossier attributed the Cohen story to a "Kremlin insider" who was "speaking in confidence to a longstanding compatriot friend." Investigators want to know if that insider-compatriot line of sourcing provided other, equally unreliable information in the dossier.

Whatever the case, the bottom line appears to be that the FBI and the Justice Department are not vouching for the accuracy of the substantive allegations of collusion in the dossier. Indeed, a careful reading of Schiff's interview with the Wall Street Journal suggests even the combative top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee isn't doing so, either.

The most important thing about the dossier, Schiff said, is that Steele discovered the Russian "broad effort" to influence the election before U.S. intelligence agencies did. Steele was accurate "in the broadest outline of what he did," Schiff claimed, which was reporting "Russian involvement" and "what [Russian] motivations were."

That's fine, as far as it goes -- after all, investigators unanimously agree that Russia tried to influence the election -- but what about the Trump campaign? What about all those specific allegations of coordination between Team Trump and the Russians? Those were the most explosive parts of the dossier. And they remain unverified.

Leftwing Gun Control Push Creating New Market for “Ghost Guns”

By Onan Coca

Pundits, legislators, and media-types all love cryptic terms. One of the favorites out in California is “ghost guns.” In recent years, the anti-gun legislators out there have been using the term to describe various kinds of firearms… but it’s a term broadly used to describe guns that lack serial numbers. Such firearms are untraceable and therefore seem to appear from nowhere, hence the “ghost gun” moniker.

A recent mass shooting in California has the authorities once again reviving the term and hand-wringing over the possibility that “ghost guns” could become a problem. Interestingly, this time, they may have a point… and it could convince some legislators to abandon their anti-gun efforts (but don’t hold your breath).

As more restrictions are placed on gun ownership, more people — and criminals — could start to manufacture their own, law enforcement experts tell ABC News.

The issue of “ghost guns” or guns without serial numbers has been thrust into the national spotlight after California authorities revealed that the man who engaged in a string of shootings earlier this week that left five dead had two firearms that he manufactured at home.

Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston told reporters in a press conference Wednesday afternoon that the two semi-automatic rifles with multi-round clips that gunman Kevin Neal was armed with were illegally manufactured at his home and were not registered.

Kevin Neal was not allowed to purchase firearms because of previous run-ins with the law and his unstable mental history, but he somehow got his hands on a few guns nonetheless. How? He made them himself.

Former FBI Agent Steve Gomez explained to ABC that this scenario could become commonplace as legislators move to make gun ownership more difficult.

“If lawmakers took steps to make the gun laws more restrictive, those unlicensed home-made firearms would be highly sought after by people and criminals who do not care to comply with the law,” Gomez told ABC.

Consider the irony, by making it more difficult to legally own guns, legislators are actually making it more difficult to track and stop gun crime.

Clinton Family Caught Red-Handed with Russian Money

By Onan Coca

“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer took a lot of flack when he released his book detailing the Clinton Family Foundation’s accumulation of ill gotten gains.

But now that the revelations from his book are being proven in public investigations being conducted by Congress and the special counsel, Schweizer is revealing that there were audio recordings of Russian officials talking about using bribery to get favors from the Clinton family.

Schweizer told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that these bribery attempts included giving money to the family, through the Clinton Family Foundation.

Sadly, even with copious amounts of evidence, the government continues to refuse to bring charges against the Clinton family and their corrupt enterprise.

HANNITY: Joining us now, the man who got the started, author of the book, “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer, Fox News contributor, former deputy assistant to the President, Sebastian Gorka. Peter, you got this started, you watch this unfold today, and I want to get your initial reaction. I also want to talk about — I want you to give us the money aspect to this as it relates to the Clintons, who paid who, when and where, and how active and involved were they in this deal?

SCHWEIZER: Well, look, Sean, I’ve always felt the evidence was very clear. And I don’t know that hesitation is at the Department of Justice. There were several facts that no one debates. Fact number one, you have the Kazakh uranium minister Moukhtar Dzhakishev in a 2010 video deposition describing in great detail how Bill and Hillary Clinton shook him down and shook down Kazakh officials to compel them to give uranium assets to Frank Giustra, who is the founder of Uranium One. Nobody disputes that. That is clear.

We now have this whistle-blower that has come forward who reportedly has audio recordings of Russian officials talking about using bribery to get favors from the Clintons, giving donations to the Clinton Foundation. That has yet to appear, but I think that will be pretty strong. The third part of this ingredient is we have the actual flow of money. Tens of millions of dollars to the Clintons as this deal is going down.

I would dare say, Sean, anybody in Washington, D.C., elected office, from President Trump to Vice President Pence, the members of Congress or the Senate, if that body of evidence existed, there would be an investigation today on corruption charges and bribery. I just think it’s that crystal clear.

HANNITY: Dr. Gorka, let’s go back to the simple part of uranium one in the sense. We import uranium, the foundational material for nuclear weapons, that means we don’t have enough. Why would anybody ever think it’s a good idea to give Vladimir Putin 20 percent? Especially as we have now learned through investigative reporting, Putin’s agents in America were involved in bribery, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and kickbacks. These are now facts. [Robert] Mueller knew it, and Eric Holder knew it. Why would we give away uranium, or rights to uranium when, in fact, we need uranium?

GORKA: Why? Because the key people involved in that sale were paid off to the tune of millions. I want to make a statement here, Sean. PETA needs to be recognized for the person who put this all together, but what you just did in two segments ago, those graphics, Sean, I pray to the good lord that one day they will be used in a court of law to bring justice back to America. The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post will not show you the truth and you and your team put it out so everyone can see it. I said it before, and it made the left blow up, but I will say it again. The Rosenberg’s were executed for giving away the secrets on how to make a bomb. The Clinton crime cartel sold those things that you need to make a bomb, which is American uranium, and they gave it to a Russian government that is in league with rogue nations. None of that should ever have been sold to anybody.

HANNITY: Mueller knew as the FBI Director. It was an FBI informant. That means Holder had to know. They have not only has four-plus years’ experience as an undercover agent, informant, they also have tapes, and they also have documents, and they also have emails, and they slapped an NDA on this guy, like putting a muzzle on him. Wait until he now discloses this. I’m imaging this is devastating — Sebastian first.

GORKA: Look, you’ve done the amazing mapping of all the corruption, the pay for play, the emails server and everything else. You can do it again for simply network analysis. Look at who was in key decision-making positions for the last eight years. Look at the connections between the directors of the FBI, Comey, Mueller. Look at the AGs Holder, Lynch. This is really important — look at who Rob Rosenstein’s best buddies are for the last 10 years and the fact that this is still at the top of the Department of Justice today in the Trump administration. Just the network analysis tells you that there is something rotten in the heart of Denmark, and it is now time to clean it out.

HANNITY: It is so extensive because I keep talking about this dual justice system, Peter. It is the dossier, propaganda bought and paid for by Hillary and the DNC. It doesn’t make sense to give away our uranium, ever. I’ll give you the last word.

SCHWEIZER: Yeah, you are exactly right, Sean. And look, the Clinton defense thus far has been pitiful. Essentially they say, first of all, nine government agencies have reviewed this. That has nothing to do with bribery. The fact of the matter is bribery exist whether it’s a close vote or not. The second offense, Hillary Clinton is saying that she was not involved in the decision. I’m sorry, but she does not have a great track record of speaking the truth. The person that they sort of prop out, Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez to say she was not involved in this decision — four days before he first made that statement, Sean, he is in the Podesta email saying he wants to do whatever he can to help Hillary Clinton get elected. He is not a disinterested party. This has to be investigated.

Keystone XL approved to run through Nebraska
BY DEVIN HENRY

Developers of the Keystone XL pipeline secured approval Monday for the pipeline to run through Nebraska, clearing a key hurdle in the years-long fight to build the project.

The decision came after a rupture in TransCanada’s Keystone system spilled an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil in South Dakota last week, an incident that rankled opponents of the XL expansion.

Nebraska regulators approved plans for Keystone XL to cross the state. The commission voted 3-2 to allow the project to move forward.

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier

Thus articles

that is all articles This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.

You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/11/httpift_20.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: